Nasa's Moon Landing Hoax

[Jon2547]

I'm seeing now how you've stretched the meaning of the term strawman. Quite convenient for the echo chamber you're in? Whoops! Did I pull another strawman?

 

[tankasnowgod]

I'm seeing now how you've stretched the meaning of the term strawman. Quite convenient for the echo chamber you're in? Whoops! Did I pull another strawman?

Again, you made the false claim that I said satellites were all fake. I never said anything like that, and it has NOTHING to do with whether men flew to and landed on the moon. Clearly, a "Straw Man."

But that Iron Maiden song is pretty awesome, regardless.

 

[Summer]

Posting tabloid articles and not addressing the topic at all are clown moves ?

 

[Pistachio]

They work together.

Yes, after decades-long infiltration of the U.S. government.

 

[Pistachio]

Some Russian Officials have called it out. From the early comments in this thread-

Until it becomes an actual policy, individuals screaming till they're blue in the face changes nothing. And this happened in 2015—a little late to the party, comrades.

The Russian official you speak of is Vladimir Markin, a member of the municipal Assembly District Vykhino-Zhulebino in Moscow, which is affiliated with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the official "opposition" to Putin's United Party.

 

[Peatful]

View: https://youtu.be/dpKBZOf4DgU

 

[Jon2547]

Hey guys! Just wanted to jump on here and let ya know I found one of your long lost relatives. There's a poster on thecovidworld.com that makes the claim that nuclear weapons don't actually exist. You can find him under the name 911truther.

He writes:

Nukes don’t exist. It’s all fear propaganda. Remember duck and cover? Duck and cover had one purpose: to propagandize an entire generation. Hiding under a desk wouldn’t do a thing if Nukes are what we’ve been told they are.

The technology is 80 years old but many countries still haven’t figured out how to make “the bomb”. And only nine countries have figured out how to make “the bomb” in that much time?!?!???

List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were carpet bombed. Compare the photos to those cities with German cities that were carpet bombed.

There has never been a time in history where plant and animal life didn’t exist in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl or Fukushima.

The trains were running 3 days after Hiroshima was bombed.

The press was forbidden to report from these two cities.

The Enola Gay doesn’t have a side window, the pictures of the mushroom clouds were fake.

Nuclear bomb propaganda used fake models and told us it was real. Eric Dubay: Nuclear Hoax - Nukes Do Not Exist

Does that look similar to the moon-landing-was-faked template?

Do you guys get even a tiny check from the CIA for your disinfo work?

 

[tankasnowgod]

Does that look similar to the moon-landing-was-faked template?

Not at all. Even the points aren't similar.

Saying only nine countries learned to make "The Bomb" is still eight more countries than ever claimed to send a manned space mission beyond low earth orbit. Even the US couldn't claim to get past Low Earth Orbit in the past 50 years, despite far superior tech and ships (like the space shuttle), and the "experience" of landing on the moon, and then lauching off from the moon, docking with the other part of the ship while in lunar orbit, and then coming back to Earth successfully.

Something like Dave McGowan's "Wagging the Moondoggie" series is far more in depth, going about 150 page, and bringing up dozens of potential issues, from the non-pressurized space suits, to lighting and lack of stars in the photos, to the lack of space on the lander for the astronauts, oxygen, food, supplies, batteries, spare parts, dune buggy, and a TV transmitter capable of beaming back both black and white (and by the 70's, color!) footage from over 240,000 miles away, and so on.

Wagging the Moondoggie

Visit the post for more.

centerforaninformedamerica.com

Do you guys get even a tiny check from the CIA for your disinfo work?

You do realize that both the CIA and NASA are Federal Government Agencies, under the executive branch of government, right? If you can't trust one (the CIA), why would you trust another (NASA)?

 

[Jon2547]

Not at all. Even the points aren't similar.

Saying only nine countries learned to make "The Bomb" is still eight more countries than ever claimed to send a manned space mission beyond low earth orbit. Even the US couldn't claim to get past Low Earth Orbit in the past 50 years, despite far superior tech and ships (like the space shuttle), and the "experience" of landing on the moon, and then lauching off from the moon, docking with the other part of the ship while in lunar orbit, and then coming back to Earth successfully.

