Moon hoax believers: Apollo 13?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: MuonToGluon

It never happened because the comunication based on distance happened at faster than light speed...

Just how far away do you think the Moon is?

a reply to: turbonium1

You seem to be confusing film with video.

a reply to: DJW001

The distance is not a constant...
However the moon is an average of 238,855 miles(384,400 km) away.
The speed of light is 186000 miles a second.
The conversation traveling along a land line than relayed and bounced of orbiting satellites to the moon listened to by Armstrong who then had to formulate and illicit a response and have his signal travel back all in 2 seconds is faster than light speed...
Also Radio waves travel at nearly the speed of light but not at light speed...
Not saying the Moon landing was an impossibility just saying the conversation was...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

It was essentially a monologue by Nixon.

a reply to: DJW001

It was a Conversation which was a fabricated production...

originally posted by: spicypickle
In my opinion, they didn't fake the moon landings. But they might have faked the movies of them. I've always thought that it's possible that the lighting and conditions of the lunar environment were too extreme for the cameras they had at the time so they faked the movies on earth.

When the 3 astronauts came back from Apollo 11, they were sullen, almost scared looking. I think they saw a lot of things that they had to sign agreements not to talk about. There is further precedent that this happened, and footage has been said to be lost of the mission which I don't believe even for a second. Someone sequestered that footage so the public can't ever see it. Faked videos to put in the place of what we aren't allowed to see is a very likely scenario as well.

It was great piece of propaganda used to de-legitimize and bankrupt the Soviet Union. Worked great. Too bad the whole world had to be lied to.

To bad in less then 50 years humans greatest achievement is reduced to this .
Take it from one of the MILLIONS of horses Mouths that watched ( i was 3 and remember watching in awl
as that Huge rocket launched . And watched in awl as Neil stepped out of that ship .
And watched in awl as it was done again and again .
No fluke No fake It was not needed .
besides the FACT there were 10000s of people involved over 15 years to even make it possible .
It wasnt like one day they said hey lets goto The moon .
It took years and many failers to even get a working rocket You like videos you should look up the testing of rockets in the 1950s
you say its fake ( But they would have had to fake 15 years worth of work to fake it .
I live in Florida barly a week goes by NASA is launching something into space .
I dont expect to change your minds . You are teh ones who have lost something from this stupidy .
But its sad to know if 50 years it has been reduced to this then maybe the Egyptian carvings are of space craft ( i dont bleive they are .
But after only 50 this? then what about 1000 years lol.
You do know even a Jet could be made to get into space after all its Only up you need to go the only hard part was enough fuel .

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: spicypickle
In my opinion, they didn't fake the moon landings. But they might have faked the movies of them. I've always thought that it's possible that the lighting and conditions of the lunar environment were too extreme for the cameras they had at the time so they faked the movies on earth.

When the 3 astronauts came back from Apollo 11, they were sullen, almost scared looking. I think they saw a lot of things that they had to sign agreements not to talk about. There is further precedent that this happened, and footage has been said to be lost of the mission which I don't believe even for a second. Someone sequestered that footage so the public can't ever see it. Faked videos to put in the place of what we aren't allowed to see is a very likely scenario as well.

They were scared to talk about going to the moon, because they never even went to the moon. Trying to describe something you never did, as if you did, would be hard enough, but when it's for one of our greatest historical events, anyone would be nervous.

It seems you think they went to the moon, and they saw alien structures, etc. And this made them nervous/scared afterwards...

While I'd prefer to have the alien theory found to be true, and the moon hoax found to be not true, it just isn't the reality ... imo.


As for faking the footage, because they had to hide the real footage, with alien artifacts.....

That doesn't make any sense to me.

If they had real footage, with alien artifacts, they edit out alien artifacts, no problem. Even alien theorists don't think all the footage would show alien artifacts, and if 50% of the footage showed it, they'd just show the other 50% of the footage. Even a minute of real footage would work, too. Nobody would be the wiser.

Compare that to your theory of faking all the footage, and hiding all the real footage. Why would they risk it, when the real footage is available? Simply by editing out all the alien stuff, and showing us actual landings, they'd have nothing to worry about, ever. To show fake footage when the real footage is on-hand? They'd have to create everything from scratch, and even then, it's difficult, or even impossible, to perfectly simulate their 'real' footage. Most of all, it is very risky, and if they didn't need to risk it, and had genuine footage, this would've been a no-brainer.

This also supports the moon hoax argument. If they had real footage, they'd have shown it. No idea why anyone would think they couldn't edit the footage, because they could, and they did, edit film footage, back then. The only reason to show fake footage is if real footage didn't exist. They had to land on the moon to get real footage, and if they couldn't get to the moon, they'd have no choice but to show us fake footage.

