View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

Postby Scepcop » 14 Nov 2010, 22:21

Check out this stunning admission by NASA:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN3139657820080331

(Reuters) - Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday.


These freethinking comments below expose the obvious implications of this stunning admission by NASA.

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/ses ... years-ago/

Did Americans Walk the Moon 30 years ago???

According to Reuters reporting from Washington DC: – Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday.

More @: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 5782008040

Did NASA Walk The Moon?:

Did anyone go to the moon? I personally do not know but going from what we know of American tendencies, if they really ever got to the moon in 1969, I wonder why NASA cannot go to the moon today 2008 nearly 30 years later.

30 years ago all scientists worth their salt knew about the Van Allen Cosmic Ray belts which are considered a trillion times more powerful and harmful than radio-active radiations from a million nuclear bombs. In other words, without adequate protection shield, anyone sent out there would become charred roast sooner than he can return.

Would arrogant and ignorant America have conquered the moon and then forgotten all about the Dollar earning potentials??? No my people, never!

If the American government knew the way to the moon, the US Marines would be patrolling the moon terrain to prevent terrorist infractions; Hollywood would have gone up there to make a really violent sex sodden titillating moon movie; Wall Street would be trading moon dust as futures, derivatives and commodity stocks; the tourist/foreign sex industry would have been promoting kinky sex for seven nights on the moon, specially packaged for swinger couples. Just think about it yourself.

US scientists suggested that it would take US at least 30 years from now to get back to the moon, which they had routinely visited between 1969 and 1972. What happened? Why can’t the USA fly away to the moon again?

7 Rasta Queries for NASA:

Why is it taking so long to go back to heavenly moon???

Did NASA loose the technology that took it to the moon 30 years ago?

Does NASA have less inferior technology today than it did 30 years ago?

Did NASA loose the flight map to the moon that they had 30 years ago?

How did the space-crafts get past the Van Allen Cosmic Ray belt 30 years ago?

Were there no cosmic rays from Van Allen Cosmic Ray belt 30 years ago?

Has NASA forgotten how it beat out the cosmic rays 30 years ago?

How could NASA have gotten to the moon several times in the 1970s but is unable to repeat that feat 30 years later on?

Many Lies

They have told many lies to support the myth of white supremacy. But alas, just like Hillary Clinton’s delusion about dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia, the white-power structure told too many whitelies that cannot be supported or defended anymore.

They managed to intimidate the courageous, and hoodwink the intelligence with their lies, sorceries, witchcraft and fake scientific advancement. Yet, in these times, such evil ways are being exposed by the burning light of truth.

The American media copying a page from the Nazis believed that once you repeated a piece of lying propaganda often enough, people will be gullible enough to accept it as true.

Yet a lie told for a thousand years, will always remain a lie!
The intricate web of lies are finally unraveling as we move deeper into this Aquarian millennium. From their own lips, confessions will be made. Revisions will be done. The truth will be justified.

Read this again and consider, that for more than 30 years America fooled the world about how it went to the heavens and brought back a bunch of rocks picked up from the Arizona desert.

Time will tell!

Ogu Eji Ofo Annu

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday….

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 7820080401



Also, check out this news update about how one of the moon rocks has turned out to be nothing but petrified wood!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm

Also, check out this forgery of the Earth in space by Apollo 9. It looks like they used an obvious Earth model doesn't it? Notice the shiny reflection off the ocean that looks very unreal. Why would they do that?



Also, check out these moon photo anomalies. Several of them show the ground beneath the Lunar Rover where you can see footprints from the Astronauts, but NO TIRE TREADMARKS in the soil! I wonder how the pseudo disinfo skeptics will explain that one away? lol



The space shuttle orbits 200 miles above earth. 14 astronauts have died flying the shuttle. The moon is 240,000 miles from the earth. 12 men traveled to the moon, landed, and returned with no loss of life, no injuries or health problems, back in 1969-72?

