Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Check out this stunning admission by NASA:

www.reuters.com...

(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.

www.africaresource.com...

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 @: www.reuters.com...

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….

www.reuters.com...

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

news.bbc.co.uk...

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?

www.youtube.com...

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

www.youtube.com...

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!

www.youtube.com...

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!

reply to post by WWu777


NASA is concerned about the long term effects of radiation involved in a prolonged stay on the Moon. We cover this every ten pages on this thread. The petrified wood story gets debunked every twenty pages or so. You should probably pay more attention to your own thread.

Originally posted by WWu777
Check out this stunning admission by NASA:

Spamming again Winston?

You just posted the identical post on another forum:

www.davidicke.com...

Bad form. Really bad form.

Jarrah and his shills are busy peddling his fictional filth to drive up his web stats and satisfy his ego as 'King of the Plebs'. I say we let them wallow in their slurry pit of ignorance and let anyone that wants to join them do so. You can only try so long trying to stop the neighbourhood turn into a ghetto, but there comes the time when you just have to say enough is enough and leave them to it. I say we leave the singularity and his pals to it personally.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by WWu777
Check out this stunning admission by NASA:

Spamming again Winston?

You just posted the identical post on another forum:

www.davidicke.com...

Bad form. Really bad form.

Nothing wrong with posting irrefutable things in two different forums.

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.

video.google.com...=2304895215368202642

reply to post by WWu777


AND....you fell for it??? Hook, line and sinker!!! Well done!

William Karel's 52-minute Dark Side of the Moon (Operation lune, France 2002), a mockumentary co-produced by Point du Jour and the Franco-German tv channel ARTE about the fake moonlanding of the Apollo 11 mission on July 21, 1969. Karel's highly entertaining and prize-winning spoof first of all pays homage to the cinematic legend and myth surrounding the late Stanley Kubrick, and in particular to his cult film 2001--a Space Odyssey (1968). Karel set out to make a film about Kubrick, discovering in the latter's estate information about his collaboration with NASA during the making of 2001, and then started to ask "what if ...?" questions, forming hypotheses about one of the 20th-century's most dramatic events. Beyond that, however, Dark Side of the Moon raises critical questions about documentary's generic conventions and viewers' assumptions regarding factual authority. It interrogates the complex relationship between images and sounds in film generally, raises questions of narrative unreliability, and is, last but not least, also about the nature of popular culture's fascination with conspiracy theories.

Beginning with secret documents from Kubrick's estate accessed by his widow Christiane one year after his death in 1999, Dark Side of the Moon sets out to answer the question ostensibly plaguing film critics for 25 years, why NASA had allowed Kubrick to borrow from them a one-off, top-secret, million-dollar Zeiss lens intended for photographing spy satellites to shoot the stunning candlelight scenes in his period film Barry Lyndon (1975)--only to unravel an amazing, far-flung plot with links between Hollywood and NASA's Apollo program, the White House, and Kubrick: highly impressed by the latter's visionary 2001, and in order to forgo any potential risks of the Apollo 11 mission failing or producing no usable footage, President Nixon decided to have Kubrick shoot the moonlanding on the set of 2001 in London and to have the fake footage broadcast for real; participants in the scam were subsequently hunted down and eliminated, and Kubrick himself forced to withdraw from public and live in seclusion. As a thank-you gesture, NASA years later allowed the solitary filmmaking genius to use their one-of-a-kind spy lens for Barry Lyndon. Underscored by Chaplinesque music, the end-credit sequence composed of outtakes then reveals that some of the interviewed people--including NASA experts, astronauts, their family and friends, Nixon's advisers and staff (among them former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld), CIA officials, a Hollywood producer and other witnesses--are actors reading lines from a script, with statements made by White House interviewees presented out of their original context; the film is shown to be a hoax, intended to be, as Christiane Kubrick confirms, just "good fun."

