Building a better moon hoax thread

Be the 1st to vote.

It finally happened. My child was cornered at school over her nutty father’s beliefs.

In this case, it was the moon hoax.

Searching around the ‘net, I couldn’t quickly find any great summary sites to list the top 5, 10 or even 25 reasons the whole thing was a hoax. I really need 3 good quick talking points for the child to introduce to their attention deficit disordered classmates.

Feel free to comment here so I can get a great thread going – links, youtubes, etc are great but I need some rapid fire talking points as well.

 

No tags for this post.

12 thoughts on “Building a better moon hoax thread

  1. aybesea

    Coopers is good..
    Gravity
    Radiation belts
    Technology at the time
    Leaving the moon being filmed
    Tin foil machines…
    Why with today’s tech we have stopped the missions? Yet seemingly overnight we went to the moon with demon German scientists

    Etc etc etc….. Take one or all it’s easy to debunk this moon shit…

    This is one my. Fears I guess you would say.. All the stuff I listen to talk about is bound to have an impact on my children… We have the PC polic all over.. So being able to dodge or take these bullets with a level head is a much avenue of thought and discussion..

    I’d be game for a Skype about this subject, AB…

  2. metaOne

    this: fakeologist.com/2013/11/13/bui… probably answers most of it but I have a working thesis being honed in since getting with media fakery roughly in february of this year.

    media fakery for me tied all loose ends of the conspiracy rabbit holes…everything just fell away and revealed what was left, the depth of the deceptive illusion on the TV screen…i mean its so simple now to watch TV and pick it apart…onto the theory.

    ok so if you came across the info about the cold war being a total setup for nukes, then you may see a further connection as I do with the moon and russia once again.

    i believe the russians faked the Soyuz in an attempt to spearhead their local people into total support at a time when the war support was waning at the conclusion of the cold war that they won, but felt like losers with the US on the world stage viewed as the standing super power in more than name, unlike the russians. it may have been to take focus off the nukes, or provide another distraction besides nukes to keep working the “we’re gonna rule the world” agenda…pinky and the brain comes to mind 🙂

    keep in mind the tsars and the freedom russians enjoyed prior to the bolsheviks showing up…the people had been suffering under this commune mentality for almost two generations at that point in the cold war with survivors alive of “how it used to be.”

    so they fake the Soyuz rocket…i dont know all the private back stories, but ultimately the U.S. and JFK UP THE FAKE ANTE with a MOON mission…this serves the same purpose for america at that time…it was a clever distraction that sucked up gobs of money…for black research projects.

    compartmentalization IS SO EASY TODAY due to reliance on technology…i figured that part out before the media fakery. if you stare at a screen and make decisions, could it be said you are simply making decisions based on a predefined set of outcomes by the machine programmer (if it’s not programmed to give you anything but what’s in there, you’re not making decisions so much as providing a human cut out cover story for someone)? basically there is no proof ANYTHING is in space, other than A LOT OF MONITORS claiming it to be so…programmed to say pass/fail only basically…

    now we need to bring jay weidner and his analysis of stanley kubrick’s alchemical 2001 space odyssey. i believe wiedner has deconstructed how kubrick faked the landings as he was filming 2001 at the same time…kubrick was loaned a lens that was so expensive, only nasa had one…he used it for 2001…so the story goes, they asked him to simply use his studios for a period where no one would have access except a small team to fake it…being the perfectionist he was (maybe still is (alive)), he said only if i direct/produce it…and so he did, in exchange for that lens…all of that is circumstantial though.

    i have a question from wildheretic.com – namely, thermosphere…how do materials withstand 2000 degrees CELSIUS to enter the vaccum? they basically used tin foil and have everyone convinced it was enough…the fake deaths via the apollo fire was more likely an emotional anchor needed to continue the subconscious accepted lie…but the thermosphere was the crucial point that made me go, holy shit, no satellites…which i had already started to dig into from cluesforum…just couldnt fit it into my puzzle picture…thermosphere is the easiest way to deconstruct it…a weak argument exists on wiki, buts it’s one line basically saying the particles are so far apart, they dont heat up the metal on the rockets etc…

    i think russia is still involved in the fakery via meteors now, BUT it does seem like they MAY be the one to go rouge and out themselves…THEIR people may understand much quicker than here (if it came out). i know many russians but dont want to paint in broad strokes but the ones I have met are very american EXCEPT they openly do not trust gov, but work around them and they mock us for trusting ours, “you silly ‘mericans”

    russian people will make jokes if this gets laid out in an open way…if one believes in the factional in fighting at the inner levels of this game right now.

    also, get into the concave earth theory….the military 30 mile camera test sealed it…we’re on a sphere, but we’re not on the OUTSIDE, we’re on the INSIDE and if you can dig that, then the moon stuff gets even weirder because then it starts to get trippy thinking if we’re INSIDE earth, then what is the next layer…wild heretic believes it may in fact be a porous glass since all meteors that break through the egg shell contains glass…no matter where it hits on earth (thinking mainly it would fuse glass when hitting sediment only).