Spaceflight was at it's infancy stage back in the 60s; like comparing the Model-T-Ford to a modern production car. You decide.


And check out this smoking gun where you can see wires over the two astronauts at 1:20. It's very damning evidence!



When will people wake up? Not everything you are told is true. Sheesh. People are so gullible and sheep-like and easy to fool.

And yes, many people can keep a secret. The NSA has 30,000 employees and none of them have spilled the beans on what the NSA does. There is no official list of accomplishments by the NSA. So many have kept a secret. Likewise, the Manhattan Project involved 120,000 people who all kept it a secret for years. Furthermore, remember that workers are compartmentalized on a need to know basis. Not every employee is given access to the view from the top. Duh. Only a small handful at the top know the big picture.

People are so dumb!
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: NASA's Damning Admission, Wires, Fake Globe, etc.

Postby Arouet » 14 Nov 2010, 23:21

Too much crap to respond to all of it. But in reading that first article you posted, it did not say that people get fried to a crisp from these rays while in spaceships. The concern seems to be exposure to too much radiation which should be considered an unacceptable health risk. It takes far longer to get to Mars than the moon, the concern raised in this article is that the health risks would be unacceptable and more needs to be done to protect astronauts from that.

What you are doing, as you often do, is taking one point, bringing it to an extreme, and then using that extreme version to back up your point. It's a strawman, Scepcop.

Honestly, I don't know why you keep getting taken in by these youtubers, and bloggers who don't know how to write a headline with an exclamation mark. You need to take a step back and really see if they are using language that is designed to manipulate, such as appeals to emotion, rhetorical questions, false dichotomies, and any other logical fallacies.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: NASA's Damning Admission, Wires, Fake Globe, etc.

Postby caniswalensis » 14 Nov 2010, 23:39

Calling people that disagree with you names does not really help things either.

That is a tactic for the cynic or the pseudo-skeptic; not one that true skeptics would ever want to use.
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: NASA's Damning Admission, Wires, Fake Globe, etc.

Postby Arouet » 15 Nov 2010, 01:10

caniswalensis wrote:Calling people that disagree with you names does not really help things either.

That is a tactic for the cynic or the pseudo-skeptic; not one that true skeptics would ever want to use.


I'm confused. What names did I call Scepcop?

And while I agree with you that one should not call people names, and I usually try not to be a dick as much as possible, that is an entirely different issue from being a skeptic or a pseudo-skeptic. I can be skeptical or non skeptical and be and ass or not an ass. One thing has nothing to do with the other.


(Edit: oh, I think you were talking to Scepcop!)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: NASA's Damning Admission, Wires, Fake Globe, etc.

Postby Scepcop » 15 Nov 2010, 02:00

Dark Side of the Moon is a French documentary by director William Karel which ...originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick. The tone of the documentary begins with low key revelations of NASA working closely with Hollywood at the time of the Moon landings. Over the course of the tale, Karel postulates that not only did Kubrick help the USA fake the moon landings but that he was eventually killed by the CIA to cover up the truth. First hand testimony backing these claims come from Rumsfeld and Dr. Kissinger, which lend credence to the story.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5368202642
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: NASA's Damning Admission, Wires, Fake Globe, etc.

Postby caniswalensis » 15 Nov 2010, 02:01

Arouet wrote:
caniswalensis wrote:Calling people that disagree with you names does not really help things either.

That is a tactic for the cynic or the pseudo-skeptic; not one that true skeptics would ever want to use.


I'm confused. What names did I call Scepcop?

And while I agree with you that one should not call people names, and I usually try not to be a dick as much as possible, that is an entirely different issue from being a skeptic or a pseudo-skeptic. I can be skeptical or non skeptical and be and ass or not an ass. One thing has nothing to do with the other.


(Edit: oh, I think you were talking to Scepcop!)


You are right, sir! I was talking to Skepcop, sorry that I did not make it more clear.

