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.

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby pov603 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:44 am

Great find. Stuff like that should make it to some sort of top ten list highlighting the bs we are bombarded with by TPTB.
In the meantime 'Spay-Sex' Sells...
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm


Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby fast67vellen2o on Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:21 pm

So during the Ladee launch (I was unaware of such a launch) I walked out of my house here in NJ to get some papers out of my car somewhere before midnight and happened to look up into the sky and see something. At first I thought it was a meteorite or comet but it looked stranger than that. I thought it may have been a UFO or something crazy. I had no phone or camera on me so I went inside to get one and came out and it was gone. I did some internet searching and found out it was this launch out of Virginia and was visible on the east coast. Now we here all know how absurd rocket launch videos are, but what was it that I saw in the sky that night?
fast67vellen2o
Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:38 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby lux on Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:42 pm

My personal suspicion is that some launches are completely fake and some are scaled down models that go up and fall into the ocean (or perhaps onto remote land areas). This, I figure, is why many rocket launch facilities that supposedly send hardware into space are located near coastal areas.

Last month's "America's largest rocket" launch supposedly happened a mere 150 miles away from me in the late morning. I saw nothing though I was outdoors at that time and the sky was completely clear.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:42 pm

Duh, secret spy satellite rockets are invisible to the naked eye. That's what makes them secret spy satellite rockets.

And which is why they need to be written about in the paper so people know what they are not supposed to know about. You know, known unknowns. It's a Rumsfeld thing.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby lux on Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:16 pm

That's right! :lol:

You know, I was thinking recently -- instead of having launch pads by the ocean at sea level, wouldn't it make more sense to build them on top of mountains? They'd have up to a 5½ mile head start without burning an ounce of fuel! I mean, Everest is 29,000 feet high. They wouldn't even need those aircraft assisted launches like this.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby fbenario on Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:28 pm

This is likely a completely fabricated video.

This is what the moon looks like as it rotates

This fascinating time-lapse video from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter puts a real spin on the moon.

It begins with our view of the moon, but soon Mare Orientale, a ringed impact basin 600 miles across and more than 3 billion years old, comes into view as the moon rotates to the right.

The "dark" or far side of the moon is then seen. It's remarkable for having few features, and indeed appears "all beat up, no definition, just a lot of bumps and holes," as astronaut William Anders described it in 1968.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-576 ... CAD1acfa04
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby simonshack on Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:29 pm

lux wrote:SpaceX has cows and LADEE has a frog:

Image

NASA claims a frog was blasted skyward during the LADEE launch. Story here.

What is it with these guys and animals? I guess they think it makes it more real to have some animal life wander into their hoaxes.


pov603 wrote:Great find. Stuff like that should make it to some sort of top ten list highlighting the bs we are bombarded with by TPTB.
In the meantime 'Spay-Sex' Sells...




NASA CREDIBILITY-SURVEY: A PUBLIC ACTION PROPOSAL

Dear Lux and Pov,

I often think of ways to get people to see through this NASA bull/frog/& bat crap in the blink of an eye. In my view, to show any living person the above series of "SPACE-X launches" with assorted animals and insects invading the lens view - well, that should be more than enough to shake ANYONE out of his/her most solid beliefs in NASA's purported activities - however deeply those beliefs have been hammered/injected /ingrained in their minds throughout their lifetimes. As much as I hate to use the "IQ" word, I think all human beings have enough of it to see right through the NASA silliness - given a chance, that is.

May I propose an idea to all our forum's members and readers? All of you - surely - have a number of friends, family or neighbors around you. So why not invite one - or more - to view these purported rocket launches featuring spiders, locusts, frogs and bats - and see what they think of it?

Image GIFSoup
The recent launch of NASA's "LADEE" - a rocket which is said to employ one full month to reach the moon (as opposed to the 3/4 days allegedly employed by the "Apollo" missions of the 60's). A frog is seen flying skywards as "LADEE" takes off. NASA has officially certified this to be an authentic image captured by their own cameras.

I know, this may not lead to any world-changing results. Also, you may not think it is worth it - what with risking your personal reputation with friends and family for showing them these inane NASA clips. Well, that is - if you think your reputation stands on flimsier ground than NASA's! However, I believe that their various reactions and comments would make for an interesting social study and, I hasten to say, should not demean anyone for not being aware of NASA's skulduggery. Quite the contrary: to inform a good friend (and taxpayer) of scams being perpetrated over his/her head - is to show true friendship and respect. Personally, and for what its' worth, I've had scores of people thanking me over the years for the stuff that I do.