FALSE PREMISES

The power of Karel's documenteur resides in genuinely appropriating the format of regular television documentaries, and its being a hoax deriving credibility from so many exposes, half-truths, and popular conspiracy lore of recent decades. Feeding on recent scandals during the Bush presidency, the film clearly benefits from public disillusionment with the current administration, anti-Bush sentiments in Europe, and much criticism on both sides of the Atlantic over how the public was hoodwinked about the justification of the Iraq war, especially in its difficult aftermath. Taking a wider view, the once-held belief in "the camera doesn't lie" and in images indexically tied to their referents "out there" (and hence authentic) has been severely undermined in the last 15 years or so by the proliferation and increasing sophistication of computer-generated imagery (CGI), with the now almost limitless possibilities of image manipulation, and, finally, the circulation and liberal use of archive footage, especially on television news shows.

The moon-hoax theories--suggesting the Apollo moon landings in 1969-72 had been shot on an earthbound studio set--had become widely known in the wake of Bill Kaysing's bestselling book We Never Went to the Moon in 1974, and were given a fictionalized Hollywood gloss in the 1978 conspiracy thriller Capricorn One (with the setting changed from the moon to Mars). Involving the usual suspects from the 1970s, the first "Golden Age of Conspiracy," with the discredited Nixon administration, Watergate and all the other political scandals and revelations of that era, and extensions right into the present Bush administration, Dark Side of the Moon builds on an increasingly mainstream distrust of political authority (Goldberg 259), even authority tout court, if in ironical fashion. It still relies on our belief in the authoritative commentary of voice-over and "experts," only to subsequently deconstruct that kind of authority, without providing us in its place with anything resembling the truth.

Made for the conventional tv documentary slot, it carries all the paratextual markers of the genre, including slick voiceover (an anonymous, assertive male commentary), and a sophisticated blend of interviews and stock footage dramatically underscored on the soundtrack. Cleverly combining fact and fiction, it begins with credible questions and initially follows what appears to be a versimilitudinous trajectory, before bending reality to increasingly fantastic and ludicrous claims. Even after the film finally reveals itself as mockumentary, thereby disqualifying its main claim of the moonlanding hoax, viewers may remain uncertain about many other points made, such as the instrumentalization of the NASA space program for military and strategic purposes during the Cold War....

goliath.ecnext.com...

Apollo Moon landing "hoax" believers are SO gullible.....!!!

Originally posted by WWu777
Nothing wrong with posting irrefutable things in two different forums.

Except that they are NOT irrefutable, just things that have been debunked here many times before.

www.winston-wu.com...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND....you fell for it??? Hook, line and sinker!!! Well done!

Apollo Moon landing "hoax" believers are SO gullible.....!!!

Well, he also believes in Geller and other frauds, so he is very gullible
www.winston-wu.com...

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND....you fell for it??? Hook, line and sinker!!! Well done!

Apollo Moon landing "hoax" believers are SO gullible.....!!!

Well, he also believes in Geller and other frauds, so he is very gullible
www.winston-wu.com...

Was that necessary?

Poor taste

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Jarrah and his shills are busy peddling his fictional filth to drive up his web stats and satisfy his ego as 'King of the Plebs'. I say we let them wallow in their slurry pit of ignorance and let anyone that wants to join them do so. You can only try so long trying to stop the neighbourhood turn into a ghetto, but there comes the time when you just have to say enough is enough and leave them to it. I say we leave the singularity and his pals to it personally.

Oh but you can't can you?
You and many sock puppets like you just love being a gate keepers.

gate keepers? more like beacons of truth and reason.. which would make you a sock puppet.. I don't know whats worse that fact that you can't prove any thing.. or every time what you bring up any thing its sixth grade science that my sisters kid could understand.. maybe I should bring her over and have her talk in here.. even her glimmer of learning.. could put you to shame lol..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c16f3b932474.gif[/atsimg]

Another fake photo.
The shadows and textures on that hill or mountain is definitely off.

And somebody help me find the leg of this astronaut!

reply to post by FoosM


Wow, what a nice, clear defined photo. NO shadow problems with that, looks exactly as it should.