... but I am glad that you raised the point about calling names being a seperate issue, because it allows me to clarify my position a little.

While you are correct that a person "can be skeptical or non skeptical and be and ass or not an ass" this is not the reasoning by which I denounced the namecalling. I would not call a skeptic to the carpet as a skeptic for stealing a parking place or laughing at orphans or some such. I would call them to the carpet for being an ass.

In a discussion like this, things are a little different, though.

Here is my reasoning:

A person that is skeptical applies critical thinking & logic to a set of facts or evidence to try to determine the truth, or what is most likely to be the truth.
Therefore, the defining characteristic of a skeptic is that they place a value on critical thinking & logic skills.
To simply call someone a name is a form of ad hominum attack. In fact, it is the basest form of this logical fallacy.
Any critical thinker worth their salt knows that there is no merit in this tactic and understands why that is, so to use it themselves is to be deliberately disigenuous.

I think That gets my point across. To say it another way, there are rules to logic. We can not just follow them when it suits us. It's not about being a nice guy.( although I try to do that too) It is about making a valid argument that supports a premise. As opposed to cowing someone or shouting them down with bogus arguments.

regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: NASA's Damning Admission, Wires, Fake Globe, etc.

Postby Scepcop » 15 Nov 2010, 02:04

Arouet wrote:
caniswalensis wrote:Calling people that disagree with you names does not really help things either.

That is a tactic for the cynic or the pseudo-skeptic; not one that true skeptics would ever want to use.


I'm confused. What names did I call Scepcop?

And while I agree with you that one should not call people names, and I usually try not to be a dick as much as possible, that is an entirely different issue from being a skeptic or a pseudo-skeptic. I can be skeptical or non skeptical and be and ass or not an ass. One thing has nothing to do with the other.


(Edit: oh, I think you were talking to Scepcop!)


He was probably referring to me calling the sheep "dumb".

Dude, the article I quoted contained a lot of common sense. You people take it on faith that the moon landings were real. FAITH. You lack any critical thinking skills.

Bottom line: There are a TON of plausible valid arguments and reasons to be skeptical of the moon landings. Only the disinfo crowd such as the pseudoskeptics disallow questioning of authority and anything official.

These disinfo people's job is to keep us within the matrix, not help us discover truth and answers.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: NASA's Damning Admission, Wires, Fake Globe, etc.

Postby caniswalensis » 15 Nov 2010, 02:15

Scepcop wrote:
Arouet wrote:
caniswalensis wrote:Calling people that disagree with you names does not really help things either.

That is a tactic for the cynic or the pseudo-skeptic; not one that true skeptics would ever want to use.


I'm confused. What names did I call Scepcop?

And while I agree with you that one should not call people names, and I usually try not to be a dick as much as possible, that is an entirely different issue from being a skeptic or a pseudo-skeptic. I can be skeptical or non skeptical and be and ass or not an ass. One thing has nothing to do with the other.


(Edit: oh, I think you were talking to Scepcop!)


He was probably referring to me calling the sheep "dumb".

Dude, the article I quoted contained a lot of common sense. You people take it on faith that the moon landings were real. FAITH. You lack any critical thinking skills.

Bottom line: There are a TON of plausible valid arguments and reasons to be skeptical of the moon landings. Only the disinfo crowd such as the pseudoskeptics disallow questioning of authority and anything official.

These disinfo people's job is to keep us within the matrix, not help us discover truth and answers.


Hmmm...More ad homs, but I wont even defend myself from those.

Could you just please explain how calling someone a name demonstrates that we did not land on the moon?
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: NASA's Damning Admission, Wires, Fake Globe, etc.

Postby Arouet » 15 Nov 2010, 02:44

caniswalensis wrote:A person that is skeptical applies critical thinking & logic to a set of facts or evidence to try to determine the truth, or what is most likely to be the truth.
Therefore, the defining characteristic of a skeptic is that they place a value on critical thinking & logic skills.


