myPlanetGanja.com

Poll: Did Apollo missions go to the moon, or was it faked?

please vote so we can get a count

re-voting will be allowed

Why ask?

Hi, I've always thought for certain that the moon landing hoax theory was absolutely nuts, until I actually started to look at all the evidence recently, and it seriously made me want to cry. Even going back to review the anti-hoax vids, such as mythbusters did not help at all. The evidence is truly overwhelming. I will be posting some vids later when I have more time, and a full discussion and debunking and anti-debunking efforts will be most welcomed, in the hopes that participants will have an open enough mind to actually view the evidence which may be presented for both sides, considering that the pre-conceptions are well ingrained, especially for our older generation, who actually watched it live, but I thought it might be interesting to get an early consensus, and then see if it changes at all. For all I knew, I may have been the last one to finally catch on to the truth... but I'm glad to see that's not the case. and I'd truly be happy if the hoax could be adequately debunked, but sadly I'm certain that's not possible.

both.

lots of the photo's and video were faked because it was a national security issue first and foremost.
go back and watch their first on stage interview after the first landing

those guys don't look happy to me...

ive looked into this im more than a decade so ive not seen any of the myth busters stuff but I recall about 12 years ago a friend of mine with a good deal of engineering understanding told me he was convinced by their flag in a vacuum chamber demonstration.

he was never a conspiracy guy but told me that waving flag had always bothered him in the past but didn't after watching the mythbusters episode

guess I should probably watch it

I was ready to believe the Kubrick theory, but recently declassified documents changed my mind.
Doug Voght has a theory that has the ring of truth to it and is backed up by the recently released audio of the astronauts on the moon and recently released CIA documents.It may also explain where the missing trillions went. They were looking for glass beads created by our sun when it goes Nova, every 12,068 years, according to the Diehold Foundation. They are a 501C Science Foundation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMr-5HHnAmU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once they had the info they needed they may have faked later missions and diverted the funds to black ops.

ive listened to that talk before
wouldn't we be seeing nova's left and right all over the night sky if our sun were on that kind of a schedule?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-p ... n_landings" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bentech wrote:ive listened to that talk before
wouldn't we be seeing nova's left and right all over the night sky if our sun were on that kind of a schedule?

No. What we observe is a band which is either called the Kuiper Belt or the asteroid belt. It is actually the lagrange point where matter ejected from our system loses momentum and just sits there. Even the solar wind just suddenly stops at a certain distance from earth and the only explanation I can see is that we are pushing the limit of what the programming can generate. Because the observer is so important. If we we were all completely aware this reality would dissolve like last nights dreams.

Munchy wrote:Hi, I've always thought for certain that the moon landing hoax theory was absolutely nuts, until I actually started to look at all the evidence recently, and it seriously made me want to cry. Even going back to review the anti-hoax vids, such as mythbusters did not help at all. The evidence is truly overwhelming. I will be posting some vids later when I have more time, and a full discussion and debunking and anti-debunking efforts will be most welcomed, in the hopes that participants will have an open enough mind to actually view the evidence which may be presented for both sides, considering that the pre-conceptions are well ingrained, especially for our older generation, who actually watched it live, but I thought it might be interesting to get an early consensus, and then see if it changes at all. For all I knew, I may have been the last one to finally catch on to the truth... but I'm glad to see that's not the case. and I'd truly be happy if the hoax could be adequately debunked, but sadly I'm certain that's not possible.

hi

so what was the one thing that stands out for you, what was the most compelling evidence that it was a hoax??

ive gone around in circles over the last decade and longer, some vids really convince me that they did it and every now and again i watch a vid that makes me think, for me is the number crunching, how they managed to figure out the slingshot affect and then make it to the MOON with no issues, even the moon buggies were fantastic and they made it all work, they must be good at origami the way they managed to get the buggy to the moon,

the eagle docking with the command module was another one for me,

its still up in the air for me i can be convinced either way...

if it gets proved a hoax then its all up for grabs huh!!

is the rover really on MARS ?

did cassini space craft ever exist?

is the earth a fucking oblate spheroid or not?

is there a hollow earth ?

is there more land on earth thats hidden from everyone ?

is the earth flat?

I think Antarctica is much larger than we think it is. Admiral Byrd reported finding vast quantities of coal sitting in piles, ready for use. We had altruistic ancestors who knew what we faced, but their high ideals were high jacked by Allen Dulles and later by the Clinton Foundation. I may have mentioned the rather incredible number of cargo vessels visiting the south polar region.

theres a documentary about the process of developing that moonbuggie
starting from the shape of the area it was going to have to fit into for the ride there

have the recently released audio recordings been accepted as legitimate?
I see all kinds of wirework in the videos

The conversation was so innocuous, " Is this what we are looking for?"

There are rumors that the Challenger disaster was a false flag and that most of those astronauts are still active in the SSP. Of course I have no way of proving it.

they do a good job of making it look like all the Columbia astronauts are still alive and working in public

oops, I cleared the votes by adding an undecided 3rd option.
please re cast your votes

please watch these:













this one is just for fun, the movie, Capricorn One

in the first video the von brawn quote is misleading in that he did say youd need much bigger and more rockets to get to the moon but he was talking about an entirely different way of doing it which the Apollo program was the "cheap" alternative to that they went with

how protected from micro meteors is the ISS?

well, he was a fuckin nazi anyway

too true...

and one of the standouts when it comes to blood on their hands

the loss of the reference lines itched in the camera glass in the pictures used to bother me but doesn't anymore
the good argument against I find satisfying

but the no rover tracks behind it sitting in the sand???
wiki doesn't even include THIS in its 20 pages of refutations
is this picture authentic?

