The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Scott, Jun 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Maybe it would have all worked if it hadn't been for space radiation.
    http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=26317.0


    The anomalies in the footage and picture show it was faked so this isn't about whether they did it. It's about why they did it.
     
  2. frenat

    frenat Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Van Allen himself said the belts weren't a problem
    "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

    It is not a contradiction from his earlier statements because science in the real world learns. They continued to take measurements and refine what they knew about the belts. Plus, they went around the thickest parts.

    [video=youtube;z4gSRy1tHls]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4gSRy1tHls[/video]

    [video=youtube;YuH4rxda3Z4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4[/video]

    And this hilarious stuff about Rene?
    says far more about Rene and anyone that thinks this statement proves anything than it does about radiation. Rene GOT the data he asked for. It didn't conform to his pre-determined conclusions so he ASSUMED it was fake. The problem is if they give out fake data sometimes and "real" data other times then it just adds to the number of people that have to be in on it. So much for your compartmentalism BS. There would have to be thousands of people in on it just because of the data. Many companies and other countries have satellite in and around the belts and if they didn't have the right data their stuff would fail quicker than it should. The far more likely scenario is that Rene got the correct data but he had to ASSUME it was wrong because it didn't fit what he wanted it to.


    EVERY supposed anomaly can be explained. (haven't you said yourself that if something has an alternative explanation that it can't be used as evidence?) And there are MANY parts of the footage that show it had to have been filmed in a vacuum and low gravity.
     
  3. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry Scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c, But it's been pointed out,many times the astronauts were shielded by their spacecraft which spent only a fraction of the time in the belts needed to cause harm.

    The Orion capsule is different becaus it's bigger and has more glass in than Apollo did,it's a new spacecraft and has to be tested in all the same ways
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Viewers...

    Please read this article.
    http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=26317.0
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------
    "All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.
    --------------------------------------

    In the beginning he said the belts were a problem. Later, after NASA had probably gotten to him somehow, he changed his position.


    They could have been put there by unmanned remote controlled craft.

    What Happened on the Moon
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W79mIGx9Ib4
    (3:26:18) time mark.


    A lot of the links on page one have gone dead so here's an updated list.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html
     
  5. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to understand that science is a process not a set of known facts. It constantly adapts changes and updates based on new knowledge. What they knew in 59 is not what they knew later based on what they learned.

    He was simply wrong about the radiation belt and nothing more.

    Science proves you wrong and the radiation belt is not an obstacle to manned space flight. You simply refuse to learn what is known about radiation.

    It was put their by Apollo 11 none of your links offer any evidence of a faked landing.
     
  6. frenat

    frenat Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Supposition without evidence. As said before, real science learns and refines. Note that your quote is from 1959. They sent MANY probes specifically into and through the belts in the next 10 years refining their knowledge of them. Would you really trust any scientist that takes the first impression of something and refuses to learn anything more about it and updates the knowledge of it?

    But also thanks for proving you ignored the part that makes your quote moot. As you quoted "All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation". As I posted, that is exactly what they did. Read the previous post showing their path AROUND the thickest parts of the belts. This is for the readers of course as we all know Scott will refuse to read and comprehend anything against his world view. But then, bots aren't really programmed to do that, are they?

    And hilarious that you have ignored what was said about your nonsense about Rene.

    They could have. Any evidence at all of such craft? They would have to have been designed by someone, built by someone, launched in various rockets, operated by someone that guided them to the precise points that the Apollo missions were tracked to, etc. Any evidence of ANY of that? On the other hand we have warehouses full of evidence of the Apollo program. You can't even point to an unaccounted for rocket launch (let alone the three necessary) that would have launched these supposed unmanned craft and that would have been the most visible part. Nope, instead you speculate wildly about yet another secret program with no evidence and yet even more people that would have to be in on it. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot for your compartmentaism BS.
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
  8. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have NO reason to suspect I was lied to,given the evidence that hasn't been lied about and manipulated by you moon hoaxers
     
  9. frenat

    frenat Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    It is completely internally and externally consistent. It is NOT an environment that only the US or NASA has access to. Many countries and even private companies have either gone there on their own or sent probes up. Those that doubt often show themselves to be extremely ignorant. I've lost track of how many hoax believers I've seen that don't even know there was more than one landing or know nothing of the Mercury and Gemini programs leading up to Apollo.
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's plausible that they're all colluding. It's also plausible that the info they let is see about what other countries know is bogus.

