Happier Abroad Forum Community

Okay, all I do is ask them why we haven't been to the moon in 40 years and the standard reply is pretty much been there done that. This just baffles me that a lot of people think like this. Do yall share the same opinion?

You have grown tiresome.

Mr.Darcy wrote:Okay, all I do is ask them why we haven't been to the moon in 40 years and the standard reply is pretty much been there done that. This just baffles me that a lot of people think like this. Do yall share the same opinion?

I think quite a few people here know that moon landings were faked. Already a thread on this:

viewtopic.php?t=13262

Really hard to convince people though. People just keep coming up with one excuse after another. They are frantic to preserve their cherished illusions.

Mr.Darcy wrote:Okay, all I do is ask them why we haven't been to the moon in 40 years and the standard reply is pretty much been there done that. This just baffles me that a lot of people think like this. Do yall share the same opinion?

The answer is pretty obvious, we haven't been back because our culture is in decline. I think the moon landings will be remembered as the high point of our culture, after which we went into rapid decline.

fschmidt wrote:

Mr.Darcy wrote:Okay, all I do is ask them why we haven't been to the moon in 40 years and the standard reply is pretty much been there done that. This just baffles me that a lot of people think like this. Do yall share the same opinion?

The answer is pretty obvious, we haven't been back because our culture is in decline. I think the moon landings will be remembered as the high point of our culture, after which we went into rapid decline.

Man you are a lot dumber than I thought.

Even if the moon landings were real, our culture being in decline has nothing to do with what NASA does. Man you know nothing about the real world and what runs things. I don't think there's any point in trying to educate you on the facts and evidence.

You probably believe in the official stories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 as well.

Winston wrote:

fschmidt wrote:

Mr.Darcy wrote:Okay, all I do is ask them why we haven't been to the moon in 40 years and the standard reply is pretty much been there done that. This just baffles me that a lot of people think like this. Do yall share the same opinion?

The answer is pretty obvious, we haven't been back because our culture is in decline. I think the moon landings will be remembered as the high point of our culture, after which we went into rapid decline.

Man you are a lot dumber than I thought.

Even if the moon landings were real, our culture being in decline has nothing to do with what NASA does. Man you know nothing about the real world and what runs things. I don't think there's any point in trying to educate you on the facts and evidence.

You probably believe in the official stories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 as well.

Why are you so rude? He didn´t say anything stupid at all...If the US are in decline they don´t have money to spend on projects like a moon landing. Thats simple logic really...

And to call somebody stupid because he doesn´t believe in conspiracy theories is a bit weird too...

It's worth seeing the Mythbusters episode about the faked moon landings. They disprove most of the supposed evidence, like the shadows and the flag waving in a vacuum.

xiongmao wrote:It's worth seeing the Mythbusters episode about the faked moon landings. They disprove most of the supposed evidence, like the shadows and the flag waving in a vacuum.

The shadows and the flag are not the most convincing evidence. Lots of other evidence.

Instead of trusting government-licensed, Jew-owned, Pentagon-censored corporate media, try reading this:

viewtopic.php?t=13262

germanguy wrote:

Winston wrote:

fschmidt wrote:

Mr.Darcy wrote:Okay, all I do is ask them why we haven't been to the moon in 40 years and the standard reply is pretty much been there done that. This just baffles me that a lot of people think like this. Do yall share the same opinion?

The answer is pretty obvious, we haven't been back because our culture is in decline. I think the moon landings will be remembered as the high point of our culture, after which we went into rapid decline.

Man you are a lot dumber than I thought.

Even if the moon landings were real, our culture being in decline has nothing to do with what NASA does. Man you know nothing about the real world and what runs things. I don't think there's any point in trying to educate you on the facts and evidence.

You probably believe in the official stories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 as well.

Why are you so rude? He didn´t say anything stupid at all...If the US are in decline they don´t have money to spend on projects like a moon landing. Thats simple logic really...

And to call somebody stupid because he doesn´t believe in conspiracy theories is a bit weird too...

But we have plenty of money to spend on useless wars and bailing out bankers. I think the whole flag waving evidence is dumb. I think the lack of 40 years of a man on the moon is more compelling.

Winston wrote:

fschmidt wrote:

Mr.Darcy wrote:Okay, all I do is ask them why we haven't been to the moon in 40 years and the standard reply is pretty much been there done that. This just baffles me that a lot of people think like this. Do yall share the same opinion?

The answer is pretty obvious, we haven't been back because our culture is in decline. I think the moon landings will be remembered as the high point of our culture, after which we went into rapid decline.

Man you are a lot dumber than I thought.

Even if the moon landings were real, our culture being in decline has nothing to do with what NASA does. Man you know nothing about the real world and what runs things. I don't think there's any point in trying to educate you on the facts and evidence.

You probably believe in the official stories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 as well.

Mr. Wu, that was a unnecessary and unprovoked attack on a member guest of your own forum, GOOD JOB

I have not bothered to study the moon landings in depth because of 2 factors, 1 if they were there the evidence is on the moon still so we should be able to see the equipment there and 2 as someone else put it the Russians would have loved to disprove the moon landings if they were faked because of the moon race we were engaged with them in.

If the left behind equipment is on the moon from the Apollo missions it should be easy enough to get like Hubble to zoom in on it or even the more powerful land based telescopes they are building today to take a look or some other country to do a fly by and verify, have the Russians disproved it?

The movie " The Right Stuff " had a one liner in it that pretty well sums up the condition of this world and about NASA, the actor said if you want to be Buck Rodgers you need funding, no funding no Buck Rodgers.

People do not realize we do as we are told for the most part by the funding and who funds us? the credit monopoly!

Sorry Mr. Wu, NASA does not do what it wants.

We all know God did 9/11 and JFK, he gave the orders to pull it off to his chosen ones.

germanguy wrote: Why are you so rude? He didn´t say anything stupid at all...If the US are in decline they don´t have money to spend on projects like a moon landing. Thats simple logic really...

And to call somebody stupid because he doesn´t believe in conspiracy theories is a bit weird too...

Because he said a really dumb statement. Why doesn't the US have no money to spend on wars like Iraq? Or for all the many US military bases abroad? Your logic and his totally sucks. It makes no sense.

It's not about the money. They just don't want to try the same hoax again because it would be too easy to catch this time. They could not use the same grainy footage as the first time.

Do you have any common sense? Are you a gatekeeper?

I told you before, before you make up your mind about the moon hoax, read my 35 arguments in my conspiracy report about it. It shows you clearly that the weight of evidence is clearly on the side of the moon hoax. In other words, there is a LOT MORE evidence that the moon was a hoax than that it wasn't.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm

Please don't discuss this topic until you've read through the 35 arguments in the report above. Otherwise you are just talking out of your dumb ass, or you are a gatekeeper, or brainwashed person who believes that authority=truth.

Here's a hint: The more an objective person digs for the truth and looks at the evidence, the more one believes that the moon landing was a hoax. That's the tendency.

Please try to learn something. I've studied this topic for years. You haven't.

xiongmao wrote:It's worth seeing the Mythbusters episode about the faked moon landings. They disprove most of the supposed evidence, like the shadows and the flag waving in a vacuum.

Dude, that's already been addressed and debunked in other threads. Why should I rehash it again?

Since you don't even have the logic skills and common sense skills to know that your ad size, ad position and profile photo sizes on your dating site are all off and disproportionate, how can you have the logic skills to evaluate this subject?

The Mythbusters lied and were caught in it. They lied about the albedo of the moon's surface. And they did a botched experiment too.

In fact, the Mythbuster's Adam Savage was confronted by moon hoax expert Jarrah White about his botched experiment during a public event. Adam Savage had no defense. All he could say was that he was an entertainer and that his show was entertainment, not science. So he effectively admitted that the Mythbusters show is not a serious search for truth.

Here you can see the confrontation between Adam Savage and Jarrah White at the Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas:



Please watch and learn. Spend some time on this issue, rather than being ignorant. Look at both sides. You clearly haven't done that.

Also, the flag waving thing was never debunked. Mythbusters claimed that the flag waved because the astronauts were rotating the pole. But that's not true. There are clips of the flag moving when the astronauts are NOT touching the pole or rotating it. One of the clips is in the video above.

So it's a FALSE explanation.

Can you stop taking false explanations and peddling them as truth?

Questions for you:

1. If the moon landing was real, then how come the photos were faked? Why did they have to fake the photos?

2. Why did they use fake backdrops in many photos?

3. Why do astronauts light up while standing in the shadows, when the surface of the moon is comparable to that of cement pavement, and not bright like a light bulb, like Mythbusters LIED about?

Mythbusters have lied on their show multiple times. If you do the research, you will learn that.

Can you spend some time researching this, rather than continuing to feign ignorance? Otherwise, you are NOT QUALIFIED to discuss this.

I'm tired of repeating the same things over and over again.

For those of you who are able to see the big picture and able to connect the dots, and willing to consider that they may be wrong, here are three facts for you to contemplate. Look over them and tell me if you don't think there's anything fishy about it. Think about them and see if you aren't scratching your head.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm

– FACT: Every major technological accomplishment in history has been repeated well under forty years, all except one. Within forty years of Christopher Columbus setting foot in America in 1492, thousands of other Europeans had done the same. Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903, thousands of other people had done the same. Within forty years of Sir Edmond Hillary reaching the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, thousands of other explorers had done the same. And within forty years of Yuri Gagarin’s orbit of the earth in 1961, many others had done the same. Yet forty years after 12 men allegedly set foot on the moon in 1969-72, not a single person or country has done it, nor attempted to do so (including the Russians who were ahead of us in the space race). Does this not seem highly strange and illogical?

– FACT: Since the Apollo Moon Missions in 1969-72, which sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, no one has ever gone higher than 400 miles above the Earth. Even the Space Shuttle missions have gone below that, remaining well under 400 miles.

– FACT: So far, 14 astronauts have died in Space Shuttle missions that went 200 miles above the Earth, yet during the Apollo program NASA allegedly sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, with no loss of life at all? In other words: 200 miles = 14 casualties, 240,000 miles = 0 casualties. Does that seem odd? Would you buy that? Can you fathom the enormous difference between 200 and 240,000 and how big of a stretch that is?

If these don’t leave you scratching your head, then nothing will. What all this means is that inexplicably, NASA was able to send men 600 times farther in 1969 than it can today! How believable is that? Have you ever heard of technology going backward by such an extreme magnitude?! It’s totally illogical and nonsensical.

To give you an idea of the proportions we are talking about, picture this: The Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter and the moon is 240,000 miles away. That means that you’d have to line up 30 Earth globes to equal the distance to the moon (since 8,000 x 30 = 240,000). What this means is that in 1969, NASA could send men the distance of 30 Earth globes, but today, it can only send humans barely above the Earth under 400 miles! (If you have a model globe in your home, 400 miles would be about an inch above it.)

Look at the implications here: Today, NASA does not have the technology to go higher than 400 miles above Earth, and has indirectly admitted it by their actions (in not doing so) and words. In a press release, NASA stated that the Van Allen Radiation Belts that surround the Earth are too dangerous to send humans through and is trying to figure out how to solve this problem. See here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/ ... 7820080331

Winston wrote:To give you an idea of the proportions we are talking about, picture this: The Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter and the moon is 240,000 miles away. That means that you’d have to line up 30 Earth globes to equal the distance to the moon (since 8,000 x 30 = 240,000). What this means is that in 1969, NASA could send men the distance of 30 Earth globes, but today, it can only send humans barely above the Earth under 400 miles! (If you have a model globe in your home, 400 miles would be about an inch above it.)

Winston, I concur about the Moon conspiracy and the possibility that the highly decorated veteran pilot Gus Grissom was assassinated because he was going to go public back in '67.

On the other hand, a spacecraft on the way to the Moon, assuming it can hit 25K miles/hr to escape the Earth's gravitational force, does not need its over-thrusters running continuously to reach the Moon. That part is Newton's first law... an object in motion, stays in motion, unless acted upon by another force.

The problem, however, is that this object then slows down, forms an orbit around the Moon, and then sends off a lander, which lands perfectly. And then, the two ships re-attach, and then, break off from the Moon's escape velocity, to get back to Earth. That's where I have serious doubts that such a logistical feat could be pulled off by simple thrusters in an early computer era machinery without some defect, misfiring, or even a miscalculation somewhere, without a supercomputer on Earth verifying all the parameters. Realize, robotic satellites to the Moon have not returned to Earth. If the two crafts (orbiter and lander), missed by a simple fraction of a foot, the lander and the orbiter may have collided and the mission would have been over right there and then. Thus, I'm skeptical of the mission.

And yes, the radiation belts and all is another issue which has never been addressed properly.