Our Entire Space Program Is A Hoax And A Massive Deception

reply to post by ClaudiaS

Can't always answer for Lisa BUT, if the astronauts cannot see the stars, then how can the missiles?

The human eye is biochemical, missiles use solid state CCDs.

reply to post by lisaandbetty

Claudia, you have looked into this more than anyone.

Stop talking to yourself and find a therapist!

reply to post by usainbolyboo

The other thing here that can never be overemphasized little lisa is that Samuel Phillips himself was in charge of the Apollo program.

And Mackenzie Phillips was in "American Grafitti." So what?

reply to post by SkepticGuy

NASA's engineers:

"Oops, we lost the original moon landing footage"

Yet again: where did they say that?

Hiya DJW.

Normally I wouldn't say anything that's really up to a moderator, but I'd probably just stop replying to this person. Their logic is seriously flawed from the get go anyway. Replying is just bumping their alts.

reply to post by DJW001


Not my point, nor is it the OP's of this thread, but it is a good one and merits emphasis and re-emphasis and re-re-emphasis. It matters not of what the photosensitive elements are comprised, flesh and blood or conventional camera hardware, whatever have you. If a Russian ICBM can find Sirius, or Menkant, or Canopus, or Rigel, or Altair, if ICBMs can see these stars, and they do, and they see them in the context of their constellations, then so too Michael Collins would have been so able space to do the very same from his vantage in space, were he ever really where he was pretending to be in July of 1969. But alas, Collins denied such to be the case. As we know the ICBMs can and do find stars, and so it must be the eyes of Michael Collins that lie. And ironically, Collins lies to cover Apollo's strange truth. Apollo was a program that did among other things, create and set up the hardware and software enabling American ICBMs to find Sirius, and Menkent, and Altair, and Canopus, and Rigel, and Moscow, and Beijing.

reply to post by miltonsboys

Not my point, nor is it the OP's

You are the OP. Goodbye.

Originally posted by blocula
Theres so much evidence that points to the fact that we never even went to the moon,i wont bother getting into all of those well known details...

If that really was a hoax and a lie and i think it was,to say we beat the russians at something major and significant during the cold war,for funneling mega-bucks towards other directions and into other hands and also for more nefarious reasons...

And so why would'nt our entire space program itself also be a hoax and a deception?

Intentionally designed and orchestrated to keep the vast majority of us,the mainstream masses, thinking and looking in the wrong direction,up there,instead of all around us.Because 95% of the earths mass is totally unknown to us and completely unexplored by us,far below underground and deep within the ocean...

The van allen belt that surrounds the earth has been described as being impenetrable by humans and man made machines because of very large amounts of very deadly radiation...

Try going up far beyond the earths atmosphere and you'll be within temperatures that are -455 degrees below zero and you'll be instantly turned into frozen dust and nearly all molecular motion ceases at those kinds of extreme temperatues.Absolute zero is -459.67 degrees below zero...

Remember seeing roses and other man made objects being momentarily placed within those very same deep freezing temperatures,taken out and then lightly tapped against something,or gently squeezed within someones gloved hand and how those deep frozen objects instantly disintegrated into frozen dust like breaking glass?

And so the molecules that make up their spacesuits and their spaceships should also cease to move and those spacesuits and spaceships should also be instantly turned into brittle frozen dust, but they dont and they are not...

Why dont they? Why are they not? Are they even really up there? Were all the moon landings and our entire space program itself nothing more than a huge hoax and a massive deception?

What percentage of the human race has claimed to have actually gone up into outer space? Not even 500 people and thats about 1 in 10 million...

And so all the astronauts who claim to have gone to the moon,walked upon its surface and went into outer space,could actually be lying,high paid actors and actresses,sworn to secrecy...

Because all we really see are the rockets going up and then we see the capsules splashing down...

We see the space shuttles going up and then we see the space shuttles landing...

We see the satellite carrying rockets going up and then we see nothing coming back down...

Thats all we really see,thats all we really know,because thats all we are shown...

And everything else they are showing us,are nothing more than visual displays of their power tripping psych-ops,their green/blue screen movies and their faked photographs...

This should'nt be ignored and dismissed,because like it or not,it isnt out of the question and its a very real possibility that i think and believe is true...

edit on 28-3-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)

Since I have started delving into more questioning of many things and coming across alternative news sites etc, the moon landing "conspiracy" is one that I can never understand as to why folks would think it is a hoax. To insinuate that because our Govt has lied to us therefore it probably /definately "lied" about landing on the moon. That is for one, a logical fallacy.

I have checked into some of the so called "evidence" that we didn't land on the moon but I am not convinced.

One of the things that is setting my alarm bells off in the other direction, however, is the fact that yet again, we have one of those "Poisoned world views' ideas. "Humans are SOO duped and stupid and under control of the elite, see we even hoaxed the entire space program and the stupid masses fell for it". I mean, wow, can you GET anymore cynical?.

Not EVERYTHING is a "hoax. Some stuff is VERY real and DID happen.

I am increasingly suspicious of some alternative researchers out there that are putting out this preposterous theory we never landed on the moon and furthermore, our entire space program is an elaborate lie. Just say, that you are right, it has all been one big LIE. What will humanity then do when it DOES come out that we never have left planet earth? Really imprison our minds, that is what.

I can see that some alternative researcher is probably out there spouting that images of the "Big blue ball" that is our earth was faked and the astronauts talk about the idea that we are ALL TOGETHER on this one planet and how that is helping the Elite plan for the "one world govt' stuff, right? I think it is paranoid hooey!.

I think that there are some who are trying to trap people into believing that this is one big prison, that we all have been so duped and there is NO way out, don't bother to dream or imagine a better world

reply to post by Trivium68


Not at all Trivium. Apollo is known to be untrue because the facts support that view. The astronauts and cohorts lie plain and simple and the lies abound.

The missile business has always interested me personally. Think of the complexities, especially those having to do with launching an SLBM in the 60s. Where was the ship to begin with? Once launched, depending on time of day, time of year and other concerns, the algorithm for finding a star would be incredibly complex. They do not even talk about these things in 2012 and we never heard a peep about it in the 60s and 70s as it was all evolving.

One way to look at Apollo is to think of it in terms of hardware. For several years, Saturn Vs pushed immense hardware packages into space. Whatever was placed there, presumably was maintained by the shuttle and something like the shuttle will continue to maintain military space hardware. Given the needs, it is not unreasonable to think some of this equipment was involved in ICBM and SLBM celestial missile guidance and navigation. The simple fact that it is needed and the fact we never hear or read about it and the fact that it was and is a reality speaks volumes in support of such a perspective.

The Apollo astronauts themselves were probably never in space during the missions. The stories they tell about seeing and then not seeing stars are among the most important clues we have in unraveling the mystery of it all. But the key there is in studying ICBM, SLBM, and submarine guidance and navigation. The astronauts have already given us that much with their lies. They have oriented us, given us our attitude, pointed us in th correct direction, shown us where the money is. Studying non Apollo materials about celestial missile guidance and navigation will ultimately tell us what Apollo was all about.

Originally posted by sitchin
reply to post by denver22

 

so 40 years on and we still have to look at the old grainy images of the moon ...until the moon is mapped much like earth is, i can't really buy into Believing anything NASA has to say on the subject ..we have the know how..we have the tools to do it in space now...Im sure everyone on the planet would love to take a virtual tour in high definition around the moon ...was so disappointed with Google's moon maps .. im not buying into the fact that there is nothing of interest on the moon ..NASA are hiding something

i don't have to quote some one on the internet to know that....

it is entirely plausable that there is something on the moon that is being hidden, that so much could be true. And it is strange that with Hubble (which is fantastic btw.. but I am sure someone here believes that was fake and all the images from Hubble are just photoshopped art or something). That Hubble or another telescope hasn't given back better contemporary images of the moon.. unless there is stuff out there I don't know about.

reply to post by lucifer5

Not at all Trivium. Apollo is known to be untrue because the facts support that view. The astronauts and cohorts lie plain and simple and the lies abound.

You have never provided so much as a single fact that supports that view, "Doctor."

The missile business has always interested me personally. Think of the complexities, especially those having to do with launching an SLBM in the 60s. Where was the ship to begin with? Once launched, depending on time of day, time of year and other concerns, the algorithm for finding a star would be incredibly complex. They do not even talk about these things in 2012 and we never heard a peep about it in the 60s and 70s as it was all evolving.

Wrong. The use of celestial navigation for ICBMs and SLBMs was public knowledge. The details of the hardware was legitimately classified for reasons of national security.

One way to look at Apollo is to think of it in terms of hardware. For several years, Saturn Vs pushed immense hardware packages into space. Whatever was placed there, presumably was maintained by the shuttle and something like the shuttle will continue to maintain military space hardware. Given the needs, it is not unreasonable to think some of this equipment was involved in ICBM and SLBM celestial missile guidance and navigation. The simple fact that it is needed and the fact we never hear or read about it and the fact that it was and is a reality speaks volumes in support of such a perspective.

For several years, Saturn Vs pushed hardware to the Moon. This hardware was tracked all the way there by many nations and amateur radio enthusiasts. The STS was capable only of servicing satellites in low Earth orbit, not on the Moon. It is therefore completely unreasonable to make the sort of connection you are trying to make. You are being entirely contrafactual that we we never hear or read about celestial navigation being used by missiles.

The Apollo astronauts themselves were probably never in space during the missions. The stories they tell about seeing and then not seeing stars are among the most important clues we have in unraveling the mystery of it all. But the key there is in studying ICBM, SLBM, and submarine guidance and navigation. The astronauts have already given us that much with their lies. They have oriented us, given us our attitude, pointed us in th correct direction, shown us where the money is. Studying non Apollo materials about celestial missile guidance and navigation will ultimately tell us what Apollo was all about.

As has been pointed out extensively before, there is no reason to suppose that the astronauts were not in space, and many logical reasons why their communications cannot have been "faked." We have been through the whole "no stars" business, and what the astronauts say is entirely consistent with the nature of human sight. Trying to use this as a logical springboard to your secret SLBM experiment "theory" is preposterous. Finally, you, of all people, are in no position to call anyone else a "liar."

Why don't you try discussing a real conspiracy for once? Did you hear about the French chess masters who threw games to boost one of their countryman's standing? That might be an appropriate place to start.

reply to post by Trivium68


Not so Trivium68. Most of us that spend a great deal of time and energy studying the Apollo issue study all of the American manned space effort, from even before the NACA days to the present, 08/13/2012. We just don't look at the very fake moonscape shots, granted and albethey so readily identifiable as fake

Most, but not all of us, see the American manned space effort not as a "hoax" in the conventional sense. We don't see it as a "lots of yuks joke", and for that matter, most of us do not see it as a massive effort to one up the Soviets. Most of us see the American manned space effort as a cover up for American military operations. The U.S. ARMY or USAF , or US NAVY cannot launch a 50,000 lb package into space without somebody asking what it might be, two or three a year say. You get the point. There are many of us Trivium68 that spend all of our free time doing nothing but working to take Neil Armstrong down. It is our goal in life. Just like Jobs wanted to take down Android and swore to spend every dime APPLE had in the process if that is what it took. We do not hve Jobs money, be we have time and great smarts. Some of our groups are highly organized, more so, more capable, more competent, than the tricksters at NASA itself. So Armstrong's downfall is inevitable. It would be better if it happened before he died, but it is his choice, within my lifetime, his name will be lunar mud. We are relatively small in number, but we have the goods, the truth.

We do look at pictures Trivium68, and we do look at the rocks. I have actually studied a small piece(microscopic) of a moonrock myself. I am a bit of a mole, a geologist working on the "inside" as it were. However, rocks aside, what we study with the greatest ardor, the greatest passion, are the STORIES, the stories the astronauts and flight officers and other NASA personnel tell. This is because the stories never add up. For example Trivium68, have you ever asked yourself why Neil Armstrong said that he could not see stars from the surface of the moon, while at the very same time, astronaut Alan Shepard wrote that stars were easily seen by moonwalkers? They cannot both be correst. And it cannot be an innocent error on the part of one of the astronauts. It would be impossible for Neil Armstrong to see stars from the surface of the moon and forget that simple experience, and equally impossible for Shepard to not see stars and then misremember their easily being seen. So we know they are lying. The both of them. Armstrong and Shepard lie compulsively about this stuff. they have to. It is made up to an appreciable degree.

These lies are a funny way of their trying to have things both ways. There are many such lies by the astronauts and other major American manned space program players. They are not lying to fool us in the sense of "kidding" us, they are lying to fool us in the sense of covering up their doing something that they were not supposed to be doing. Usually this has to do with placing weapons in space, or placing systems in space that military people would go on to use, such as systems that locate objects on the face of the earth.

One idea I have is that Apollo may have been a program that launched artificial stars(satellites) into space that the ICBMs could dependably sight and use in their guidance and navigating on the way to Leningrad. I do not know what other posters would think of that idea. And it is only one idea. I have many. There are so very many things they may have been up to, bad things, military things. The one thing we do know with absolute certainty is that because of all the lying, the saying they couldn't see stars and then turning around and saying no, after all they could, this kind of obvious lying, in dozens and dozens and dozens of instances, proves without any question at all that the American manned space effort was an evil effort, and an effort that was launch with an intent to deceive the American public.

The men and women that carried out this crime are very bad people and should be appropriately punished with the heaviest hand. I salute all of those who work so tirelessly to finally bring the creeps to justice.

reply to post by joethejetperry




en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by joethejetperry
reply to post by Trivium68

 

This is because the stories never add up. For example Trivium68, have you ever asked yourself why Neil Armstrong said that he could not see stars from the surface of the moon, while at the very same time, astronaut Alan Shepard wrote that stars were easily seen by moonwalkers? They cannot both be correst. And it cannot be an innocent error on the part of one of the astronauts. It would be impossible for Neil Armstrong to see stars from the surface of the moon and forget that simple experience, and equally impossible for Shepard to not see stars and then misremember their easily being seen. So we know they are lying. The both of them. Armstrong and Shepard lie compulsively about this stuff. they have to.

Stars are not dramatically brighter in space (above the Earth's atmosphere). Professional astronomer and two-time space shuttle astronaut Ronald A. Parise stated that he could barely see stars at all from space. He had to turn out all of the lights in the shuttle to even glimpse the stars.

Thats why NO stars show in pictures like this!



or this



The camera exposure is set to suit the light reflected from the earth/shuttle so faint starlight wont and CANT show.

Its the same on the Moons surface if any part of the surface is in the astronauts field of view you eyes adapt for that level of light. To see stars on the Moons surface they would have had to got to an area of shadow make sure they could see none of the bright surface and give there eyes time to adapt.

Anyone with any photographic knowledge knows this and there are a good few of us that are members here that do!

reply to post by wmd_2008


wmd_2008, you are addressing the wrong "HB objection". I don't believe there is a serious student of Apollo on either side of the fence that spends time discussing why stars are not seen in the photos. Everybody knows and agrees stars should not appear in the moonscape and other photos unless a dedicated effort had been made, a la Apollo 16, to photograph stars whether conventionally, UV wise, or what have you. Your point is a non starter. joethejetperry was challenging you to explain why on the one hand Armstrong said that he did NOT SEE STARS and on the other hand Alan Shepard wrote that he could EASILY SEE STARS from the surface of the moon.

joethejetperry was pointing out that the astronauts stories about SEEING STARS were contradictory and inconsistant. joethejetperry may be more familiar with the details than I am, but they are known well enough to all of us and for the sake of bringing you up to speed I shall point a select few out. There really are literally a dozen of them.

Neil Armstrong never publicly addressed the question of photographing stars in the sense to which you made reference in your own post. Armstrong did however discuss publicly on two famous occasions his not being able to SEE them. Both at the Apollo 11 press conference that took place in Houston on 08/12/1969 and in a 1970 interview with the renown astronomer and television journalist Patrick Moore, Neil Armstrong stated clearly that they DID NOT SEE STARS from the surface of the moon. But then in the book "MOONSHOT" Alan Shepard WROTE that STARS WERE EASILY SEEN BY MOONWALKERS. This was a direct contradiction to Armstrong's statement and has nothing at all to do with photography. It has nothing whatsoever to do with imaging stars.

In Chaikin's book "A Man On the Moon" the author writes that Mattingly was not able to SEE stars from outside the CM when he did his Apollo 16 EVA, but wrote Mattingly was able to SEE stars from within the ship while he was command piloting. Here is an example of someone(Mattingly) contradicting Collins who wrote in "Carrying the Fire" that stars in their familiar constellation patterns were not seen while he was performing his role as command module pilot. Collins wrote in "Carrying the Fire" that he did see and identify stars with difficulty outside the context of constellations. He could only do this of course with the aid of the sextant because without the computer, the stars could only be identified as a member of a constellation group.

In the Apollo 11 voice transcript Armstrong states that at the time they approached the moon and as it eclipsed the sun, finally, for the first time in 2 days they were able to see stars in the context of constellations. Before that, no, all the way to the moon, no constellations. But Aldrin wrote in his book "Magnificent Desolation", as did Mitchell in his book about Apollo and other things, that many stars could be seen regularly from cislunar space. These claims made in personal books by Aldrin and Mitchell strongly implied a direct contradiction to Armstrong's voice transcript comment that constellation groups were not identifiable as Apollo 11 flew through cislunar space.

Take a look at these references for yourself wmd_2008. This all has to do with SEEING stars and not photographing them. For my money, the Shepard line about the stars being easily seen by moonwalkers is particularly relevant. In my view, it is horrifically contrived. It is DAMAGE CONTROL. They are hoping to write their way out of the corner they painted themselves into by way of these ridiculous assertions they made long ago. Some folks, presumably joethejetperry, certainly myself, and many others, won't stand for it. Fascinating subtopic really and it probably is seminal. By that I mean it probably does go to the root of some huge issue in Apollo having to do with what was being covered up.

reply to post by stevehartsfeld


We have also seen many quotes on here supposed to be given by astronauts and some of them are only found on conspiracy sites with no real proof the person in question actually said them.

I also stated if you have a bright object in the field of view YOUR eyes automatically adapt to that light level you can try it for yourself!

The people who have seen stars MUST have made sure they were dark adapted its that simple!

Originally posted by stevehartsfeld
...Alan Shepard wrote that he could EASILY SEE STARS from the surface of the moon.

Do you have a citation for this? Where did Alan Shepard write that he could see stars? I searched the Apollo 14 transcripts and their is no mention of the astronauts seeing stars during either of the EVA's. The only mention I found of them seeing stars was while they were still inside the LM after landing on the Moon and using the AOT, but that's it.

reply to post by joethejetperry

There are many of us Trivium68 that spend all of our free time doing nothing but working to take Neil Armstrong down.... So Armstrong's downfall is inevitable. It would be better if it happened before he died, but it is his choice, within my lifetime, his name will be lunar mud....


The men and women that carried out this crime are very bad people and should be appropriately punished with the heaviest hand. I salute all of those who work so tirelessly to finally bring the creeps to justice.

Are you planning on assassinating Neil Armstrong, Patrick?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by joethejetperry

 

There are many of us Trivium68 that spend all of our free time doing nothing but working to take Neil Armstrong down.... So Armstrong's downfall is inevitable. It would be better if it happened before he died, but it is his choice, within my lifetime, his name will be lunar mud....


The men and women that carried out this crime are very bad people and should be appropriately punished with the heaviest hand. I salute all of those who work so tirelessly to finally bring the creeps to justice.

Are you planning on assassinating Neil Armstrong, Patrick?

edit on 14-8-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Seems that way, this lunatic fringe has been programmed by the charlatans
like sheep for far too long .. Doc could allways try using a sidewinder or an ICBMs lmao.