The moon landing is fake.

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Yant0s, Mar 28, 2019.

  1. Yant0s

    Yant0s Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    43
    It's common sense that the world has a glass dome surrounding it, air particles are very small and need to be trapped by glass to keep it in. If the dome did not exist the air we breath would float out into "outer space" . Greenhouse effect describes the glass dome perfectly, if air cannot get through the glass nor can the harmful gasses we spray into the air. They earth is just like a glass greenhouse, nothing can excape it therefore we need to watch what goes into the air!!! But i digress....


    So moon landing is impossible. If scientists fired a rocket at the dome ir would shatter!!! The air is still on earth therefore no rocket has ever been to the moon!!!

    What if they repaired the glass i hear you ask!!!! Impossible anyone working on it would be sucked out and no ladders can reach the attitude of 600 feet.... so impossible!

    The moon landing is a hoax to fool people thinking the dome does not really exist.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2019
    Alan Ford likes this.
  2. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    2,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The moon is fake.
    It is a hologram.
     
    James California likes this.
  3. Chupacabra

    Chupacabra Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Shoot... have you ever been in space?

    Exactly!

    (sorry... just kidding... haha)
     
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,235
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    troll ...
     
  5. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,172
    Likes Received:
    9,221
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great thread.
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    95,466
    Likes Received:
    26,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only between the ears.
     
  7. ralfy

    ralfy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
  8. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    14,609
    Likes Received:
    4,708
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am but an atom in an ionic storm..
     
  9. Chupacabra

    Chupacabra Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Hahah... I love this video. I clicked play thinking it was going to try to debunk the moon landing, and then quickly realized the guy wasn't a total lunatic. I don't even know why people seem to doubt the moon landing, but they should watch this.
     
    Poohbear likes this.
  10. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,172
    Likes Received:
    9,221
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any who doubt the moon landing will have their doubts punctured forever about it being a hoax.

    The hoax is that the moon landing is a hoax.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I watched the video in post #7 a few years ago. If I remember correctly, the clearest hoax proof wasn't even mentioned. He only talked about stuff that was easier to obfuscate.

    The flag anomaly proves the hoax all by itself.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-move-so-it-was-obviously-in-a-studio.362999/

    Here's some stuff that isn't in my other threads because the links went dead, etc.


    Here there are some arguments put forward by pro-Apollo people with rebuttals from hoax-believers.
    http://www.moonfaker.com/documents/Metapedia-Moon-Hoax/

    http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm
    http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html

    Here's some info on how we are lied to.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...germany-in-1933.401955/page-2#post-1066548138

    Medical Doctors Killed Neil Armstrong!


    --------------------------------------------------

    This analyst seems to know what he's doing.

    McCann's Embedded Confessions - PART 1 OF 3



    He does the Apollo astronauts' interviews too.

    Analysing The Astronauts - PART 1 OF 3



    Analysing The Astronauts - PART 2 OF 3


    Analysing The Astronauts - PART 3 OF 3

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=armstrong+guilt
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2019
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You mean stuff that is virtually impossible to seamlessly fake? Gotcha.

    Spammed to death and all answers responded to with hogwash responses.

    The Apollo 15 flag movement

    I have uploaded 7 videos on youtube analysing this subject. There are two main issues to deal with, namely the initial movement, and the subsequent movement after Dave Scott has passed by the flag.

    Video 1

    This video simply highlights the initial movement.

    Video 2

    In this video, I demonstrate that Jarrah White is self debunking his own claims. He runs past his own badly hung flag, yet fails to move it until he is level with it. He is considerably closer than Dave Scott was to the Apollo 15 flag. There is the barest of movements as he draws level.

    Video 3

    In this video I show the original Apollo 15 flag moving for 30 seconds. Using Jarrah's 66% slowed down footage theory, that equates to 20 seconds.
    White then proceeds to run past his own flag several times, yet is only able to move his flag for 4-5 seconds. That equates to 6-7.5 seconds adjusted up 150%.
    With White's flag, there is a totally different billowing movement, a rapid stop, and indeed a much more aggresive motion. No gentle back and forth prolonged swaying as per Apollo 15 flag.


    Video 4

    This video shows a wide book being dropped from 1 metre and failing to move a plastic bag until it is a few inches away from it.


    Video 5

    In this video, I isolate several frames and show the flag with movement and Dave Scott at least four feet away. I show several color filtered shots that highlight the actual flagpole itself moving, that is clearly impossible. This one video debunks the "wall of air" contention completely, since air will only be pushed a few inches in front of a body in motion. The plastic bag demonstrated this.


    Video 6
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ888vXaKNM
    In this video I take it a step further. Using frame grabs, I show Dave Scott about 6 feet away from the flag, with clear movement.


    Video 7
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JixGapxKURc
    This final video is my personal favorite. If you watch no other video, watch this one.
    I show White debunking himself in the most totally conclusive way. Simpler if you just watch it.

    Update
    From apollohoax.net, user Headlikearock has made a very significant observation concerning the lens flares on the flag. They actually move alongside the flag itself, the flagpole and parts of the ground. Here is the direct link, and the picture below:-
    http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/Apollo 15/flag-wave-new-gif_zps435e5ced.gif

    [​IMG]

    Summary:
    There are two possible explanations for the initial movement.
    The movement is a camera blooming effect, caused by Dave Scott entering the frame and the camera blooming with CRT effect to compensate.
    It is consistent with the whole flag shifting right, including the flagpole itself, and also consistent with slightly more movement to the edge caused by the wide angle lens' natural distortion to objects at its edge.
    The movement could also be caused by ground vibration, since the flagpole is seated into the regolith, which has a consistency similar to sandstone just below it's surface.
    I tend to favor the former of these two, but I am open to the other.
    What I am not open to, is a mystery wall of air pushing against a nylon flag from 6 feet away, 4 feet away, or even 2 feet away.


    Finally, the main movement:
    The movement of the flag as the astronaut passes, is simply caused by his arm brushing it. There are two debunking videos explaining it perfectly.......
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbJvgqoeFSU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx5H7Rwfkjo

    Repackaged spam.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/apollo-moon-hoax-film-makers-are-corrupt.441261/

    Irrelevant hogwash.

    Why because you agree with his bullshit?

    No, he is part of a team of people making money from the sad gullible community you belong to. The "RichPlanet" transmissions are some of the most ignorant claims imaginable. I am not in the least surprised that you automatically believe this horseshit.
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hey Betamax...

    You showed that you're not to be taken seriously a long time ago.

    (post #5)
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nd-the-apollo-15-flag.438617/#post-1065699409

    (post #36)
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-2#post-1065710796
    Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.

    (2:35 time mark)

    I said it was easy to duplicate the movement of the Apollo flag by trotting by a cloth hanging from a ceiling light at about a forty five degree angle; anybody can verify this. Then you said it was impossible. Anyone who actually tries this will see that you are simply wrong. It can be done with a doll and a hankerchief on a smaller scale too.
     
  14. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,172
    Likes Received:
    9,221
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The video tech of the day could not replicate what you want.
     
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nothing is taken seriously by you. Your posts show that you are stuck in the world of batshit.

    I verified you are full of crap and you verified that you are dishonest with your reply to this:-



    Quite amazingly, in 10 years you have failed to do this yourself and show it. Small children know how to upload videos to YouTube, yet you have trouble with everything.

    Scale makes this a duff comparison and a ridiculous one too. I can just imagine you being clueless enough to do this.
     
  16. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,172
    Likes Received:
    9,221
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scott, the vid tech available at that time could not do what you want it do in what vid tech could in time and speed.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I can't find a hot link to a very good article by Julian Penrod. To find the article you can do a Google search on this sentence from it.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Because it is a truism that, if you can control the essence of an argument, the meaning of terms, the items to be mentioned, the way things are to be approached, you can make anything say anything."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------


    Enter it in Google with the quotation marks.
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    More off topic shenanigans. The only hotlinks I can find are on forums where you have spammed your crap already! This cretin suggests that LROC uses faked lunar surfaces for the pictures - probably unaware that they are the size of about 50 HD monitors each in size and contiguous in transmission. The model would have to be the size of the Moon and be in perfect unison with solar incidence in every case.

    He says there is no evidence for the landings - the rocks prove the missions all on their own. The lasers, LROC and ALSEP data augment this. Third party corroboration also exists. The sheer number involved in this absurd claim would fill a soccer stadium.
     
    JakeStarkey likes this.
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This statement doesn't make the crushing proof of fakery* go away. I don't have any background in photo analysis but the hoax proof is there so there must be an explanation. Here's some stuff on that.

    The proof that the LRO photos are photoshopped


    MoonFaker: LRO at 50km. PART 1


    MoonFaker: LRO at 25km, Dead Ends & No Fly Zones. PART 1



    This field is very vague to most people so it's not easy for us to verify but, as I pointed out in post #13, you destroyed your credibility by saying that the flag movement in that video couldn't be reproduced here on earth by trotting by a flag that's at about a forty five degree angle so I doubt many viewers are taking you seriously now.


    There are plausible scenarios that would explain the rocks.

    http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Generally: "Moonstones" cannot be proved

    "Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).
    ---------------------------------------------------

    What Happened On the Moon? Part 2 - Environmental Dangers & The Trouble with Rockets

    (1:05:55 time mark)


    If the Surveyor program** was real, they had the technology to soft-land unmanned robotic craft with adjustable reflectors attached to their sides on the moon back then. Start watching this at the 23:30 time mark.

    MoonFaker: Adam Ruins His Credibility



    Start watching the above video at the 15:58 time mark.


    Start watching the above video at the 13:22 time mark.

    http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/27709
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------
    Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

    A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to theUSA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASAjust to “keep mum”.
    -----------------------------------------------
    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 relay 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.
    -----------------------------------------------



    *
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-moon-missions-were-faked-in-a-studio.347662/

    **
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
  20. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I just noticed this comment in the comment section of the last video in the last post.

    ---------------------------------------------------
    On the issue of secrecy; you are of course correct. I would just like to add that few people understand how state secrets are kept. There are several million Americans who hold secret and top secret clearance and I can assure you that each and every one of them understand what that means. But even more important is the signed confidentiality agreements which many tens thousands of Americans sign with the CIA. These people are both monitored and subjected to frequent lie detector tests and interrogation. The men and women faking the moon landings would have numbered no more than a few dozen. There is zero chance that these people would ever spill the truth as they would know that it would lead to immediate suicide. Not only that, but spilling a big secret would require lots of private discussion with those having access to media. Anyone read into the Apollo hoax would know that any such communications would lead to being quickly discovered and stopped.
    ---------------------------------------------------


    Click on the link in post #11 that leads to the info about how the news media are controlled.
     
  21. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    40,373
    Likes Received:
    31,032
    Trophy Points:
    113
    600 feet?

    WTF?

    I have been in buildings taller than 600'! The top of the WTC viewing platform was more than TWICE that height.

    I have climbed mountains taller than 600'!

    I have flown in planes higher than 600'!

    Great way for the OP to destroy his own credibility right out of the gate.

    :roflol:
     
  22. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    2,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The moon is a hologram.
     
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Here's a link to an important article on space radiation.
    https://alixus.wordpress.com/the-van-allen-enigma/

    If the link goes dead, do a Google search on this sentence from the article. Just copy and paste it with the quotation marks.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Van Allen and his students weren't sure of the size, shape and texture of the monster, they just knew they had encountered an incredible phenomenon."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  24. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    40,373
    Likes Received:
    31,032
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The asinine Conspiracy in that link;

    The actual science that debunks that asinine Conspiracy.

    https://www.space.com/33948-van-allen-radiation-belts.html

     
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're accepting what the article says on faith. How do you know it isn't bogus info?

    I should have made my position clearer. I think the moon missions were faked because of the anomalies in the photos and pictures. I think space radiation might have been the reason they had to fake them. I'm not putting forward the alternative info on space radiation as proof of fakery. We only have second-hand info on space radiation so we can't be one hundred percent sure of what the truth is.

    Here's some more alternative info on space radiation.

    http://apollotruth.atspace.co.uk/
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
    Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 1.

    (23 parts)
     

Share This Page