Anyway, do you have any valid explanation for why they'd have to show fake footage, when real footage was available, to edit?

a reply to: turbonium1

That is all the most ridiculous baloney I have read here in a long time!

They DID land on the moon, and the rocks they brought back are easily identifiable as our moon material because their isotopic ratios identify them uniquely to the moon, and if they were just meteorites, that would be identifiable too.

I watched their rocket launch and they went all the way to the moon and back. And icing on the cake is when Buzz Aldrin dropped a guy to the ground for accusing him of not actually going.

Nope, they went. Deal with being wrong, you'll be that much better for it.

Added: No on the editing real moon footage. If they did make fake moon footage for whatever reason, and I don't believe they did, editing real footage would be easily detectable by any film guru. So if they needed to show a different reality, they would have had to create clean footage without any tricks.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: turbonium1

That is all the most ridiculous baloney I have read here in a long time!

They DID land on the moon, and the rocks they brought back are easily identifiable as our moon material because their isotopic ratios identify them uniquely to the moon, and if they were just meteorites, that would be identifiable too.

I watched their rocket launch and they went all the way to the moon and back. And icing on the cake is when Buzz Aldrin dropped a guy to the ground for accusing him of not actually going.

Nope, they went. Deal with being wrong, you'll be that much better for it.

Added: No on the editing real moon footage. If they did make fake moon footage for whatever reason, and I don't believe they did, editing real footage would be easily detectable by any film guru. So if they needed to show a different reality, they would have had to create clean footage without any tricks.

Didn't you just suggest that Apollo astronauts saw aliens, or alien structures, on the moon?? And none of them will talk about it, as they had signed a contract?

That's not baloney, right? Sheesh.


A hero doesn't punch people for calling him a liar. A liar who pretends to be a hero will punch someone calling him a liar.

a reply to: turbonium1

Do people seriously believe the moon landings were a hoax, really?

a reply to: turbonium1

A hero doesn't punch people for calling him a liar. A liar who pretends to be a hero will punch someone calling him a liar.

How do you know so much about how liars think?

originally posted by: why4what
a reply to: turbonium1

Do people seriously believe the moon landings were a hoax, really?

I wonder why people seriously still believe that we did land on the moon!.

I've seen images taken from lunar orbit showing a disturbance of some sort at the exact spot the Apollo lander is supposed to be, is what they believe to be a disturbance of soil, all around the lander, which caused the disturbance of soil.

So when I see images (supposedly) taken on the lunar surface, the same disturbance should be seen. But there is no disturbance of soil, as we do in the images from orbit.

This is just one of many examples proving it is all fake.

So if you seriously believe this must be some sort of mystical phantom disturbance, which is invisible on the surface, yet magically appears from 50 km away, then you can believe in the moon landings.

I do not, cannot, and will not, ever believe in such grandiose fantasies.

a reply to: Mike_A

Amazingly, only a hundred years ago or so, did people still believe the moon was made of cheese. How did people get so smart so fast, aliens technology? I'll have to ask Sergio the next time I see him.

Why the landing has been hoaxed ? You can read this excellent topic:

Nixon's Apollo: Howard Hughes and the Apollo Hoax

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

A hero doesn't punch people for calling him a liar. A liar who pretends to be a hero will punch someone calling him a liar.

How do you know so much about how liars think?

I know that liars would have behaved exactly like Aldrin did, same as many people know how liars react with anger.

If you don't know that, you only need to learn it is very basic knowledge on the subject of human behavior.

If you really were a liar, but you'd always kept it a secret from everyone else, you would not want someone to call you out as a liar, especially if he KNOWS you are lying, or at least might know. It warrants an emotional response, anger, at the person calling you out as a liar.

But if you aren't a liar, you have no emotional trigger to someone calling you out as a liar. You don't like being called a liar, of course. But you have no emotional trigger to the accusation.

Human Behavior 101

a reply to: turbonium1

I've seen images taken from lunar orbit showing a disturbance of some sort at the exact spot the Apollo lander is supposed to be, is what they believe to be a disturbance of soil, all around the lander, which caused the disturbance of soil.

So when I see images (supposedly) taken on the lunar surface, the same disturbance should be seen. But there is no disturbance of soil, as we do in the images from orbit.

Every time this is brought up, it is explained to you that the "disturbance" in the orbital images is due to contrasting regolith being exposed that is too subtle to be noticed in the surface images, since those photographs were taken while standing in the disturbed region. Explained countless times, dredged up by you again and again.

This is just one of many examples proving it is all fake.

That is one of many examples of ignorance embraced.

a reply to: turbonium1

So all those people who died in duels really were liars?

originally posted by: TheMasterOne
Why the landing has been hoaxed ? You can read this excellent topic:

Nixon's Apollo: Howard Hughes and the Apollo Hoax

Right... why spend billions on spacecraft that can be used for military purposes when you can spend billions making a movie?