So let the word get around. Invite your people to watch these clips - and let us all know how it goes. Ok? Are you 'game'? :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6773
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby brianv on Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:20 pm

Q: Does NASA's Space Rockets employ ordinary thrust here on Earth and only employ the other kind of thrust when it reaches space, where the rocket thrusts against itself? Why can't they use the other thrust here on Earth -- it would be much friendlier to wildlife!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby lux on Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:36 am

I think the animal bits are done to make it all more believable for the average brainwashed citizen and I think it probably works on them in most cases. I also think the idea was likely dreamed up by psychs who tested it with focus groups or something like that.
Last edited by lux on Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:31 am

Yes, lux. If they think they are onto something unknown or quirky — it doesn't seem to matter what that something is — they believe they have succeeded in identifying the "real" context that escapes the sheep mentality. They do not recognize that this is just as easily placed PR as the whole story itself. Hence you get:

The overt context (sheep-mentality event) is: a rocket launch
The sly context ("I have escaped sheep-mentality (through good humor)" event) is: haha! yeah, a rocket launch but look at the frog!

You will typically find these two contexts have been prerequisites of all news events. It is part of what the news has always done; sometimes, it is quite insulting the way they go so far as to have the news anchors spell it out for the viewers, in case they didn't "get" that there is an opportunity for alternative contexts. It makes viewers at home feel clever to watch the anchors banter over the twinkly sparkly bits of the hypnosis. Hypnotized viewers even look down on the anchors for having stupid humor. Again, they miss the point that the humor is meant to be smugly stupid and lowest-common-denominator in order to mask the fact that the overt context is never hurdled.

Lately, there has been a third "conspiracy" context inserted into most of these crafted events. I believe this is to get the attention of the crowd that suspects something isn't all quite right, but doesn't know what. With acting herders like Michael Moore, Alex Jones and now simulated non-person entities like Julian Assange or G.I. Joe Snowden, there are plenty of promises to re-provide social context for conspiracy beliefs.

It's probably just fear of social roles which controls most of society. And Hollywood and TV control that with the greatest ease. You don't need a conspiracy to herd most folks. You just become a trusted writer by writing to the social dynamic enforced by the media owners. A given hoax could be generously described as a conspiracy of two. One leader, their employee writer, and all the whores paid to act out the writing without question.

To invisibly "know the ropes" and condemn, demonize and praise by using masses of actors, shows, plays and writings is a matter of just people not knowing which writings you are personally responsible for. Could be any of those Hollywood folks, and it's probably someone who writes something otherwise respectable for a cover. Or maybe it's just an above-average intelligence drone. Sometimes it seems they're just trying to have computers write.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby simonshack on Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:06 pm

*

Dear Lux and Hoi,

*Sigh*... I guess you're both right - but perhaps I should have worded my proposed "Public Action" in a blunter manner...

Here's how 'science' defines IQ levels. Let me post this (laughable) scale devised by one Lewis Terman in 1916 - just for the hell of it:

Over 140 - Genius or near genius
120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence
80 - 89 - Dullness
70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency
Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness
http://www.wilderdom.com/intelligence/I ... sMean.html


Well, perhaps what I should have specified in my proposal is: if you happen to have friends or family above the 89 mark, please show them the above, idiotic NASA rocket launch imagery with bats, spiders and frogs - and report back about their comments and reactions. Thanks for your time!

May reason prevail. <_<
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6773
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby lux on Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:30 pm

Yes, that might work. I would put the IQ mark a little higher though.

But, the trouble with IQ tests is that they only test for intelligence -- they don't test for stupidity. It is usually assumed that intelligence and stupidity are mutually exclusive but they're not. A person can have any quantity of either one. This is why seemingly intelligent people can behave or think so stupidly. Every intelligence test should be accompanied by a stupidity test. If you only test for one you still won't know where the person is at because he could have a whole lot or very little of the other. This is, I think, the answer to the question asked by this old thread.

But, I don't think our "scientific" establishment even has a definition for stupidity, much less a test for it.

:lol:
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby MrSinclair on Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:25 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Duh, secret spy satellite rockets are invisible to the naked eye. That's what makes them secret spy satellite rockets.

And which is why they need to be written about in the paper so people know what they are not supposed to know about. You know, known unknowns. It's a Rumsfeld thing.


"There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know."
-war profiteer and aspertame peddler Donald Rumsfeld

Actually this is the one thing he ever said that makes sense to me.
MrSinclair
Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:29 am

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread postby lux on Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:23 am

MrSinclair wrote:"There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know."
-war profiteer and aspertame peddler Donald Rumsfeld

Actually this is the one thing he ever said that makes sense to me.


He forgot Unknown Knowns -- things we think we know that we really don't or are all wrong.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests