Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


U.S. never landed on the moon - Apollo Moon Hoax

Discuss conspiracies, mysteries and paranormal phenomena.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

U.S. never landed on the moon - Apollo Moon Hoax

Postby ALIBABA » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:13 pm

the photos were faked. and theyve not been back there since they claimed to have gone there
ALIBABA
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:37 pm







Postby zboy1 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:49 pm

I also believe the moon landing was a hoax. There's a ton of material on the Internet that proves it--for those interested in the subject.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5MVVtFYTSo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJu0OjDTE_U[/youtube]
zboy1
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4441
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:33 am

Postby ph_visitor » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:23 pm

LRO has taken photos of all the landings sites and you can see the footpaths.

Non-issue.

The Chinese and Russians both have sent orbiting mapping satellites.
ph_visitor
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:13 am

Postby onezero4u » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:31 pm

if they made it there in 1960s with barbaric analog technology, how come they cant make it back 40+ years laters with drastically improved technology?

likely a hoax or we made it there and it was inhabitated and we were told to get the f**k off their planet!
marriage is a 3 ring circus: engagement ring, wedding ring and then suffering.
onezero4u
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:27 pm

Postby FreeYourMind » Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:45 am

onezero4u wrote:if they made it there in 1960s with barbaric analog technology, how come they cant make it back 40+ years laters with drastically improved technology?

likely a hoax or we made it there and it was inhabitated and we were told to get the f**k off their planet!


yeh, that technology was so primitive compared to today, yet there is no plan to go back, ever. Even private corporations have the technology now to make it happen, something's not right with this picture.
FreeYourMind
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:15 am

Postby ALIBABA » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:22 am

the reaction of the moon landing hoax is similar to the reaction of the 9/11 false flag attack. they hire loads of experts, and try to argue all the inconsistencies. they use similar reasoning like "too many people need to be involved to cover it up". if nasa actually sent a man to the moon, then why do they need to hire all these experts, and make tons of websites trying to refute the truth? they act like guilty liars. if the u.s govt wasnt caught lying so many times, i might give this moon landing the benefit of the doubt. LRO has taken photos of all the landings sites and you can see the footpaths. too bad the landing sites in the photos look like they are all on earth, and in the desert. there is no one to verify the validity of these photos. all the credible analysis say that these photos were faked.
ALIBABA
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:37 pm

Postby Winston » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:18 am

ph_visitor wrote:LRO has taken photos of all the landings sites and you can see the footpaths.

Non-issue.

The Chinese and Russians both have sent orbiting mapping satellites.


You are so gullible and narrow. You believe everything you told and hear, like a programmed bot.

Anyone could fake such photos. Even an amateur could. You take on faith everything you hear, like a programmed bot. I don't think you are smart enough to be on this forum. :P

There are way too many suspicious things about the Moon landings.

Here is a list of them:

1. The moon has about 1/6 the Earth's gravity. So how come the astronauts in the Apollo footage were moving so slowly and couldn't jump very high? Shouldn't they be moving faster than if they were on Earth and be able to jump much higher as well?

2. NASA today cannot put a man safely in space above 1000 miles from the Earth's surface. So how could it have sent men 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times with no casualties? It doesn't make sense.

3. How could that little LEM possibly have enough fuel to go 240,000 miles to the moon and all the way back? A 747 airliner doesn't even have a fraction of the fuel that would be required, and the LEM is barely the size of two standard cars! WTF? NASA has never explained that. All it said was "The LEM had enough fuel" and the sheep take it as gospel truth and fact. So dumb. It's like NASA's words create fact and reality and authority=truth. Big major fallacy. Even if it could get to the moon by a miracle, there is no way it could ever go all the way back to Earth. Werner von Braun, former Nazi and NASA's chief rocket scientist, said in his book "Conquest of the Moon" (1953) that the rocket to the moon would have to be taller than the Empire State Building! Yet the LEM is about the size of two cars?! WTF?

4. When the top half of the lunar module blasted off from the moon's surface (with no exhaust), how did it re-dock with the command module orbiting the moon, which was moving at about 4,000 mph? NASA has never really explained that. The chances of docking with it were astronomical. And if they missed the dock, they were dead meat. Plus, in the footage of the lunar module's ascent from the moon, the camera pans up as it ascends. Who was panning the camera on the surface? Or was it remote controlled? Very odd and conspicuous.

5. If we had gone to the moon, there would be flights there everyday now, and moon bases as well. That's how history goes. It's simple logic. So the fact that we haven't gone in 40 years is very suspicious indeed, to any rational thinker with common sense, not the sheep who consider themselves rational but take on faith anything they are told by official sources.

Of course NASA has its convenient copout explanations for not returning to the moon - too expensive, not necessary, no motivation, etc. But the problem is that the pro-Apollo believers harbor the logical fallacy that whatever NASA says MUST be the truth. This is the "authority = truth fallacy". The problem with this is that words are easy and cheap. Anyone can give any convenient excuse for anything. For example, a woman can refuse sex with her husband with the excuse that she has a headache, but that doesn't mean that it's the real reason. Likewise, a woman can turn down a date by saying that she is "busy" or "needs time to herself" as a polite excuse to mask the real reason - that she is not attracted to him. Anyone can make excuses, but that doesn't mean that the excuse is the full truth and that nothing is hidden. Those who commit this fallacy are biased. They badly WANT the moon landing to be real, so they will only see what they want to see, and be unable to examine the evidence objectively without bias.

Check out this guy. He is the ultimate debunker of the moon landings and the leading authority on it.

http://www.youtube.com/whitejarrah
http://www.moonfaker.com
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby Winston » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:02 pm

ph_visitor wrote:LRO has taken photos of all the landings sites and you can see the footpaths.

Non-issue.

The Chinese and Russians both have sent orbiting mapping satellites.


As usual, you are dumb, narrow and misinformed.

Let me copy and paste from the FAQ page of Jarrah White, the leading expert on the Moon Hoax Theory:

http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html

Q: What about the Lunar Reconassiance Orbiter photographs which show the lander, rover and tracks?

A: The important point to consider is that LRO is a 100% NASA-run project and hence NASA could have altered the images prior to releasing them. In fact a close examination indicates this to be the case. For example, in some cases the Lunar Rover and Surveyor 3 probe shows as being black [Fig-22, 23, 24], despite their many bright and reflective surfaces [Fig-25, 26, 27] and with the sun overhead. In the one case when Surveyor 3 did appear, its white boxes appeared to be aligned east and west, not north and south as seen in the Hasselblad still-pictures [Fig-28].

There are even anomalies that contradict previous landing site photos. Prior to LRO, the most commonly cited images were pictures of the Apollo 15 landing site taken by NASA’s Clementine spacecraft and JAXA’s SELENE spacecraft [Fig-29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]. These images showed what they described as a bright “haloâ€￾ within a 150metre radius around the landing site. This “haloâ€￾ was attributed to dust that was disturbed by the engine exhaust during touchdown. NASA, propagandists and scientists at large have insisted that the disturbance caused by the engine should be easily seen from orbit. David Scott & Jim Irwin even claimed to have seen it themselves after their alleged departure from the lunar surface. But by comparing these Clementine & SELENE images with the newer LRO imagery, Jarrah discovered that the “haloâ€￾ was nothing more than the sunlight sides of some giant impact craters [Fig-37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. The alleged lunar module is not even within this halo, but on the outermost edge of it. In fact the halo exists in the pre-Apollo photos taken by Lunar Orbiter [Fig-43, 44, 45]. The total lack of a visible soil disturbance is one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence that the ‘artefacts’ were added into the LRO image.

Further, the way the LRO operates is suspicious. The images are transmitted in an encrypted format which means nobody that eavesdrops on the signal can decode it. Why encrypt a picture of something that isn’t secret? NASA then holds on to the images for a few days before releasing them to Arizona State University, who then reframes and annotates the images before making them public. Why the delay? For some reason NASA doesn’t want any 3rd party to view a live transmission.

Finally, the LRO images are of very poor quality. The LRO operates at an altitude of 50km and returns images of resolution 0.5 metres/pixel. And the images have an odd striped pattern that reduces the quality further. Equivalent earth-imaging satellites return better resolution from much higher up. The privately owned GeoEye-1 satellite for example has perfectly resolved cars and even individual people at 0.5 m/pixel, in colour, through an atmosphere, and from an altitude 14 times higher up than the LRO [Fig-46, 47]. If NASA had installed a similar camera (which they can afford!) we would be seeing a resolution of 3 cm/pixel and this would allow us to see the hardware in great detail – assuming that it’s there. We would also be able to see the landscape in great detail and compare it to the Hasselblad images. Since the landscape had never been photographed at that resolution prior to the Apollo missions, a match between the two sets of images would provide a good test of Apollo’s authenticity.

(Regarding the alleged moon rocks)

http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html

Q: How were the moon rocks faked?

A: Apollo samples have a chemistry that can be matched fairly closely with terrestrial basalts and eucrites, a basaltic meteorite [Fig-4]. The same is true for the mineralogy: “The minerals found in JSC-1 (lunar regolith simulant), plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, ilmenite, and chromite, are also characteristic of many lunar basalts and mare soils (Figure 5). The compositional ranges of these lunar minerals generally overlap the ranges of their terrestrial counterparts.â€￾ Apollo samples and earth rocks have oxygen18 to oxygen17 ratios of around 5:3 per mil. Although Eucrites are generally slightly less than this, there have been exceptions in which their oxygen isotope ratios are the same as earth (DaG 872 being a good example [Fig-5, 6]).
The three groups of rock are as identical as three of a kind.

Additionally, some scientists such as John O’Keefe have also noticed similarities between lunar glasses and tektites, leading to theories that tektites are lunar in origin, not terrestrial13 (Table 3 & 4).

Because of the similarities in age, chemistry, mineralogy and oxygen isotope ratios, as well as the alleged lack of water in Apollo samples, this has led William Hartman to believe that the moon was formed when a mars-sized planet collided with the earth. All water was vaporized in the impact and the moon formed out of the terrestrial debris knocked off into space. To account for the similarities between Apollo samples and eucrites, some such as Ruzicka et al have proposed that the mars-sized planet had a eucritic composition14.

Clearly, NASA’s Apollo samples are a combination of terrestrial basalts, eucrites and tektites. Terrestrial basalts are plentiful, but the advantage of Eucrites is that they show signs of solar and cosmic radiation, which is absent in earth rocks. Things like ‘zap pits’ (micrometeoroid impacts) can be added by firing projectiles from high-speed multi-stage gas guns which existed at the time. To hide the fact that these Eucrites fell through the atmosphere, the first millimetre was chipped away to remove the fusion crust (the outer burned layer due to atmospheric entry). Contrary to what propagandists claim, removing of this layer will not subsequently remove a large portion of helium3 or other solar wind induced isotopes, because solar wind penetrates a few millimetres into the rock– not 1 micrometre as the propagandists claim. And while chipping away the fusion crust may leave traces of themselves in the rock, these tools are little different to the tools used by NASA to chip the samples into the tiny sugar-cubed pieces that they send to geologists. In short, if a geologist found traces of these tools, he/she would be unable to tell whether they got there through chipping off fusion crust or by chipping free the sub-sample from its parent body.

Q: How do you know the moon rocks are fake?

A: If Jarrah picks up a rock from the moon to analyse in a lab and then send up a probe to the moon to kick up plumes of dust for analysis via radio telescope, he expects to find the same chemical signatures and mineralogy. This assertion is supported by the lunar maria samples from Apollos 11, 12 and 17 being virtually the same above and below ground, the fact that NASA claims their Lunar Prospectors and Clementine spacecrafts indicated that the lunar geology is the same as Apollo throughout, and the fact that the vast majority of official lunar meteorites are the same as NASA’s samples. Yet when the European Space Agency’s SMART-1 probe crashed into the Lake Of Excellence, a lunar maria region, it was reported that the minerals kicked up were different to the Apollo rocks.

Likewise, although most “lunar meteoritesâ€￾ can be closely matched with Eucrites, there are known exceptions in which the meteorites have gone on the record as being “distinct fromâ€￾ or “unlike any basalt from Apollo or Lunaâ€￾ ( Yamato 793169, Asuka 881757, Miller Range 05035, Dhofar 287, NWA 773). These include differences in chemistry and even oxygen isotope ratios. One such meteorite, Dhofar 280 [Fig-7], contains an iron silicide mineral Hapkeite [Fig-8, 9]. Which is believed to be formed through micrometeorite impacts with the moon [Fig-10], and due to billions of years of such bombardment, the mineral is believed to be common on the lunar surface. Yet Hapkeite has never been found in any of the Apollo samples.

Further evidence that the samples are faked can be found even without comparing them to the real stuff. Contrary to what NASA and propagandists claim, the rocks contain water within the same ranges as their terrestrial cousins [Fig-11, 12]. * Any water deposited in the equatorial region of moon by comets or solar wind, or any water not vaporised by the alleged giant impact, should have been vaporised in the vacuum of space and >100C daylight temperatures. They also contain water or air induced minerals and secondary oxides that would only have been present if the samples were exposed to an atmosphere [Fig-13]. These include ferric iron oxides [Fig-14]. Sample 66095 is only one notorious example of such oxidation. The majority of Apollo 16 rocks also contain abundant rust. Other samples show ferric iron to total iron ratios that are comparable to terrestrial rocks that underwent two days of heat treatment in evacuated quartz tubes [Fig-15]. Some geologists acknowledge this ferric iron, yet others dismiss it – attributing it and the water to terrestrial contamination!

* The range for water in terrestrial basalts is between 150-10,000ppm (see 13 & 15), Fig-11 & Fig-12 together clearly illustrate water contents for lunar rocks within those ranges. Alberto Saal recently confirmed the presence of around 46ppm of water in lunar glass spherules, and estimated that they contain contents within the terrestrial rane of 240-750ppm.
Last edited by Winston on Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby Winston » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:06 pm

ph visitor,
Are these what you consider hard conclusive proof that makes it a non-issue? LOL See below:

Image

Image

Image
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby ALIBABA » Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:35 am

Winston makes an excellent point.
ALIBABA
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:37 pm

Postby ph_visitor » Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:04 am

Until Winston can cite basic Physics, I don't take anything he posts in the realm of science as proof of anything.