Psalm 19:1 King James Version (KJV)
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

back in the 90's a breakthrew of sorts was made in the study of pictures
it made the news regarding old pictures of artic explores
and I forget how it goes exactly but if the picture had a object of know height
its full shadow and a good idea what the time was when taken
they could tell you exactly where you were standing

it would be a more complicated procedure but weve got to be able to look at those moon photos and determine if the light is coming from the proper direction

Operation Paperclip is figuring largely in the investigation of George Webb lately.
There was more than one Mueller who was brought into various positions at that time. In fact there were about 14.
Many of them worked in the Nuclear Navy and it appears that much of the fissionable material that was used against Japan was exfiltrated from Germany.
How much influence Heinrich had on the formation and structure of the CIA can only be imagined.

this one is really good, lots great "moon-walk"/puppetry blooper footage:

it's so freaky when the astro-not turns his head/helmet
Don Pettit is such a joke, the way he plays off of Mike Massimino
as if he has no clue what to say until he sees what Mike says and then starts going oh yeah, yeah... totally reminds me of the SNL adlibbing singers Garth & Kat making up alleged finished songs as they go by watching each others lips move, and this is also the one with the undead Challenger astro-nots





mythbusters

that second video, the jeff winterzs is well worth watching
hadnts seen most of that content before
some great stuff

ive never looked into the timelines and date stamping
but it looks like much of several of the missions was supposedly broadcast live
which in conjunction with its content would make the missions fake or insanely complicated

but it would jive with the never well answered question about radiation exposure

this another good one


omg... lol.. professional speech analyst:
'maybe he talks like that all the time?
'say his wife said "Neil, did you enjoy yourself at the pub?
would he say "when you do go to the pub, you would enjoy yourself, if you had a beer with your friends."


this one just is hard for anyone to watch




another debunking vid:

what was it he thew that fly up and banged into the LM???

their point was all about the sound but even the throw looked ridiculous

what was that?

it was a little tie-down strap, with bullet shaped ends.
sure made a loud noise for being in the vacuum of space


so the moon rocks... but apparently it's made of wood





this one will blow your mind at about 16:30min, start at 16:00min

"this one just is hard for anyone to watch "

that cuz its lawyer talk!

uncle fester

at 39min+ the mythbusters reflector test is debunked
and then most of the others are addressed as well


more on mythbusters, incl the reflector test again at about 24min

so why is there a Y in British aluminyum-yum-yum-yum? lol

this one shows a stage-hand on the moon-set and more good stuff, including Mars image anomalies explained

this one's not really moon focused,
but more all-space-encompassing,
and good for a laugh or so as well
Space: The Final Frontier
nothing to see here

well shit!
like I needed anything fucking else to worry about

looks like 11 and 17 are just barely holding onto being actual landings

heh

weird how now I need to there have been one or two...

speaking of Mars image anomalies,
here is a wealth of evidence for the theory
that the rovers are not even on Mars at all
such as faster-than-light communication

here's one with a great sense of humor
Mars Rover Curiosity


are you ready for the ISS?


my wife thinks the ISS must be legit, because otherwise the other countries involved would have to be in on it too... uh-huh


lol

the sub marx having to clue into the deal is troubling...

nailed em

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcwhwZr7_EU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2:40

I was afraid this was going to involved all of them...

you see it pretty simple
showing the towers were bombed down

but next thing you know your being subjected to all manner of other stuff...

but hey we caught the secret service offing a president and were still wondering about it?!?!?!

heh...

Though NASA may not have gone there, the Nazis may have bases there and on Mars.

definitely watch the nasa lies video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6XeELc3QH8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the history of US hoaxes and corruption is truly horrifying, saddening and embarrassing, but 99% of the 99% still has no clue, and those of us who do are still labelled as nuts, but maybe the time for all of the awful truths to be revealed to the masses is coming, and it won't be pretty, but 1% of the 1% is still holding the jokers

Dick Fein wrote:Though NASA may not have gone there, the Nazis may have bases there and on Mars.

agreed, I was careful to word this thread regarding the Apollo missions, but I'm sure our flying saucers and/or triangles/darts have been all over the system and beyond. you've heard of solar warden? and did you catch the one about how datestamps on the doctored Pluto images were 3 years before Horizon got there? it all makes sense except not stripping the exif data...

wish zool were still around
that probe is the fastest object we ever sent so getting there years early seem unrealistic but
I don't know orbital mechanics well enough to do the math
three years earlier means it was a different craft almost for certain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhS1br6rSYc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the buggy video is pretty good
kinda a quibble about the weight imbalance I thought


have always wanted someone to do a study of the motors and batteries they used. I don't see the volume I think it would take for them to drive them as long as hard as they claim


“Former President Bill Clinton in his 2004 autobiography, My Life, states: "Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon...The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time “

Richplanet has a lot of interesting stuff. Shattering a lot of my illusions.

SSP:

nice how they threw this clip in at the end of that buggy youtube
36:00 on that one or here it is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDiJEFgPPCg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a good short SSP summary

On April 13, the National Archive Records Administration made available almost 250,000 pages of documents from President Reagan's administration.


The entry for Tuesday, June 11, 1985 (page 334) reads:

Lunch with 5 top space scientist. It was fascinating. Space truly is the last frontier and some of the developments there in astronomy etc. are like science fiction, except they are real. I learned that our shuttle capacity is such that we could orbit 300 people.

this experiment will fly around the moon soon

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human ... or_dummies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

im not buying the 'secret' space fleet

there are so many amateurs with telescopes hunting the skys it would be impossible to hide this
unless they have some invisibility technology


good video on Apollo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asI9O91p2F8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

good video

just a quick note on invisibility...
have you heard about the speed of gravity?
it's like a billion times faster than the speed of light.
and it's the basic technology of ufo's and back-engineered alien reproduction vehicles
ever watch the CE5 events? they always have ufo's that just blink out.
so if they can go faster than the speed of light...
then would you be able to see them?

another example, a friend of mine showed me a pic he took of a ufo from his norcal garden, which he was not aware of, as he couldn't see it, he was just taking pics of his plants, but it had just showed up in the image... and this is actually a quite common occurrence

anyone change their vote yet?

this guy Dolan really has a good grip on things...

like most people, even many ufo believers, he doesn't buy the stories of jump-rooms to Mars, or 20-and-back time-travel and age regressions presented by Cory Goode, Emery Smith and a few others..
but he still firmly believes in the SSP anyway.

and it's not like they don't have the money for black ops..
aside from the old trick of wildly overpriced purchases, which have been going on for several decades... like $10,000 toilet seat covers just last year..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but I'm sure you know Rumsfeld famously announced the very day before 9-11 that over 2 Trillion was unaccounted for,
and every year that figure goes up another Trillion+
last year it was up to 21 Trillion+..
https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/21-tril ... tagon-hud/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

that's a LOT of money... roughly equal to the US national debt
$64,000+ for every man, woman and child in the USA

or over $3000 every year from each of us... $8 each every day!
just like fuckin bullies stealing all of our lunch money
so where do you suppose all that money goes?

these vids sum it all up quite well:

from what I watched I took it that the warden fleet were all conventional ships at the bleeding limit of advancement
nothing OTHERLY in their technology

wiki got a page for speed of gravity
it says this

as predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger, is the same speed[1] as the speed of light (c).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But light does not travel so the speed of light is zero.

uhhh….

youll have better luck proving the graviton than that im afraid...

This is a good summary of the micro nova theory, as it relates to the missing trillions and the secret space program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er5rWyoL9M0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Light does not travel!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4-wcyeS39s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

in the replys ^^^



Woodson Payne Foundation
2 years ago

The idea that photons bump into one another is the old mechanical universe or Vortex Theory of Rene Descartes. However, for this to be valid, that photons bump into each other would violate the law of conservation of energy. For the same reasons that perpetual motion machines do not work, so would the photon lose its energy over time and have no energy.

The vortex theory of light propagation was disproved by the failure of the Michelson Morley Experiment.

http://theodorepayne.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Theodore Payne Foundation inspires and educates Southern Californians about
the beauty and ecological benefits of California native plant landscapes.

austrailia just bitchslapped david ickes

was about to open a 4 city speaking tour when the cancelled his visa
"moral tuerpitude"

Christ, you should read the comments!

the news report I got called him a holocaust denier
ive only listened to a few of his programs before
never heard him talk on that subject

im the past whenever a state steps into that debate its to silence someones whos presenting some information that is embarrassing to the 'ole story'


Quoting from the decision, Icke rejected the view that his tour poses “a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community”.

Icke denied being antisemitic and a Holocaust denier, and said he had never advocated for Holocaust denial to be taught in school.
Icke has long been the subject of controversy in Australia, where the immigration department retains a broad discretion to deny or revoke visas on character grounds, and last toured the country in 2016.


https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/f ... vokes-visa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

so, in the past hes mentioned that it was jewish financers who funded hitlers rise to power and the rebuilding of the german war machine

and its apparently anti-Semitism to point that out

bentech wrote:in the replys ^^^


The vortex theory of light propagation was disproved by the failure of the Michelson Morley Experiment.

I am fascinated by vortexes. I like to watch big loogies go down the bath tub drain and imagine they are solar systems being sucked into a black hole. Unfortunately I do not believe in black holes either.
What I believe it that light is everywhere, like water in the ocean. When a wave moves through the ocean the water stays where it always was but the energy is apparent on the surface as waves and below the surface as current.
What we perceive as light traveling is a form of electricity traveling and light is a byproduct, but we can't see the waves because the surface is a higher dimension.
Even we emit light.
Are we all tiny dwarf stars?

we are collections of cells which communicate with each other using chemistry, sonar and bursts of light signals that are created whenever dna splits...

This guy has some interesting thoughts on light.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCrnDGO ... t2cp3cI4YI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Faster Than Light Interstellar Travel - Eric Davis PhD


AntiGravity Propulsion - Paul La Violette PhD


Proof Faster than Light Black Budget Antigravity Technology is Real

I think gravity is much faster than light. Mostly based on info from the Electric Universe community.

that gravity youtube is horseshit

you've no case...

but you believe Wikipedia?

this is the one I've really been looking for, which I'd seen before...
peer reviewed papers included
Dr Thomas Van Flandern
The Speed of Gravity and ET Travel

although I suggest disregarding the Rover images as probably not from Mars
but I do consider the Mars Orbiter images to be real


What is the Speed of Gravity?


Wal Thornhill: An Examination of Gravitational Waves

its not that I believe wiki on this
its just they have a much more cohesive talk on the subject

which is in this case an operable definition of 'fields'

light has been shown conclusively to be a particle
gravity has not

that video did itself NO favors making the cheap illusion that the earths mass changes as a function of its distance from the sun

Oh my God! i just watch that first video: 11 Does gravity travel at the speed of light?

General relativity is Wrong?? no evidence of this, no replicate experiment given to verifier such claim. either i completely misinterpret his point, or it is all bullshit.
Ben's right gravity is not from a particle but is an artifact from space/time geometry.

that video assumes time is uniform (flat) as in a Newtonian universe, garbage in, garbage out. remember time is also variable, not constant. hence the term space-time.
Time is relative to the observer. read it, learn it, live it.

So many other misconception but that alone is the deal breaker.
my 2 cents

don't judge the whole topic by one bad video
that's like saying one hoaxed UFO means they are all hoaxes
what do you guys think of the one by Thomas Van Flandern?

back to that 'removal' and the field thing

you will notice that they forget that a violation of the speed of light occurred when they
'removed the sun' from the solar system. and since light is particulate those that left its surface march onward in its absence

but when you concider gravity your talking about a field of influence around the sun which extends out past the limits of all bodies which orbit it.

we know how to turn maganitism and light off and on in devices we have created
we have never seen masses effect turned off and on

at present I think the science is well confirmed that the transfer of information between entangled particles has been shown to be occurring at speeds significantly faster than the speed of light we measure

then will most likely be shown to simply be that there is a medium within which light travels faster than any we have presently observed

per that next video munchy,
i would like to know more about the experimental measurement of the suns gravimetric center as compared to its luminous one


stanfords having none of it

Does gravity travel faster than the speed of light?
No, it doesn't appear to. Einstein's relativistic equation for gravity based on general relativity demands that gravity travels at the speed of light, otherwise the predictions we get for the bending of light and the precession of the perihelion of Mercury would be quite different than what is experimentally determined. Also, we can send spacecraft on long journeys through the solar system, and the light travel delays can be up to several hours. If gravity traveled at any other speed than that of light, the trajectories that are calculated for spacecraft would always come out wrong because they include gravitational influences that change from moment to moment as the spacecraft, Sun and planets change their positions. We would never be able to get all the different time delays of these gravitational influences to add up to the measured trajectory of the spacecraft.

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/r ... q1510.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

now mind you,
this collision occurred over a billion light years away...


the neutron star collision detected by the ligo gravity waves machine was also detected by radio telescopes at precisely the same time

IF gravity was traveling faster than light ligo's would have detected it well in advance and the world over telescopes would have turned to capture the light and radio signals coming in later

this didn't happen

I keep hearing flandern saying Einstein theory or gravity is keeping us back

back from what?



Using a collection of National Science Foundation radio telescopes, researchers have confirmed that a narrow jet of material was ejected at near light speeds from a neutron star collision. The collision, which was observed August 17, 2017 and occurred 130 million light-years from Earth, initially produced gravitational waves that were observed by the Laser Interferometry Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO), alongside a flood of light in the form of gamma rays, X-rays, visible light, and radio waves. It was the first cosmic event to be observed in both gravitational waves and light waves.

https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/supe ... sion-83414" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


On 17 August 2017 the NSF's Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) in the United States, working with the Virgo Interferometer in Italy, detected gravitational waves passing the Earth. This event, the fifth ever detected, was named GW170817. About two seconds later, two space observatories, NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope and ESA’s INTErnational Gamma Ray Astrophysics Laboratory (INTEGRAL), detected a short gamma-ray burst from the same area of the sky.


https://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso1733/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

really good article

And so the quantum race began. Qubits can be made in different ways, but the rule is that two qubits can be both in state A, both in state B, one in state A and one in state B, or vice versa, so there are four probabilities in total. And you won’t know what state a qubit is at until you measure it and the qubit is yanked out of its quantum world of probabilities into our mundane physical reality.



https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the- ... ters-work/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Munchy wrote:don't judge the whole topic by one bad video
that's like saying one hoaxed UFO means they are all hoaxes
what do you guys think of the one by Thomas Van Flandern?

Right , i dont judge by one vid or any one source.
sorry i just don't have time or inclination, to watch most of the vids, Printed or published sources work better for me to review a subject.

Ok i viewed the Flandern vid and:

That vid keeps talking about curved space. But what einstein showed is space-time is curved not just space. the expert in the vid ignores time. Time IS not constant over any distance. That is why the math for orbits is so messy, that is why it means something to be a rocket scientist.

The rope crossing an orbit analogy, is odd. I understand curved space-time.
I do not understand why he thinks objects must be curved and not space.
He lost me. can anyone explain that one to me?

My feeling he trying to explain the universe in a Newtonian space but keeps talking about an Einstein space. In Newtonian space time is uniform.

When he said methane and formaldehyde are only formed from organics or volcanism. Not true both and many more organic molecules have been found in on asteroids and comets. If using that as one's premise for extraterrestrial life his conclusions are likely wrong.

It may be me, but that is why utube is a horrible source for education, printed material citing sources is my preferred venue (and hopefully peer reviewed). Even Wikipedia cites it's articles sources, otherwise it just guessing/making-things-up.
I suggest when you watch a vid, try to paraphrase or summarize what was said and concluded. If it is hard or confusing to do, suspect the source.

That whole face of mars has loooooong been debunked when NASA change the orbit of their imaging satellite for a hi-rez pic after public clamor for it. And no doubt it is a natural rock formation. For him going on about it still is at best disingenuous. I seen the hi-rez pic, it's a cooI rock formation, I even want to rock climb there.

Also anyone who says things such as “limitless source of free energy” is suspect fer sure.. Needs extraordinary proof.

Now I can relate to his misgivings about the present theories in physics and the quantum zoo, I too doubt we got it 100% right, but to give up on the scientific method to move forward and resort only to conjecture is disheartening to me.

as for gravity push theory and his and exploding planets are interesting, the idea is new to me, i would like to see some experiments to test it. tho i do not see how to.


my opinion fwiw.

this guys good
gets around to how close they are to quantum gravity near the end

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03- ... ation-rand" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXRLDatmbgA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

you guys do realize that this whole speed of gravity sidetrack is based merely on a random thought I had about how SSP vehicles could become invisible, right? Even if that idea is flawed, this does not mean that there is no SSP, nor that the Apollo missions actually went to the moon. I'm sure there are many other possibilities as to why we wouldn't see the SSP vehicles.

I realize its a sidestep to an avenue of enquiry which might offer a technical solution to the behavior or crafts both witnessed and imagined for which we presently have none as they all violate both the standard model and the quantum model

I still think the position of radiation experiment is tremendously intriguing
were talking several arc minutes if its the case and it seem it would be so easy to do and repeat and illustrate

would like to see that rather than just hear its occured

meanwhile

The Washington Post—citing the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which tracks anti-science legislation—reported Monday that state legislators already have introduced more than a dozen measures targeting science education in 2019. That's more in less than three months than NCSE typically expects for an entire year.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/ ... n-analysis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Munchy wrote:

you guys do realize that this whole speed of gravity sidetrack is based merely on a random thought I had about how SSP vehicles could become invisible, right? Even if that idea is flawed, this does not mean that there is no SSP, nor that the Apollo missions actually went to the moon. I'm sure there are many other possibilities as to why we wouldn't see the SSP vehicles.

Yes, but faulty premises, as i pointed out except by dumb luck, leaves to incorrect conclusions.

Ok Locutus, how about just summarize yer thoughts or some of the reason(s) why any ya think or evidence maybe the moon missions were faked.
or SSP's. Umm is SSP extraterrestrial craft, right?
I am interested on yer thoughts

They were faked for the trillions of dollars that have been invested in it.
The Nazis control space and the deep state.
The triangle craft are visible in the infra red and the propulsion seems to be the same as on the early German models.

