• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moon Hoax conspiracy

ERichardson said:
If they got through the belt in an hour then thats at least 2 hours counting the return journey.
Click to expand...

Which is far too little time for a problematic exposure.

The apollo ship itself would provide virtually no protection, it was made of steel, aluminium etc.
Click to expand...

"Virtually no protection" ? Are you really curious about the reality of this mission ? Or have you already made up your mind ?

The tape of the astronauts discussing how they were faking the earth images can't just be dismissed. Has anyone here watched the film?
Click to expand...

Faking images ?

In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
Click to expand...

Which is why the module wasn't used to calculate trajectory. NASA on Earth did all that.

The Space Shuttle, so far, has killed fourteen people, merely trying to attain an orbit about two hundred fifty miles above the Earth. How is it then, that a third of a century ago, with less computing power in the entire rocket than in a present day twenty dollar Wal-Mart watch, NASA claims to have gone 100,000% farther, six different times between 1969 and 1972, landing on another celestial body and then returning, without ever killing anyone?
Click to expand...

Forgot Apollo 1 ?

Skepticalcriticalguy said:
ERich, around here most still believe Oswald killed JFK, and Osama did 9/11. You won't convince anybody the moon landings were faked.
Click to expand...

See, Rich ? This is the kind of nutter you've sided with. And yes, that's an ad hominem.

Would any of you walk on the light side of the moon in a suit without air conditioning?
Click to expand...

In a white spacesuit ? Sure.

Yes those are strange, could I see your refutation of all those things?
Click to expand...

You mean, you didn't actually research this subject ?
 
What would the motive be?

I can think of one: to beat the Soviets in the cold war.

What I can't understand is why the Soviets would collude in the propaganda victory for the US.

Must remember not to SHOUT, even though it is very tempting.
 
jimbob said:
What would the motive be?

I can think of one: to beat the Soviets in the cold war.

What I can't understand is why the Soviets would collude in the propaganda victory for the US.

Must remember not to SHOUT, even though it is very tempting.
Click to expand...

Yea, Why would the Russians Collude about the space race but broadcast to the world when they shot down Gary Powers and the U2 he was flying? And this was the same time the space race was going on.
 
uruk said:
Yea, Why would the Russians Collude about the space race but broadcast to the world when they shot down Gary Powers and the U2 he was flying? And this was the same time the space race was going on.
Click to expand...
well obviously we GAVE them gary powers and the u2 so theyd keep quiet about the moon thing

duh! its so obvious!
 
defaultdotxbe said:
well obviously we GAVE them gary powers and the u2 so theyd keep quiet about the moon thing

duh! its so obvious!
Click to expand...

Drat! I hadn't thought of that!.

Oh wait. They gave him back to us 1 year, 9 months and 9 days later in exchange for Russian spy Rudolph Abel. This was about 8 years before Apollo 11.

If you read Tom Kelly's book you'll hear (or read) mention of some suspected sabotage in the space program allegedly executed by russian spies at NASA
 
Spindrift said:
Obviously a black flag op!

(Being a CTer is so easy.)
Click to expand...

Oh! it is so deliciously complicated.
The government does a black op sabotage at NASA to coverup a spy exchange to coverup a media coup in USSR's favor so that we can make the Russians look like punks in the space race and then blow it all by not locking the doors to the freakin' studio and let the wind blow the flag around and hire an idiot set designer who put the rock facing the wrong way.

It's all so Machiavelian in it's incompetency.
 
uruk said:
Oh! it is so deliciously complicated.
The government does a black op sabotage at NASA to coverup a spy exchange to coverup a media coup in USSR's favor so that we can make the Russians look like punks in the space race and then blow it all by not locking the doors to the freakin' studio and let the wind blow the flag around and hire an idiot set designer who put the rock facing the wrong way.

It's all so Machiavelian in it's incompetency.
Click to expand...

And they would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids.
 
There is no moon.

Its a gigantic psy-op program. The "moon" never existed until 1959, it was introduced to us all via holograms. Our supposed collective mankind memory of this "moon" was implanted into us without our knowing via global hypnosis. All texts and writings of history was changed so that there would be a history of this lie.

The thing we see, that we call "moon" is a giant watching device, that is only 50,000 feet up in the air. Its that high so that airline pilots can't tell, but the Concorde pilots all had to be briefed and warned under penalty of death. Its staffed by rotating crews of Bilderbergers and is actually run via a control center in Valletta, Malta.

Its a huge conspiracy, all nations of the world are in on it, under penalty of being hit with a nuke.

Now, don't you ask ME to prove this, as a CT, I demand that you disprove it and if you think you can, then I will just note that you are part of the conspiracy and are spreading disinfo.
 
R.Mackey said:
Finally, to ERichardson: I present the above as a learning opportunity for you. But there is one thing more -- I am a NASA scientist. Is there anything you'd like to say to me? Anything you'd like to ask?
Click to expand...

Why are the shadows on photographs convergent? Why are the astronauts illuminated when in the suns shadow?
 
ERichardson said:
Why are the shadows on photographs convergent? Why are the astronauts illuminated when in the suns shadow?
Click to expand...


Maybe a wide angle or fish eye lens explains the former. As for your latter question, I have to admit I wasn't even aware the sun had a shadow.

Now, I have questions, ERichardson. Why do you regurgitate trite quotes from deep-fringe web sites? Are you incapable of original thought>
 
ERichardson said:
Why are the shadows on photographs convergent? Why are the astronauts illuminated when in the suns shadow?
Click to expand...
Why, are you incompetant? These and other irrelevant questions will be answered in the Howard Johnson restrooms at the appropriate time and universe.

Please submit any further questions in triplicate at our new Tibetan branch - watch out for the yak kak!!!
 
Spindrift said:
Because they are real photographs?

So are you ready to admit that the Apollo astronauts did fly through the Van Allen Belts and survived?
Click to expand...

RMackey kindly offered to answer any questions I had. He is a NASA scientist and I respect that. I have asked him 2 questions which I have not seen addressed anywhere. I am waiting for his answers. I couldn't care less how you answer them.
 
ERichardson said:
Why are the shadows on photographs convergent? Why are the astronauts illuminated when in the suns shadow?
Click to expand...


Hi ER. I'd be happy to respond to these questions (the answers are quite simple, actually). But I need to know that I'm conversing with a reasonable person, not someone with whom attempting discussion is like beating my head against the wall. So can you please answer me this question: Do you now acknowledge that at a minimum, we have sent unmanned missions to the moon and successfully brought them back?
 
Stellafane said:
Hi ER. I'd be happy to respond to these questions (the answers are quite simple, actually). But I need to know that I'm conversing with a reasonable person, not someone with whom attempting discussion is like beating my head against the wall. So can you please answer me this question: Do you now acknowledge that at a minimum, we have sent unmanned missions to the moon and successfully brought them back?
Click to expand...

I'll wait for RMackey's answer.
 
ERichardson said:
I'll wait for RMackey's answer.
Click to expand...

Not a problem; he (and many, many other people in this forum) can easily explain it. But that still leaves my question unanswered: Do you now acknowledge that at a minimum, we've sent unmanned missions to the moon, and successfully brought them back?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom