Ego Tripping

So true. I love it...where does the conspiracy end, anyway? Perhaps it's an even MORE elite group trying to control those who are trying to control the very people who are trying to control us! Come on Kamee, why stop there? There's an off-planet Reptilian Species performing mind control on the most powerful leaders on Earth yet you never post about them. Why so biased? I'm being half-serious. At what point do you stop believe how deep the conspiracy goes before being considered hypocritical?

There's still no real reason to fake a moon landing SIX TIMES. I can understand once, sure, they wanted to show up the world. But five more consecutive times? The amount of energy that would be needed not only to hoax it but to keep it covered up (a god damn balloon story can't even get farther than one day before being exposed in this day and age) they could have gone there for real.

Sorry Kamee, I see your point and I truly hope it's more philosophical than literal...because if you still don't believe we have landed on the moon, then I must admit, it makes me think twice about most of what you post. Since you are alluding to the fact that you think we haven't landed, do you think we've actually made it into space? If so, why didn't we land? Perhaps you might think the Round Earth theory is also hoax and the Earth is still, indeed, flat? I'm sure you'll scoff at the mere proposal of such an accusation, but is this really such an irrational conclusion to draw if you're saying the cover-up is THIS large? I don't see why you would believe one cover-up but deny another.

As far as the photo in the OP, what's really so "fake" about it? Don't you know there's kevlar that looks relatively flimsy yet can stop a bullet? There's glue that can mount hundreds of pounds in a few seconds? There's a god damn prototype of a cloaking device that looks like a regular raincoat and you're trying to deduce off a mere photo observation that the lunar module is akin to a high school play!? That's as irrational as it gets, man. The modules are built to be lightweight yet strong and by no means are they to be aesthetically pleasing. Kamee, sometimes I think if the US didn't go to the moon, you did. Come back to Earth brother...it's not as paranoid down here as you might think.

__________________

Hedons

7/19/2009 Nasa released these photos....

NASA - LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites

__________________
New and improved! Now with flushable applicator.

kameelyun

Additional missions including the failed Apollo 13 mission would have seemed at the time to give the whole project more credibility.

Have a healthy skepticism of anything anyone posts. Don't be so open minded that you accept any claim. But don't be so close minded that you instantly think "Oh that conspiracy theorist is saying it therefore it must be wrong."

I am at this point skeptical of the moon landings. I am on the fence. I have been on the fence for several years because I don't know what to conclude. I have seen many of the arguments and find them convincing. However, as this field of science is not my expertise, I am still malleable toward being brought back to more firmly believing the official story.

Yes.

It seems the main argument here is that manned spacecraft hasn't gone farther than 400 miles above (away from) earth since 1972, because of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. There are those debunkers who insist that man could have survived the radiation belts. This is why I don't have a 100% firm opinion. But only unmanned spacecraft, with no intent to return, have gone farther than 400 miles in the decades since.

Well, now, apart from your sarcastic tone, let's face it: if the landings were faked, but if the shuttle really did go into orbit, what was it doing during the interim? It would have been orbiting the round earth.



Chill out dude. I mean, I know that it's easy to get angry when presented with ideas and information (especially if you're preconceived to think of such ideas as nonsensical garbage) which challenge your view of the world, and history, but is it possible that this conversation can occur without the GOD DAMN HYSTERICAL TONE????

Aircraft on earth are built to be as lightweight yet strong as possible, but when I see photos of a Boeing 757 or a DC-10 or an F-16, they appear to be credible aeronautical vehicles.

Thank you for being one of the few people to actually answer my OP's question though. Gotta give you props for that.

Think of the motive that the US would have had to fake it if they couldn't make it.

Many conspiracy debunkers say that there was no reason for the US to fake the moon landings.

This is false, as at the time America was publicly losing the space race, as Russia had put the:

First man/woman in space.
First animal in space.
First three person mission in space.
And the first space station in orbit.

Even though these landmarks were achieved using crude methods, (i.e. putting a man on a rocket or adding a extra man on a two maned spaceship) to the public eye, it would seem as if the US were losing the space race against the USSR at the height of the cold war. It was widely perceived that whoever won the space race would win the cold war. There was also a famous saying in the 1960's: "If you can't make it, fake it." And ‘IF’, and only if the US couldn’t put a man on the moon in time, then the deadline that JFK set (he wanted America to put a man on the moon "before this decade is out"), and public pressure, could have made the idea of faking a moon landing extremely tempting on the US' part.

It's crystal clear what the motive would have been if in fact it was a hoax.

__________________
"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off." - Gloria Steinem

cantSEEme

i was watching, i believe, the universe on the history channel (one of my fav. shows), and there was an episode about the moon. one of the scientists/astronomers they were interviewing was talking about how she always gets questions about the moon landing and if it was faked. according to her, she said that during one of the moon landings, they (the astronauts) placed some sort of satellite dish or beacon of some sort at the moon landing site, which enables ppl back on earth to send out some sort of laser beam or i.r. beam to this spot and have it reflect back. she also proceeded to show that if this laser was off by even the slightest fraction of an inch, it would not bounce back to earth (meaning it could not be reflecting off the lunar surface). it would only reflect off of this satellite. could an unmanned moon landing have put this beacon on the moons surface, sure. but im more inclined to believe that humans have been on the surface of the moon.

__________________

Flamingnun

Right. Credible aeronautical vehicles. So what relevance does that have to an astronautical environment? None. You're going for the "I'm not buying this because it looks iffy" approach, which appears to be the approach of the bored layman.

Look, here's the Wright brothers first successful attempt at flight.



Looks shitty and flimsy, no? Key factor though, it worked.

This thread seems a little torn between denying wether man's been on the moon or not, ever. Or whether the 1969 moon landing was faked or not. Admittedly there is a degree of scepticism surrounding the initial landing, but it's just rude to our collective IQ to deny any of them. Which incidentally used the same lander...

__________________

cantSEEme

this is a video i found about the reflector on the moons surface. it was left by the apollo 11 crew. it's not the universe version, but it's what i was speaking of.

__________________

kameelyun

Precisely. The existence of the reflector is not proof that humans put it there. An unmanned landing could do the same. Thanks for posting that vid though, I enjoyed it.

@Hedons: First, the photos taken earlier this year are provided by the very agency suspected of perpetrating the hoax, so any evidence they provide is immediately suspect as it could have easily been manipulated. Second, if the photos are indeed authentic and are indeed photos of the moon, the existence of man made objects does not prove that man landed there, as there have been many objects that are still there left by unmanned missions.

List of artificial objects on the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Turmaline: Several former astronauts interviewed in the video I posted toward the beginning of the thread insist that in 1969 it was technologically impossible to achieve the manned landing. There is a big difference between "today" and 1969.

__________________
"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off." - Gloria Steinem

verklingen

this just absolutely destroys the level-headed view i've had of you, kamee

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Flamingnun

Yeah srsly, you can't be all nuts about 9/11 and the moon landing, that's just being greedy.

__________________

kameelyun

Most if not all questions raised by doubters of the hoax are answered in detail at David McGowan's Wagging the Moondoggie

For example: the fallacy of bouncing lasers off the tiny screen left behind there -- the Russians have been bouncing lasers off the moon's surface since 1963.

According to the ‘debunkers,’ the fact that observatories to this day bounce lasers off the alleged targets proves that the Apollo missions succeeded. Some skeptics have suggested that the targets were actually placed there robotically, but it seems unlikely that anyone would go to so much trouble and expense when it has been known since as early as 1962 that such targets are completely unnecessary. In December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving the same result for four years by bouncing a laser off the surface of the Moon. The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963.

__________________
"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off." - Gloria Steinem

Ego Tripping

@ that site...

I scrolled down just a tiny bit and got this golden nugget of knowledge:

Ah yes, the obligatory Hitler reference. Can any conspiracy theory get by without Hitler's approval?

Btw, I love the pictures he tries to 'explain.' Amazing that NASA could fake these landings so well without ever being exposed, even simulating low gravity, yet can't seem to figure out how to fake stars in the sky?!

And this is another tidbit...

This guy is a pretty large waste of time, Kaymee. Aside from the atrociously bad and uncredible website, he writes as if he's been the moon himself and can testify to how everything should work. I still find it hard to believe you're really going down this path.

And Nun's post really did the job I think. You're way underestimating a technology that you and mostly everything else here have virtually no understanding of.

__________________

verklingen

Clavius Moon Base - debunking the moon hoax

^ lots of good info i couldn't select just a single serviceable excerpt. please look into this in your reading

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

kameelyun

But sadly, you failed to address the points raised in post 39:

http://www.yahooka.com/forum/51829993-post39.html

Let's just take one point at a time. CantSeeMe cited the bouncing lasers as proof that the manned moon landings occurred. I pointed out that (1) if there were reflectors, they could have been placed by robotic means, and (2) the reflectors are not needed anyway. As a true skeptic, I conclude that the bouncing lasers are not proof of man walking on the moon.

ET, you said that I am commenting about a subject and its technology about which I know nothing; however, as I have pointed out several times now, there are several NASA scientists from the 1960's during the development of Apollo who risked their credibility (and possibly more) to openly go on camera and state that the technology at the time was just not ready, with our program, and that to this day they feel positive it was all a hoax. It's not my idea; I'm intrigued by those who did have the expertise and were there.

Believe it or not I'm not choosing to defend one side til the point I lose; I am simply being a true skeptic who does not take official history on faith alone.

Thank you, verk, for the Clavius site. As a very seasoned 9/11 activist who knows beyond a doubt that Popular Mechanics' "debunking" literature is flawed up the wazoo (their book has been debunked six ways to Sunday), I will, on this issue, look at the debunkers, the counter-debunkers, and the counter-counter-debunkers, as thoroughly as possible, and do the best to form my own conclusions based on all available data.

__________________
"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off." - Gloria Steinem

cantSEEme

the reflector is just a reference point. trying to shine a laser in the exact same spot with just some coordinates typed in to a computer is next to impossible without a reference point. it would be like trying to split a piece of paper, which was lying flat to the shooters perspective, in half, with a bullet, from like 100 miles away every time they went to find the same spot for the laser beam on the moon.

and i cited the reflectors not as my reasoning for my belief that man has been on the moon, but one of the many pieces of evidence on why i believe man has been on the moon. also, earlier in this thread, ppl were speaking on the original moonwalk videos. peep this site. on the left, you'll see a menu listing. click on videos & movies. it's one of my favorite things to watch when im bored. easiest way to view them without downloading each clip is to right click on the video link, copy the url in the properties, then paste the address into the streaming address window in the vlc player.

__________________

Sugar420

my objection to such discussion is that there is no clear objective place to draw the line between what is or isnt as it appears. maybe the moon landings were fake. maybe the holocaust never happened. we can make up speculative skepticism about anything: maybe the war in mexico is a hoax. maybe the unrest and hunger in africa is a clever deception to drain charity dollars from well meanig ppl for some other less noble purpose. maybe katrina never really happened but was the cover story for racist ethnic cleansing. at some point it just becomes silly

Ego Tripping

It brings up far more questions than it answers. For example, did they do this hoax indoors or out? Hoaxers say there was wind, yet there's no other examples of that except the flag, which is pretty proven at this point to not be any kind of wind. But if it was, where did they perform this hoax? Was it a set or in the middle of nowhere, somehow made to look exactly like a lunar surface? There no consistency at all. That site verk posted is fantastic btw.

And Kamee, who's to say those astronauts simply weren't paid off somehow to say that, same as others were paid to stay silent about the supposed hoax? There's no reason to deny this if you feel many people were manipulated to be silent. Ohh, now the conspiracy really gets juicy, eh?

__________________

Mydriasis

Juiceyyy

__________________

kameelyun

This is also, unfortunately, the trouble with looking at history in a very black and white, two dimensional manner; in reality history is a very complex web of narratives, some mainstream, some not, and most of what is not mainstream, or even considered taboo is actually acknowledged by mainstream scholars in academic circles but simply never given any mainstream coverage in schools or the corporate media.

For example, you mentioned the holocaust. The holocaust represents the ultimate blurry line between traditional history and revisionist history. You may be surprised to learn that even mainstream historians are "holocaust revisionists" in the "taboo" sense of the word. Every single holocaust scholar is in agreement, at this point, that there were no homicidal gas chambers in any of the camps inside Germany, such as Dachau and Buchenwald. Never mind that one of the US propaganda films, created at the end of the war, states: "Dachau: Factory of Horrors. Each prisoner was instructed to undress and fooled into believing they were going to take a shower, for which soap and towels were provided." Many former US soldiers, as well as survivors, still speak of "gassings" at the Dachau and Buchenwald camps, even though it is no longer held than any gas chambers functioned at those camps. It is now claimed that only the camps in Poland (occupied by the Soviet Union after the war) had homicidal gas chambers, and even these have been called into serious question, the most famous of the doubters being Jewish himself - David Cole. Now THAT is interesting!

It is also a well known fact that in 1989, upon the fall of communism in Poland, that the official Auschwitz death toll (displayed on a plaque in many languages) was officially revised from 4 million to 1.5 million.

The old figure: 4 million


The new figure: 1.5 million


It is also universally acknowledged among mainstream historians that victims were never turned into soap and lampshades as I was originally taught as a child. Why would the Allies have exaggerated the Nazis' crimes if they were already so awful? (No one denies that people were shot, starved etc.) Various groups with their own agendas (WWII Victors, Zionists, etc.) would have had their own reasons to tweak the already inhumane events under Naziism. The well known film, Night and Fog, produced in the early 50's, claimed that 9 million died at Auschwitz and that victims were turned into lampshades and soap. I was shown that film in high school and took every word as gospel. Later, after looking at the "revisionist" history, I realized that Night and Fog is well manufactured propaganda.

Anyway, this is a major side track but my point is that history is a very multi-dimensional thing, and when we look at it extremely 2-dimensionally, we do ourselves a disservice, as do the angry people who equate questioning the veracity of the murder weapon (gas chamber) with ridiculous hyperbole like "the holocaust never happened."

__________________
"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off." - Gloria Steinem

Canuck Wisdom

Looks like a moon lander to me. I really have no clue.

I have some skepticism about whether it really happened or not.... Or if it didnt actually happen till later attempts and the first time was a propaganda piece, but its not too big a deal to me.

The idea/faith that it did happen is a way bigger deal to me than if it actually did happen (40 years ago), having driven interest in other space technologies that say, give me cell phone reception.

__________________
-Knowitall A&P type-

al-Mu'akhkhir

i agree with what verk said about kamee destroying our level headed view of him.


but on the other hand, someone has to ask these questions, we can't always go with the story the government or media spoon feeds us. That would be dangerous.

__________________