Nazi's undoubltedly control the deep state
or that is THE people who built and ran with the Nazi's

but what I don't get is why has it taken them so long to capitulate on the fall of their only opposition they ever faced
that being the soviets

seems to me that the industries needed to make a stab at the moon landing were all built and funded
so that money got spent rather than just stolen

at this juncture the only thing that makes sense is that these craft are hard pressed to move a pilot around
their incapable of cargo to the point that they cant even incorporate weapons

that would explain this not being a run-away technology

despite it being "run-away-ish"

Some of the Muellers moved to America in the 30's and became close to several presidents starting with FDR who was a drug kingpin, opium, the china trade.
Others escaped to Russia after the war. They took advanced technology with them in the form of sputnik.
They started the cold war.
and then we have Werner Van Braun to the rescue.
Roswell fits in there somewhere.
Allen Dulles was as fascist as they come.
There was Operation High jump and Operation Paperclip but there was also Operation Money clip. Getting the German money properly invested in US corporations. The Rockerfellers were instrumental in this.
They like the finer things too and want their children to attend the finest schools, so we have a form of peace, but if the catastrophe theory is true, the only survivors after the next cycle will be Aryan.
Maybe China has figured it out too and and that is why we really have tensions.

Intrinsic wrote: Yes, but faulty premises, as i pointed out except by dumb luck, leaves to incorrect conclusions.

Ok Locutus, how about just summarize yer thoughts or some of the reason(s) why any ya think or evidence maybe the moon missions were faked.
or SSP's. Umm is SSP extraterrestrial craft, right?
I am interested on yer thoughts

SSP, Secret Space Program craft could be refurbished, back-engineered, and/or man-made, but they are ours. Sorry, I'm extremely backlogged with sales orders to be filled here, and some other personal issues... so no promises, but maybe I can find time next week.. but there's no short answer, as the enormous amount of various evidence is really key, so I would prefer if you watched the videos... especially the ones with footage of the astronauts allegedly on the moon, which no amount of words could possibly do justice to, but there are other smoking guns to see and hear as well. but I'm not here to argue, and I would never expect you to believe me, nor do I care whether you do or not, I'm just sharing what I've seen, and most of the vids are done by well educated speakers, PhD's and ex-military, etc, so you really need to just see what I've seen for yourself. or you're also welcome to blissfully enjoy your denial, which is fine and probably to be expected from the majority, especially older generations. I'd never expect to convince my parents of any of this either, as they are well set in their beliefs, so there's certainly no point in even trying. I can imagine though, that we probably have similar differences of opinion regarding many other issues such as 9-11 and Kennedy's assassination. and as much as I'd love to have nothing better to do than spend much time discussing all of this, I really gotta get back to work now, the post office closes in about 9 hours, and there's no way I can get all caught up on over 100 orders by then, including one real whopper, but I truly need to stay focused on that, before my paying customers start to complain. I probably shouldn't have even clicked the MyPG bookmark today.. my bad. peace-out
ps: it's quite synchronistic that I just resumed watching this video at about 6+ min in... and what he said in the next 2 mins seemed rather fitting:

I'll admit that an interesting moon landing theory which I think I posted a video on by Richard Dolan, holds that they did go, but used fake footage and images, because the real stuff was damaged by the radiation, but that still doesn't explain how the astronauts handled the Van Allen belts themselves, which NASA states the Orion program currently cannot, since all the previous tech, data, and everything was conveniently destroyed. maybe that also explains why they had to fake and screwed-up a bunch of the audio transmission delays, and hand out the petrified wood 'moon rocks' too... or not.

Buzz's behavior caused me to change my vote to No.
This too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcXJ2ifCC1Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

quite good basic SSP:

The "better be ready " vid, imparted no info whatsoever, i have no idea what you expected me to see or get from that about the fake moon landings or this secret space program (where do the resources come form minerals, fuel supplies, resources, they cantr come from htin air, evidence of resources dissappearing would have to exist, not to mention the people and there families, where are they, where do they retire)

A lot of vids there to watch, since i can only watch from this public computer (library) my time is limited.
And so i understand yer time constraints also ...

Any particular vids specifically with more then some personalities' conjuncture ( conjecture with using the scientific method and duplicable facts is OK). or is it all conjecture?

there must be something ya can cite instead of accumulating evidence, something that first cracked your believe,that made ya say .. Maybe.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... til-it-is/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...

"Of course, military pilots aren’t the only ones with extensive experience looking at objects in the sky—and the "equipment to record what they see. Astronomers have that, too—yet they never seem to ever catch UFOs in the viewfinders of their telescopes. Similarly, the increasingly global ubiquity of smartphones should presumably boost the numbers and quality of UFO encounters captured on video (as they have done for rocket launches), but the flood of eerie footage has yet to materialize.

That raises a red flag for Bruce Macintosh, an astronomer at Stanford University. “In general, interesting physical phenomena are only barely significant when first detected. Then, as technology progresses, those detections become more significant,” he says. “But UFO detections have remained marginal for decades; they’ve just gone from being blurry shapes on film cameras to blurry shapes on the digital infrared sensors of fighter jet gun cameras. This, in spite of the fact that the world’s total imaging capacity has expanded by several orders of magnitude in the past 20 years.” To remain so vexingly residual, he says, UFOs would have to become more elusive in lockstep with our increasing ability to detect them—something no natural process would be expected to do.

Hypothetical aliens with advanced technology could do that, of course. “But then you have to ask why they would choose to remain marginally undetectable rather than just being undetectable,” Macintosh says. “Unless they’re taunting us, it’s hard to come up with a coherent explanation.”

Except, of course, for the obvious one: It’s never aliens. Until, perhaps, it is.

Any doubt or evidence the auhtor is wrong about no pics of ufos from astronomers, pro and armature, none from all the smartphones out there? anyone? if so where?

Twelve Government Documents That Take UFOs Seriously:

https://www.richarddolanpress.com/twelv ... -documents" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, i view as i'm able to, and thanks for the written info.
it is not that i don't take UFO sightings seriously, just none, zero hard or soft evidence of spacecraft. Iknow it does not preclude the existence as space craft, just it doesn't advance it either. just there are Unidentified flying objects witnessed only. I keep looking for more evidence tho.

Why of all this UFO and/or secret space program to indicating the moon landings were faked. Why would you need a ssp to show fake landings?

Heck the the 100 odd Laser mirrors array is still there for armature and pro astronomers to reflect a laser and measure moon distance. How could ya fake that?
fwiw i watched the first moonwalk in real time in '69, with the rest of the world. .. fwiw

Munchy wrote:quite good basic SSP:

What info is in this vid??

drawings on photos, and blurry pixels of lights? Evidence or info of what??? conjecture?

Asking why someone put up a slide after joking about taking ET home. As if that is evidence he knows something secret.

of coarse action/reaction rockets engines can't make it to the stars. DUH! as if that is evidence it must exist at all. talk about begging the question. fuk science fiction does better science then this.

And faking the whole thing by not giving a shred of evidence or even hearsay or talking about at all about the 'new technology' it promotes in the byline.
What it is? What does it do? Not a freaking thing!

This is a good vid? really?

i agree with intrinsic to many vids i do not want to watch.
i did watch a few. lets say you link only 2-3 pro and 2-3 con.
that would help a lot. then the reflectors on the moon
could have been put there by machine not a man.
thanks Lrus007

True, lrus. Could have been if enough robotic tech existed back in the 60's. yet No micro-processors.

Wait! We had Machines to take a manned payload to the moon (apollo rockets) but instead sent a robot to fake it with the building of the mirror array, why not just not build the array at all? it's absence wouldn't if be missed. seems unnecessary step to pull a scam.
Yet it is possible. If we could put a man on the moon. it's possible.

I would think a machine doing that in '69 would be almost a triumphant as a moon walk. fer sure.


I agree with lrus on pro and con. alternate hypothesis's is fundamental to research.

boom
we landed
ive been in that minute

and that capuule is now happening

from what I gather there was o 90 window threer there that moment when they had the minute to orbit or not

I believe the real potential for Moon exploration lies in the optical field. Bruce sees all is a YouTube channel pushing the boundaries.
https://www.youtube.com/user/MrBrucy666" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

so it bounced down and then everyone exhaled

they and the whole control crew

one of the options was a touch and go

from what ive read there was 90 seconds to decide

the command module was rocketing past and if they wanted to try and catch up with it there wasn't goint to be much time

know how thin the metal skin of that module there were in was???

so they had to invent a number of technologys to proceed
the soviet were going gangbusters and we were t4rying to catch up

one was in the world of sheetmetal

the industry up until that point had just had spit it out

nobody had asked before for its thickness to change across its width


this meant new machines

the size of more than a home

the dollars where flowing at that point so of course it was made to happen

you think your safe in your car

seen those pictures looking back at our earth?

the skin of what they were trusting wasn't half that

they were involved in a gamble

whyd thy go along?

you know they left one guy up there right?

spinning around
orbit etc

can you imagine the concerns he had to weather all those hours?

good luck finding his story

let me share what I know

in orbit you cant just point and go
doesn't work like that

you cant accelerate straight at what/where you like

you wont get there
youd go up and over it
wouldn't get there

so if your looking at it
and you want to get there

you've got to aim under it

gemini

the missions in between mercury and Apollo

they were all about ironing out these details

manoeuvring in space

turns out it aint so easy

turns out our earth based senses
don't make good sense up there

so that Nazi making it all happen

there were a number of different ideas/plans

and then they choose to go with cheap

the soviets were way ahead of us at the moment this was decided

so

we had to figure out how to dock in orbit
in order for the Apollo missions to be possible

that's what Gemini was all about

how to dock in orbit

how to get two things flying through space close enough
for them to connect

suscessfully


heh
learning how to do that

WikiLeaks exposes the hoax.
The video is at Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/terryrexx/vide ... 261985508/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

here it is from youtube also, just in case...
although I'm sure some hardscore skeptics still couldn't be bothered to watch
and/or will staunchly continue to refuse accepting any form of proof

imagine a world without cars (vehicles) ....

"bc we lost and/or erased all apollo data" ...

lol

theres a proof in all of this, the more you lie without any morals the better the recieving of this so called truth

yay

fukk the church (and by this i mean the thought motivation, its ok to do un-good , as long you excuse yourself afterwards)

instead of asking in the first place


*vomitsallovertheforums*

thanos was right the universe needs correcting.......

I'm sorry Munchy, but my mobile phone works and so does my GPS. No-one can convince me the moon-landings were fake when we have thousands of satellites orbiting our earth and have sent probes to the farthest reaches and beyond our solar system.

I wouldn't put it past the US Govt to fake some of the footage - I have an open mind in that respect - but that doesn't disprove the moon landings.

Do you not think if the Russians or Chinese could prove the US never made it to the moon they wouldn't have called bullshit by now? But no country - not one - is claiming the US did not send men to the moon. All you need is a powerful enough telescope to prove it.

its not about stuff up there, which is up there

its about humans not beeing there where claimed

Well, the stuff's up there because the humans had the technology to go where they claimed.

hey Prawn, thanks for your survey input,
no offense intended, but do try and keep up, eh?
lol j/k, but yeh your arguments were addressed by some the videos presented, although I'm sure that if you're anything like other hard-core skeptics, you probably won't have time to bother watching a bunch of them, just as I honestly don't have time to analyze them all in great detail and serve up only the tastiest morsels on a silver platter for anyone.
it's kinda like when some people say well if there's really other life in the universe, where are they and why haven't we seen any evidence of them? when in fact there's a great wealth of evidence, and it really seems to be more a matter of how they're just not paying any attention, so what's the point?
besides, it seems clear that what appears to be obvious smoking guns to some, may always look more like smoke and mirrors to others anyway, and how for some folks any even sidetracked point of doubt may be seen as to negate the entire body of evidence, so it seems quite doubtful that either side can likely ever be convinced otherwise on an issue of this magnitude, especially not by any amount of unwatched video, and apparently we may as well all just agree to disagree before we even get started.

Haha! I think it's impossible to offend me. After all these years, everyone knows that by now :D

I have a very open mind when it comes to extraterrestrial life. Odds are, something else has to be out there. However, the odds increase when you look at the time-frames necessary to coincide with life on this planet, and life somewhere else that has evolved to the level of inter-stella space travel. Of course, I am not talking about simpler life that may live closer to home, such as bacteria on Mars or single-celled organisms in the seas of Titan etc.

If you have the technology to travel across the universe, you probably have the technology to remain hidden from a bunch of dumb apes (us). They could well be observing us. Or not. It is hard to prove one way or another.

But as far as the moon landing is concerned - and yes, I've watched a few (but certainly not all) of them - even if we put aside the reasonable explanations that NASA has given for most of the anomalies, there is absolutely no smoking gun after all these year, and plenty of evidence to suggest what happened really happened.

NASA has a bunch of fucking moons rocks, dust and other samples, for example - where they fuck did they come from?

There have been six - count them - manned landings on the moon. Where they all faked? What about all the non-manned landings (Russian landings as early as 1959, Chinese landings recently).

The thing about conspiracy theories is, they almost never make sense because there's almost never a sane reason behind them.

The US may well have staged some events. But what, exactly, would be the point of staging six of them? And why is it so hard to believe men walked on the moon when we have had the technology to send animals into space for over 70 years and humans for over 60?

Anyway. You're right that I'm not going to convince you guys, and you guys aren't going to convince me. Fuck, I ran into a guy the other day who was trying to tell me the earth was flat and nothing I said could convince him otherwise. And I've literally flown around the globe in one direction and ended up back where I started!

well, I guess you didn't catch the vids about the moon rock they tested out to be petrified wood, or how the Van Allen belts affect lifeforms, unlike unmanned missions, but we have officially currently "lost" the tech to get people through them. Besides, we have our own flying saucers, triangles, etc, capable of interstellar flight, but if that were public knowledge, it would literally change the world, starting with trashing the petro and energy industries. Such giant corporations are too financially anchored in the past, to allow us to leap into the future so quickly.

Munchy wrote: Van Allen belts

stretches up to the moon periodically, radiation wouldnt be an issue

most probably know, but anyways here are 3 YT channels for further info gathering:



https://www.youtube.com/user/secureteam10/videos" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.youtube.com/user/thirdphaseofmoon/videos" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-VPSQ ... Jgw/videos" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

im glad we didnt touched mars, or should i say iceland, as the topic

I did include some vids about the Devon Island/Mars rovers, and one was pretty funny, with a spoof about teaching the NASA imaging techs to remember to add the red coloring under threat of getting fired... lol

Munchy wrote:well, I guess you didn't catch the vids about the moon rock they tested out to be petrified wood, or how the Van Allen belts affect lifeforms, unlike unmanned missions, but we have officially currently "lost" the tech to get people through them. Besides, we have our own flying saucers, triangles, etc, capable of interstellar flight, but if that were public knowledge, it would literally change the world, starting with trashing the petro and energy industries. Such giant corporations are too financially anchored in the past, to allow us to leap into the future so quickly.

The Dutch moon rock thing is bogus. It was never presented by any astronaut and nor was it an official gift from the US government. Look it up. Plenty of "real" moon rocks out there.

It doesn't take much to poke a hole in the Van Allen belt radiation theory, either. Apollo missions bypassed the inner belt and travelled so fast they had very little exposure to the remaining belt.

So tell me again, why were all these missions faked?

If someone can come up with ONE GOOD REASON why all these missions were faked (and I'm not talking about faking the odd bit of footage, which is plausible) as well as all the evidence of other nations that have confirmed they tracked the missions and/or found evidence of those missions on the moon itself, then I might start to be convinced.

So firstly: why did the US fake the missions?

And secondly: Why did all other nations (Russia, China, Japan, UK, Australia, other parts of Europe etc) agree to fake their evidence, too?

Actually, scrap the above: just tell me why the Soviet Union agreed to the US ruse at the height of the Cold War? All the other nations (apart from China) can be considered US allies, so obviously the conspiracy theorists will claim they did it to make the US happy. But Russia???

two blonds were on a beach in calf. one night.
one asks the other what's closer florida or the moon ?



the other says duh we can see the moon from here.

i will let my self out..
Lrus007

[image]https://media.giphy.com/media/H76LfSzyXeCnm/giphy.gif[/image]

Er, except that was 1972. What about in the three years prior?

Quote: "I think it was right before the final mission, Apollo 17 . . ."

So you expect us to believe that Russia kept its mouth shut from 1969-1972 on the off chance it might need to ask the US for food and would keep the "fake" Apollo missions secret until such time to use as a bargaining chip?

Maybe it was so they could both fake missions in 1975 to link up in space during the Apollo-Soyuz Mission.

But first please explain why Russia kept its mouth shut for three years - including less than one year after they invaded Czechoslovakia (1968) and were condemned by the US and other nations, and the same year (1969) they based submarines in Cuba at the height of the Cold War.

[image]https://media3.giphy.com/media/xUPGGePc ... =200w.webp[/image]

bentech wrote:you know they left one guy up there right?

spinning around
orbit etc

can you imagine the concerns he had to weather all those hours?

good luck finding his story

No, I did not know that.

ummm ... info?

Dick Fein wrote:WikiLeaks exposes the hoax.
The video is at Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/terryrexx/vide ... 261985508/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Munchy wrote:here it is from youtube also, just in case...
although I'm sure some hardscore skeptics still couldn't be bothered to watch
and/or will staunchly continue to refuse accepting any form of proof

Hey, Is that vid from really from wikileaks? If so what is the context it was taken from.
I ask cause I searched wikleaks and cannot find it in a search. What should I search under?

That would be hilarious if the proof of fake moon landing was faked.

Sooooo… you see proof in a vid that never even stated it's purpose or who made it or when or any explanation whatsoever? Except it is possible to film a fake moonwalk 'specially now ya know what it looks like?
Yet you think the vids viewed virtually** simultaneously around the world by virtually everyone with a TV in '69 showing Armstrong et al on the moon are fake?
Weird. It looked so real at the time.

**different only because the moon's angle to the receiver on earth is different in different place on earth so it takes the signal longer.

Hold on. I did search snopes, should have done that first.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/moon-truth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

".. we note that at least two humorous aspects of the clip (inserted intentionally or otherwise) give it away as a post-Apollo fabrication:

1) The “astronaut” in the clip flubs the “One small step …” line (by omitting the word “a” between the words “for” and “man”) just as Neil Armstrong did during the real Apollo 11 moon landing in July 1969.

2) In the closing moments of the clip, the “astronaut” can be heard apologizing to “Mr. Gorsky,” a reference to a Neil Armstrong-related joke-cum-urban legend from the mid-1990s.

If that isn’t sufficient, the moontruth.com site eventually published a disclaimer noting that:

Yes, the clip is fake. It was shot in a studio in London in spring 2002. It was based on an idea by director Adam Stewart, who was a space exploration nut. He had read the conspiracy theory sites and decided he wanted to make a spoof based on the idea that the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked."

In 1968, the film director Stanley Kubrick was secretly approached by Nasa officials. They asked him to direct the first three moon landings from a special set. He agreed to do it. But being such the perfectionist he is, he filmed it on site.

quite a shot to fake...
if these are real their fucking huge!


mysterious objects flying in formation over moon...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CGI. I agree with some of the comments, going to fast for lunar orbital velocity.

Trippy, but a tease where's the rest of the story, what are they? how do they do that? Why? what happeneds now?

I've always thought for certain that the moon landing hoax theory was absolutely nuts，we need more information

if you think it's nuts then why do you need more info? After how many years? How old are you?

I ramble, If your after the ageofinformation you're also in the age of misinformation. No worries asking helps. Or yer old enough and are just trolling, since you did jes state both positions thus promoting a debate Or appearing to be interested in the debate for more posts. /end

I look forward to your reply.

That reaction
Would speak to a kneejerk to the idea

As the evidence for fraud is quite compeling


If i was to point to just one

It would be the photo of the rovers wheel

Which doesnt have a wheel track leading to
Where it is

A top drawer wtf

Please this threads been going on a while and I have not seen anythings close to compelling . debunked quite a bit, tho
If you got it, Sock it to me. A simple phrase to Google search i'lll do the leg work.

I'll go first

I'm going to reiterate this cuz this was real-time proof at the time and is continually used every day, throughout the world.
Even by kids.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-p ... n_landings" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The detection on Earth of reflections from laser ranging retro-reflectors (LRRRs, or mirrors used as targets for Earth-based tracking lasers) on Lunar Laser Ranging experiments left on the Moon is evidence of landings.[35][36][37][38]
The NASA-independent Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur, McDonald, Apache Point, and Haleakalā observatories regularly use the Apollo LRRR.[40] Lick Observatory attempted to detect from Apollo 11's retroreflector while Armstrong and Aldrin were still on the Moon but did not succeed until August 1, 1969.[41] The Apollo 14 astronauts deployed a retroreflector on February 5, 1971, and McDonald Observatory detected it the same day. The Apollo 15 retroreflector was deployed on July 31, 1971, and was detected by McDonald Observatory within a few days.[42]

Chabot Observatory calendar records an application of optical tracking during the final phases of Apollo 13, on April 17, 1970

Kettering Grammar School
A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits.[9][10] According to the group, in December 1972 a member "picks up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon".[11]
...
The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.[8]

More from the same source:

Apollo 11

The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[16]A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969.[17]At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the
telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[18] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[19] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.[20]Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module.[21] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Kaminski, in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in Houston, Texas, and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.[16][22]


If you're wondering Parallax confirms the lunar transmissions were from Luna space. ~Intrinsic

rSin wrote:That reaction
Would speak to a kneejerk to the idea

As the evidence for fraud is quite compeling


If i was to point to just one

It would be the photo of the rovers wheel

Which doesnt have a wheel track leading to
Where it is

A top drawer wtf

Perhaps a WTF moment, but Compelling?
Everything weighs 1/6th less, astronauts did picked up the vehicle to move or reorientate.

Are these the pics you refer to:

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07 ... g.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Speaking of WTF moments got me thinking how the heck did they get a car up and put it together.



Watching the assembly and looking at the repair work from the above post..
Tell me as an engineer that wasn't cool. Didja jes want to put that thing together and repair fenders and make it work. In space suits!! Yay baby
Maybe I can't believe it's fake cuz I want to believe.

Another WTF moment is why isn't Trump promoting the success of the Falcon spaceX launching and docking.
first American man space flight for how long???

I guess this might Unite the Nation and Trump is all about dividing??



Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley could stay in orbit for months to aid the station’s short-staffed crew.
After a 19-hour trip, the NASA astronauts Robert L. Behnken and Douglas G. Hurley successfully docked their capsule and entered the space station.Credit...Image by NASA.

That would explain it
But
Those guys couldnt do anything
Without approval
And were prevented from tons
Given the chance
Of getting hurt
Endangering themselves
And their safety
The mission



Ive watched a documentary on
How the built that car
How it folded up
To fit into the eagle

It's funny I never checked to see how the car work .
yet I put together a kit model replica of the Apollo Saturn rocket. Even rebuilt the little lunar module with rubber joints so would fold up properly inside capsule and could be removed and open up. Complete with gold foil from candy wrapper on the lunar Lander.

Build a replica launch pad after Mercury launched.

And 5' titan rocket and a big mock-up of the gemini orbiting capsule, with all the little details of the cockpit, the fuel and oxygen modules. so cool.


But never was curious to know about the car.

There is a famous photo of one astronauts helmet
Where the mirror virtage shows the
Photographer and his background

The story is that the angles are wrong

The shot is taken from far highethan

Couldn't find anything talking about angle.
Is this the picture?