Lets Stop The Moon Landing Hoax Topic

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Call me a skeptic if you must, but that is an alien spacecraft and they're here to steal all our pine cones so they can corner the galactic market on Christmas trees.

This sounds like a job for a weresquirrel army.  I hope Zeebo's on it.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

This sounds like a job for a weresquirrel army.  I hope Zeebo's on it.

We might need weresquirrels for this. Wonder if he could rustle up a few of those.

[zeebo]

We might need weresquirrels for this. Wonder if he could rustle up a few of those.

[attachimg=1]

[henge0stone]

I recently heard the debate between Hoagland and the other guy. Honestly Hoagland's insane conspiracies didn't help his argument but he still easily won. The other guy was reduced to saying 'the lander didn't have room for the rover'  Really?

There is so much proof out there for us to not have gone to the move an entire huge department of the government must be fake which just makes no sense. The main thing to look for in possible conspiracies are if people on the inside come forward. Roswell has many people who came forward over the years who admitted it was not a weather balloon. No one from NASA has ever come forward and said we never went to the moon. Never, no one. What does that tell you? That plus the countless pictures. People who think we never went need to stop wasting their time.

[Heather Wade]

Didn't they leave mirrors on the moon so we can shoot lasers to prove we went there or some shit?

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Didn't they leave mirrors on the moon so we can shoot lasers to prove we went there or some shit?

Yeah, that was one of my physics labs.  Listen to a recording of the signal and then calculate the distance.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

[attachimg=1]

 

I hadn't seen that until now--well played,sir!

[Heather Wade]

Yeah, that was one of my physics labs.  Listen to a recording of the signal and then calculate the distance.

And you listened to the signal & calculated the distance.  Case closed.

(Oh yeah, I fully know that beginning a sentence with "and" is incorrect grammar, but at this point my English teacher can go fuck herself.   )

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

And you listened to the signal & calculated the distance.  Case closed.

(Oh yeah, I fully know that beginning a sentence with "and" is incorrect grammar, but at this point my English teacher can go fuck herself.   )

I think so.  I'm trying to remember.  I'm not sure what we did for the other three hours.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

The first time I heard Hoagie and his NASA coverup of ancient lunar cities and artifacts schtick on C2C was in the late nineties.  Art had him on with someone who claimed the moon landings were faked and mostly sat back the way a skilled interviewer should, and let them have it out for a good part of the show.  It was quite an entertaining donnybrook, and it ended up with them abandoning their arguments and just angrily accusing each other of peddling junk science.  Good times!

[Beelzebubbelah]

Heilsa,All!
I think it's pretty early to drop this controversy.
I want to post some anti-nasa-landed links to show the currency of this recent pseudo-history topic.
[http://mikebara.blogspot.com/]
[http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo11.html]
[http://apollohoax.proboards.com/board/12/hoax-theory]
[http://krishnatube.com/video/490/A-FunnHappened-on-the-way-to-the-Moon]

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Kubrick directed the moon landings. No amount of propaganda will change my mind.

[yumyumtree]

One time I saw a documentary on PBS(when I still watched TV)about children who had grown up in Hare Krishna. They didn't send them to outside schools, but taught them themselves, these particular children anyway.  They said that all they learned about the moon landing was that it was a hoax.  I always remembered that.  Maybe it's neither here nor there but I found it interesting.

[Beelzebubbelah]

Heilsa,All!
I was looking at an interesting photo from the alleged rosetta lander-thingie,because some-one found an klumsy planted sub-image red herring,found this guy's updates:
========================================================================

Apollo what is real and what has been faked?

1 Whisper[/color]

30 April 2014
This article is written by guest writer Vrilelf (Think Tank Unity Group)[/font][/color]


There has never before been a conspiracy ridden event as the Apollo program. The largest historical event in modern recorded times has become one of the most debated. From if we ever went to the moon to begin with to technical reasons that would have made this task impossible of course any technical advancements would have had the highest “Top Secret” rating imaginable.

Some of the arguments that seem to defy understanding is caused by not knowing some of the basic's of physics. One example would be the concerns about the Van Allen belt and radiation that would kill any life form from traveling to the moon. To a more detailed study, taking inventory of the list of laden that shows all the things they took in space to survive the journey.