There are many single traits that CT guys share.

One of them is a near total lack of any STEM education at all. I mean, near total ignorance. I don't think they can add without a calculator, or have any idea of what the amount of energy, in joules, it takes to take a kg of anything from the surface to low earth orbit, and then on to the moon. They cannot do the maths to figure out how much energy would be required, how much LOX that would require, and how much in kg you could put on the tip and send XXX,XXX kms.

Definitely they are ignorant of the basic kinetic and potential energy formulae, which was taught in 8th grade before the school system began to crank out the illiterate and ignorant such as CT fans.

Then, in order to 'prove' something, they 100% of the time need to rely on the work of someone else because they lack the education and logic to argue it by themselves.

QED Winston copied his 'proof' from someone else, but he lacks the intelligence and education to prove it himself.

If I waste my time breaking down the mistakes and fallacies, even if he can grasp that he is wrong, what will happen is this:

Winston: Ok, then what about THIS?

It's a logical fallacy, their entire mind is a pre-scientific bowl of mush courtesy of the post 1985-PC bullshit that you guys think was an 'education'.
ph_visitor
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:13 am

Postby Winston » Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:36 am

ph_visitor wrote:Until Winston can cite basic Physics, I don't take anything he posts in the realm of science as proof of anything.

There are many single traits that CT guys share.

One of them is a near total lack of any STEM education at all. I mean, near total ignorance. I don't think they can add without a calculator, or have any idea of what the amount of energy, in joules, it takes to take a kg of anything from the surface to low earth orbit, and then on to the moon. They cannot do the maths to figure out how much energy would be required, how much LOX that would require, and how much in kg you could put on the tip and send XXX,XXX kms.

Definitely they are ignorant of the basic kinetic and potential energy formulae, which was taught in 8th grade before the school system began to crank out the illiterate and ignorant such as CT fans.

Then, in order to 'prove' something, they 100% of the time need to rely on the work of someone else because they lack the education and logic to argue it by themselves.

QED Winston copied his 'proof' from someone else, but he lacks the intelligence and education to prove it himself.

If I waste my time breaking down the mistakes and fallacies, even if he can grasp that he is wrong, what will happen is this:

Winston: Ok, then what about THIS?

It's a logical fallacy, their entire mind is a pre-scientific bowl of mush courtesy of the post 1985-PC bullshit that you guys think was an 'education'.


You are an idiot. You can't argue the evidence. Instead, you try to discredit my knowledge of science. What a stupid distraction. Even if I'm ignorant of something, that still does not explain the shitload of evidence against the moon landings and suspicious circumstances surrounding the moon landing. The burden of proof is on YOU and NASA to prove that the moon landings were real. So far, you've come up short. All you do is spew propagandist garbage, not logic or facts or even common sense.

Look at this stupid LRO photo. Any fool can use PhotoShop to scribble grey lines like this. It takes less than a minute to do so. Plus, if you can't see the Great Wall of China from space, how can you see tire tracks that were made in 1969? God you are so f***ing damn stupid!

Image
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby Winston » Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:49 am

Furthermore, why did NASA pretty much give up on the moon missions before 1969, saying that it was not possible, and then the following year, they suddenly pull it off? Yeah right. And why did NASA's director suddenly resign just before the first alleged moon landing? Who would resign just before their greatest achievement takes place, unless something nasty and ugly was going on on the inside? But of course, there are no secrets right? That's what fools like ph_visitor would have you believe. Such people have no critical thinking skills and believe that authority/orthodoxy = truth, which is a major logic fallacy.

Look at this Apollo 11 Press Conference. Anyone who is not in denial can see the looks of discomfort and lies on their faces.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI[/youtube]

Also, why did Neil Armstrong say that he could not see any stars from the moon's surface, when every astronomer says that you can? That's NEVER been explained. Investigators who ask NASA and their defenders this question are ALWAYS met with silence. Jarrah White has been asking this of Phil Plait for years, but all he does is run away in fear! If truth is on your side, why do you need to dodge such simple questions and run away in fear?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXgx70RHyC0[/youtube]

Image
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby gsjackson » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:58 pm

Oh, Ph_Visitor is globetrotter. Welcome back. You've been missed.
gsjackson
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA

Postby Winston » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:02 pm

gsjackson wrote:Oh, Ph_Visitor is globetrotter. Welcome back. You've been missed.


Are you sure? He says he's Asian. Why wouldn't Globetrotter just identify himself? Momopi thinks he's DiscoProJoe, but I doubt it because DiscoProJoe isn't that negative, rude and crass. He was much more civil.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23596
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Next

Return to Conspiracies, Mysteries, Paranormal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest