I Give Up: The Apollo moon missions were UN-fakeable. They went and I must deal with that.

No. it is a reflection that jumps like an astronaut.

The waving flag. Give me a break. That argument is so bogus. It is called momentum. The flag moves after being touched by an astronaut and doesn't stop for a long time because there is no atmospheric friction to dampen the motion.

Last Edited by Commutator on 10/30/2010 10:31 PM

Can you give yourself a break by explaining the same background on different locations?

I believe that you defending the lie has a lot to do with patriotism.

More information. I don't know what you are talking about.

It has to do with science.

It should be clear. Same background, different location. You can't have the same background on different location. Science or no science.

Are you patriotic? Honest answer, please.

You're trying to engage in ad hominem attacks. Stick to the subject.

I still don't know what you are talking about. What backgrounds, what locations. I can't read your mind. Be specific.

The three of them never went into orbit together for practice afaik.

I think you are right that the actual landing could not be seen on earth. Not "live" at least. Just audio was live.

That's right, they went to the moon.. but it doesnt mean some of the footage wasnt fake anyway.

You're not answering my question about patriotism. Trust me, I know the answer and I also know why you're avoiding it. Patriotism makes people blind.

Backgrounds on the moon, different places, but the same background. It should be clear.

Here: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Zoom into the visor.

That still does not prove they didn´t go there though.

For various reasons...

So how exactly did they survive the radiation between the Earth and the Moon?

The shielding must have been sufficient.

Ah. Well, works for me. I'm still amazed we went to the moon without a single microprocessor on board. Of course, the Astronauts were some smart cats but still. That was some stone age tech they used.

On a side note, I constantly wonder why we haven't sent a rover to the moon. It would be far cheaper than sending another to Mars. We've barely scratched the surface of the moon, no pun intended. We could even explore the dark side of the moon with proper relays and back up battery power.

That's one of the many unanswered questions. The Van Allen belt.

The "sun" doesn't look like it should look either.

Oh and Photoshop existed in 1969. Some of these pictures are truly mindboggling.


Here, watch the astronauts go berserk when confronted with their lies:

[link to www.youtube.com]

You really want to see the end.


If you can't make it, fake it. There was a cold war back then, wasn't there? There could be other reasons, of course.

How? That´s what I´d like to know in detail because I cannot figure it out as you can read from my original post.

And (again) if you cannot find a way to fake it the only other remaining option is: they went.

HAW HAW!!! You can't even spell DONUT!!!!

And YOU don't realize he was trying to spell Doubt...Dum Dum..

It was MUCH easier to fake it! But they made some mistakes back then, due to the primitive technology.

And suddenly they had to go to the moon. They were in a hurry.

Watch Apollo Zero, if you dare. But you won't.


We could talk about this endlessly. You have made up your mind (brainwash). I choose to investigate. That's why I don't believe they went, I don't believe that 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust, because I did some research, I don't believe in the official story of 911, because I did some research, I don't believe slaves built the pyramids and a whole lot of other things that the average Joe takes has been spoonfed to believe, because I dare to question and to dig deeper.

You're free to believe in a lie, because your TV told you so. I really don't mind. There is wind and frogs on the moon and the landscape is always the same, whereever you go. If that makes sense to you and makes you feel good, all the best my friend.

What's doubt got to do with the Apollo missions? Whereas everybody knows the astronauts ate 20 donuts per day each.

First NASA=MILITARY so if you think you know what telemetry equipment they had (radio wise) your bases unfounded. So your premiss is wrong and heres your next message.....We never went to the MOON. Let the shilling begin.

I will point out that moon shills here arn't allowed to speak on 911 truth so it's easy to spot them. Simple really.

I think it's the people on this forum that weren't around in the late 60's who can't understand how the bulky 60's technology could of pulled off something like a moon landing... and to add to their suspicion no moon landings have been attempted since... but some of us watched this all happen real time.. there many people employed here down under and a few other places to relay signals to the US amongst other things... the whole world stopped to watch Armstrong step out of the module
but by the time of the last Apollo moon mission public interest was starting to wane which I suspect is why the US gov started cutting back funds on the last scheduled launches and further missions.

Sure there is a chance everyone was completely fooled by it all and it was faked but I doubt it very much.. the real conspiracy is probably more to do with the technology used in these missions... I would be inclined to think much of it came from reverse engineering of alien technology ..

One thing is for certain Apollo and associated projects were responsible for the birth of video technology and the refining of computer technology

By all means, explain how they did it then.

And I did watch Apollo Zero, A funny thing happened on the way to the moon, and about 1258 other docs.

If it was much easier to fake it I´d like to hear your theory on exactly how they faked it.

O/P you are looking at the world through monochrome (black and white for the uneducated). Open your mind, use critical thinking to view things in full wonderful Technicolour (no LSD required).

NASA's budget was billions of dollars (in a time when a billion dollars actually was worth something). The moon shot was a huge PR campaign (as well as huge theft for the military / industrial / banking cartel). Like all PR, it's all about "selling". Selling is best done through a visual medium (TV, Movies, printed media etc.)

The (pointless) moon "shot" was basically when Disney / Hollywood / TV finally hijacked our conciousness.

To get away with the robbery from the US tax payer, they needed to make a motion picture (a few lines in news print was never going to be enough!).

It really doesn't matter whether Armstrong (or anyone else) made it to the moon or not. A project that cost billions, needed to have good pictures. The fact fake pictures and film got muddled with (possible) real ones is moot.

The astronauts reactions alone show that something was seriously wrong. Armstrong's more recent riddles is clearly his way of protecting / explaining his place in history, excusing some of the lies. Personally I think Armstrong did step on the moon, but I think all the pictures coverage was faked, because it was technically impossible to get decent real stuff (to sell to the Amarikan people).

The real scandal is the theft of Amarika by the military / industrial / political / financial complex. The "smoke and mirrors" will continue until the global Ponzi scheme finally collapses.

So basically you are saying because they staged some footage and some images they did not go to the moon?

It proves that they staged some footage and images.

And your frog is ghosting, nothing more.

If you wish to see a picture that was staged look into this visor: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Astronaut? Where is his camera? Where is his backpack? Happy now?

Yahtzee!

Could be a reason.

why would you doubt it??? you saw it on teevee after all

Anonymous Coward 1146592
why would you doubt it??? you saw it on teevee after all


Yeh, I saw those first blurry images too! How difficult would it be to beam pictures there and back again. We know the whole thing was rehearsed time and time again in a NASA studio, right down to the bungie chords (this is no secret).

The "moon shot" was a totally pointless project (other than a huge tax payer wealth transfer). If it had a real point, what was it, and if that point was anything more than a cold war stunt, why the need to take so much trouble televising it?

Given a big enough budget, it was technically possible to get a man to the moon (at that time) accepting the risk of many, many potential catastrophic failures. Getting acceptable images (on top) was more difficult than putting a man and 7 day life support system at the pointy end of a f***ing huge rocket. Any decent cinematographer or broadcaster could explain why.

We have all conditioned our brains to believe Hollywood, TV and print media to be reality. I have looked at thousands of years of recreated history. I know Robin Hood wore a pointed green hat with a feather... "I'm Spartacus", etc. etc.

Images may be faked, but that is not to say it never happened. The real question is why did they bother go? Who benefited... Tip, follow the money!

+1

Finally someone understands my point....

In fact I think it is more than reasonable to believe that the film could not be kept pristine due to the harsh conditions outside of earth´s atmosphere and they used staged footing and imagery to avoid embarassment.

After all wasn´t there an issue with footage from the ISS having to be processed quickly to avoid exposure by cosmic rays? It seems to me that film is much more delicate than NASA anticipated. If the crews stayed on the lunar surface for more than 24 hours, which they did, the shielding needed probably turned out near impossible if they wanted to keep those camera´s portable.

I´m not sure what the shielding on the 16mm camera´s was, but I imagine they ran into similar problems.

If you look at the footage and images, they do look pristine without a single trace of exposure due to radiation particles.

Faked, most likely, which would explain the much discussed anomalies.

Thats fine... I totally agree they must have used the latest technology available at the time, including military applications, but, even if they had some advanced telemetry to ralay the signals to make it look as if they came from the Moon, that does not explain what object executed a TLI burn and was tracked all the way to lunar orbit by various satellites and amateur astronomers.

It is great to say we never went to the moon, I used to yell it all the time. But if you really start to think how they solved the fake project you come to realise that certain parts are not possible to fake.

Something did go out of orbit and to the Moon. If it wasn´t the real CM what was it? And WTH did it come from? This is the heart of the matter.

You can go around-and-around-and-around in circles all you want, but even if the crew stayed in orbit what was it that left orbit and went to the moon?

Or could the military fake this too?

Then there is the slight matter of re-entry. Only one object could have re-entered the atmosphere, and that could have been none other than the CM containing the crew. If a second object entered the atmosphere two fireballs would have been spotted, not one.

They could have faked a lot, but not the path from TLI to CIS to lunar orbit and back into the atmosphere.

If you know a way to do that or anyone else I´d love to hear it. If not there is no other option that to conceed they went.