We DID Land on the Moon, but to what End?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There has been a theory now for some time that man did not land on the moon, that it was a conspiracy.

Well, this is preposterous. We did land on the moon. We made a perilous journey through space, but why? One would think for national pride, scientific endeavors, and the unequaled American pioneering spirit! But you would be wrong. I give you. . . .

THE TRUTH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H8bnKdf654)

[NoRule]

Ha, I got a nice giggle from that.

[Lokasenna]

I remember seeing that trailer in the cinema, and thinking that it might be the premise of a really interesting film. And then... oh dear.

[Musicology]

I love one sided coins. You never see the other side. Nor are you encouraged to know why. And we finally awake, shocked that somebody has dared to wake us from our dreams. Has dared to ask us to think for ourselves. In reply to which we have nothing to say, of course. Since the discussion of the televised evidence creates cognitive dissonance. Especially when it is one sided for decades and is pumped out as gospel truth. We believe only that which is not criticised. That's how myths work. We cannot handle facts and we discourage any real discussion of them. They call it 'education'.
Let's examine some of the evidence -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej55Zu-X8w0

No comment ? No problem !

You have to laugh. If you do not you are dumbed down.

[Emil Miller]

There has been a theory now for some time that man did not land on the moon, that it was a conspiracy.

Well, this is preposterous. We did land on the moon. We made a perilous journey through space, but why? One would think for national pride, scientific endeavors, and the unequaled American pioneering spirit! But you would be wrong. I give you. . . .

THE TRUTH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H8bnKdf654)

It could have been worse, they might have found Elvis Presley.

[Scheherazade]

It could have been worse, they might have found Elvis Presley.Elvis lives on my street, four houses up.

[Emil Miller]

Elvis lives on my street, four houses up.

'Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories.' GWB

[MystyrMystyry]

News just in!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJt0LJZG2k

[Panglossian]

I love one sided coins. You never see the other side. Nor are you encouraged to know why. And we finally awake, shocked that somebody has dared to wake us from our dreams. Has dared to ask us to think for ourselves. In reply to which we have nothing to say, of course. Since the discussion of the televised evidence creates cognitive dissonance. Especially when it is one sided for decades and is pumped out as gospel truth. We believe only that which is not criticised. That's how myths work. We cannot handle facts and we discourage any real discussion of them. They call it 'education'.
Let's examine some of the evidence -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej55Zu-X8w0

No comment ? No problem !


Watch "Lunar Legacy" 1-to-5 on youtube.

[prendrelemick]

Heh heh heh.

Some people believe that the Titanic "accidently" hit an iceberg and sank!

[Calidore]

I don't understand why we don't try to develop a bare-bones, relatively inexpensive one-way moon flight so that we can use it as a dump for things that shouldn't be here on Earth, like all the nuclear waste that will be dangerous for tens of millennia.

[Musicology]

If man did not walk on the moon during the Apollo missions it follows that everything being taught and believed on the subject from the official sources is even more fiction. Which begs the question of whether the moon landings happened.

Over to you at NASA and the European Space Agency ! Let's focus the Hubble Telescope on the Sea of Tranquillity. That sounds like a great idea. Right ? I mean, it's a fairly obvious thing we should do.

'Earth calling NASA, Earth calling NASA ! Please arrange without 40 more years delay to focus the Hubble Telescope on the Sea of Tranquillity'.
- radio silence -

'Earth calling NASA, Earth calling NASA ! Please arrange without 40 more years delay to focus the Hubble Telescope on the Sea of Tranquillity'.

- more radio silence -

'Earth calling NASA, Earth calling NASA. Please arrange without 40 more years delay to focus the Hubble Telescope on the Sea of Tranquillity'.
- more radio silence -

and now (drum roll) over to our corporate sponsors -

'Our cornflakes are better than THEIR cornflakes'

:nopity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5N4-xz6-Ko

It has already happened. Some of the best brains in the world have long ago been dumped on the lunar surface, literally, courtesy of the NASA corporate myth of Apollo ''manned moon landings''.

And why are the pagan gods of the ancient world the names of those projects ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5N4-xz6-Ko


I don't understand why we don't try to develop a bare-bones, relatively inexpensive one-way moon flight so that we can use it as a dump for things that shouldn't be here on Earth, like all the nuclear waste that will be dangerous for tens of millennia.

Why is it 'preposterous' to show by documentary evidence that man did not land on the moon ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em2mgbtgtJs




There has been a theory now for some time that man did not land on the moon, that it was a conspiracy.

Well, this is preposterous. We did land on the moon. We made a perilous journey through space, but why? One would think for national pride, scientific endeavors, and the unequaled American pioneering spirit! But you would be wrong. I give you. . . .

