The MOON HOAX

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
MrSinclair
Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:29 am

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by MrSinclair »

It also stands to reason that just as no politician is uncompromised the same is true for these new billionaires. The selection of their businesses to ascend must come with some price and compromises. We also have the warm fuzzy feeling that grows from our interaction with these business. They respond to our needs in ways that the one way medium of television does not. We have satisfaction guarantees and rapid shipping so it is easy to trust them. Operation Mockingbird, the CIA project to influence and shape public opinion which never ended knows we trust the businesses they've nurtured and they will find any number of ways to manipulate and exploit this. By means of Facebook and Twitter the corporate communications are essentially equal to those of ones friends creating ever more trust in and commitment to these brands and their public faces.

I see the Stalinism with a happy face memes everywhere. Nonetheless we have the freedom to apply for the right to protest anything we don't like as long as we pay our fees and confine our protest to the designated free expression zones. As long as nobody is offended we are then free to speak our minds, what a great country! :puke: :puke: :puke:
Starbucked
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:33 am

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by Starbucked »

Lost Apollo 11 moon dust found in storage

Image


A vial of Apollo 11 moon dust from a lunar sample collected in 1969 is seen after its rediscovery 40 years later in the warehouse of Berkeley Lab in California. (Marilee Bailey/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
Next Slide Previous Slide
Vials of moon dust brought back to Earth by the first men on the moon have been found inside a lab warehouse in California after sitting in storage unnoticed for more than 40 years.
The samples — collected by Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin — were rediscovered last month by an archivist who was going over artifacts tucked away at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
"We don't know how or when they ended up in storage," Karen Nelson, who made the surprising discovery, said in a statement from the lab.
'We don't know how or when they ended up in storage.'
- Karen Nelson, who made the surprising discovery
Nelson came across about 20 vials with handwritten labels dated "24 July 1970," packed in a vacuum-sealed glass jar. Accompanying the jar was an academic paper published in the Proceedings of the Second Lunar Science Conference in 1971, titled "Study of carbon compounds in Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 returned lunar samples."

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/ ... n-storage/
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by Maat »

Funny how NASAssholes feel the need to regularly revive the original "moon landing" hoax with these silly story lines and "rediscovered" props to keep it "alive" in the public memory.

All this "moon dust" bull dust reminds me of is how I have been puzzled from the start, as a kid watching the "news" footage on TV in '69, how the moon could possibly have any "dust" covering it at all! It has no atmosphere, nothing to grind rock down, and reflects the sun with an intense luminosity — from powdered rock? :blink:

How the hell would they know what the moon surface really is anyway?

I also remember impressing a stand-in science teacher in 2nd year high school by positing my alternative theory for the craters on the moon, contrary to the orthodox assumption taught that they were all created by accumulative meteor bombardment. Since we were told that the moon was probably a molten mass thrown off when the Earth was formed (or in tandem with it), why isn't it possible that the moon craters are simply the result of huge bursting bubbles of molten matter that were frozen in situ?

Needless to say, I have not found anything since to convince me otherwise. :rolleyes:

And of course, thanks to NA$A's hoax, no honest scientific inquiry can ever get close to determining the truth about how the moon came to be or what it's made of:
Origin of the Moon refers to any of the various explanations for the formation of the Moon, Earth's natural satellite. The leading theory has been the giant impact hypothesis.[1] However, research continues on this matter, and there is a number of variations and alternatives.[1] Captured body, fission, formed together (condensation theory), planetesimal collisions (formed from asteroid-like bodies), and collision theories are some other ones.[2] However, most of these have a lot of problems which is one reason why giant impact hypothesis has been favored.[2]

GIH (Giant Impact Hypothesis) suggests a Mars-sized body called Theia impacted Earth, creating a large debris ring around the Earth which then formed the system.[1]

Something that needs explaining is why the Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios seem to be essentially identical to Earth's.[3] Oxygen isotopic ratios, which may be measured very precisely, yield a unique and distinct signature for each solar system body.[4] If Theia had been a separate proto-planet, it probably would have had a different oxygen isotopic signature than Earth, as would the ejected mixed material.[5] Also, the Moon's titanium isotope ratio (50Ti/47Ti) appears so close to the Earth's (within 4 ppm), that little if any of the colliding body's mass could likely have been part of the Moon.[6][7]
... ref *3, because they were given Earth rocks labeled "lunar":-

"We have determined the abundances of 16O,17O, and 18O in 31 lunar samples from Apollo missions 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17 using a high-precision laser fluorination technique...." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5541/345.abstract

"One of truth's protective layers", indeed <_<
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by lux »

Yet another Apollo movie on the drawing boards ...
From the studio that put Sandra Bullock in a spacesuit may now come a movie about the real-life seamstresses who traded sewing brassieres for stitching Neil Armstrong's lunar wardrobe.

Warner Bros. Pictures, which this fall will release Alfonso Cuarón's Bullock-and-George-Clooney-as-astronauts sci-fi film "Gravity," has hired screenwriter Richard Cordiner to adapt the non-fiction book, "Spacesuit: Fashioning Apollo" for the big screen, the Hollywood news website Deadline reports.
More info here.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Wow, isn't there something better the rich could be doing with their time than devising extraordinary, useless fables?

Such as feeding the hungry that want food, housing the homeless that want homes, not screwing over people with fake money and insulting concepts of debt?
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by Maat »

Re Playtex $pacesuits

http://www.space.com/21297-bra-makers-m ... movie.html
"One of the most remarkable stories is when Playtex was indeed successfully edged out of the [spacesuit selection] process at one point in 1965 and then battled its way back into a six week competition between three companies that would produce the final suit that would walk on the moon," de Monchaux told NPR's "Science Friday" in 2011.
Bollocks! Of course Playtex had to "win" the contract — their "Cross Your Heart" bra had the famous slogan that it "Lifts and Separates" :rolleyes: :P
Moon-Apollo-BRA-flag.gif
Moon-Apollo-BRA-flag.gif (600.56 KiB) Viewed 16304 times
Original image|source
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by simonshack »

Maat wrote: Bollocks! Of course Playtex had to "win" the contract — their "Cross Your Heart" bra had the famous slogan that it "Lifts and Separates" :rolleyes: :P
Whoah - Maat! I'd never seen that Apollo shot with the flapping flag before! My goodness - at closer inspection, It really does look like a bra. I'm gonna run it through ELA fotoforensics now - to try and determine if it's legit or not! B)
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Don't bother, Simon. I believe this shot is real. You see in addition to making cameras that were immune to the highest levels of radiation known to woman or man, they were also developing GIF-taking cameras in the 1940's. This is a perfectly preserved and reproduced file from the version of the camera that made it to the Moon. It also has the ability to inflate and miniaturize chosen areas of the picture for dramatic effect. My cousin helped design it and I personally tested the functions of the 1980's model known as the Xpedienz 400. Are you trying to tell me my cousin doesn't exist?!??!!!!11

The Internet made the GIF-function obsolete and the company has since gone out of business, but I still have my name tag from taking a tour of their facilities. It was full of smiling, grinning infectious people. I can't quite shake them from my memory, actually, it was disturbing.

Anyway, you can still see an early model of this camera in the corner of the Smithsonian's miniatures of the cross-sections of the Apollo pod. It didn't make it to the larger version due to copyright issues.
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by Maat »

Too true, Hoi! :lol:

Oh, but the truly amazing, untold story is that Playtex did lose their contract bid to develop the launch system for Apollo — their prototype anti-gravity slingshot design was considered far too simple, with too little profit share for aerospace corporations etc. and no room for adding esoteric complexities only NA$A scientists could explain:
bra-max-lift.jpg
bra-max-lift.jpg (104.88 KiB) Viewed 16073 times
Image
pov603
Member
Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by pov603 »

Would they have been able to see or photograph the Areola Borealis from the moon...
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by Maat »

pov603 wrote:Would they have been able to see or photograph the Areola Borealis from the moon...
Considering they claimed they couldn't see stars, probably not Pov — but they should have been able to see Uranus, and Mars too ^_^
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by lux »

A craft similar in design to the object pictured above was tested in space but unfortunately crashed into Mars as shown here:

Image
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space ... ns_on_Mars

It completely buried itself on impact leading many to speculate that Mars may actually be located near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
Last edited by lux on Fri May 31, 2013 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
pov603
Member
Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by pov603 »

lux wrote:A craft similar in design to object pictured above was tested in space but unfortunately crashed into Mars as shown here:

Image
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space ... ns_on_Mars

It completely buried itself on impact leading many to speculate that Mars may actually be located near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
Ah! so we actually see the Areola Borealis on Mars!

Edit: moon to mars.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

It completely buried itself on impact leading many to speculate that Mars may actually be located near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
:lol:
Nasaspotlight
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:39 am

Re: The Moon Hoax

Unread post by Nasaspotlight »

Hello again. I wanted to update everyone on a very telling piece of evidence (found online). But first, I want to explain just why I am here. I KNOW for a FACT the moon landing is fake. I laid out some reasons in my months old reply to poor HEIWA being taken in by the gang of sentinels over at hoxers.net. Other evidence exists as illustrated by this 75 page thread. A 75 page thread that just took me the better part of about 24 hours to re-skim through (page by page and post by post) while looking for some specific information I remembered coming across.