    Anyway, that doesn't make this hoax proof go away.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/362999-air-caused-flag-move-so-obviously-studio.html

    You can't obfuscate this. It's too clear.
     
  11. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    18,816
    Likes Received:
    7,069
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I cannot imagine a believable scenario where America would create a hoax in order make the whole world think that we went to the moon not just once, but several times, with Apollo 13 almost being a disaster.

    It was such a herculean effort by this nation going where man had never gone before, and through hard work, and the loss of life, man left the earth for the first time, and travels to the moon and back. That these conspiracy people would waste their time on this one has to be limited to just the most extreme conspiracy theorists.

    They want to take away this great achievement, a monumental achievement, of humanity, just because their rather limited little minds cannot comprehend it, it causes their brains to scramble and misfire. Perhaps the problem is that they just cannot imagine anyone could be exponentially smarter than they are. LOL. Gotta laugh about this stuff for it really is comical and funny, like a 3 stooges flick.

    You see the same sort of thing when it comes to ancient man creating almost impossible looking stone structures, with precision stone cuts, and construction, with some of the stones being in the hundreds of tons. So, they take away from the intelligence of our ancestors, and say that only superior aliens from other planets could have done this. Man was just too stupid to pull it off.

    So now with the moon hoax conspiracy, humans are just too stupid to get to the moon and back without killing someone. For that is the argument these guys are using.
     
  12. frenat

    frenat Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Plausible? Are you sure you're using that word correctly? I don't think it means what you think it means.

    Sure just add a few tens of thousands more in on your hoax. You better not argue for compartmentalism ever again you hypocrite.

    I believe it was Jarrah White that proved he was close enough to touch it as he walked by. The supposed movement before looks more like camera bloom. EVERYTHING moves. Unless you think in this magical studio is the only place in the world where air is pushed in front of a moving body. Even speeding freight trains don't push air in front of them. And of course you have to ignore the hundreds of hours of footage that shows they are in a vacuum and low gravity. AT BEST you've proven only this clip is faked. You can't obfuscate the warehouses full of evidence in favor of the missions. But thanks for proving you completely ignore explanations when they are given to you. The very thread you linked to demolishes your claim. Reply #7 is especially good.


    Relevant xkcd
    https://xkcd.com/1074/
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
  14. frenat

    frenat Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    No. I heard someone say he said it. I don't regularly watch his horrid videos because they are full of ignorance and his voice is grating. So I'm misrepresenting nothing and not doing anything to purposely mislead anyone. I'll thank you to take back your lie.


    And no, on the other thread you did not deal with it. The initial movement is camera bloom. You seemed unable on the other thread to separate the movements. The astronaut IS close enough to brush it when he passes by which explains the other movement. Air moving in the studio would cause far more movement than one tiny clip in hundreds of hours of footage. You're STILL ignoring the many hours of footage that show vacuum and low gravity. You STILL are ignoring that even if one tiny clip is faked that says nothing about the rest.
     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I dealt with all of these issues on this other thread...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/362999-air-caused-flag-move-so-obviously-studio.html

    ...but I'll go ahead and post these two videos again anyway.

    Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

    The flag that moved
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0


    There. Now you can't mislead the viewers.
     
  16. frenat

    frenat Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    It is hilarious that you think posting the videos somehow hinders my argument. All it does is further show to everyone how much your argument fails.

    On the other thread you couldn't mentally separate the movements. It was actually quite hilarious to watch. You'd say camera bloom couldn't cause it to swing back and forth and that it moves before the astronaut can touch it never realizing they are two SEPARATE movements.

    Still waiting for you to take back your lie that I was misrepresenting your hero Jarrah to mislead anyone. Do you have the integrity to do so? I'm betting not.

    You're STILL ignoring the many hours of footage that show vacuum and low gravity. You STILL are ignoring that even if one tiny clip is faked that says nothing about the rest.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It blows your argument out of the water. Both videos show that the flag had started moving before the astronaut got close enough to touch it. Anyone who actually watches the footage can see that. It's hilarious that you think that misrepresenting what the videos show is going to make the viewers who actually watch them agree with you.

    There is a point at which things are so clear that sophistry becomes ineffective. The flag's moving without having been touched is well beyond that point. I'd say your success rate is close to zero on this one.
     
  18. frenat

    frenat Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    hardly. I WANT people to see those videos so they can see how much of a zealot you are.
    Yes, due to camera bloom. The second movement is due to the astronaut touching it. You have no explanation for the first movement. Air does not get pushed ahead of a moving body like that. Air in the studio would have caused far more movement which would have been visible far more often. Instead we see the flag completely still even to the point of it being exactly the same shape and position hours apart. Thin nylon flags (and we can clearly see it is thin nylon) don't do that in an atmosphere and normal gravity.

    Still waiting for you to take back your lie that I was misrepresenting your hero Jarrah to mislead anyone. Do you have the integrity to do so? I'm betting not.

    You're STILL ignoring the many hours of footage that show vacuum and low gravity. You STILL are ignoring that even if one tiny clip is faked that says nothing about the rest.

    Any viewers out there that actually agree with Scott? He keeps claiming they are there. Do they actually exist or is that another of his delusions?
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You know you're not swaying anyone with any brains so you're just trying to waste as much of my time as possible. You know that's dealt with on this other thread.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028972#post1064028972

    You people keep saying that Jarrah admitted that the astronaut might have been close enough to touch the flag without mentioning the part where he says that's irrelevant because the flag had already started moving before he got close enough to touch it.
     
  20. frenat

    frenat Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Is this you admitting you have no integrity? I knew I'd win that bet. I see you're back to not being able to see they are separate movements. Sadly it looks like Jarrah can't see that either. Are you Jarrah?

    You're STILL ignoring the many hours of footage that show vacuum and low gravity. You STILL are ignoring that even if one tiny clip is faked that says nothing about the rest.

    Any viewers out there that actually agree with Scott? He keeps claiming they are there. Do they actually exist or is that another of his delusions?
     
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Where did this come from? I made it clear that there were two movements on the other thread.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064030792#post1064030792

    Here's something that frenat said in his last post.
    I want to know if the rest of you pro-Apollo posters agree with him.
     
  22. frenat

    frenat Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    so you CAN separate them! In some posts you couldn't. Nice to know you are capable of learning. Although your statement that the second one is "clearly caused by air" is wrong you are right that the first one is moot. Glad to know we agree on that. You have of course ignored that the astronaut is close enough to have touched it for the second movement. You are also ignoring that air in the studio would have caused far more movement which would have been visible far more often. Instead we see the flag completely still even to the point of it being exactly the same shape and position hours apart. Thin nylon flags (and we can clearly see it is thin nylon) don't do that in an atmosphere and normal gravity. Even just being in normal gravity would have caused the wrinkles to fall out of the flag.

    Is this you conceding that there are no viewers that will come to your rescue so you're trying to change the subject? Whether anyone else agrees or not doesn't matter. What matters is it is the truth. A single hoaxed video clip (which you have yet to find) would not make the mountains of other evidence disappear. Science doesn't work that way.
     
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Please link to a post where I didn't know there were two movements.


    This is me seeing you destroy your credibility by saying something lame. Now I want to put the other pro-Apollo posters between a rock and a hard place. You messed up when you said...
    The other posters will look silly if they agree with you and if they don't agree with you, they'll be recognizing that you said something lame. I'll bet most of them or all of them simply won't answer or give evasive answers.
     
  24. frenat

    frenat Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    This post YOU previously linked to makes it appear you can't separate the movements
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=3&p=1064040286#post1064040286
    In particular, your statement "if the camera-bloom effect is responsible for the initial movement, why does it keep moving?"
    Then in this post
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=3&p=1064041736#post1064041736
    you say "very clear that his elbow hadn't reached the flag yet when it started moving."
    After each post, Betamax comments that you are having trouble separating the movements. So I'm not the only one that thought that about your posts.

    Destroy my credibility for recognizing how science actually works? :roll:

    This is all opinion. Science is not a popularity contest. I stand by what I said. Even more so that you don't agree with it.

    You have of course ignored that the astronaut is close enough to have touched it for the second movement. You are also ignoring that air in the studio would have caused far more movement which would have been visible far more often. Instead we see the flag completely still even to the point of it being exactly the same shape and position hours apart. Thin nylon flags (and we can clearly see it is thin nylon) don't do that in an atmosphere and normal gravity. Even just being in normal gravity would have caused the wrinkles to fall out of the flag.

    Again, whether anyone else agrees or not doesn't matter. What matters is it is the truth. A single hoaxed video clip (which you have yet to find) would not make the mountains of other evidence disappear. Science doesn't work that way.
     
  25. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    5,686
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    And the studio was on the Moon [near to the Nazi base] ... sure Hollywood made a greater effort than NASA had to do to send a LEM to our natural satellite, but you know ... Hollywood is Hollywood!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page