The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Just so I'm clear...Tripp and Dean are still alive...yet one caused an impeachment and the other caused an actual resignation. But if anyone talks about anything else...curtains

 

They do if they're smart enough to know they'll become a nonperson faster than they can say 'solid wodda'!

 

Someone always gets drunk and shots their mouth off

your delusions of a sinister NASA offing those who spill the beans,is precious.

 

Are you something in NASA, LoneStrSt8? I ask because you're ever so defensive. In the PR department perhaps?

 

No,I'm a realist,I don'tneed any connection to NASA,but keep up the usual dodges

 

I've just asked some pertinent questions on the other Mars thread; maybe you're just the man to answer them?

 

A short answer to this claiming here? Nonsense without any real evidence and all the named claims are still refuted!

But as usual and like those 9/11 conspiracy idiots, if they want to believe it was all a fake, then they believe and it is total wasted time to discuss with them about, because they are not willing to accept pure facts like these 3 examples:

#1
Even with simple earthly things the moon landing could be proofed on the basis of the existing film footage - with physical formulas. Since gravity is only one-sixth on the moon in relation to earth, but the mass remains identical, motion sequences, which on earth are not so and then film technical could not be adjusted with same result. The astronauts were able to ease upright in a kneeling position by leveraging the massive torso and backpack again or easy to get up from the pushup by hand and some momentum back into the state - benefits that are impossible on earth even for top athletes. The necessary for video material is available to proof this is from the Apollo missions 11 to 17 abundant. Conspiracy theorists explain these recordings as a special effect with the aid of ropes, which were removed by retouching again from the recording, overlooked but the interaction of atmospheric influences, the great freedom of movement of the astronauts and the physical conditions (for example, moon dust movements). These factors could be not achieved by that time of available special effects, even with today's computer technology that would be very complicated and difficult and not feasible to the last detail.

#2
From the separate studies carried out of the lunar rock samples from the US Apollo missions with those of the comprehensive only a few hundred grams Soviet Luna-rock samples analogies have shown that would not be possible with artificial rock samples ... or is Soviet Luna mission suddenly suspicious to be faked too?

#3
The radio signals from the astronauts could the world be received among others by radio amateurs and equipment … including USSR. It can be determined that the response time of the astronauts while roughly corresponded to the delay caused by the distance, this would be respectively around 1.3 seconds plus the necessary and varying reaction time for the answers. Would the answers were only again transferred back from the ground to an unmanned satellite, the delay would have been the double – 2.6 seconds
Other conspiratorial assumptions of radio links with astronauts in lunar orbit contradict the simplest laws of physics, the one required for this purpose, exclude orthogonally oriented to the earth lunar orbit.

 

No they do not someone ALWAYS TALKS.

Presidents have been brought down this way and the whistle blowers go unharmed.

This is the fact and fatal flaw which destroys all.conspiracy theories.

 

Hey Mandelus

None of what you said makes the flag anomaly go away.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/362999-air-caused-flag-move-so-obviously-studio.html


This anomaly closes the whole case by itself. The moon missions were faked.

 

There IS no flag anomaly,just like all of your others,the product of a fevered imagination.


The moon missions were NOT faked,or we'd see movement in ALL of the flags

 

Anomalies do not shoot down anything.

First of all it is not an anomoly that fact has been proven time and again and your assertion crushed.

There is no movement caused by anything except an astronaut touching the flag of staff.

Second it does not matter what you investigate or look at, if you look deeply enough you will always find anomalies. Such anomalies do not prove anything .

Your claim is predicated on a false assumption that anomalies prove a hoax they do not

 

But in the context of this thread, nobody has 'talked', so I ask again - would you break ranks, knowing 1) you'd be ridiculed and humiliated, then 2) subjected to the revenge of the authorities, resulting in the loss of your lucrative job and never be employable ever again?

 

Asked and answered.

 

Give us your analysis of these clips.

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

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

 

Your summary is hogwash. If someone "breaks ranks" and has appropriate evidence, there would be no ridicule. There would be book deals, newspaper deals, interviews and endless newspaper fodder.

 

Hey Betamax

Please answer the question I asked in post #92.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=279336&page=10&p=1065401643#post1065401643

Things seem to happen to people who throw a monkey wrench into the works.

Thomas Baron and astronauts killed to keep Apollo program
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

Sacrifice On Pad 34.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKyUVuQ2Uk

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=9/11+witnesses+mysterious+deaths


I think speaking out would be career-suicide at the very least.

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/27709
(excerpts)
--------------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.

 

What a load of outright lies and smelly road apples!


I don't even know where to begin with all these unfounded allegations.

 

They wouldn't believe that someone either. They'd conspire to ridicule the whistleblower even more than NASA! That's the only 'deal' that'd be around for the informant. Point is - I worked for an international company, and at quite a senior level in my field, but even so I had no idea of what was going on in the boardroom. They could've been planning to take over the world for all I knew - and if they had been I'd have kept schtum!! So your summary is hogwash?

 

This is a really stupid topic.

FACT....it would cost more money and be much more difficult to FAKE the Apollo Moon Landings than ACTUALLY LAND ON THE MOON!!!

MAN!!! This is stupid!

AboveAlpha

 

Your statement doesn't make the anomalies go away (see post #1). Space radiation was probably why they had to fake it.
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=26317.0

Before the arrival of the internet when I hadn't seen the anomalies yet, I used to figure that if they could make an atomic sumarine that could go under the arctic ice, they could make a spacecraft that could go to the moon. The anomalies showed me that they didn't go to the moon and the theory that NASA is lying to the world about space radiation explains why they didn't. If there were no significant radiation in space as we've been led to believe, they probably could have gone to the moon for real.

 

Your post is hogwash. You know nothing about any subject related to Apollo, the 911 terrorist attacks, the Holocaust or Titanic! You get your butt kicked in every subject, yet persist for some insane reason with repeat spam and responses by numbers.

If you want to debate space radiation, bring it on. You won't, your spam posts are symptomatic of a truly paranoid and simplistic understanding of practically everything. Debating you is no different to debating a spam bot. As for your latest diversion about Chomsky, we have hundreds of points on the table that you ran away from, so your irrelevant side issue is way down on the list!

 

It's not a diversion. It's part of my rebuttal to what you said in post #57.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=279336&page=6&p=1065394931#post1065394931

You seem to think the media would report it if a whistle-blower went to them and declared he'd helped fake the moon missions. Tell us what you think of Chomsky's analyses of the media.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Chomsky+media

This is relevant to post #57.

All we have about space radiation is second-hand info. We have no way of knowing if NASA is telling us the truth about the nature and levels of space radiation. You probably have an encyclopedic knowledge of the NASA figures but it might all be bogus.

I see no reason to rule out this alternative info on space radiation.
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=26317.0

If you rule it out, tell us why.

 

Which in itself was an irrelevant diversion!

Your ignorance is simply staggering. There are radiation readings and reports from every space agency and these are used to determine how civilian satellites protect their equipment.

You see no reason to rule out anything that supports your spam theory/ If I spent hours detailing why your link is bull(*)(*)(*)(*), you would armwave it away. Start with your first major points and defend them when I show they are nonsense!

 

This response would get you laughed out of the debating hall. You seem to think that the press would report it if a whistle-blower went to a newspaper and said he'd helped fake the moon missions. What the press would do in this situation is an issue we should discuss. Tell us what you think of Chomsky's analyses of the American media.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Chomsky+media

I'm just putting it forward as a possible reason for their having had to fake the missions. I'm not is a position to know the real info as I don't have a high security clearance.

Space agencies in other countries can cooperate with NASA when publishing data on space radiation; we have no idea about what's going on behind the scenes. It's possible that people who design satellites have the real data and other bogus data is made public.

This link is dead but I saved part of the article.
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Almost everything you say assumes that we're told the truth. They might be lying to us.

You try to sway viewers with rhetoric. Anyone who actually reads what you say will see that your posts are very patronizing and authoritative but short on substance.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/362999-air-caused-flag-move-so-obviously-studio.html

When you're checkmated, you try to draw attention away from that part of the debate. Viewers - check out that thread and you'll see what I mean.

 

They'll see the utter lack of substance from YOU,scott/cosmored/fatfreddy8/david c.