I'm not going to disagree that logic and critical thinking are important in following a skeptical approach, but just the nitty point that I think the defining characteristic of being a skeptic is not accepting the truth value of a proposition without sufficient, reliable, evidence. I'm not really disagreeing with you, just being picky!

To simply call someone a name is a form of ad hominum attack. In fact, it is the basest form of this logical fallacy.


Here I am going to disagree with you. Calling someone an idiot is not an ad hominum attack. An ad hominem takes personal characteristic about someone and tries to link that to an argument.

For example, "he can't be right about the role oil plays in the politics of the middle east, he's a communist!"

When you insult someone, you are not using that as the basis for an argument. I mean, if he had said: "you're wrong about xyz because you're an iditot." That might be an ad hominem. Do you see the difference?

Any critical thinker worth their salt knows that there is no merit in this tactic and understands why that is, so to use it themselves is to be deliberately disigenuous.


Again, its not necessarily disingenuous, but I think for the most part its ineffective, not to mention disrespectful, both good reasons not to use such tactics.

I think That gets my point across. To say it another way, there are rules to logic. We can not just follow them when it suits us. It's not about being a nice guy.( although I try to do that too) It is about making a valid argument that supports a premise. As opposed to cowing someone or shouting them down with bogus arguments.


This I agree with. One can vigourously advance one's argument without resorting to name calling. It's not about backing down, its about civil discourse and effective arguing. Once insults come in attention is inevitably drawn away from the merits of the argument.

regards, Canis[/quote]
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: NASA's Damning Admission, Wires, Fake Globe, etc.

Postby Arouet » 15 Nov 2010, 02:49

Scepcop wrote:Bottom line: There are a TON of plausible valid arguments and reasons to be skeptical of the moon landings.


Maybe so. But there is a plethora of evidence in support of the moon landings, but that's besides the point: I made a specific critique of something you posted, you responded with a general one. Why not respond to the actual comment I made rather than resort to vague generalizations about sheep following the official line?

Only the disinfo crowd such as the pseudoskeptics disallow questioning of authority and anything official.


Who is arguing that questions of authority and anything official should be disallowed? Certainly no one on this site. Certainly not me!

These disinfo people's job is to keep us within the matrix, not help us discover truth and answers.


I believe one way to get at the truth is to have back and forth discussion. But Scepcop, that means actually responding specifically to points that are brought up. Otherwise its not really a discussion, but a blog post.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: NASA's Damning Admission, Wires, Fake Globe, etc.

Postby ProfWag » 15 Nov 2010, 05:48

Okay, if you think that 30,000 NASA employees can keep a secret, do you think that India and Japan would help cover it up as well? Both of these countries recently sent unmanned spacecraft around the moon and sent back photographs of the moon landings...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: NASA's Damning Admission, Wires, Fake Globe, etc.

Postby Scepcop » 17 Jun 2011, 21:41

ProfWag wrote:Okay, if you think that 30,000 NASA employees can keep a secret, do you think that India and Japan would help cover it up as well? Both of these countries recently sent unmanned spacecraft around the moon and sent back photographs of the moon landings...


They did not. All they showed were dots. Google "Moonfaker LRO". Jarrah White meticulously debunked the LRO arguments in many exhaustive videos already. Watch them.

Btw, did any of you watch the three videos posted above? Why haven't you explained the evidence presented in them? Cause you can't? lol

You guys have an agenda, but truth/objectivity isn't it.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: NASA's Damning Admission, Wires, Fake Globe, etc.

Postby Craig Browning » 18 Jun 2011, 01:54

Sorry Winston, you're so far off base on this stupidity.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Moon Hoax FAQ

Postby Scepcop » 21 Jun 2011, 00:34

That doesn't answer my question.

How do you explain the Apollo 9 forgery above? It was clearly not shot from space. The globe is not really Earth. How do you guys explain that?

And what about the anomalies video above?

You guys have been whipped on this issue big time.

All you do is run from the issues.

Check out this FAQ about the Moon Hoax. It includes answers to questions about the moon rocks, laser reflectors, Soviets, etc.

http://www.moonmovie.com/faq.htm
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Great Book on Moon Hoax

Postby Scepcop » 21 Jun 2011, 02:57

Check out this book I found:

http://www.amazon.com/One-Small-Step-Gr ... dp_product

One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space

Product Description

Were the famous moon landings simulated by NASA? From the very first manned flight into orbit right up to the present day there have been serious anomalies in the official narrative of the conquest of space. Bestselling author Gerhard Wisnewski dissects the history of space travel in minute detail, beginning with the first Russian missions in the early 1960s, to the final American moon project of Apollo 17 in 1972, and onwards to the American landings planned in future. Using forensic methods of investigation, he pieces together a complex jigsaw to reveal a disturbing picture of lies, falsifications and simulations. Not only does he cast serious doubt on the possibility of humans ever having landed on the moon, but he also reveals a catalogue of untruths and propaganda in the Cold War struggle for supremacy between the Soviet Union and the USA.Wisnewski produces reams of scientific evidence that calls for a reassessment of the received wisdom regarding the history of space exploration. The true story, he suggests, has a more sinister undertone. Beneath the guise of civilian space travel the US military has been developing fearsome new equipment and weapons which are being secretly stationed in space. The aim is to militarize the orbit around the earth, with our planet and each one of us as the potential targets. It is provided with over 200 illustrations.

This user review explains eloquently why NASA decided to fake the moon missions instead of doing them for real.

5.0 out of 5 stars Best book on the Apollo program, July 16, 2009
By
Auroran (Aurora, IL USA) - See all my reviews
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)

This is the best book I've encountered on the Apollo program. The author has found some interesting anomalies in the Apollo "evidence" that I have not seen elsewhere, but his main strength is his emphasis on what could be called the project management issue.

It is a matter of public record that the government built an extremely expensive, elaborate simulation facility at Langley, Virginia (home of the CIA), to mimic as far as possible the planned Apollo missions. Moreover, the author asserts that all of NASA's systems were designed to handle simulations exactly as the real thing--both simulation and reality were treated as equivalent inputs as far as all other parts of the system were concerned. Given this comprehensive simulation strategy, it would have been only "one small step" to skip the actual mission, and simply re-run the simulation as if it were real!

The author probably should have elaborated on this. For example:

After the fatal Apollo 1 disaster, Congress made clear that it would not tolerate another such tragedy, especially if due to engineering shortcuts. Yet at the same time, Congress was substantially reducing NASA's budget and losing patience with its schedule slips. From an engineer's point of view, NASA had still not solved two very hard problems: (1) to land a craft on the Moon and return it safely to earth, and then (2) to send a mammal (preferably a primate) to the Moon, subjecting it to the harsh radiation environment of deep space and the Moon's surface, then return it to earth alive and verify its good health. No ethical engineer could send humans to the Moon without first solving these two problems, and no project manager would televise a human moon landing live without first solving them.

Logically enough (in a sense), NASA project managers decided that passing off a simulation as the real thing was a less risky option than sending 3 men to their deaths on live TV.

To this day, the United States has never landed a craft on a celestial body and returned it safely to earth. Unless you believe in the "moon landings."

To this day, no one has sent a mammal into deep space or onto a celestial body, returned it to earth alive, and verified its good health. Unless you believe in the "moon landings."

Read this book, then ask yourself: What would a bureaucrat do in this situation, especially if squeezed from behind by a military-industrial-intelligence complex that tells him, "Failure is not an option"?


Some more great reviews that are helpful and informative:

5.0 out of 5 stars Those who gave this one star haven't read it., February 24, 2011
By
Paolo L. Lanzarotti "Paul Lanzarotti" (UK/USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)

Having spent the last 7 years (on and off) researching the Apollo missions I went from laughing at the conspiracy theories to being 100% certain that the moon landings never happened. The political climate at the time was very different to today and while many people in the western world take comfort in believing in mans greatest "claimed" achievement you only have to look at the evidence to figure this stuff out.

