1969 Moon Landing

[Monk (in hiding)]

Was a FAKE.........

Prove otherwise.

[Agartha]

And you seriously believe the above is a NASA footage? It's as fake as they can be, just listen to the voice and the way it talks, that is not a 1960's recording.

But, ignoring the video, I see no evidence for the moonlandings being fake, I actually see evidence for them being real: satellites have taken pics of the flag and if you buy a good telescope you can still see some leftover equipment.

Plus, it was not just that ONE landing, there were at least SIX!

[Monk (in hiding)]

[Monk (in hiding)]

Disappearing rover tracks.

[Monk (in hiding)]

[Monk (in hiding)]

go to 1:40

[Monk (in hiding)]

[Agartha]

Shall we talk about one thing at a time? You said disappearing rover tracks..... but isn't that natural? As far as I know there is erosion on the moon, not water or wind, but caused by the millions of tiny particles that impact on it all the time. See here: LINK

The video about Armstrong's accident I've seen before, but right after that they created the LLTV which I believe was much better.

But, Omega, let's entertain that thought and say the moon landing was really a fake and it never happened: does it change anything? We now know space travel is possible, so to be honest with you I don't see why we should keep on going on about something that may or may have not happened 40 something years ago?

[Monk (in hiding)]

No Stars? lsol








Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$ -> http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=720

[Agartha]

Yep: no stars in the picture, but there's a simple explanation for that.

Look at this picture of Chicago at night...... no stars on a clear sky..... is Chicago a hoax?





If the exposure is too short the stars will not show, nothing else, nothing more. You need a 30 seconds exposure to show the stars and in space they use short daylight exposure because of the sun. The light of the stars is too dim to show on such short exposure.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Wagging the Moondoggie

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”
Wernher von Braun

[Monk (in hiding)]

[Rockhopper]

No point in trying to discuss it Ags.

The escape velocity of the Earth is 44,000Kph and any decent sized rocket can attain that in short order and it doesn't have to be a big one either.

The capsule goes into orbit around the Earth and gathers more speed (slingshot effect) then breaks orbit when the Moon is in the right position. Literally, the Moon runs into the capsule, so needing only a small amount of power to get there once it is past the pull of the Earth's gravity.

The quote from Werner von Braun was written in 1947 and we have learned a lot since then.

Tim.

[Stargate]

For a trip to the moon to be believe NASA would have to explain some serious errors in photography, especially in the area of shadow projection. Plus there are countless other questions that could not be asked then, for example fuel, and reentry.

[Agartha]

For a trip to the moon to be believe NASA would have to explain some serious errors in photography, especially in the area of shadow projection. Plus there are countless other questions that could not be asked then, for example fuel, and reentry.

There are simple answers for all those questions... BUT does it really matter now? We know we are in space now and some seem not to believe it...... but we are.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Where in space, orbiting the Earth and nothing more?

[Lenzabi]

Do not forget the probes to Mars, outside the solar system, and the landing on the comet.

[Rockhopper]

The original story of it being a hoax was on a site called "huzzlers'com"

A few minutes spent digging found this site:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030610181152/moontruth.com/full.htm

The first port of call when some-one says something outlandish is:

http://snopes.com  they have a search function there and you can search for all kinds of info. For example put in "Alex Jones" in the search and see what comes up!!
Tim.

[Stargate]

I gues landing on the moon sounds good and impresive, however we the general publics only option is to believe what we are told.
AGS, I tend to want to agree that it really does not matter because we live in space anyway.

[Rockhopper]

I gues landing on the moon sounds good and impresive, however we the general publics only option is to believe what we are told.
AGS, I tend to want to agree that it really does not matter because we live in space anyway.

You're wrong Star. The general Public's job is to always be cynical of what we are told and check things out.

Quite right though, we DO live in space.

Tim.

[Sponsored content]