    the military test accidently took pictures from a lower base elevation and INTO manhattan from the southern islands. in theory after roughly 21 miles or so (28 maybe?) you can’t see beyond that b/c the arc of the sphere and the horizon is on the “other side of” the globe. well the army was able to take photographs at GREAT distances that are mathematically impossible unless we’re on the inside of earth and they were looking UP (north) so naturally it’s “above them”…

    that also ties up the wind issue with the non spinning earth…and how a plane takes so long to go east to west when underneath him, if the world’s spinning around 800 mph, the plane shouldnt have to do much work to get to LA from NY in under a couple hours…if surface moves at 800 mph east, and u travel roughly 600 mPH west, and the distance between two points is say 2800 miles then in theory you’re relatively traveling at 1400 MPH in combined speed. why doesn’t it take 2 hours to get to LA from NY then?

    concave earth…now you might understand jules verne’s stories a bit differently…agartha…ha…we’re in it already folks! i believe also the information about your retina and how it flips optics upside down is how the eye deceives from seeing the concave earth we’re inside. i’m beginning to wonder if the eye isn’t flipping it upside down per se, but inside out…

    the sun/moon feel related so lets leave this with a nice thought on the sun – how about a sulfur lamp? Meteors? Sparks/entropy from the lamp…study how a sulfur lamp works (and gives off “sun spots”) and the sun may be inside it’s…and there is the glass again…holding the sun in…its trippy…looking glass anyone???? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    peace

  3. Carole ThomasCarole Thomas

    “It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost 1/4 mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.” — Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon

    Quick facts to tell or questions to pose (most of these are gleaned or taken verbatim from Dave McGowan’s excellent Wagging the Moon Doggie series www.davesweb.cnchost.com)

    – screens at mission control were television screens and not computers according to Apollo 11 computer engineer Jack Garman who cleared the Eagle to land

    – computer on Apollo 11 1969 had the computing power of a cheap 2013 digital watch (72 kilobytes)

    – Nasa has lost all the original transmissions including Neil Amstrong’s first moonwalk

    – The original footage has never been aired – we allegedly saw a television film of the “original footage”

    – Most moon rock samples have gone missing

    – The moon rock given to the Dutch government turned out to be pertified wood

    – Astronauts travelled the distance equivalent to circumnavigating earth at the equator 9.5 times on one tank of fuel

    – If the moon walk films are played back at roughly twice their normal running speed, the astronauts appear to move about in ways entirely consistent with the way ordinary humans move about right here on planet Earth.

    – The Moon is not the only source of Moon rocks. Moon rocks are found in Antarctica in the form of lunar meteorites.

    – A team of Apollo scientists led by Wernher von Braun ventured off to Antarctica in the summer of 1967, two years before Apollo 11 blasted off. Why?

    – Most of the Moon rocks given out by the US State Deüartment have disappeared (only 25 out of 135 locations are still known)

    – In the 1960s we possessed the advanced technology required to actually land men on the Moon, but in the 21st century we don’t even have the technology required to get an unmanned craft close enough to the Moon to take usable photographs. Why not?

    – How did we get to the moon in this?

    www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apoll…

    “The LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) was coated in Mylar. To many engineers, the final vehicle was an insult to every notion of what a spacecraft should look like … It was one of the weirdest and most improbable flying machines ever conceived.”
    Moon Machines: The Lunar Module, Science Channel, 2008

    – How did this

    www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apoll…

    fit into the above contraption?
    – Despite promises, no images of things left on the moon have been provided by the alleged Hubble, satellites etc

    – Where did the astronauts go to the toilet?

    – Why did they miniaturize the astronauts in this display?
    www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Lunar…

    – How did the lunar moodules manage to make six perfect take-offs from the surface of the Moon with completely untested technology!

    – On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.”
    Why didn’t they just use sixties technology?
    science.nasa.gov/headlines/y20…

    – NASA scientist David McKay explains that “There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don’t normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays.” The article went on to explain how “Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere. Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn’t. Earth’s most powerful particle accelerators can’t energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.”

    So one of the reasons that we know the Moon rocks are real, you see, is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our astronauts, one would assume, would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation,. So how did they survive?

    – In light of the following two quotes, how come the pictures from the moon landing are so professional?

    “Once on the Moon, on the lunar surface in the dress, in the life support system, you couldn’t see the camera. They couldn’t bend their head that far down to see the scale … They had no viewfinder – they had to aim by moving their body.”
    Jan Lundberg, chief designer of the Hasselblad cameras allegedly used by the Apollo astronauts

    “They had to effectively guess where they were pointing the camera.”
    HJP Arnold, the Kodak executive who supplied the Ektachrome film for the missions

    www.davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-…

    – Where is the crater?
    www.davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-…

    – NASA claims that the camera that took the footage of the LM ascnding was mounted on the abandoned lunar rover (even in space, Americans are arrogant litterbugs), and that the pan and zoom functions were operated remotely by the ground crew back on Earth. You couldn’t control your television from across the living room in those days, but NASA could pan and zoom a camera from 234,000 miles away. Awesome! And there apparently either wasn’t any delay in the signal or NASA had the foresight to hire a remote camera operator who was able to see a few seconds into the future.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQ…

    – Astronaut Steve Lindsey, after being chosen to command the final planned mission of the space shuttle, had this to say: “Everybody at NASA feels the same way. We’re in favor of taking the next step and getting out of low-Earth orbit.” So while technology in every other realm of human existence continues to take giant strides forward, everyone at NASA appears to want to take a big step backwards. To 1969.

    – The early artist’s impressions painted of the LM on the lunar surface showed a crater. Surveyor at 108 lb. free fell from 13 feet to avoid damaging the lunar surface with exhaust gases, yet the LM weighed over 2 tons and cut off engines at 5 ft 8 in. When George Pinter, Lunar Module rocket scientist, was asked about the lack of a crater, on June 15, 1996 his firm (and strange) reply was that one should write the American Consulate in London for the answer to this question. A distinguishing feature of this particular Embassy is it’s library of treaties entered into by the United States during the last two hundred years.
    – It is odd that ALL of the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy were destroyed that the Saturn V rocket blueprints are off limits. Why destroy these documents? This was one of History’s greatest accomplishments. According to Paul Shawcross from NASA’s Office of Inspector General, the blueprints for the Saturn V are held at the Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm. There are some diagrams of the LM and Moon buggy on the Nasa web site, but the technical blueprints showing sizes, etc. do seem to be missing!

    – Nasa admits they can’t go the moon these days as
    there is no technology to deal with lunar dust problem
    no fabric for space suit
    no way to deal with radiation problem
    “It took pilots 50 years to progress from scarf-and-goggles barnstorming to setting down footprints on the Sea of Tranquility; it will have taken another half-century for us to return to the moon.”
    David Nolan writing in Popular Mechanics, March 2007 (according to the latest from NASA, we won’t be returning even after another half-century has passed)

    – Moon Machines: The Lunar Module began by having a talking-head named Josh Stoff explain to viewers that when JFK delivered his historic speech on May 25 of 1961 – the one in which he boldly proclaimed that Americans would walk on the Moon by the close of the decade – “The United States had a total of fifteen minutes of space flight experience … and now we were committed to go to the Moon … We knew nothing about the Moon.”

    – What is this?
    www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Sovie…

    Good interview with Dave addressing these topics – and if you haven’t already please read all his articles (link given above). They are spiced with humour.

    1. JoeyZ

      Great compilation Carole, have been back a few times to
      view the links. Nice Cliff’s Notes version of Dave
      McGowan’s work. While in first grade (1969) the school
      brought in these huge, gaudy white TV’s so we could
      partake in the “Noble Lie.”

      I innocently asked my first grade teacher (Mrs. Woods)
      if they had TV antennas on the Moon, but was promptly
      asked to keep quiet because I was spoiling “it” for everyone.

  4. smj

    look on the bright side, it’s never too early to learn that most folks are buffoons.

    speaking of the bright side, i became familiar with the term albedo when i first looked into the global warming lies. it is the reflection coefficient. now look up in the north american DAYTIME sky tomorrow afternoon and you will see a big bright white ball that is supposed to be 300,000 miles away, yet are brave astronauts were able to stand directly on it and shoot shitty dark video. i imagine it would be too bright to see much of anything, no matter how much you messed with filters and whatnot.

    this argument should be effective in the great white north.

  5. khammadkhammad

    I like to be scientific about this question. Did we go to the moon?
    Who knows. There is no proof. So many of the images surrounding the moon landing have been shown to be falsified,

    Why go to the moon for real, yet fake the images?

    All we know for sure about the moon landing is that we have no images to prove it.

  6. LusitAnaLusitAna

    I’m a bit more pragmatic when dealing with this type of situation, meaning – is it worth it to reply with talking points? Even if the most logical and sane reasons are presented, they’ll always be ignored, assuming we’re dealing with attention deficit disordered classmates. Better to teach him to trust his father, trust himself and ignore the stupid. If he is later approached by someone with honest interest, he can then present talking points, otherwise it would be a waste of time and energy, in my opinion.
    There’s that great Mark Twain quote:
    Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

  7. ArmunnRighArmunnRigh

    Quick talking points:

    – what camera filmed the landing?
    – the moon rover could not fit the lunar module
    – wind detected during film footage
    – shadows in photographs converge, revealing artificial lighting

    For more talking points:

Leave a Reply to aybesea Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.