| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Were The Moon Landings Real or Hollywood? |
| Real! |
|
23% |
[ 11 ] |
| Special Effects! |
|
51% |
[ 24 ] |
| I Like Sitting On Fences, I Feel Safer... |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
| I Neither Know Nor Care! |
|
4% |
[ 2 ] |
| What Has This Poll Got To Do With 911? |
|
14% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 47 |
|
| Author |
Message |
sycorax82
Minor Poster
Joined: 12 Aug 2007
Posts: 57
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Kubrick died in his sleep four days after Eyes Wide Shut was screened. It's interesting that he hadn't made a film for 10 years before that (Full Metal Jacket). Maybe they decided it was time his controversial voice was silenced forever, especially considering he could have given a deathbed confession about the Apollo missions.
Incidentally, Kubrick was secretly consulted on how to light the huge 007 stage at Pinewood Studios when it was first built for The Spy Who Loved Me. Kubrick was the one who insisted his involvement was secret. This was finally revealed in 2000, obviously after his death. Why would he want it secret? Because he didn't want people knowing he was involved in a Bond film? Or because of the reason the producers wanted him in the first place - that he lit the Apollo stage? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sycorax82 wrote: | ....
<snip>
This was finally revealed in 2000, obviously after his death. Why would he want it secret? Because he didn't want people knowing he was involved in a Bond film? Or because of the reason the producers wanted him in the first place - that he lit the Apollo stage? |
And how many builders, props, camera, lighting and sound people were involved?
How many to fake the astronaut-shot photos and film in a lab? No CGI back then.
How many astronauts, trainers, mission-control bods, engineers, miltary recovery crews, politicians, CIA/FBI, police, geologists, astrophysicists, radio relay teams ........
Many thousands. Many of them not even American. Any one of them could have spilled the beans. Any one of them could have made an anonymous statement, death-bed confession, revelation to the newspapers or whatever. And the "conspirators" would have had to cater for all this. How? Track their every move for the rest of their lives? This alone would require recruiting vast numbers of agents over the decades, all of whom would themselves be part of the connspiracy.
Not a peep. Yet you worry only about big names like Kubrick and Clarke? Why?
It's also worth wondering what "they" would do with anybody who flat refused to get involved in a conspiracy like this that is not only shameful but also extremely fragile, and would take down all those involved should it come to light. There are some moral people in the world, after all.
And the same arguments apply to 9/11 CT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | And how many builders, props, camera, lighting and sound people were involved?
How many to fake the astronaut-shot photos and film in a lab? No CGI back then.
How many astronauts, trainers, mission-control bods, engineers, miltary recovery crews, politicians, CIA/FBI, police, geologists, astrophysicists, radio relay teams ........
|
whilst i am unsure on a hoax and know some of the 'evidence' to be false, i have to ask, are all those people really needed? were they not just watching on a screen like the rest of us? i ain't saying it was faked im just questioning why you seem to think all those people would need to be involved if it was. could they not be fooled into thinking it was real?
if i was part of a team that made history by acheving the unthinkable and knew the acheivement would be a part of history always remembered, i would certainly want to believe it was real, and i would not be looking for 'reasons' to doubt it. i'd be to excited in anticipation and praying my work towards it was worth it.
| Quote: | trainers, mission-control bods, engineers, miltary recovery crews, politicians, CIA/FBI, police, geologists, astrophysicists, radio relay teams ........
|
i question this extention of listed 'need to knows'.
| Quote: | How many astronauts,....................And how many builders, props, camera, lighting and sound people were involved?
How many to fake the astronaut-shot photos and film in a lab? No CGI back then.
|
i agree with this list of need to knows, however doubt the faking would be needed, black and white pictures, and poor quality footage in those days to, easier to look convincing. colour may of been around, but was the first moon landing filmed in colour? or were colour photos taken during the first moon landing?
i am not aware of any so please make me aware if there are, i could be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Quote: | And how many builders, props, camera, lighting and sound people were involved?
How many to fake the astronaut-shot photos and film in a lab? No CGI back then.
How many astronauts, trainers, mission-control bods, engineers, miltary recovery crews, politicians, CIA/FBI, police, geologists, astrophysicists, radio relay teams ........
|
whilst i am unsure on a hoax and know some of the 'evidence' to be false, i have to ask, are all those people really needed? were they not just watching on a screen like the rest of us? .... |
I was only thinking of those actively involved and "in the know".
In fact 10,000 is probably a ridiculous under-estimate.
For example, moon-hoaxers often tell us that the Van Allen belts are too radioactive to allow safe passage to astronauts. If this part of the CT story is true, then every person (physicists, astronomers, astrophysicists, bright kids at school and Uni, radiologists etc etc etc) with sufficient information would be capable of showing up the Conspiracy with some easy calculations. None has. Either millions of people have been bought off, or the Van Allen belts can be traversed safely.
How many are involved in the design and construction of a spacecraft that will never actually go to the moon?
How many military are involved in putting the command module in a B52 and dropping it over the ocean to simulate return to Earth?
How many astronomers had to be kept schtum over the non-existent spacecraft that should have been heading towards the moon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the issue of the belts is very key
why didnt nasa send a dog into space THROUGH the radiation belts to see if it survived?
the belts protect the earth from cosmic and solar radiation an aluminium and fibre glass shell suit does not protect from radiation
human flesh would be roasted and the aluminium will serve no purpose other than keeping the meat tender!
No living creature has travelled through the belts and certainly nasa would not have sent humans through without first sending dogs or monkeys or rats through.
Another important issue is the fact that temperatures on the moons surface are +250 centigrade in the light, a day lasts 14 earth days, humans whether wrapped in aluminium or not cannot survive in these conditions
nor can camera lenses, a car tyres, etc
only a few needed to know many nasa people were killed
today, many are brainwashed into believing the lie, even scientists and sci-fi fans.
only by looking objectively at the evidence do you realise that it is absolutely a fairy tale to even consider that nasa sent people to walk and drive on the moon and then blast off and come back 250,000 miles each way, in 1969.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hurrah, I’m back from sunny London. The new business is now up and running, manager in-situ, fully booked until August.
This thread is still waffling on? Sam and his stoic wild estimates and karlos/stelios and his totally inaccurate data.
Nothing ‘drove’ on the moon in 1969 (on paper) – there was no LRV until 1971 and that did not have ‘tyres’ – we went all through this last year karlos/stelios. It was supposedly like a brillo pad and see-through if you held a light behind it. Not sure what the camera lens comment is about either, glass melts about 1600° C.
As for marky's question - colour photography (still and moving) was around long before Apollo 11. There are excellent colour pictures around from the second world war and before (it was invented back in the mid to late 1800's). You've never seen colour pictures from the first mission? I bet you have - look at any flag photo from that mission = colour.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan5468-9dmh.jpg
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| karlos wrote: | the issue of the belts is very key
why didnt nasa send a dog into space THROUGH the radiation belts to see if it survived?.. |
How about - because they were perfectly capable of calculating the radiation dose the astronauts would suffer, and realising that expensive experiments were not necessary? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Or, maybe they did send an animal through the belts, it died and it wasn't made public.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| or maybe they did the tests(on animals) on earth after calculating the amount in the belts around the earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | As for marky's question - colour photography (still and moving) was around long before Apollo 11. There are excellent colour pictures around from the second world war and before (it was invented back in the mid to late 1800's). You've never seen colour pictures from the first mission? I bet you have - look at any flag photo from that mission = colour.
|
so there has only ever been one manned mission that landed on the moon? i thought the colour photos were from other missions. but i did say i could be wrong. thanks for clearing that up.
also the photo you linked has footprints around the flag, just pointing it out because that was under doubt earlier in the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
marky 54; | Quote: | so there has only ever been one manned mission that landed on the moon? i thought the colour photos were from other missions. but i did say i could be wrong. thanks for clearing that up.
also the photo you linked has footprints around the flag, just pointing it out because that was under doubt earlier in the thread. |
There have supposedly been seven manned missions to the moon, however one of those (Apollo 13) supposedly developed problems and returned without landing.
The flag/footprints issue earlier in the thread;
Even without looking at the picture again, I can recall it had a LRV in the picture. This automatically makes it post-Apollo 11 as the first mission had no vehicles connected to it. Therefore, the footprints aspect has no connection to the first mission which my link is supposedly from.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moon Buggy video at realistic speed
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0&feature=related
[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0&feature=related[/yo utube]
Note
1) the absence of 1/6 gravity as the buggy hits bumps in the desert. I would expect something that light in low gravity to get quite a lift off hitting a bump.
2) the angled solar dish on a pole. what was it pointing at exactly? On a moving vehicle?
It has been said that the fact the buggy did not kick up much dust was evidence of a lack of atmosphere. IMO the buggy drove over coarse grains washed of all dust to create this effect. The dust kicked up on a normal dirt road is airborne. This stuff was filmed in a closed studio with no air movement. It may even have been an evacuated film set - there was a large vacuum chamber built just before Apollo. Or a specially modified film studio. Does not take much to remove 90-99% of air.
| Quote: | | The Space Power Facility (SPF) is a vacuum chamber built by NASA in 1969. It stands 122 feet high and 100 feet in diameter, enclosing a bullet-shaped space. It is the world's largest thermal vacuum chamber. It was originally commissioned for nuclear-electric power studies under vacuum conditions, but was later decommissioned. |
More likely it was originally commisions to fake Apollo shots
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/95/SpacePowerFacility .gif/462px-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Power_Facility
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read on a science forum Soviets did not have the tech to track spacecraft out of Earth orbit until just after Apollo program finished. Presumably true of other nations also.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | I read on a science forum Soviets did not have the tech to track spacecraft out of Earth orbit until just after Apollo program finished. Presumably true of other nations also. |
There are a number of sites that seem to suggest otherwise, here is a good example;
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html
I am unable to comment on its validity.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | 1) the absence of 1/6 gravity as the buggy hits bumps in the desert. I would expect something that light in low gravity to get quite a lift off hitting a bump. |
Us Earthlings are quite used to mass and weight being much the same thing at unity. But not so on the moon, where weight is around 1/6th but mass remains the same (Mass, not weight, being the key component in calculations of inertial force). I'm not sure what expectations of behaviour in such a situation would be relevant to our experience here on Earth.
| rodin wrote: | | 2) the angled solar dish on a pole. what was it pointing at exactly? On a moving vehicle? |
Lacking an ionosphere on the moon to reflect radio waves, a directional communications antenna would be necessary to remain in radio contact.
| rodin wrote: | It has been said that the fact the buggy did not kick up much dust was evidence of a lack of atmosphere. IMO the buggy drove over coarse grains washed of all dust to create this effect. The dust kicked up on a normal dirt road is airborne. This stuff was filmed in a closed studio with no air movement. It may even have been an evacuated film set - there was a large vacuum chamber built just before Apollo. Or a specially modified film studio. Does not take much to remove 90-99% of air.
| Quote: | | The Space Power Facility (SPF) is a vacuum chamber built by NASA in 1969. It stands 122 feet high and 100 feet in diameter, enclosing a bullet-shaped space. It is the world's largest thermal vacuum chamber. It was originally commissioned for nuclear-electric power studies under vacuum conditions, but was later decommissioned. |
More likely it was originally commisions to fake Apollo shots
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/95/SpacePowerFacility .gif/462px-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Power_Facility |
Er....yeah well....hmmmm.
Is that another example of them there dots that you like to connect?
Arbitrary Announcement:
I notice my next post will be my 3000th - no big deal in the greater scheme of things; others have beaten me to it.
But nevertheless, I may save it for something such as showing
"Simon 'just my imagination' Shack" up again as being an arrogant, self-serving, self-promoting blowhard ignoramus as on PfT recently. (No link as you'd have to register because the Alternate Theories section is fenced off from polite society, and anyway it's pitiful to witness).
Or I might just reserve it for something more important.
Or - I might just think who imposed decimal number systems on us anyway and decide it has no inherent value whatsoever, .... or someone may just post something somewhere totally unrelated that annoys me sufficiently elsewhere.
'Cos that's the kind of person-guy I am.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | rodin wrote: | | I read on a science forum Soviets did not have the tech to track spacecraft out of Earth orbit until just after Apollo program finished. Presumably true of other nations also. |
There are a number of sites that seem to suggest otherwise, here is a good example;
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html
I am unable to comment on its validity. |
I think they were commenting on using radio/radar to track. The link you posted warrants investigation thanks.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| karlos wrote: | http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
this is a better resource |
#
| Quote: | | The 5000 degree Fahrenheit heat from the 10,000 lb thrust of the engine should have produced at least some volcanic rock. If you compare the molten volcanic rock at Mount Etna, that was boiled at only 1000 Celsius. I have heard some sceptics claim that the engines force would have been dispersed mainly sideways, but if this is so, what actually held up the 2,300lbs of lunar lander when it was on its descent to the Lunar surface? Why was there not any dust in the landing pads either? There is certainly lots of dust scattered when the LEM is leaving the Moon and if the engine simply blew all the dust away from around the LEM as it landed, how did Armstrong manage to create that famous footprint? |
Being able to land and take off vertically was the most ridiculous claim IMO
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
to make a footprint there has to be moisture or some other cohesive force to hold the dust together
clearly the footprint was made on earth
yet the same dust was apparantly supporting the flag which was blowing in the wind
surely the moon's surface baked in 200 degree heat would be rock hard and the flagpole would need to be hammered in
no matter which way you look at it the moon landing is a silly fairy tale
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have left footprints in bone dry sand. Meteorites leave a mark. Why is moisture necessary?
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | I have left footprints in bone dry sand. Meteorites leave a mark. Why is moisture necessary? |
bone dry sand still has some moisture
on earth even the air has alot of moisture
if the moon is covered by dust it would be very fine and totally dry so very hard to leave detailed footprints in
however, around the flag there are no footprints
and what happened to this dust when the lander landed or blasted off?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alwun
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 282
Location: london
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: flat earth, anyone |
|
|
trouble is Karlos, if adults still promote the 'moon landings' 40 years on, it is because, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, it is because they wish to believe it. They will, as a last resort, tell you "I saw it on the TV". Nothing really changes, in other words.
cheers Al.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| karlos wrote: | | blackcat wrote: | | I have left footprints in bone dry sand. Meteorites leave a mark. Why is moisture necessary? |
bone dry sand still has some moisture
on earth even the air has alot of moisture
if the moon is covered by dust it would be very fine and totally dry so very hard to leave detailed footprints in
however, around the flag there are no footprints
and what happened to this dust when the lander landed or blasted off? |
Moisture isn't necessary. Friction will do fine.
If you want I can get a sample of already "bone-dry" plaster or cement powder, put it in a hot oven in a tray for many hours till it has become even boner-dryer, and leave a very nice footprint in it. Ta. Give me something coarser (like sand) and you'll get a better footprint.
Meanwhile karlos says the moon dust "would be very fine", so that's all there is to it?
How fine? Fine like flour? Fine like sand on a beach? Not much erosion on the moon eh, what with the lack of water and wind? Can karlos be wrong? What is karlos' source for this revelation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| karlos wrote: | to make a footprint there has to be moisture or some other cohesive force to hold the dust together
clearly the footprint was made on earth
yet the same dust was apparantly supporting the flag which was blowing in the wind
surely the moon's surface baked in 200 degree heat would be rock hard and the flagpole would need to be hammered in
no matter which way you look at it the moon landing is a silly fairy tale |
You clearly aren't aware that the behaviour of both moisture and fine solids in a hard vacuum are different to your everyday experience.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Or, maybe they did send an animal through the belts, it died and it wasn't made public. |
And yet not one reputable scientist from any part of the globe - in all these years - has stood up and announced that the radiation dose would be intolerable? Are you serious? Here's a wild underestimate - 1 million people capable of making the dosage calculation over the course of the intervening 40 years or so.
Meanwhile your proposal would require an inexplicable Saturn V launch with a lunar injection through the VA belts. Were there any?
Can you present one grain of evidence that the VA transition would be fatal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sycorax82
Minor Poster
Joined: 12 Aug 2007
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They are safe in regards to the footage 'evidence' in that if the worst came to the worst they COULD admit to fakery and it wouldn't damage them too much. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if a planned 'return' to the Moon forced them into admitting Apollo footage fakery as it suddenly became blatantly obvious even to Joe Schmoe. As long as the lie of the missions themselves remain intact.
They would get away with admitting the fakery because everyone would be on such a high with our boys 'triumphantly returning' to the Moon. Who would care about NASA faking the Apollo footage when we have an all-new REAL manned landing for us all to clearly witness?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sycorax82 wrote: | They are safe in regards to the footage 'evidence' in that if the worst came to the worst they COULD admit to fakery and it wouldn't damage them too much. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if a planned 'return' to the Moon forced them into admitting Apollo footage fakery as it suddenly became blatantly obvious even to Joe Schmoe. As long as the lie of the missions themselves remain intact.
They would get away with admitting the fakery because everyone would be on such a high with our boys 'triumphantly returning' to the Moon. Who would care about NASA faking the Apollo footage when we have an all-new REAL manned landing for us all to clearly witness?? |
It was "clearly witnessed" by a huge demographic. Live, late one night (UK time) in July 1969.
For all the good it did.
Then along comes Rupert Murdoch 30 years later testing how far the citizenry can be gulled by the most ludicrous and ignorant "fakery" evidence, and lo and behold - for a great many the answer is - completely.
Another NWO mission accomplished.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
You clearly aren't aware that the behaviour of both moisture and fine solids in a hard vacuum are different to your everyday experience. |
Lets suppose it is possible to imprint a footprint into a layer of moon dust.
How deep would such a layer be?
An inch?
A yard?
A mile?
What would stop the lander or the rover simply sinking into the dust and disappearing?
The imprints of the shoes sole would have to be made of rubber or plastic to produce the markings - dont forget the surface of the moon is 200 degrees so surely those boots would melt.
Or were the soles of the boots made of galvanised aluminium?
It was mentioned before about the rover having a satelite dish pointing aimlessly into the abyss. Ofcourse if it was more than just a Gerry Anderson prop the dish would need to point at something and remain static otherwise why bother with geostationary satellites?
The horizon on Earth is 30 miles.
Therefore the horizon on the moon should be approximately 18 miles. But the photos and footage show a horizon in every direction of a few yards.
Could one of the moon landing's cult followers please explain.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And yet not one reputable scientist from any part of the globe - in all these years - has stood up and announced that the radiation dose would be intolerable? |
How do you know TC? Maybe lots have and you never get to hear them.
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
water man
New Poster
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