Man, you could use that for your wallpaper....(I prefer the one I have, "Red Moon Desert".....a picture of the Earth's desert, but looks red like Mars). Filters, setting Sun, etc....so artfull.

Wish I knew how to post a thumbnail....but, for those of you with Windows XP, it's in the list of desktop wallpaper settings......

(Yeah...I have "XP"!! Works fine, why upgrade????)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, and the photo?

Rather than making us waste time hunting down the mission, magazine number and frame....could you be a doll and find out, and post it???

Trying the 'nasamm04media", or whatever the link was in your filename, looks difficult and time consuming.....

Originally posted by FoosM
Another fake photo.
The shadows and textures on that hill or mountain is definitely off.

You'll have to point out exactly what you think is fake and why.

Originally posted by FoosM
And somebody help me find the leg of this astronaut!

It's mostly obscured by the rickshaw, but you can see his boot (red arrow) and the shadow from his leg (green arrow):

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, and the photo?

Rather than making us waste time hunting down the mission, magazine number and frame....could you be a doll and find out, and post it???

Trying the 'nasamm04media", or whatever the link was in your filename, looks difficult and time consuming.....

Yeah, I wish people would cite the Apollo image number when linking to sites where it isn't obvious. I figured out that was AS14-68-9405. That's Apollo 14 Commander Alan Shepherd by the "rickshaw," or Modular Equipment Transport, which was a tool carrier used just on Apollo 14 (later flights had the rover).

Originally posted by WWu777
Check out this stunning admission by NASA:
www.reuters.com...

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?

Hi. Today's ISS spacewalk may highlight this conundrum. Whilst they were Russian cosmonauts, they were only able to achieve a 6.5 hour spacewalk.

Russian mission controllers decided to postpone that job for a later spacewalk since the cosmonauts were running out of time and needed to go back inside. www.msnbc.msn.com...

But In 1972, the crew of Apollo 17 allegedly completed a 7.5 hour EVA.
Why can't today's technology match that of 40 years ago? Very strange.
Here's another example from STS-130 where with US astronauts an oxygen recharge is required during only a 6.5 hour eva.

Having finished their work configuring Tranquility for its installation on Unity, spacewalkers Bob Behnken and Nick Patrick are headed back to the Quest airlock to retrieve equipment and, in Behnken's case, recharge his spacesuit's oxygen supply.

While working on Tranquility, Behnken was told by Mission Control to slow his pace, apparently in response to his higher rate of consuming oxygen, leading to the unplanned recharge.www.collectspace.com...

These guys are just pottering around in low earth orbit, in 1972 they were allegedly bounding around, falling over, setting up the LRV and experiments, running, jumping, drilling, hammering etc. etc.

Yet today, when one astronaut exerts himself just a little too much in low earth oribit, they need to recharge their oxygen.

So not only can't we match the alleged 1972 technology, we've gone backwards.

Originally posted by nataylor

It's mostly obscured by the rickshaw, but you can see his boot (red arrow) and the shadow from his leg (green arrow):

So if that his foot, whats on it? A rock?

reply to post by ppk55


Dude....IF you'd research properly you'd have your answers...

...but, there's always someone who will give yo a star, regardless of the incorrect facts whenever you post. Amazing.

(Hint: Compare the Apollo PLSSs versus the curent MMUs that are used by NASA Astronauts, for ISS EVAs. I have not yet researched the Russians' technology for their MMUs yet...but now I guess I must. SOMOEONE has to set the record correct, each and every time these unwarranted ...and ignorant....accusations surface!)

reply to post by FoosM

So if that his foot, whats on it? A rock?

I wold venture a guess that nataylor is slightly off, with the arrow indicating the boot.

That looks to me more like a boot PRINT....with the actual lower leg and boot to the viewer's right, from that spot...it is obscured behind that equipment. See the computer ribbon cable, where it loops down, and back up?

The lower leg and boot are behind that part were the ribbon cable is entering, in the photo. Remember, this is a two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional event. Also, if I'm not mistaken, a portion of the knee is visible....and it all is in an anatomically correct position.