Something like Dave McGowan's "Wagging the Moondoggie" series is far more in depth, going about 150 page, and bringing up dozens of potential issues, from the non-pressurized space suits, to lighting and lack of stars in the photos, to the lack of space on the lander for the astronauts, oxygen, food, supplies, batteries, spare parts, dune buggy, and a TV transmitter capable of beaming back both black and white (and by the 70's, color!) footage from over 240,000 miles away, and so on.

Wagging the Moondoggie

Visit the post for more.

centerforaninformedamerica.com

You do realize that both the CIA and NASA are Federal Government Agencies, under the executive branch of government, right? If you can't trust one (the CIA), why would you trust another (NASA)?

Intelligence agencies are now captured or co-opted by the Big Industries and therefor employ consternation agents to put out such far fetched nonsense that it makes ALL conspiracies looked tainted.

here are some fake conspiracy theories meant to squelch all detective work:

Nukes are not real.
Moon landings didn't happen.
Earth is flat.
Reptilians and Nephilim run the world.

if you subscribe to any of these, then you can't have the critical skills to understand the hoax of virology and vaccines.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Nukes are not real.
Moon landings didn't happen.
Earth is flat.
Reptilians and Nephilim run the world.

if you subscribe to any of these, then you can't have the critical skills to understand the hoax of virology and vaccines.

It's ridiculous to lump all of those together.

People claiming that the Earth is Flat, for example, present no evidence demonstrating such, and the evidence they do cite could be interpreted in many ways. At best, they may be showing the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, which isn't even the claim at this point (it's thought to be an oblate spheroid). At the same time, they never make a claim of what shape the Earth is, since "flat" isn't a shape. A cube can be "flat" on several sides, as can an infinite plane.

Disputing the "Moon Landings," however, is all about critically analyzing the available evidence that is presented to the public, which all comes from one single Government agency, NASA. The photos are questionable in several ways. The broadcast footage is very odd, apparently is was relayed to the TV networks by filming a TV screen broadcasting the "Moon Footage," as NASA's video tech wasn't compatible with the networks. There is also the fact that NASA claims to have lost all the original footage of all the missions (the original footage was never broadcast or shown to the public in any way), and also lost all the telemetry and other data for all the mission, and keeps bringing up problems about "returning" to the moon (like micro meteorites and space radiation and extreme temperatures) that should have already been solved in 1969, if the moon missions happened as claimed.

And obviously, your last statement is flat out wrong, because I do question the Moon Landings, and also broke down the problems with the claim of SARS-Cov-2 "isolation" here-

Excellent explanation. In other words, the so called "isolates" are an abstraction of reality, the "genome sequencing" is an abstraction of that abstraction, and the PCR test is an abstraction of the genome abstraction based on the "isolate" abstraction.

Jon Rappoport posted a nice Step by Step breakdown that Dr. Kaufman did identifying the problems with the so called "isolation."

Dr. Andrew Kaufman refutes “isolation” of SARS-Cov-2; he does step-by-step analysis of a typical claim of isolation; there is no proof that the virus exists « Jon Rappoport's Blog

If you search for any "Isolation" paper, and read the "Materials and Methods," you will notice they never do anything to separate any Human DNA or cells from the so called "Virus" cells, and they will ADD stuff to the "isolate," rather than take away all the non-virus material.

Isolation and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first US COVID-19 patient

The etiologic agent of the outbreak of pneumonia in Wuhan China was identified as severe acute respiratory syndrome associated coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in January, 2020. The first US patient was diagnosed by the State of Washington and the US Centers ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Kaufman is correct, virologists have apparently redefined "isolation" to mean the exact opposite of the dictionary definition.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

How does adding things like fetal bovine serum, antibiotics, and digestive enzymes keep anything in a "pure" state?

 

[Jon2547]

You're an exception though. Most of those that I've come across spouting nonsense about giants in the bible and martians visiting earth in flying saucers are severely lacking in critical thinking skills.

It is not me that lumps all these together. The pro-vaxxers does that.

 

[Quelsatron]

Not at all. Even the points aren't similar.

Saying only nine countries learned to make "The Bomb" is still eight more countries than ever claimed to send a manned space mission beyond low earth orbit. Even the US couldn't claim to get past Low Earth Orbit in the past 50 years, despite far superior tech and ships (like the space shuttle), and the "experience" of landing on the moon, and then lauching off from the moon, docking with the other part of the ship while in lunar orbit, and then coming back to Earth successfully.

Something like Dave McGowan's "Wagging the Moondoggie" series is far more in depth, going about 150 page, and bringing up dozens of potential issues, from the non-pressurized space suits, to lighting and lack of stars in the photos, to the lack of space on the lander for the astronauts, oxygen, food, supplies, batteries, spare parts, dune buggy, and a TV transmitter capable of beaming back both black and white (and by the 70's, color!) footage from over 240,000 miles away, and so on.

Wagging the Moondoggie

Visit the post for more.

centerforaninformedamerica.com

You do realize that both the CIA and NASA are Federal Government Agencies, under the executive branch of government, right? If you can't trust one (the CIA), why would you trust another (NASA)?

Stars would not be visible on a photograph in direct sunlight due to the contrast, or the sunlit parts would just be a pure white blur.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Stars would not be visible on a photograph in direct sunlight due to the contrast, or the sunlit parts would just be a pure white blur.

Lol, you should tell this to NASA.

If this is the case, why did they feature this composite, suggesting this is what the daytime sky would look like with no atmosphere?

APOD: 2007 June 21 - Stars and the Solstice Sun

A different astronomy and space science related image is featured each day, along with a brief explanation.

apod.nasa.gov

Stars and the Solstice Sun
Composite Credit & Copyright: Jerry Lodriguss (Catching the Light)
Explanation: If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. Of course, today is the Solstice. Traveling along the ecliptic plane, the Sun is at its northernmost position in planet Earth's sky, marking the astronomical beginning of summer in the north. Accurate for the exact time of today's Solstice, this composite image also shows the Sun at the proper scale (about the angular size of the Full Moon). Open star cluster M35 is to the Sun's left, and the other two bright stars in view are Mu and Eta Geminorum. Digitally superimposed on a nighttime image of the stars, the Sun itself is a composite of a picture taken through a solar filter and a series of images of the solar corona recorded during the solar eclipse of February 26, 1998 by Andreas Gada.

And why couldn't Professional Photographer Neil Armstrong just stand in the shadow of the Lunar Lander, and take a picture of the sky from there? Focused on the part of the sky opposite the sun, of course.

Besides, none of the moon photos show the sun in the sky anyway, so this shouldn't even be an issue.

 

[LA]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM

 

[JamesGatz]

Buzz Aldrin is a Freemason and Neil Armstrong's father has a well-documented 60+ years as a freemason

The moon landing is about as real as everything else the NWO shoves down the throats of kids during schooling - i.e. completely fake

 

[Quelsatron]

Lol, you should tell this to NASA.

If this is the case, why did they feature this composite, suggesting this is what the daytime sky would look like with no atmosphere?

APOD: 2007 June 21 - Stars and the Solstice Sun

A different astronomy and space science related image is featured each day, along with a brief explanation.

apod.nasa.gov

View attachment 34758



And why couldn't Professional Photographer Neil Armstrong just stand in the shadow of the Lunar Lander, and take a picture of the sky from there? Focused on the part of the sky opposite the sun, of course.

Besides, none of the moon photos show the sun in the sky anyway, so this shouldn't even be an issue.

Because that image is an illustration, not a realistic rendering which would have the sun 100000 times brighter than starlight. This whole thing actually has nothing to do with advanced astronomy, it's photography 101. And yes, they don't show the sun, but the sunlit surfaces are still vastly brighter than direct starlight, which you can observe by looking outside. And I don't know why you want a photo of the lunar sky given that it could have been taken by any unmanned space flight or even on a clear night on earth and not prove anything.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Because that image is an illustration, not a realistic rendering which would have the sun 100000 times brighter than starlight.

Yeah, maybe, IF they took a direct picture of the sun. Not any other part of the sky.

This whole thing actually has nothing to do with advanced astronomy, it's photography 101. And yes, they don't show the sun, but the sunlit surfaces are still vastly brighter than direct starlight, which you can observe by looking outside.

How can I observe that by "looking outside?" I live on a planet with an atmosphere, which scatters light. The moon doesn't have an atmosphere.

There are plenty of pictures where the stars should have been the brightest objects in the photo. For example-

And here's one with no part of the surface of the moon at all, just a section of one of the most advanced and sophisticated spacecraft that man ever built-

And I don't know why you want a photo of the lunar sky given that it could have been taken by any unmanned space flight or even on a clear night on earth and not prove anything.

I don't "want" one, the point is that the photos provided by NASA allegedly taken on the moon raise a whole bunch of questions in and of themselves. From the lack of stars in the sky to the scattered light, and so forth. Not to mention the fact that they look like some of the best professional photos ever taken, and had to be taken by astronauts in a space suit with a camera strapped to their chest, and allegedly only one light source in the sun. And in an environment with heavy radiation, which could have made the film completely undevelopable in the first place.

I'd like to see any professional photographer here on earth take even a decent shot while wearing heavy gardening gloves and a motorcycle helmet while having a non-auto focus camera strapped to their chest. While it wouldn't recreate the conditions on the moon (like heavy radiation, extreme temperatures and no atmosphere), it would at least approximate the type of coverings the astronauts had to wear when these photos were "taken."

 

[Herbie]

The statistics state the we have let off over 2000 nukes on Earth since the 1950s, people could calculate radiation levels based on those numbers to find some truth.

 

[Quelsatron]

Yeah, maybe, IF they took a direct picture of the sun. Not any other part of the sky.

How can I observe that by "looking outside?" I live on a planet with an atmosphere, which scatters light. The moon doesn't have an atmosphere.

There are plenty of pictures where the stars should have been the brightest objects in the photo. For example-

View attachment 34770

And here's one with no part of the surface of the moon at all, just a section of one of the most advanced and sophisticated spacecraft that man ever built-

View attachment 34771


I don't "want" one, the point is that the photos provided by NASA allegedly taken on the moon raise a whole bunch of questions in and of themselves. From the lack of stars in the sky to the scattered light, and so forth. Not to mention the fact that they look like some of the best professional photos ever taken, and had to be taken by astronauts in a space suit with a camera strapped to their chest, and allegedly only one light source in the sun. And in an environment with heavy radiation, which could have made the film completely undevelopable in the first place.

I'd like to see any professional photographer here on earth take even a decent shot while wearing heavy gardening gloves and a motorcycle helmet while having a non-auto focus camera strapped to their chest. While it wouldn't recreate the conditions on the moon (like heavy radiation, extreme temperatures and no atmosphere), it would at least approximate the type of coverings the astronauts had to wear when these photos were "taken."

No, the lunar surface in direct sunlight would not be brighter than the stars. You're confusing it because it looks like a nighttime setting (black sky) but it's actually daytime in that shot and a sunlit area is very bright. The sunlight going into my apartment in a similar angle, through the glass, through the atmosphere, makes everything so bright that you can't even tell that the lights are on. Starlight is way weaker than lamplight. You can barely see the stars when you're in a city just due to the light pollution from the streetlights, even if you're on a small dark spot, now compare that difference with direct sunlight vs starlight.

 

[Jon2547]

No, the lunar surface in direct sunlight would not be brighter than the stars. You're confusing it because it looks like a nighttime setting (black sky) but it's actually daytime in that shot and a sunlit area is very bright. The sunlight going into my apartment in a similar angle, through the glass, through the atmosphere, makes everything so bright that you can't even tell that the lights are on. Starlight is way weaker than lamplight. You can barely see the stars when you're in a city just due to the light pollution from the streetlights, even if you're on a small dark spot, now compare that difference with direct sunlight vs starlight.

That is an excellent illustration.