View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-16-2007, 04:58 PM
Cosmored Cosmored is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Userid: 165
Posts: 34
Rep Power: 0
Cosmored is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Your name is Cosmored; quite Soviet-sounding. Therefore, I pose this question: if it's so obvious from all the photos, video, etc. of the moon landing that it's fake, then why didn't the Soviets cry foul on it? Surely they would have seen all the glaring evidence of the video's falsehood, and then jumped at the chance to embarrass the Americans! And yet they didn't, even though they had access to all the same clips, all the same photos, all the same data as we do.
My real name is David and I was born in Miami.

Your argument assumes that what the press says reflects what's really happening.
Check this out.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-3-1.html
http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/dd/dd-c01-s01.html

http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's lots of other evidence that they didn't go to the moon.


There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...57736&q=apollo

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects differently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc&NR=1
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...89814268946247

Here are some articles.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-w...rt-Sibrel.html
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/


The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...15730495966561

Some people say the moon rocks prove we went to the moon.
There are a lot of plausible alternative scenarios for the moon rocks. All we have are documents that say they are real. If we aren't geologists in a laboratory looking at the rocks, we have no way of verifying that what we read is reflects reality.
There may be a lot of scientists who have sold out and are lying about the rocks and we only read what they say.
If there is video evidence that some of the footage was faked, it was probably all faked. Video evidence trumps what some documents or journals say as people can write lies.
Here are some possible scenarios for the rocks.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another point here is that the moon rocks were fake. Are the moon rocks real?
No, they are not real. NASA has a well-developed ceramics laboratory with high-temperature ovens-
That's another way NASA could prove they went to the moon, 'cause they brought back these rocks. Interestingly enough, at the University of British Columbia here, David Strangway, the President of U.B.C., was the guy in charge of inspecting the moon rocks.
OK, fine, why don't you call him up and ask him what he thinks about them.
So what happened, the moon rocks were not real?
No, they were manufactured on Earth to look like moon rocks, but since nobody has any moon rocks to compare them with, it's very simple to make up a moon rock and say, hey, this came from the moon.
Well, how would you know it is a moon rock? Like, how do you know it's not a moon rock - how do you know it's a fake?
I had a Seattle geologist who examined moon rocks and he said, "There's no question, Bill, that these rocks were made in a laboratory on Earth."
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------

http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInf...Challenge.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
9) Moon rocks are in Antarctica?
Barbara Cohen, a researcher from the University of New Mexico, was picking up rocks in Antarctica. She sent them to Houston, Texas for an analysis.
The scientists in Houston discovered that one of the Antarctic rocks closely matched the NASA moon rocks.
The scientists then concluded that one of the rocks from Antarctica was actually from the moon:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370/
How did rocks from the moon get in Antarctica?
NASA and Ms. Cohen want us to believe that a big meteor crashed into the moon a while ago, and pieces of the moon were sent flying into space. A few of those pieces landed in Antarctica.
Take a look at how far away the moon is from the earth. If it were true that rocks were ejected from the moon with such velocity that they could escape the moon's gravity and fly out into space, what are the chances that any of them would survive the fall through the atmosphere and land on tiny Antarctica hundreds of thousands of kilometers away? Furthermore, the rock has to land in a location where humans can find it many years later.
A more sensible explanation is that the NASA moon rocks were rocks from Antarctica.
Therefore, when someone travels to Antarctica and sends rock samples to Houston, Texas for analysis, some of the rocks will closely match the Apollo moon rocks.
Reply With Quote