Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Ove38

Not even the 'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin ? common is it that hard to admit what was done ?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Lies. It wasn't given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, and it was never claimed to be a moon rock.

It was a piece of petrified wood given as a private gift to the former Dutch PM by J William Middendorf, the US ambassador. It was then donated to a museum and mislabelled.

This is what a goodwill moon rock sample looks like. It weighs less than 1 gram:



This is what that lump of petrified wood looks like, It weighs 89 grams:



The US did not hand out fist-sized chunks of moon rock. This rock was never claimed to be a moon rock except by the museum that made a basic error.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

why not admit that the missions were partly faked, for publicety reasons, during the cold war ?

Because none of it was faked...

Not even the 'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin ? common is it that hard to admit what was done ?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Wow - we really are playing conspiracy bingo and once again we gish-gallop away from avoiding any difficult questions

Prove it was given to the Dutch ambassador by anyone involved with Apollo 11 (clue: it wasn't)

Prove it was ever described by anyone involved with Apollo 11 as moon rock (clue: it wasn't).

The actual moon rock given as a goodwill gift is on display in a Dutch museum.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38

Because it's not true - you can see movement....

Ok, I have given you a HD video of the ride, exactly where in the video does the doll move ?

the hand, or more specifically his right hand.. thats all that needs to move to control the rover..

Ok, where does the right hand move ? at O:13 or 0:23 or 0:33 ? where ?

are you able to tell me that it doesnt move at all with 100% certainty?

You have obviously not been able to find any movement, and do understand that this is a dummy in a remote controlled lunar rover. So what's the problem, they faked this part, maybe the rest is true ? Why does the whole story have to be true ? why can't the story be partly true ? it is partly true ! we all saw the rocket go !

so you are trying to tell me that with 100% certainty that he doesnt move at all? how can you possibly be so sure??

The story so far:

Apollo astronauts didn't go to the moon except the ones that went to the moon. They didn't actually go to the surface because no-one knew how to get to the surface unless it was an unmanned probe in which case they did know how to get to the surface. They didn't know how to get back from the surface unless it was an unmanned probe in which case they did know how to get back from the surface. The astronauts couldn't get back from the surface because they didn't understand about lunar gravity, except when they were faking it in a studio in which case they did, and also they couldn't rendezvous in orbit because they didn't know how to except when they did with Apollo 10. The moon rocks are all fake except the ones that aren't fake because they were brought back by a vehicle that they didn't how to land there and get to take off again, and it was all filmed in a studio except for the bits that weren't filmed in a studio because they were filmed on the moon by remote vehicles that they didn't know how to land there.

That about sum it up?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

why not admit that the missions were partly faked, for publicety reasons, during the cold war ?

Because none of it was faked...

Not even the 'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin ? common is it that hard to admit what was done ?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

are you really going to parrot other hoaxers with their arguments and none of your own????

seriously think for second, NASA who has kept the secret of the hoax (if it was hoaxed) secret for over 40years.. have been able to trick geologists with their "moon rocks" that have no evidence of entering the earths atmosphere naturally, for over 40 years..

cannot tell the difference between petrified wood and a lunar rock?? a simple glance by any geologist would have been able to tell the difference.. the astronauts who were trained in looking at rocks would have been able to tell the difference..

this is the organisation that has kept the secret for over 40 years???? you make them sound incompetent?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Misinformation
there is a general overwhelming consensus that the apollo moon landings were a hoax

Based on an opinion poll where?

I think you need to check your figures.

"An overwhelming consensus" ???

That's a good one.

If the subject of the moon hoax ever pops up whilst you are out socialising(that's a big 'if', but then again imagine Sayonara at a dinner party!) a good gauge on somebodies aptitude is what stance they take on this subject. And quite frankly if the general consensus is that the Apollo program was a hoax then the majority of people are shallow minded fools with short attention spans.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ?

Let me show you that invisible movement. I've even drawn a handy red arrow.



There are several other moments in the video where movements are visible, but I'm not spoon feeding those to you as well.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

Not even the 'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin ? common is it that hard to admit what was done ?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Lies. It wasn't given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, and it was never claimed to be a moon rock.

It was a piece of petrified wood given as a private gift to the former Dutch PM by J William Middendorf, the US ambassador. It was then donated to a museum and mislabelled.

This is what a goodwill moon rock sample looks like. It weighs less than 1 gram:

This is what that lump of petrified wood looks like, It weighs 89 grams:

The US did not hand out fist-sized chunks of moon rock. This rock was never claimed to be a moon rock except by the museum that made a basic error.

You're a real funny guy, on October 9, 1969 Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin were in Amsterdam, the very same day the US ambassador gives Hollands Prime Minister a petrified wood rock to commemorate the visit of Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin that day. And you want us to believe, this was not meant to be a moon rock ? This is no better than Armstrongs story about 100 feet high invisible hills on the surfaces of the moon.

originally posted by: Ove38
And you want us to believe, this was not meant to be a moon rock ?

Absolutely, because it's a fact. Can you point me to any moon rock gift sample that is anywhere approaching the size of this rock? Most of them are less than a tenth of a gram. Almost all of them are under 1 gram. This was a "fist-sized rock".

They didn't go giving out three-ounce hunks of moon rock to retired prime ministers!

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

why not admit that the missions were partly faked, for publicety reasons, during the cold war ?

Because none of it was faked...

Not even the 'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin ? common is it that hard to admit what was done ?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

are you really going to parrot other hoaxers with their arguments and none of your own????

The Daily Telegraph is a serious newspaper.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38
And you want us to believe, this was not meant to be a moon rock ?

Absolutely, because it's a fact. Can you point me to any moon rock gift sample that is anywhere approaching the size of this rock? Most of them are less than a tenth of a gram. Almost all of them are under 1 gram. This was a "fist-sized rock".

They didn't go giving out three-ounce hunks of moon rock to retired prime ministers!

I know everyone else got a gram taken from the inside of a big lunar meteorite found on earth. But this does not explain what happened in Amsterdam on October 9, 1969 when Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin were there.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

why not admit that the missions were partly faked, for publicety reasons, during the cold war ?

Because none of it was faked...

Not even the 'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin ? common is it that hard to admit what was done ?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

are you really going to parrot other hoaxers with their arguments and none of your own????

The Daily Telegraph is a serious newspaper.

I know about British newspapers, thank you. I work for one.

The headline is rather misleading. It happens. Headlines are written by subs, not by the article author.

If you read the article, it says the presentation was made by Middendorf, it also says "an investigation is ongoing".

If you look at later articles, after the investigation was completed, you will find out the full story.

It was never claimed to be a moon rock, but after Drees died, his family donated it to the museum from his private collection, together with a false (but not deliberately false) description of what it was. Nobody was deliberately misleading anyone.

Now, how are you getting on with Tsiolkovsky?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ?

Let me show you that invisible movement. I've even drawn a handy red arrow.

There are several other moments in the video where movements are visible, but I'm not spoon feeding those to you as well.

This arm is in the exact same posion throughout the whole ride, the only reason why it tilts a bit up and down is the bumpy ride. This is a dummy in a remote controlled toy car, no doubt about it.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ?

Let me show you that invisible movement. I've even drawn a handy red arrow.

There are several other moments in the video where movements are visible, but I'm not spoon feeding those to you as well.

This arm is in the exact same posion throughout the whole ride, the only reason why it tilts a bit up and down is the bumpy ride. This is a dummy in a remote controlled toy car, no doubt about it.

but it is definitely moving..

heres a quote directly from you saying it is completely stiff

originally posted by: Ove38
The left arm is completely stiff, suspended in the air, throughout the whole ride, even in the bumpy parts of the ride. Where do you see the right arm or hand move ?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

you just moved the goal posts without even flinching.. impressive.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..

history.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: Ove38

This arm is in the exact same posion throughout the whole ride, the only reason why it tilts a bit up and down is the bumpy ride. This is a dummy in a remote controlled toy car, no doubt about it.

Do you wave your arms up and down while driving? You said there was no movement. There is movement, not just in the arms but also in your goalposts. If there is a dummy anywhere here it's not in the LRV.

Is this a dummy climbing in to the LRV?

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

MOORE: When you were actually walking about, did you have the have any difficulty in distance judging? Because I think I heard you say once that near... far things looked quite near.

ARMSTRONG: Yes, we had some difficulties in perception of distance. For example, our television camera we judged to be, from the cockpit of the lunar module, only about 50 to 60 feet away, yet we knew that we had pulled it out to the full extension of a 100-foot cable. Similarly, we had difficulty guessing how far the hills out on the horizon might be. A peculiar phenomenon is the closeness of the horizon, due to the greater curvature of the Moon than we have here on Earth – of course four times greater, and the fact that it is an irregular surface, with crater rims overlying other crater rims. You can't see the real horizon, you're seeing hills that are somewhat closer to you. There was a large crater which we overflew during our final approach which was... had hills of the order of 100 feet in height, and we were only 11-1200 feet west of that hill and we couldn't see it. A 100-foot-high hill from from 1100-1200 feet away, so...

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38
All plainly visible movements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there.

Oh, we are at the invisible stuff again ? last time it was 100 feet high invisible hills,

ahem.. the 100 foot hill was said to be within the 590foot diameter West Crater.. look up complex crater..
history.nasa.gov...

No, he says "hills" of the order of 100 feet in height, he dosen't say "within"

yes.. they overflew a crater (west crater) which had hills of the order of 100feet in height..

guess how far west crater is from their landing site??

p.s. did you click on the link i provided?? you know the simplified cross sectional view of a complex crater?
history.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

This arm is in the exact same posion throughout the whole ride, the only reason why it tilts a bit up and down is the bumpy ride. This is a dummy in a remote controlled toy car, no doubt about it.

Is this a dummy climbing in to the LRV?

Well they cut out the "climbing in" don't think he could do it without the film crews help, so no this scene is not a dummy.

Why do you think all astronauts are dummys when I point out that a dummy was used in a particular scene ? The same thing happened with the hasselblad images mentioned ? Is it so difficult to understand that only some of it was fake, not all of it ?

a reply to: Ove38

But you said no astronauts went to the moon. There is an astronaut walking about right beside a rover, on the moon! Did they fly him home before they filmed the fake stuff with the dummy? Oh no, I forgot, spacecraft can't take off from the moon with humans in, can they?

There was a large crater which we overflew during our final approach which was... had hills of the order of 100 feet in height, and we were only 11-1200 feet west of that hill and we couldn't see it. A 100-foot-high hill from from 1100-1200 feet away, so...

Is that it? Your evidence is that Armstrong briefly misspoke and said "hills" instead of "hill"?

If using the wrong word is evidence of fakery then your posts here, littered with misspellings and errors, show that you are very guilty indeed.