The first example of the dangerous radiation contained in space is simply something that makes space travel lethal to anyone venturing to far from our home planet. Is easy to test in nearly any kitchen today. The use of a Faraday cage has been long known to stop radiation in its tracks and allow someone contained within one to travel where they wish protected from nearly any amount of discharged energy.

While traveling in a car during a lighting storm it has long been recommended to remain in your car to protect you from lighting. This is not because the car has rubber tires but rather you are in a metal cage that will direct the lighting around you and leave you otherwise unharmed. This can be shown with any microwave in your kitchen. When something is contained inside the Faraday cage is cooked by the radiation. However you are safe watching from the screened window that allows you to watch as the radiation heats the food you placed inside.

The later has caused some of the best arguments against humans have ever visited the moon or even left the planet earth. The fact that the inventory claimed by NASA to have been the supplies taken to the moon shows 2 missing necessities required for life missing from the manifest.. The first is enough air or oxygen and the second is the fact that not enough fuel was taken to make the trip any further then to establish orbit.

The second example is what we address here. However other problems come about when the fact much of the moon shots contain faked footage some admitted as simulations by NASA and others that has come under scrutiny over the years now proven false. The matter becomes even worse when stagehands forgetting where the stage is enters the screen shots and then backs out destroying all creditability NASA could have had at the time.

Note a hoax to cover a hoax is exposed here.

The Apollo 16 Stagehand Video Hoax.




But there is more! To keep the distractions moving forward the faked shots has been joined hand in hand and NASA is happy to keep up the argument that we never even when to the moon rather then admitting we did and the need to have performed such an elaborate fake as well. Lets look closly and you decide what is an illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLanUT5ldrQ

and of course this one where no matter what gravity may be it just seems to take a break. Pay attention to the trust points. Not angled as it would be if the trust would have come from the astronaut but rather straight up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml6PA5-uDdo

so with all these things pointing to the fact something is terribly wrong with the photographic documentation why did they have to fake anything at all? In recent years this footage of the landings surfaced along with the answer why it under all conditions could not be shown to those on earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0IxNkyT55k

so how much of the footage is real and what has been faked?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3wGLC_sjTQ

or color problems not released to the public

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIljIjp47Kc

Continue Apollo 13 the fuel cells

========================================================================

[http://www.awe130.com/index.php/apollo-hoax.html]
========================================================================
[[size=78%]http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/[/size]][/font]
=======================================================================
[DATING OF MOON ROCKS AND SOIL[/font]
The supposed age of 4.5 billion years of the earth is actually based on radiometric age determinations of meteorites. Radiometric dating methods are based on a series of assumptions, and thus the accuracy of the method depends, of course, on the reliability of these assumptions. These assumptions have been questioned, and the vastages thus derived have been challenged. 10-12 Even if such methods were reliable, the catastrophic effects and reworking of the surface of the moon brought about by the bombardment of the moon by planetesimals and meteorites, especially as envisioned by evolutionary scientists, would render the dating of the origin of the moon by these methods impossible. It is often claimed that the age of the earth and of the solar system of about 4.5 billion years was confirmed by ages obtained for the moon. Actually, ages obtained for various moon rocks showed a very large spread, some giving a sample age of 20 billion years. The following table, reproduced from Whitcomb and DeYoung, 13 is based on data compiled by John G. Read, and shows some of the variations for Apollo sample material. Taylor also discusses some of the problems generated by ages obtained Jon lunar soil and rocks. He points out that soils in the maria had model rubidium-strontium ages of about 4.6 billion years, although they were supposedly derived from rocks which, according to radiometric dating methods, were only 3.6-3.8 billion years old; an impossible situation. Some soils gave model ages even greater than 4.6 billion years, the supposed age of the solar system. Taylor rejects these ages out of hand since, he declares, there is so much evidence indicating the formation of the solar system about 4.6 billion years ago. These ages are thus rejected as unacceptable. 14

Once it had been assumed that dating of meteorites had established the age of the solar system at approximately 4.6 billion years, evolutionists have clung tenaciously to that age, and calibrate events in earth history accordingly. Gale, Arden, and Hutchison, however, have discovered serious problems with the data from meteorites and the assumptions on which ages of these meteorites were derived, which had supposedly established an age of 4.5 billion years for the solar system. They declared, "We suspect that the lack of concordance may result in some part from the choice of isotope ratios for primitive lead, rather than from lead gain or uranium loss. It therefore follows that the whole of classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy. 15 This is not to infer that these scientists are declaring that the earth may be young, but certainly the 4.6 billion years religiously assumed by evolutionists for the age of the earth may be in serious doubt according to these scientists.
Furthermore, as described in the books by Whitcomb and Morris 11 and H. M. Morris, 12 there are a great number of physical processes that indicate a young age for the earth and solar system. It can be said that in dating moon rocks, radio chronologists have applied the same assumptions used in methods to date rocks on the earth, which may be totally invalid. Their interpretation of the order of events on the moon and the nature of various components of the surface of the moon, therefore, may be completely erroneous.
SUMMARY
In his summing-up of the Kona conference on the origin of the moon, Wood states that the shift of confidence by lunar scientists in favor of the collision ejection model did not occur because strong evidence was presented that the moon was formed that way, or even that it was possible, but simply because the coaccretion model, most widely favored up until that time, was effectively disproved. 16 As Hughes stated, astrophysicists are actually embarrassed because of their admission, following the Apollo visits to the moon, that they still have little idea where the moon came from. 3
The Apollo missions to the moon, as well as the unmanned landings on the moon by Russian and American spacecraft, were a great scientific accomplishment, and the first step of Neil Armstrong on the moon on July 20, 1969, will always be remembered as one of the most memorable events in earth history, "One small step for man, but a giant leap forward for mankind." And in spite of, or better because of, all the data derived from these visits to the moon, we can say with greater confidence than ever that the best statement we can make, scientifically, concerning the origin of the moon is still . . .
REFERENCESW.K Hartmann, R.J. Phillips, and G.J. Taylor, Eds., Origin of the Moon, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX, 1986.

   W.K. Hartmann, et al, ibid. p. vi.
David Hughes, Nature, vol. 327, p. 291 (1987).
Stephen G. Brush, "Early History of Selenogony," in W.K. Hartmann, et al, ibid., p. 9.
Stuart Ross Taylor, Planetary Science: A Lunar Perspective, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, IX, 1982, p. 425.
J.C. Whitcomb and D.B. DeYoung, The Moon--Its Creation, Form, and Significance, BMH Books, Winona Lake, IN, 1978, p. 39.
R.B. Baldwin, A Fundamental Survey of the Moon, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1965, p. 40 (as quoted by Whitcomb and DeYoung, Ref. 6).
John A. Wood, "Moon Over Mauna Loa: A Review of Hypotheses of Formation of Earth's Moon," in W.K Hartmann, et al, ibid., p. 42.
John A. Wood, ibid., p. 44.
J.C. Whitcomb and D.B. DeYoung, ibid., p. 99.
J.C. Whitcomb and H.M. Morris, The Genesis Flood, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1961, pp. 333-344.
H.M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, 2nd Ed., Creation-Life Publishers, Colorado Springs, CO, 1985, pp. 137-149.
J.C. Whitcomb and D.B. DeYoung, ibid., p.100 (reproduced by permission).
S.R. Taylor, ibid., pp. 123-126.
N. Gale, J. Arden, and R. Hutchison, Nature (Physical Sciences), vol. 240, p. 57 (1972).
John A. Wood, ibid., p. 47.
[/color][/font]
* At time of publication, Dr. Duane T. Gish was Senior Vice President of the Institute for Creation Research. He has written extensively on the scientific implications of the biblical doctrine of creation.[/color][/font]]
=======================================================================

=============================================================================
[[size=78%]http://www.moonrising-themovie.com/about.html[/size]][/font]
=============================================================================
[http://www.youtube.com/user/joseescamilla/discussion]
=============================================================================

=============================================================================

Und Zo,More Anon...