The Moon Landing

[Jessi]

I just thought this was pretty good, fairly hard observations and was wondering if anyone has some alternate ideas/proof to back those ideas up.

 

[13lade619]

i've read about this controversy years ago.

reading...

the only one i could remember for the cause was the lack of stars.

but as i read, there are many more...

 

[Father_Yetti]

Yeah this is a hoax. I have known about this for a while. Though few will believe it even in the face of such evidence. The media has so much more control over what people will believe than most are willing to admit or are even capable of recognizing. If you want to know more about this and motives as to why the U.S. did it, then I can offer much more.

This is sort of off subject but along the lines of politics and deception; 9 - 11 has more than mountains of contradictory evidence against our media's portrayal of said events. 9 - 11 is what is called a "False Flag Operation". I'll find some links for you if you like. Or to any who ask. I only offer because of what was posted on this thread, which I must say I was surprised to find.

 

[SilverHawk]

I really don't see any value in these conspiracy theories. People underestimate just how easy it is for any skilled person to argue even the most ridiculous of points.

Sorry guys, but the fact of the matter is that the moon landing did happen. Come on, even the Russians believe it, and it was them with whom we were competing.

Admin's Note:

If this thread doesn't stay calm, then it will be closed. It's fine to have this discussion, but only if it remains civil.

 

[Rheias]

I agree. It is easier to argue than to accept.

 

[ArmedCitizen]

Why does it even matter if we did land then? It didn't solve or provoke anything. It didn't benefit us in anyway. It really doesn't matter.

 

[esb]

Why does it even matter if we did land then? It didn't solve or provoke anything. It didn't benefit us in anyway. It really doesn't matter.

I completely agree. It's up to the person to believe if "we landed on the moon first". What would happen if we did or didn't? What difference does it makes?

Although, I don't think the people behind the making of the hoax would be dumb enough to let those simple mistakes slide. (If it was indeed a hoax)

 

[Ghan]

There are supporters for the moon landing too, you know.

Let's hear both sides:

 

[Aqua Dragon]

Intresting thing. However, there are 3 factors that make it slightly unbelievable, leaving room for the other argument.

1. This is the freaking internet. Nuf said
2. It is possible that in order to get more shots, some fake photos were perhaps taken (thats my thought, it's a possibility)
3.Photoshop. No more needed to be said

 

[The Helper]

The whole Radiation Shielding thing is my argument. Also when John Glenn punched out that guy when confronted with it.

Don't even get me started on this conspiracy theory stuff. I am firmly convinced that man has not been to the moon.

 

[ReVolver]

Well if they went to the moon in 2050 or so, I will be convinced but at that time?! I don't think so.

 

[Aqua Dragon]

Ghan, that article probbally has more logic then those photos used to prove it as fake and it disproves everything in it easily and more logically

 

[Father_Yetti]

The whole Radiation Shielding thing is my argument. Also when John Glenn punched out that guy when confronted with it.

Don't even get me started on this conspiracy theory stuff. I am firmly convinced that man has not been to the moon.

I have taken (The Helper) as a fairly sharp intellectual based on what I have witnessed thus far in the forum. I'm am convinced as he is. There is more than enough evidence out there to raise several red flags for those objectively sifting whats at hand.

One of the problems, however, is that many lack the ability to think clearly once the initial story has etched a fist impression into their minds. The original emotional coloring leaves a stain that is hard to re-write or "wash". So the natural tendency is to just go with stories as unfolded by the press. Objectivity in most cases isn't even the issue because most will prove unwilling to give the story a second thought.

Once the story has snow-balled to the masses there is little that can change the overall impression - regardless of evidence. Hence you don't need a perfect video - only a perfect first impression, and of course, our caring government backing the claims. The minority that sniff out these "little" white lies will have little power affecting the masses. Thus it is contained and calculated.

My ex-father-in-law helped work on and develop some of the technology "used" on the space shuttle by NASA. He is literally a genius and respected as the top in his field. He works with composites and ceramics, and is now employed with Kyocera. He is extremely skeptical concerning the scientific viability of landing on the moon. (Especially given the Radiation Shielding)

To those who think it makes no difference what the truth is...that is a sad conclusion to arrive at. Think of the amount of tax money allocated to such programs as NASA. I am not saying that these programs ship all their funding off to black or "dark" projects, or luxury, or greed alone. That is not feasible. What I am saying is that there are some pretty good videos coming out of Area 51...but not foolproof ones when placed under scientific scrutiny.

In ending: NASA spends on average $12.7 billion dollars per year over its forty-nine year history.

 

[The Helper]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/

 

[Father_Yetti]

Interesting...Do they delve into any Exopolitical views on that sight? If you look at the 911 events in light of Exopolitics it gets quite interesting. I am not saying that I am buying into all of it, but it is extremely interesting.

 

[Heavy-Gear]

There are supporters for the moon landing too, you know.

Let's hear both sides:

/QUOTE]

Thats an interesting website... If you havn't i'd sugest you check it out, it really shoots down most of the conspiracies. Doesn't mention the moving flag however

 

[Jessi]

Thats an interesting website... If you havn't i'd sugest you check it out, it really shoots down most of the conspiracies. Doesn't mention the moving flag however

Actually, quite the contrary. it fails to shoot down most of the conspiracies. It's long, it uses a lot of "fluff" words, and it defends maybe one or two of the points. Its well written to try to make itself believable, but tbh it's just "it did happen, just like this did happen. did I mention it did happen? like this other thing, this face on mars. i mentioned it happened, right?"

 

[TheDamien]

"People who don't believe in every nut-bag conspiracy are brain washed!"

"No. My website obliterates everything you believe!"

"No, it doesn't, and by failing to do so it simply proves me right!"'

"Does not."

"Does too."

This entire thread fails.

 

[Jessi]

"People who don't believe in every nut-bag conspiracy are brain washed!"

"No. My website obliterates everything you believe!"

"No, it doesn't, and by failing to do so it simply proves me right!"'

"Does not."

"Does too."

This entire thread fails.

It's called a discussion of alternate views, Damien, and if it ever gets to the point where some idiot says "Does not." "Does too.," I'll close it myself.

 

[Doomhammer]

Dip your Hasselblad into liquid nitrogen for about ten minutes. Take it out. See if it works. It's not the heat that becomes critical but deep freeze.