THE TRUTH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H8bnKdf654)

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

In the words of George Mallory; “Because it’s there”
Although in the case of the moon, it was SAG agents in covert collaborations with NASA, who championed Mallory’s retort in their quest to eliminate all humans from the (2) two faces of the earth. I’m speaking of Aluminum Anhydrous Tatra Chloride” aka “Agent White” dispersed through the stratosphere via aeroplanes. Mining of aluminum and silicone, two key ingredients of Agent White, was becoming too risky on earth. SAGNASA had to find other sources for these elements. It was known by this time, that the composition of the Earth’s moon contained ample amounts of oxygen, aluminum and silicon.

Please refer to the following chart courtesy of Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_vs_earth_composition.svg?v=LgxqWTL27-Y&feature=related


Therefore in the words of Ralph Kramden; it was “One of these days Alice, it’s zoom the Moon!!”, we’re gett’n our elements!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgxqWTL27-Y&feature=related


The U.S. couldn’t do this alone. SAGNASA collaborated with Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Luna programme and Chuck Conners (The Rifleman).

It was known as “Operation Dusty Planes”.

SAGNASA found in Chuck Conners, a hero of Brezhnev, the perfect vehicle for communication without arousing any suspicion. It was during that famous tarmac bear hug incident, that the seeds of annihilation were transferred. It should be mentioned that Werner von Braun was considered for the Conner’s role, but that would have been too obvious.

Please refer to the following –scroll down to the third image:

http://www.riflemanconnors.com/leonid_brezhnev.htm

Returning to the composition chart we see that oxygen is the leading element found on the moon. SAGNASA was planning to extract oxygen as well, realizing that it would be required back on Earth after the chemtrail annihilation was complete.


.

[Emil Miller]

Noël Coward once went to a party where the following conversation took place:

Chuck Connors, on spotting Noel Coward,
"Hi! I'm Chuck Connors."

Noël Coward, before making a quick exit,
"But of course you are dear boy."

[Musicology]

Which reminds me of that daily occurrence in our courts -

Are you the Person named on this court summons ?

No, Sir, I am not a Person. I am a living man, and not a legal fiction.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Noël Coward once went to a party where the following conversation took place:

Chuck Connors, on spotting Noel Coward,
"Hi! I'm Chuck Connors."

Noël Coward, before making a quick exit,
"But of course you are dear boy."

Funny !
Either Noël was intimidated by Conner's imposing figure, adebtness with the rifle or...dunn, dunn duuhhnn...he suspected Conner's of being a SAGNASA operative and wanted no part in guilt by association.

.

[Emil Miller]

Which reminds me of that daily occurrence in our courts -

Are you the Person named on this court summons ?

No, Sir, I am not a Person. I am a living man, and not a legal fiction.

But of course you are dear boy.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I remember seeing that trailer in the cinema, and thinking that it might be the premise of a really interesting film. And then... oh dear.
My thoughts exactly when I first saw the trailer. Once the alien ship came on screen, though, a severe foreboding overtook me, a feeling only confirmed as my realization that the next Transformers movie was soon to come took form.

On a sort-of serious note, the moon-landing conspiracy is one I've enjoyed indulging in from time-to-time. I've seen some shows that made me convinced that it was a hoax, and then an equally convincing show that convinced me it was not (which I believe). I always ask one question--with something that big, something they did several times, how could they have kept it quiet, with all the people involved? A conspiracy spanning so many years and so many fake missions? People would have spoken--though, I guess the easy conspiracy-theory answer would be that those people were 'silenced'.

Conspiracy theories are fun. They're usually more fun to believe in than the truth. This is why they exist.

[prendrelemick]

If man did not walk on the moon during the Apollo missions it follows that everything being taught and believed on the subject from the official sources is even more fiction. Which begs the question of whether the moon landings happened.

Over to you at NASA and the European Space Agency ! Let's focus the Hubble Telescope on the Sea of Tranquillity. That sounds like a great idea. Right ? I mean, it's a fairly obvious thing we should do.

'Earth calling NASA, Earth calling NASA ! Please arrange without 40 more years delay to focus the Hubble Telescope on the Sea of Tranquillity'.
- radio silence -

'Earth calling NASA, Earth calling NASA ! Please arrange without 40 more years delay to focus the Hubble Telescope on the Sea of Tranquillity'.

- more radio silence -

'Earth calling NASA, Earth calling NASA. Please arrange without 40 more years delay to focus the Hubble Telescope on the Sea of Tranquillity'.
- more radio silence -

and now (drum roll) over to our corporate sponsors -

'Our cornflakes are better than THEIR cornflakes'

:nopity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5N4-xz6-Ko

It has already happened. Some of the best brains in the world have long ago been dumped on the lunar surface, literally, courtesy of the NASA corporate myth of Apollo ''manned moon landings''.

And why are the pagan gods of the ancient world the names of those projects ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5N4-xz6-Ko



Why is it 'preposterous' to show by documentary evidence that man did not land on the moon ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em2mgbtgtJs


Why am I even bothering.

