Post: #61

Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?
(video)
http://www.archive.org/details/DidWeLandOnTheMoon

NASA created the moon hoax to lie to your children that God does not exist.

NASA claims planets formed by a 'big bang' not created by God. Thus there are planets with life on them somewhere out there. And to prove this they claim man can easily go to the moon.

There is no life in space anywhere and man cannot go to the moon. Neither can a dog, turtle, monkey or a lab rat. No life has ever went past the Van Allen Belts and lived.

Russia never put the first man in space either. That hoax was exposed by photo experts who noticed bubbles, showing the set was under water.

Soviet Space Bamboozle
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

1938 War of the Worlds radio spread FEAR and caused panic and suicides.

1947 Roswell psyop aliens crash! ET?

Christians ask, is there anybody out there in space? My Bible says, no.

The gov't is perpetrating another evolution theory hoax. In this hoax or mind control or brainwashing they suppose there was a 'big bang' causing planets to form and life on earth. Now if there was a supposed 'big bang' causing life on earth there should be other planets with life, too. This is the claim today but in the 1960s most thought life in space was impossible (and it is), thus the 'moon mission' to prove life in space is possible, needed to sell the 'big bang' planet formation theories.

And that is the primary reason for the moon hoax: big bang vs Genesis.

The Gnostic NASA Nazis read from Genesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXeXyDqV7ek


Telescope dubbed: LUCIFER used to spot planets.
http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=10749
We can trust Lucifer?

Post: #62

Post: #63

(New Complete Edition)

Apollo astronauts did not bring back moon rocks, for the “moon rocks” contain numerous fossils of neurons and blood vessels, which could not have originated from our lifeless moon that had no atmosphere and little gravity . Fossilized neurons and blood vessels found in the “moon rocks” are identified in the following figures:
http://www.wretch.cc/album/album.php?id=...=30&page=1
http://www.wretch.cc/album/album.php?id=...=30&page=2

and described in the following posts: http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01...-moon.html
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01...found.html
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12...-back.html
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12...layed.html
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12...blood.html
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12...blood.html
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12...ssels.html

Added on March 10, 2012:“Moon rocks” could not be rocks or meteorites collected on the moon, period.

If “moon rocks” were meteorites collected on the moon and brought back to Earth by Apollo astronauts, at least some of the “moon rocks” should contain chondrites, as 86% of meteorites found on Earth do (ref. 1). However, none of the “moon rocks” contains chondrites (ref. 1). It’s impossible that Apollo astronauts collected only achondrite meteorites on the moon.

Ref. 1: Wikipedia article on meteorites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite#Meteorite_types

Quote from Ref. 1:
“About 86% of the meteorites that fall on Earth are chondrites,…”

Quote from Ref. 1:
“Two small groups of achondrites are special, as they are younger and do not appear to come from the asteroid belt. One of these groups comes from the Moon, and includes rocks similar to those brought back to Earth by Apollo and Luna programs. The other group is almost certainly from Mars and are the only materials from other planets ever recovered by man.”

Added on March 15: Further evidence NASA faked moon rocks

Scientists know for a long time that our moon has no global magnetism. So, moon rocks should not be magnetic. But many "moon rocks collected by Apollo astronauts" are magnetic. This further proves that NASA FAKED MOON ROCKS.

Added on March 15: Evidence for Above Claim

"Until the Apollo missions, many prominent scientists were convinced that the moon was born cold and stayed cold, never melting enough to form a liquid core." (Ref. A) Such a liquid core is essential for a long-lasting magnetic dynamo, which in turn is essential for the magnetism found in the "moon rocks". No one ever proved the Moon had a liquid core. (Ref. A)

The Moon has "pockets" or "areas" of "local" magnetism based on the distributed material in the crust, and on the small magnetic fields present in the alloys of ferromagnetic material there (that is, meteorites that landed on the Moon) (Ref. B). Such local magnetism could not result in many magnetic "moon rocks" brought back by Apollo astronauts, for remnant magnetism is created only when molten rocks cool and iron bearing minerals form and align themselves parallel to a global magnetic field (Ref. C). The Moon had no global magnetic field (Ref. B) .

Ref. A: http://www.space.com/6321-source-moon-magnetism.html

Ref. B: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_moon_...etic_field

Ref. C: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Geology-1359/...-Rocks.htm

Added on March 15: Moon never had an atmosphere, as it had little gravity/magnetic field.

The Moon has no strong gravity or magnetic field, so there's
virtually no reason to expect it to maintain an atmosphere for any appreciable length of time (Ref. D). Anyway, the Moon was far more likely lifeless than otherwise. Or do you think the neuron fossils originated on the Moon?

Ref. D: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...222AAydm5l

Added on March 18: Damp Moon Falsifies Bone Dry Moon Rocks.

The "Apollo moon rocks" are at least 3 billion years old. Every day for 3 billion years water molecules were made all over the Moon and deposited in the lunar soil (Ref. 1, 2) and rocks. But Moon Hoax Producers collected 2,415 pieces of "moon rock" samples, almost all of which are bone dry (Ref. 3, 4). God cannot accept that.

Ref. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water

Quote from Ref. 1: "Water may have been delivered to the Moon over geological timescales by the regular bombardment of water-bearing comets, asteroids and meteoroids [9] or continuously produced in situ by the hydrogen ions (protons) of the solar wind impacting oxygen-bearing minerals.[10]"

Ref.2: http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech...-the-water

Quote from Ref. 2: “… solar protons (the nuclei of hydrogen atoms) allow our own supposedly arid moon to make enough water every day to offset evaporation and maintain trace amounts of moisture all over its surface. Forget those bone dry textbook images. In September, several research teams made the case for a damp moon in Science online. A decade of data from several spacecraft showed water concentrations up to a liter per ton of lunar "soil". The European Space Agency (ESA) confirmed that finding with a study of its own announced last month…The water trick works like this. Lunar "soil" is a loose mix of dust grains that soaks up protons in the so-called solar wind. Trapped between the dust grains and absorbed, the solar protons react with the oxygen there to make water. They continuously make enough to offset the water that evaporates back into space. A European-supplied instrument on board India's Chendrayaan-I craft now orbiting the Moon found the data to back up this scenario.” Unquote

Ref.3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

Quote from Ref. 3: “Almost all lunar rocks are depleted in volatiles and are completely lacking in hydrated minerals common in Earth rocks.” Unquote

Ref. 4: http://planetary.org/blog/article/00002117/

Quote from Ref. 4: "Some Apollo and Luna samples contain very tiny amounts of water (~50 parts per million) but it is virtually impossible to tell whether this water originated on the Moon or arose from Earth contamination."

Read more at http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/

Post: #64

Clear Evidence For Moon Hoax:

NASA produced Moon Hoax (ref. 1) and used phony moon rocks to study the Moon, resulting in misinformation on the Moon (ref. 2). A case in point: “lunar sample” 74220 containing an animal's petrified fat cells and lipid droplets (Fig.1 to Fig. 4, ref. 3). It proves the “lunar sample” did not originate from the Moon, which never had any life or atmosphere.

Fig.1: A micrograph of lunar sample 74220 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/at...=S73-15086
Fig.2: petrified fat cells and lipid droplets found in "lunar sample" 74220
http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=li...0&p=24
Fig.3: Earthly fat cells for comparison: http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=li...5&p=25
Fig. 4: Source of Fig. 3:
http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/findin...dflies.asp

Ref. 1: Moon Hoax Proven http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/03...roven.html
Ref. 2: NASA press release on lunar sample 74220 http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?News_ID=37443
Ref. 3: Wikipedia article on human fat cells: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipocyte

Read more at http://www.wretch.cc/blog/lin440315&category_id=0

Post: #65

Well the yanks went to the moon once, then the Russians kicked them off the moon. Apollo program is fake.

Post: #66

"Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.



There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show. Nor is there any way to review the physical record, so to speak, of the alleged flights. We cannot, for example, check the fuel consumption throughout the flights to determine what kind of magic trick NASA used to get the boys there and back with less than 1% of the required fuel. And we will never, it would appear, see the original, first-generation video footage.



You would think that someone at NASA would have thought to preserve such things. No wonder we haven’t given them the money to go back to the Moon; they’d probably just lose it."

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

Post: #67

"There is no shortage of Moon hoax ‘debunking’ sites out there on the wild and wooly World Wide Web. The majority of them are not particularly well written or argued and yet they tend to be rather smug and self-congratulatory. Most of them tend to stick to ‘debunking’ the same facts and they use the same arguments to do so.

One thing they like to talk a lot about is the Van Allen radiation belts. The Moon hoax sites talk a lot about them as well. The hoaxers will tell you that man cannot pass through the belts without a considerable amount of radiation protection – protection that could not have been provided in the 1960s through any known technology. And the ‘debunkers’ claim that the Apollo astronauts would have passed through the belts quickly enough that, given the levels of radiation, no harm would have come to them. The hoaxers, say the ‘debunkers,’ are just being girlie men.

As it turns out, both sides are wrong: the ‘debunkers,’ shockingly enough, are completely full of shit, and the hoaxers have actually understated the problem by focusing exclusively on the belts. We know this because NASA itself – whom the ‘debunkers’ like to treat as a virtually unimpeachable source on all things Apollo, except, apparently, when the agency posts an article that implicitly acknowledges that we haven’t actually been to the Moon – has told us that it is so. They have told us that in order to leave low-Earth orbit on any future space flights, our astronauts would need to be protected throughout the entirety of the flight, as well as – and once again, this comes directly from NASA – while working on the surface of the Moon.

On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.” ( http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/...tatics.htm )"

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo3.html

Post: #68

LoP Guest  Wrote:

"Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.

I assume this is in reference to the magnetic tapes on which the
original slow-scan TV recordings (along with spacecraft and
biomedical telemetry). If so, the likelihood is that these tapes were
re-used for later missions (as they were rather specialist in nature).
This was not considered to be an issue at the time, because the
images had already been converted to commercial TV standards and
broadcast and recorded in that medium (the famous images that we
have all seen). To that end, it was a little like re-using a flash drive
after saving files to a hard drive.

