Apollo Moon Landings Faked?

[mason-free party]

listen...the astronauts involved are top ranked freemasons...surely that should sound alarm bells...the most corrupt,lieing,filthy organisation on the planet bar perhaps zionism

[lockerbie]

"the most corrupt,lieing,filthy organisation on the planet bar perhaps zionism"

i'll put my hands up to both of them.

"listen...the astronauts involved are top ranked freemasons"

do you actually have the membership list for a secret society?

[URIEL_MESSENGER]

[url]HTTP://WWW.NINEONEONE.NL

and just for fun view [/url]http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/ICG.html

[Louise]

I watched the six youtube videos provided by Blackcat.

If you watch them all i counted 3 astronaughts that swore on the bible that they went to the moon.

One refused to swear on the bible using the word TREASON.

TREASON is to sell out your country to another country so if they lied about going to the moon they are not guilty of treason but of deception.

But the guy that was asking them to do this still didn't belive them even after they did what he asked them to do.

What more could they do?.

As to their behavour though i think it was disgraceful.

They were impolite, rude and nasty.

Where did that guy get that tape that he says proves that the moon landings were fake?.

Can it's origens be verifyied?.

I'd also like to say that when i study videos such as the ones Blackcat provided, you will get a totaly honest responce of my point of view on it from me.

Also i'd like to thank Stefan for his responce to me, thank you very much.

[Disco_Destroyer]

I haven't yet seen any convincing footage or images for moon landings but then I haven't been looking very hard, just the usual images we've all seen!

[karlos]

[landless peasant]

9/11 is the tip of the iceberg, sure i understand that, but its the place to start, if ppl start to learn, the rest will fall in to place. how can it not.. i'm not saying its the only issue... its the main issue right now, and its to us to help others to understand. talking about moon landings is not going to help any.. imo

[URIEL_MESSENGER]

Come on people, since the last alledged apollo mission, how many missions to the moon has there been?

NONE WHATSOEVER

Why you ask?

Well... I'll tell you.. NASA no longer have the amazing 'hi-tec' equipment they had back then >pre-AMIGA 32< and the same media spin doctors and amazing SPX (special effects) that we have nowadays, how could they get to the moon:

Imagine the Earth was 12" across, it would take 32 Earth measurments to reach the moon, following this? good, it would've taken a fuel cargo load the size of the USA's Empire State Building to reach the moon (one-way-trip), can you imagine this in real time?

Those nice people at MIT that are employed by NASA say its a physical & Scientific IMPOSSIBILITY to take that trip TODAY let alone in 1968!

The TRUTH (not that you would believe it) is: the americans have NEVER been to the Moon, there is no debris on the Moon, (there are new telescopes that can scan the Moon = for this argument) and the Moon DOES NOT BELONG TO aMERICA!

oh yeah... "Have a nice day..."

[lockerbie]

"Why you ask?"

because there was * all there and people got very very bored.

"Imagine the Earth was 12" across, it would take 32 Earth measurments to reach the moon, following this? good, it would've taken a fuel cargo load the size of the USA's Empire State Building to reach the moon (one-way-trip), can you imagine this in real time? "

got the maths for this?

and i take it every other missions was faked as well, pioneer, cassini, voyager, new horizons all the mars missions?

[Louise]

I'm really sorry stelios but i'm going to have to disagree with you on this one when you say:

"A person cannot accept 911 and deny 7/7. A person cannot accept USS Liberty and deny Operation Northwoods. A person cannot deny the NASA moon landings fraud yet accept the WMDs fraud."

Each of these incidents is a seprate event and must be treated and investigated as such, the results or outcome of the investigation of one event may not be the same outcome as the results of an invesigation of another.

Sure there may be elements within one event that may link to another event, but they are still seprate events.

Everything is not going to be 100% lie and conspiracy but not everything is going to be 100% genuine either, it's going to be 50-50.

Our task it to look and analyse these events as they come in and decipher which is which.

But to employ the thinking that everything is all one way is to employ (and i'm open to be corrected on this) something which i think is called: FUZZY LOGIC.

The use of FUZZY LOGIC is an extremely irrational, unobjective, bias, predjudice way of working and thinking.