In 1969 the VW Beetle was considered a modern car. The moon is 248,000 miles away and since the last Apollo mission NASA has not traveled further than 300 miles in space. That should really say it all....yet there is so much more scientific evidence available that one does not even need to look at the ridiculous multi shadowed pictures or any of the other overwhelming amount of evidence that something was not right.

I have found that people who refuse to believe the moon landings never happened also tend to prefer not to study the evidence available instead resorting to "you're crazy" or "it's easier to send man to the moon than to fake it"

Clearly that's not true.


One small step at exposing a big lie, December 13, 2010
By
SmokeNMirrors (London) - See all my reviews
This review is from: One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)

If you are able to view events with a mind which is 30% open, by the time you have read this book you will no longer believe we went to the moon. The inconsistencies in the official story, coupled with the missing information and attempts to prevaricate and deceive, force the objective thinker to consider that the story as given simply is not complete. And an incomplete story which is sold as a definitive version of events is by its nature a deliberate deception. It really is that simple.

Gerhard Wisnewski has done a superb job of marshalling the main points of the moon landing hoax theory into an easily-readable package with plenty of illustrations and easy-to-follow language throughout, despite the translation from German and the technical subject matter. Starting in the USSR with an overview of the Russian space effort, the author necessarily devotes 80% of the remainder to the USA, with the last part an overview of the implications for the future. Thoroughly recommended.

For anyone who doubts the thesis that it was possible to hoax the Apollo missions, I challenge you to a simple test. Go to the Apollo Image Atlas (Google it), select 70mm Hasselblad, Apollo 11. Select the first magazine (N) and scroll down, after a load of shots of a supposedly ever-more-distant earth, until you get to AS11-36-5382. Look closely at the images from here to AS11-36-5399. In all of the images where the windows are visible, they all have light blue light coming through the window. How is this possible if they are halfway to the moon. Also, go to magazine S, image AS11-40-5930, and save the hi-resolution image to your PC. Open the image and create a negative; look at the rocks in the right, left and foreground of the picture. On the left, the shadow is on the right of the rocks, especially clear in negative as the shadows appear as stark white. On the right of the picture the shadows are on the left of the rocks. In the foreground the shadows run from south to north. Also, around the shadow's head there is a very obvious hot-spot from a bright light source, again this is more obvious in negative as the brightness shows up successively darker. This is conclusive proof there were multiple light sources used, such as on a studio set. On the moon when the only source of light is the sun all shadows should run parallel, and there should be no hotspots.

I urge you to read the book, then get angry at the size and audacity of the brazen con the self-styled "masters of infinity" have perpetrated upon us all. Don't forget, we (the taxpayers) pay for this. And we, or at least you the American taxpayer, are going to pay through the nose again for the announced lunar missions in (I think) 2018; missions which are, for the same reasons, impossible.


Excellent! The lunar landings are a joke., March 25, 2010
By
Architect-426 (USA) - See all my reviews
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)

Excellent work and a very in depth research into the Apollo program. I actually could not put the book down until I finished. Growing up in the 60's and 70's we all took the moon landings for granted. Interesting that over 40 years later, the truth is surfacing and NASA cannot stop the surge of folks who do not believe that the lunar landings took place, or have serious doubts. Therefore they are flooding the media with "space" and potential future missions "back" to the moon and eventually to Mars. It's all propaganda as they are too embarrassed to admit their sin, and no doubt they have a "team" of folks out there trying to make people who don't believe in the lunar landings look like "fools".

There are several other scientific and engineering goofs Wisnewski and other Apollo truth seekers are missing, which truly put the nail in the coffin of this massive fraud committed by NASA. One is the engineering joke called the "LEM" designed by Grummen. The shell of this "tin can" is so thin that it would not even hold the required pressure to sustain life within the extreme vacuum of space without literally blowing to bits. There are also several design flaws in this contraption that once you see them, you know without doubt it was only a "stage prop". My personal favorite is the "moon car". NASA had to really push it here with that folding hot rod! The design flaws on that contraption are obvious as well, but it performed just "swell" on the moon...

The sad truth is we bought into the lunar landings, and are now paying dearly for this massive cover-up. Clearly, the faked lunar landings is a major "head blow" to the entire scientific community at large. And once folks realize what NASA was truly up to back in the 60's, the halls of the "scientific" world will never be the same. If they faked the moon, then they have faked Mars. Just like the lies of "monkey-to-man" evolution that were pumped into our schools back then (and still linger today), we reap what we sew. Science, or rather "science" so falsely called, is unraveling fast and many "scientists" will need to make career changes.

Some of the funniest things from the Apollo program:
-The lunar sky is pitch black as there are "no" stars visible from the moon. None.
-Michael Collins, the commander of the CM module does not remember seeing "any" stars, yet they had to navigate by the 37 navigational stars, or they would be lost in space forever.
-100% oxygen is 100% dangerous 100% of the time.
-Buzz Aldrin had 6 `beef sandwiches' packed for his trip to the "moon".
-If you look closely at the "lunar soil" or what they call "regolith", it looks just like mortar mix, and probably was.
-The Earth viewed from the moon per NASA photos is "tiny", but Earth is 4 times larger than the moon.
-ALL of their flight plans and trajectories were off. I have studied them closely and this is quite comical to say the least.
-Apollo 17 brought back a whopping 250lbs of "moon rock" but had no place to put it inside the LEM.
-NASA thought it was best to send completely different "teams" to the moon. Seriously, its not a good idea to send a pilot from the first successful "lunar landing" to safely land on the moon, which is a moving target with massive gravitational anomalies. Heaven forbid!
-Charlie Duke admits to spending more time learning "geology" (NASA was busy duping the USGS) than learning to fly the tin can called the "LEM".

Every high school student should be required to read this book. I also recommend "NASA Mooned America" by Ralph Rene. Rene also misses major engineering "errors and omissions" made by NASA.

Conclusion: The lunar landings are a pathetic joke. Lets hope the next generation won't be as gullible as we were. Moreover, lets make sure we guard ourselves from future scientific fraud.


Proof we were mooned for sure., February 23, 2009
By
S. Hottell "Connoisseur" (Aztec, NM USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)

Well written, interesting, objective, and dynamite. The author shows how the Soviets and USA turned the space race into a propaganda race, and how Disney's movies influenced elected government officials to believe space travel is possible and easy. Eventual success was "necessary" to keep the tax money coming in and also makes us proud of our countries.
After reading this book, we began to research what the encyclopedias say about the temperature on the moon. Before 1979, it is listed as fluctuating between +280F and -350F. Now, moon temperature is mysteriously left out of the Van Ostrand's Encyclopedia. Reader's Digest March 2009, page 159, says NASA is trying to develop a boot that will withstand the -350F on the moon! Why can't they just wear their PF flyers like they did in the 70's?
Ask your computer what the space suits were made of in order to withstand this tremendous temperature. "Lycra, spandex, nylon." Hey, I'll just stay right here on earth!
Here's an illustration you can do at home:
The diameter of Earth is approximately 8000 miles. Use an 8 inch plate to illustrate Earth. The diameter of the Moon is approximately 2000 miles. Use a golf ball to illustrate the Moon. The distance between Earth and the Moon is about 240,000 miles. Call that 240 inches or 20 feet. Place the dish and the golf ball 20 feet apart.
Place some tiny object about 1/2 inch from the plate. That represents the International Space Station which is 250 miles away.
If you believe the Soviets told the truth about Yuri Gagarin you really need to read this book.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron