It wasn't possible (from a technical perspective) to fake the moonladning in 1969 (1 Viewer)

[ohio3302016]

 

[DJ Mack]

But, if it's really a conspiracy then maybe they used super top secret technology to fake it.

 

[ohio3302016]

But, if it's really a conspiracy then maybe they used super top secret technology to fake it.

Exactly.

Because they didn't have the super top secret technology to actually land on the moon.

 

[mummel]

In todays world, it would be impossible. In the 60s, anything could have happened IMO. I watched that Oliver Stone JFK movie again. Shocking stuff. Makes me wonder what else was going on during those times.

I dont know what to believe, but if those guys really did get in a tin foil box (I mean, have you been to Cape Canaveral, WTF?????, how did they survive), and they landed on the moon, it would be a shame that one of the biggest accomplishments in the history of mankind was thought to be BS.

Didnt they finally find some tapes in Australia a few years back and then they "accidentally" got lost again. WTF????

 

[mummel]

Did you see stars Neil?, hell no!:

But wait, let me sell you my star chart where I claim that "this star chart was the single most critical navigational device we used while on the moon" for $218,000........................

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31952662/...ce/t/apollo-chart-fetches-astronomical-price/

WAIT WHAT?

 

[jbutler]

I watched that Oliver Stone JFK movie again. Shocking stuff. Makes me wonder what else was going on during those times.

Great documentary - one of the best.

 

[slisk250]

Dude, I have moon rocks on my desk at work. Apollo 11 100% real

 

[mummel]

Jump to 43:20. Neil nearly shts his pants at 44:40 when Collins opens his mouth about the stars:

 

[jbutler]

@mummel Just curious have you ever bought prayer cloths blessed by Jimmy Swaggart or paid to attend training sessions by Uri Geller?

 

[mummel]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I do keep an open mind Re: Apollo 11 and dont have a position either way if it was fake or real.

 

[rowlin]

Guys. Everyone knows the moon isn't real. I mean, come on.

 

[Jambine]

I thought this issue was long dead. They left stuff behind on the moon THAT CAN BE SEEN WITH A TELESCOPE !

 

[jbutler]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I do keep an open mind Re: Apollo 11 and dont have a position either way if it was fake or real.

Well who could be expected to take a position on such an unsettled issue? Similarly I have decided to remain agnostic as to magnets.

 

[jbutler]

I thought this issue was long dead. They left stuff behind on the moon THAT CAN BE SEEN WITH A TELESCOPE !

Yeah but that telescope probably had a UPC on it when it was sold. All objects that bear the mark of the beast will do the bidding of the dark one.

 

[Jambine]

Yeah but that telescope probably had a UPC on it when it was sold. All objects that bear the mark of the beast will do the bidding of the dark one.

Damn. I forgot about that.....

 

[DJ Mack]

Yeah but that telescope probably had a UPC on it when it was sold

Nope. RFID tag.

 

[ohio3302016]

Can open. Worms crawling...

 

[mummel]

This photo has always been a mindfck. The thruster looking gizmo on the left clearly shows the direction of light coming from the back. But this photo is taken into the sun. This side of the LM should be heavily shadowed. Sure, the exposure could be tweaked to capture more shadow detail on this side, but then the surface of the moon would be blown out white. Look at the right thruster gizmo. You can clearly see the sun reflecting off it.

Check his boot too. Looks like there is a spotlight behind the cameraman..... Queue up twilight zone music haha!

 

[Quicksilver-75]

There does seem to be a hell of a lot of credible questions and arguments against them actually going to the moon. the biggest being the Van Allen argument. The astronauts suits and the LEM for that matter were basically a thin metal frame covered with tinfoil in most places. The suits worn by the astronauts were also not designed to protect against the amount of radiation received from our sun alone. Not to mention the cosmic and Van Allen radiation that is roughly 1000x's more powerful than a standard xray and received over an eight day period.
the second most compelling evidence is the lack of lunar regolith cast about from the 10,000lbs of thrust from the lunar landing engine. If you study the footage of the landing from the LEM you can see a massive cloud created. Yet afterwards, photos of the craft show pristine landing feet of gold foil with not a speck of dust to be seen.
Couple this with photos that have obviously been edited ie: the large amount of photos with the focal cues imbedded in the lens yet BEHIND both pictures of astronauts and lander
and the fact that Stanley Kubrik is on the record as being hired by NASA during the landings and you have yourselves a good conspiracy.

There is also a great documentary on the Shining detailing Kubrick's confessions hidden in the movie. Pretty sure its loaded on youtube.

 

[Quicksilver-75]

I thought this issue was long dead. They left stuff behind on the moon THAT CAN BE SEEN WITH A TELESCOPE !

100% INCORRECT!
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/

 

[Jambine]

100% INCORRECT!
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/

You are 100% correct. Since the LRO is operated by NASA it's probably part of the coverup...

No problem for NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which can dip as low as 31 miles (50 km) from the lunar surface, close enough to image each landing site in remarkable detail.

 

[jbutler]

There is also a great documentary on the Shining detailing Kubrick's confessions hidden in the movie. Pretty sure its loaded on youtube.

Not quite. The movie you're thinking of is Room 237 and it contains conspiracy theories about the movie which hardly qualify as detailed confessions. More like entertaining blathering.

 

[Quicksilver-75]

You are 100% correct. Since the LRO is operated by NASA it's probably part of the coverup...

No problem for NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which can dip as low as 31 miles (50 km) from the lunar surface, close enough to image each landing site in remarkable detail.

That would seem to be the logic, yes. If the argument is they never went to the moon that is. I thought that was obvious. Your comment that it can be viewed using telescopes is factually inaccurate. I have simply stated some popular arguments against the lunar landings. I haven't stated my own beliefs.

 

[12thMan]

as to magnets.

Been meaning to figure these thing out. How the fuck do they work?

 

[mummel]

 

[jbutler]

I have simply stated some popular arguments against the lunar landings. I haven't stated my own beliefs.

Good man. As I said, we can't be expected to all have an opinion on this kind of a hot button issue. We have to remain objective, post internet rantings we've copied from elsewhere, and refuse to take a position so we can never be told we are wrong.

 

[ohio3302016]

Good man. As I said, we can't be expected to all have an opinion on this kind of a hot button issue. We have to remain objective, post internet rantings we've copied from elsewhere, and refuse to take a position so we can never be told we are wrong.

So were you on the moon, bro! Did you see it! Did you!!!

 

[jbutler]

So were you on the moon, bro! Did you see it! Did you!!!

With all the questions being raised these days I think the only reasonable response is to await more proof before determining that the moon exists at all.

 

[Quicksilver-75]

Good man. As I said, we can't be expected to all have an opinion on this kind of a hot button issue. We have to remain objective, post internet rantings we've copied from elsewhere, and refuse to take a position so we can never be told we are wrong.

...

 

[mummel]

ANOTHER boo boo: http://www.npr.org/2009/07/16/106637066/houston-we-erased-the-apollo-11-tapes