When researching this hoax in earnest from about 2008-2011 (before life got in the way of my in depth research) I always tired of the nonsense boiler plate arguments and felt they were a trap as well. We all know them by heart: no stars in the sky, flag flapping, radiation issues, lunar heat/cold issues, Lunar Module issues et al. So I decided to research down rabbit holes I considered “out of the box”. I researched CIA/FBI FOIA docs online (after the a$$tronot’s kid claimed he could call the CIA and have them waxed), I researched the NASA technical document server and more. The one thing that really bothered me was I would casually watch youtube vids of the hoax that would show “mission” video and I always wanted to get my hands on a nice vid copy of the same to analyze frame by frame and look at every piece of the suit and every grain of dirt for any sign of the fakery. And where would you naturally turn to for the videographic record of the Apollo Simulation? Nasa.gov of course (or one of its dozens of sub sites like gsfc,ksc yada yada). Most of the videos offered from NASA where in real player format and even back in 2008-2009 this was obsolete. However, upon recommendation from a family member upon how to view different video files, I installed a movie player that had ALL the codecs available at the time to allow me to view any video file I could get my hands on from the internet. I excitedly went back to download all the real player vids of the fake mission and lo and behold, the videos were terrible. I’m no video expert so I don’t know how to explain this other than in layman’s terms. The vid was really bad quality but the worst part was the vids were tiny. They would take up maybe 5% of a computer monitor and if you went full-screen the resolution was so awful that it just became unwatchable.

I was bothered by this a lot, I considered this more indirect proof of hiding the lie, because who would honestly provide videos of such poor quality for man’s alleged greatest achievement and not even attempt to convert the videos, let alone provide them in at least a normal, if not HD, resolution? But I digress. This annoyance, led me to do some further research and I stumbled onto what I believed to be the best site for proving this fakery. FOOTAGEVAULT.COM. The thing was, I waited and waited, scoured message board after message board, almost all youtube comments on Apollo vids, even the “lie-guarding” sites like bad astronomy and jref forums. Not one other person mentioned this site. Then I came here and saw several references to the site. It is part of the reason I truly enjoy coming to this site and reading, you guys do great research work.

Starting on page 13 of this thread, user TIMOTHYMURPHY first mentions footagevault, and furthermore, goes deeper into one of the main perps behind that site, one Christopher Riley. Not to go too far on a tangent but you always have to check the credibility of your sources and I sure did. Riley was supposed to be a PHD that NASA contracted to basically ‘update’ all the fraudulent Apollo footage shot with the 16mm Mauer motion picture camera. So, naturally, I google Riley to see what else he is up to. I find out he is credited on some hokey UFO crockumentary, the kind that screams “UFOs are real just ask barney hill” type crockumentaries. Now I ask myself why would NASA allow their vaunted PHD, who must have been a real special individual to gain access to the thousands of hours of Apollo footage, to corroborate on some hokey UFO crap? The red flag was raised.

Back on topic, footagevault.com was referenced two more times within this thread; once by what seemed like a shill by the username of “Trystero” on page 59 and once again by user “reel.deel.” on page 60. Footage vault was apparently THE website for television corporations to use to gather authentic (cough cough) Apollo (simulation) footage. They proudly boasted of the BBC and the discovery channel as two of their clients. Once I stumble onto this treasure trove, I began investigating, frame by frame for any proof of fakery I could find.

A majority of the videos are interesting, if not highly suspicious. There were things I can’t really describe such as flashes that would last a few frames but engulf the entire image. These flashes piqued my curiosity so I would pause the video and watch each individual frame (to the best of my ability, with basic movie players on a laptop). What I noticed was buried in some of these flashes were the film slates. The slates would list the: photographer, inspector and the dates. The problem was the photographer (guynes) and the inspector (h. jones) barely exists in NASA records that I could dig up and the dates were a few weeks in advance of the alleged mission launch dates. This didn’t just happen one time or two, this occurred for every single slate from every single Apollo mission. Not all slates are so well hidden in the footagevault videos. Some slates are right there out in the open, some slates are so faint you have to really strain to decipher the “date” from the slate.

Interestingly enough, in the “terms” section of footage vault, there was a disclaimer that always gave me a chuckle and was just more indirect proof of fraud. The disclaimer said (I’m paraphrasing) footagevault is not responsible for any ‘accidental inaccuracies’ (such as the content of shot lists). What exactly is an accidental inaccuracy? It was very nice of them to define it as the content of shot lists, but we all know that was their feeble preemption to modify the lie when evidence was dug out from that site and potentially used against the perps.

I wish the talented crew here at CF had the time to dig through those videos and point out ALL the ‘accidental innaccuracies’ or as we laymen refer to it, the ‘evidence’ that prove the lie of Apollo.

Time for a little update since what I have been relaying to you I have known for a few years now. Try going to footagevault.com today. There is this very strange disclaimer that partly reads:

“Footagevault Limited -Footagevault Limited has ceased trading until further notice. Due to ongoing investigations in to the activities of the company officers of Footagevault Limited and possible legal proceedings, the Footagevault website and other associated IT services have been indefinitely suspended. The officers of the company have been instructed to cease all business activity.”


A simple google search for “Legal action footage vault limited” reveals a similar page only accessible through google’s cache of how it appeared in April that provides a few more details.

If you use the way back machine, you should be able to view the ‘terms’ page that has the interesting disclaimer about accidental inaccuracies.

That’s it for now,I have another post brewing in my head, totally unrelated to this topic of footagevault, but still on topic for the moon landing hoax.
Post Reply