We cannot decide if somthing is genuine or a conspiracy untill it has been analysed and investigated as thoroughly as possible.

From all the evidence of 9/11 for example that is:

Verbal evidence
Visual evidence
Scientific evidence
Behavour evidence (of the US fedral goverment).
Evidence of events prior to and after 9/11.

Leads me to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.

In fact what clinched it for me as reguards 9/11 was when i saw the collapse of WTC 7.

The moment i saw that, i knew that it was controlled demolition that brought those buildings down.

But i do agree our enemy that is against our freedoms and our liberty is a very, very cunning one.

It uses massive and very clever and sophisticated deceptions to cover it's tracks and trick people.

We all must be very very careful.

And we should continue to question and look into everything that happens and everything that the goverment puts before us nomatter what the final outcome of our anaysis is.

[egw]

I think that there are some very intelligent people in the world, and that some of those people would be among the ones claiming the moon landings were faked, if the moon landings were actually faked.

I've only ever seriously considered the possibility that they were faked once, and that was after watching the Bart Sibrel video. The Apollo astronauts made themselves look very shonky and guilty in the Sibrel video, but the conclusion I've come to is that the astronauts are in some kind of boys club, just like mason-free party suggests, but that their goal is to convince unwary people that the moon landings were faked, when in fact they were not. (I can only guess as to why they might be asked to do this, and why they might agree).

I'm not completely convinced, but many of the apparent anomalies - like "incorrect" shadows and lighting - have been explained to my satisfaction. And everything else is a line-ball decision where the choice is to take the word of the expert, or to take the word of the rank amateur moon-hoaxer. And when the score is already experts 1, rank-amateurs 0, then there's not much choice really.

At any rate, I agree, 911 issues are more important. And 911 issues can stand completely on their own, so associating them with moon-hoax theories is only likely to discredit 911 truth.

[blackcat]

[telecasterisation]

[karlos]

[Louise]

Stelios Wrote:

"Do not forget several NASA people who tried to whistleblow were all knocked off. Or should i state died in unlikely accidents."

Who were these people Stelios?.

Is there anywhere on the internet i can reserch into the circumstances of their deaths to try to find anything suspicous about it?.

By the way Stelios, i just thought i'd let you know.

I've just had that film "V for Vendetta" arrive to me buy post.

It seems that this film is quite highly favoured by quite a few people on this forum.

I'm looking forward to watching it.

[egw]

[karlos]

There's Tom Baron, the aerospace technician who complained to Congress about dangerous corner-cutting in the Apollo program - and died in a train accident "just four days after he testified." There are also the three astronauts - including Gus "the Right Stuff" Grissom - who died on the launchpad in a 1967 "mishap" when fire swept through their capsule. Grisson had groused publicly about Apollo's safety troubles,

[telecasterisation]

Didn't these so-called whistleblowers die several years before the moon landings supposedly took place? They only voiced their concern over cost-cutting, it was hardly 'There's a huge film set built out in the desert where they are going to fake the landings and I can prove it.'

Do this really consitute whistleblowing?

[karlos]

huge film set?
surely you mean small, the footage makes blake's 7 production look good
very poor directing and editing
repeated use of the same scenery/transparencies
poor lighting
forgot about painting the stars on the backdrop

this was a Low budget movie using a handfull of staff

[telecasterisation]

[karlos]

what do u call big.
look at the photo you posted
it from a moon landings hoax site yet you present it as evidence for the defence

ok where are all the stars?

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

My opinion of the moon landings is that they were faked.

I have only one doubt and that is, the moon rocks, which I am told were widely disseminated and examined among the scientific community whom we always respect and believe.

These lunar rocks were compared, presumably, against other known moon rocks and so therefore must be real moon rocks as compared to the control samples which were real and ended up on earth because of a . . .

[blackcat]

Lunar rocks have been gathered remotely by the Russians and there is no need to send men in order to gather any. At this point believers say "but the manned missions brought back several thousand tons whereas robots could only carry a few ounces". Ok I am exaggerating but its along those lines. Scientists have only ever been given a small amount as they are considered so valuable. Easily done - without the need for a man landing on the moon.

[karlos]

Moon Rocks?
Ok how do you or i verify that the piece of dehydrated bird droppings are actual moon rock. It is the emperours new clothes all over again. As nobody can go to the moon and verify these are actually moon rocks.

My view is meteorites from the moon have been found on earth, they may have been on earth millions of years but scientists claim it to be moon rock.

You see this is one of the tricks these people play.
The planes crashed into the towers so it must have been the cause of the collapse not the explosions heard in the basement.
People phoned using their mobile phones from flight 77.
The muslim doctor poured petrol over himself and ran at the police shouting "Allah"
We saw Osama Bin Ladin saying on the video that he would attack unless we voted for Jim Kerry in 2004

A conjurer uses various distractions and anecdotes to fool people.

Moon landings.
OK we know there was not enough fuel to make the journey.
We know all the photos are fake.
We know the tech in the 1960s was like being in the stone age compaared with today.
The space suits are made of aluminium which would melt with the intense heat on the moon, un sheilded from the sun.
The lunar modul has no sheilding today even the shuttle is covered with heatproof sheilding
the car driving around on zero gravity moon surface 200 degrees in temperature in virtual zero gravity yet the astro zero was struggling to lift a moon rock which if any of you remember he lifted by rolling it up his leg.
Now surely that would have PUNCTURED his spacesuit and meant instant death. 1. The moonroch should have been weightless. 2. The rock would have been white hot after having solar radiation on it non stop 3. his space suit is pressurised meaning it would split and burst 4. he would have been trained NOT to lift space rocks in that fashion.
5. When Buzz Cola Aldrin was interviewed on CNN he said the flap for the lunar module was under the pilots seats in between them on the floor. Bearing in mind the landing thrusters and take off thrusters, that is impossible.
6. the fuel for the take off thrusters - the lunar module - well where was it? You would need quite a bit and oxygen to allow it to burn
Dont forget no scorch burn marks on the landing area
7. photos multiple light sources, shadows, no stars in the background.

Look closely at the photo.
FOOTPRINTS IN ZERO GRAVITY?
REFLECTION OF PHOTOGRAPHER
NO STARS
CONFLICTING SHADOWS
I could go on but you would get bored.

Anyone who believes that humans have walked on the moon is an extremly gullible person and needs to wake up.
Alternatively contact me because i am selling a 1984 porsche 924s white in colour a collecters item only £1400 low mileage, FSH, genuine 1 lady owner from new.

[deep thinker]

[telecasterisation]

[blackcat]

Surely the "no stars" question is easily answered because they were in daylight. Just as you cannot see stars on Earth when the sun shines you will be unable to see them from the moon during daylight. The only difference is, because the moon has no atmosphere, the sky is black during daytime. Does this make people confuse our black night sky full of stars with the black day sky of the moon?

[telecasterisation]

Stars do glow during the day here on earth, but we can't see them because of the glare of sunlight. When the sun is up, the blue color in sunlight gets scattered all over the atmosphere, turning the sky the familiar bright blue color. This blue light is much brighter than the faint light coming from the stars, so it prevents us from seeing them even though they are still there.

If you were standing on the Moon, where there is no atmosphere, you would see the stars wherever you stood. Recording them on film is a completely different matter as you would have to use much longer exposure times than hand-holding would allow.

This is exactly the same as here on earth - simply try it. Go out at night with a camera and attempt to capture the detail of anything in the sky in fine crisp detail hand-holding the camera. A windowsill or tripod is mandatory to capturing stars on film.

[Disco_Destroyer]

The 1 thing all moon landing pix have in common is the very small visual pane! No horisons or landscape shots! From my point of view that should not be the case, if the trip was real!! 'wow look at this lunar landscape, gotta get some of this for the folks back home'
Just look at the pics nothing that cannot be created back here on earth! http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=Moon+Landing&btnG=Search+Ima ges&gbv=2
I'll use this to demonstrate, why did knowone walk a few metres to to take a landscape shot from the ridge?

I'll use this as a good example that if you took all moon landing photo's as legitimate it must be alot smaller than what we're led to believe. As all of them depict a short depth of view beyond which you'd fall off into space! How far in this one? 100m?

I just found this, you may be able to walk a mile in this before falling off into oblivion!
Apollo 17: Boulder on the Moon
http://www.astronet.ru/db/xware/msg/1163771