Hubble Space Telescope resolution = 0.048 arc seconds (formula for this is 116 divided by aperture in mm. = 116 divided by 2400)

Visual maximum diameter of full Moon = 31'40" = 1900 arc seconds (a fraction over 1/2 a degree)

Therefore HST can resolve an object on the Moon of (1900 divided by 0.048 ) = 1/39,583 of the Moon's diameter

Actual diameter of Moon = 3476 km

Therefore resolvable object size = 3476 km divided by 39,583 = 87 metres

As the landers are only around 9 metres across it is not possible for the HST to resolve them, they just wouldn't show up on any image of the area under examination.

[Emil Miller]

As the landers are only around 9 metres across it is not possible for the HST to resolve them, they just wouldn't show up on any image of the area under examination.

This presupposes the question of whether you would be in agreement if Hubble were capable of picking up whatever may or may not be in the area in question.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This presupposes the question of whether you would be in agreement if Hubble were capable of picking up whatever may or may not be in the area in question.
By what prendelremick has presented, it's not a matter of agreement. By those numbers (which look good to me, though I really have no clue what they mean) it's just fact: the Hubble telescope can't see the landers. Though, these are probably fabricated numbers put out by NASA so we don't know the true power of the telescope.

Also, haven't they done experiements where they bounce lasers off the equipment that landed on the moon, proving it's there? I think I saw it on an episode of The Big Bang Theory.

[prendrelemick]

Mutatis: Yes, the Apollo missions placed reflectors on the moon that are still being used to accurately measure the Moon/Earth distance by bouncing a laser off them.

Emil: Yes, by all means lets have a look.

Of course you could say that it is all very convenient that the HST hasn't the necessary resolution. Remember that Shuttle mission to "repair" the telescope? Sabotage more like!


Edit: Come to think of it even the HST could be a NASA hoax

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Edit: Come to think of it even the HST could be a NASA hoax
Yeah. Have you seen some of those pictures? Way too cool to be real.

[Musicology]

Good question. Why do you bother ?

From Apollo 11 onwards various manned and also unmanned spacecraft approached the lunar surface and none of them filmed evidence of human debris. The story is so full of holes it's incredible. 50 years later the lies continue. It's a matter of honesty to admit it.

Your calculations are impressive but they are nonsense. Hubble is credited with photographing detailed objects many, many times more distant than the lunar surface. Want to see some examples ?

And what are your comments on this NASA film ? Fakery, science fiction and NASA (Never A Straight Answer). They have nothing to say on this film. They never have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_9gMn1OYPw

I do not know a single person who has examined this subject of 'man on the moon' who denies that the lies, fakery and exaggeration of the 'moon landings' is enormous. Everyone agrees with this who examines BOTH sides of the argument. Why not do it, for yourself ? Right here in this section. Give us your comments on the above film if you can !!

The difference between us is simple. I see the evidence. So do others. You refuse to. Your 'education' creates cognitive dissonance so you simply reject all the evidence though it stares you in the face.



Why am I even bothering.

Hubble Space Telescope resolution = 0.048 arc seconds (formula for this is 116 divided by aperture in mm. = 116 divided by 2400)

Visual maximum diameter of full Moon = 31'40" = 1900 arc seconds (a fraction over 1/2 a degree)

Therefore HST can resolve an object on the Moon of (1900 divided by 0.048 ) = 1/39,583 of the Moon's diameter

Actual diameter of Moon = 3476 km

Therefore resolvable object size = 3476 km divided by 39,583 = 87 metres

As the landers are only around 9 metres across it is not possible for the HST to resolve them, they just wouldn't show up on any image of the area under examination.

[Panglossian]

Watch Lunar Legacy 1-to-5 if you are interested in evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T9ZM50n0z4

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Never A Straight Andwer! AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, that is so original, so witty, so darn FUNNY!!!!!!


I do not know a single person who has examined this subject of 'man on the moon' who denies that the lies, fakery and exaggeration of the 'moon landings' is enormous.
I don't think this surprises anyone.

[MystyrMystyry]

When you say we didn't land on the moon how do you explain the half ton of lunar cheese they brought back for examination?

Half a ton - that would be rather hard to fake I think - I mean we're talking cheese that comes from nowhere else but the moon...

Did I say cheese? I naturally mean rocks, moon rocks, not cheese - why did I say cheese?

I seem to recall that there was a theory about the moon being made of cheese - or was that something my grandparents made up to confuse the crap out of everyone?

Anyway, moon rocks - half a ton of them - I suppose all you need do is ask NASA who are closer to research scientists than dairy farmers or cheesemakers

[prendrelemick]

Good question. Why do you bother ?



Your calculations are impressive but they are nonsense. Hubble is credited with photographing detailed objects many, many times more distant than the lunar surface. Want to see some examples ?


The difference between us is simple. I see the evidence. So do others. You refuse to. Your 'education' creates cognitive dissonance so you simply reject all the evidence though it stares you in the face.


Perhaps, but I'd never use binoculars to examine a flea.