Do you believe in the moon landing?

A Spy caught within NASA

http://news.aol.co.uk/moon-scientist-charged-with-spying/article/20091020032541989600034

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133942

 

weird, now what could he be passing along there I wonder

 

Sorry, I have held these concerns for several years now. Long before I ever read a word from Tom.

Using believable, rational, open to all possibilities open mindedness beyond an official, incomplete, (corrupt) government story that defies the laws of physics is weakening the country!? Non-thinkers with their heads in the sand are weakening the country. Severely at that.

To get back on topic, I will get to why I've come back to this thread. Yet another yahoo news story about NASA plans that I found amusing. Stating strong concerns again about the viability of being able to haul enough fuel to the moon to be able to make a return trip. I know some of you would never ask yourselves how that was so easily accomplished with 60's technology but why don't you give it a go? Would require 3 billion dollars in funding a year to HOPE to be able to make a single 'return' trip at some point?? How were they funding trips every 6 months before?!!

Here's the article. How much more obvious do they need to get for you guys???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091022/ap_on_sc/us_sci_nasa_future

 

Oh, I misspoke. Forgive me for that mistake. They will need an ADDITIONAL 3 billion dollars a year, just to leave near Earth orbit!! LOL


....and what's this?

" NASA is slowly delaying some parts of the old moon program. It's rethinking its future annual $10 million spending on a still-unbuilt lunar lander as it awaits Obama's decision on the Augustine panel recommendations, said NASA spokesman Grey Hautaluoma. "

Is this implying $10 million annually for a multi-year program to build a single lunar lander? WTF's wrong with the old ones? They were kicking them out every 6 months in the late 60s.

 

I don't think too many in here pay attention to any silly 'laws of physics'.

 

tell me that NASA are monkeying with the photos.

 

In this digital age? Are you kidding me?

 

the old cut and paste days (handy work of NASA graphic designers). They represent these as two different photos from different missions. This illustrates their fast and lose approach to the truth.

 

So now you dont beleive the whole space program. Not just the moon landing. I suppose Gus Grissom is living safely in Costa rica. Are the space shuttle missions real? Just wondering how you feel about them.

 

Look at those two photos. Do you accept that they are two separate and distinct photos? NASA claims that they are from different missions, what do you make of that? (and try to answer without the hyperbole)

 

Those are obviously different photos. It says right there that one is Photo 1 and the other is Photo 2!

 

there ya go.

 

oh btw, the farthest the shuttle has gone is 400 miles. The moon is 234,000 miles away.

 

Sir, I didnt post those photos. You couldve done that. Or where you found them, maybe they manipulated the photo. Lets face it you didnt find these photos in the NASA year book, right? I mean come on I can manipulate a photo to make Lincoln look like he was in Malta with Stalin. What I asked you is do you now think the entire space program was bogus? And is the space shuttle fake aslo? Dont answer a question with a question. By the way, I can make the twin towers rise from the ground and make it look like thay gave birth to jet planes

 

You do not seem to be familiar with any of this. The shuttle is a high earth orbit airplane, what does that have to do with moon missions? You may want to read the article

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

 

Youre right about the shuttle, but you cant seem to answer a straight forward question.

 

I think this WAS your answer craig. What more do you want to know? Nobody ever disputed NASA's ability to put space shuttles into near Earth orbit, 400 miles up. I don't think that was in question at any point here. I've watched the live video feeds of the launches on the internet several times. As many times as they've done it, they should have that down by now, wouldn't you say? We haven't heard your opinion yet. Just your criticisms. You're diverting attention away from the issue at hand.

Here's an off topic story that somewhat relates to this argument.

I just finished watching a show on 'American Greed'. It was about Lou Pearle. He was the founder of the backstreet boys and NSync. The man was a total con-artist for the better part of a decade. He owned a fictitious, phony airline called Transcontinental. He not only convinced over 3,000 people to invest over 500 million dollars in this business as a 'safe' retirement fund, but he also convinced 50!! different banks to lend him over 100 million dollars, while also robbing the boy bands of all their profit for years. All this money went to his personal bank account. This went on for a decade.
The largest investors in him KNEW him personally and traveled around the World with him. These people thought they were well informed and were personally involved with this individual and ALL, including the banks, were DUPED, for years! Thousands of people, fooled. Millions actually. By one man who dreamed up a lie so big that nobody could have believed he could be a scam artist with a fake company that existed on paper only. All because he earned an ounce of credibility on the side by making some boy bands famous. He's now serving a 25 year sentence.

What this proves to me is how easily the general public can be duped over ANYTHING. ESPECIALLY when they only have given a topic a passing thought and have had absolutely no involvement. Then pile on several decades of history and the picture really gets muddled.

NASA's ounce of credibility were the rockets they did launch and some nifty looking space suits. What happened after that point, who really knows?

I used to think it was crazy that they could have faked the moon landing. The argument actually pi$$ed me off and I would stop listening. It made no sense as to why? How?

But when the evidence is presented, it strongly points to a fake and the idea of how? Well, that part would've been so laughingly simple it's not even worth addressing. All you have to realize is how uninformed and uninterested most people are. That alone is all it takes. The minority who would raise concerns are triumphantly struck down as being unpatriotic by the 'real' Americans spouting off like they really know something.
The article said a third of the people in Houston at the time of the moon landing didn't believe it was real. So the notion apparently is nothing new.
The longer modern time goes on with no country on Earth making a single return trip, will continue to erode the credibility of the whole story. How can it not??
The trips can't just go from a routine during a time when tv remotes didn't exist to an impossibility in a 21st century high tech society. It just doesn't make good sense.

Why wouldn't other countries go to prove that we lied? It would only take one trip. Should be much safer in this day and age, no?

Well, perhaps nobody ever had a realistic plan on how to go there and back. There would be no sense in sending people on a suicide mission that would fail and make their scientists looks like fools. So, the illusion is allowed to live on. Will people start to wonder in another 40 years? Another 100 years? If we're still a free country by then, maybe people will speak up. Who knows? If we're not, then people won't be allowed to speak up anyway. Problem taken care of.

 

That doesnt prove anything. Those people werent duped they were conned out of money. And now my question to DANR is if he thinks the whole space program wait before the space shuttle was a ll fake. I ask this because he ventured further to include a photo of a space walk. Which were done prior to the moon landing. and he claims theat photo 2 is pasted from photo one. and then some otherguy stated well the digital age, what do you expect? I'm not sure what was meant by that. Ubless he is claiming now in the digital age it is easy to dummy up any photo. But in 1967, there wasnt a digital age was there? So I asked DANR if he thought the mercury, gemini, and appollo missions were all a crock. And I cannot get him to say yes or no. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Isnt that what you guys are trying to do?

 

There are elements of playing fast and lose with the truth (as shown) outside of the moon program. That being said the shuttles are for real but so what, they are an exotic airplane.

 

Try this for a sec. Do you think all of the space programs prior to the shuttle were fake. Just give a yes or no answer. You dont come out and say it plain. You show all this stuff alluding to it being phoney, but you dont take a stand. Yes or no?