Conspiracy theorists got all excited about this (although it is a little
like claiming that Sgt Pepper's was never recorded because someone
mislaid the original studio master tape). However, the reality is far
more mundane - people didn't think it was of particular value because
the images and data had already been transferred to other (far more
usable) media.

BTW, a lot of the "missing" tapes were found:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/818
So much for that notion.

As for the blueprints they still exist in the National Archives on
microfilm. The various contractors saw no need after the program
ended to warehouse the tons of paper that comprised the drawings,
nor the inclination to pay for the warehousing.




LoP Guest  Wrote:

There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show. Nor is there any way to review the physical record, so to speak, of the alleged flights. We cannot, for example, check the fuel consumption throughout the flights to determine what kind of magic trick NASA used to get the boys there and back with less than 1% of the required fuel. And we will never, it would appear, see the original, first-generation video footage.

You need to cite your stats for that, but I know you can't, having just
cut and pasted it from this site you cite below. There was plenty of
fuel to make it to the Moon and back. Have you ever seen a Saturn V?
I've stood next to one. Those things are huge, and the first two stages
put it into space. The next one sent it on it's way to the moon. Once
you're in orbit it doesn't require as much thrust as it does getting off
the planet. One of these days I hope they build a space elevator. I
hate the fact that we have to use a controlled explosion to literally
blow ourselves off of this world.



LoP Guest  Wrote:

You would think that someone at NASA would have thought to preserve such things. No wonder we haven’t given them the money to go back to the Moon; they’d probably just lose it."
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Cut and paste doesn't make for much of a discussion. I'm pretty sure
you wouldn't know how to argue what he claims. Why not peruse through
clavius.org first.

Post: #69

LoP Guest  Wrote:

"There is no shortage of Moon hoax ‘debunking’ sites out there on the wild and wooly World Wide Web. The majority of them are not particularly well written or argued and yet they tend to be rather smug and self-congratulatory. Most of them tend to stick to ‘debunking’ the same facts and they use the same arguments to do so.

One thing they like to talk a lot about is the Van Allen radiation belts. The Moon hoax sites talk a lot about them as well. The hoaxers will tell you that man cannot pass through the belts without a considerable amount of radiation protection – protection that could not have been provided in the 1960s through any known technology. And the ‘debunkers’ claim that the Apollo astronauts would have passed through the belts quickly enough that, given the levels of radiation, no harm would have come to them. The hoaxers, say the ‘debunkers,’ are just being girlie men.

As it turns out, both sides are wrong: the ‘debunkers,’ shockingly enough, are completely full of shit, and the hoaxers have actually understated the problem by focusing exclusively on the belts. We know this because NASA itself – whom the ‘debunkers’ like to treat as a virtually unimpeachable source on all things Apollo, except, apparently, when the agency posts an article that implicitly acknowledges that we haven’t actually been to the Moon – has told us that it is so. They have told us that in order to leave low-Earth orbit on any future space flights, our astronauts would need to be protected throughout the entirety of the flight, as well as – and once again, this comes directly from NASA – while working on the surface of the Moon.

On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.” ( http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/...tatics.htm )"

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo3.html

Do you understand that NASA is referring to long term stays on the
Moon when it says that better shielding is needed? I'd stop believing
everything this guy posts on his web site. He appears to have an
agenda to misquote and retask quotes to suit his needs.

Post: #70

ashesandsackcloth  Wrote:

Post: #71

Irrefutable evidence for Moon Hoax:
(Sorry for bad links. I am sure the links are good in this tested edition).

NASA produced Moon Hoax (ref. 1) and used phony moon rocks to study the Moon, resulting in misinformation on the Moon (ref. 2). A case in point: “lunar sample” 74220 containing an animal's petrified fat cells and lipid droplets (Fig.1 to Fig. 4, ref. 3). It proves the “lunar sample” did not originate from the Moon, which never had any life or atmosphere.

Fig.1: A micrograph of lunar sample 74220 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/at...=S73-15086
Fig.2: petrified fat cells and lipid droplets found in "lunar sample" 74220
http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=li...09670&p=24
Fig.3: Earthly fat cells for comparison: http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=li...18965&p=25
Fig. 4: Source of Fig. 3:
http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/findin...dflies.asp

Ref. 1: Moon Hoax Proven http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/03...roven.html
Ref. 2: NASA press release on lunar sample 74220 http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?News_ID=37443
Ref. 3: Wikipedia article on human fat cells: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipocyte

Read more at http://www.wretch.cc/blog/lin440315&category_id=0

Post: #72

BloodRed  Wrote:

Old Whatshisname  Wrote:

... and people wonder why I'm so disgusted with the public school system.

~ WHAT?? Wait... aren't you -more- disgusted, though, that our 'golden dawn' of space-agery didn't give us all the rocket-pack commuting fathers and jet-cars for happy nuclear families as seen on the covers of 'Popular Mechanics', or the Syd Mead-esque cars and buildings as promoted in the old 'U.S. Steel' brochures??

~ I know I am. ;)

I'd like to know where the solenoid car engines disappeared to...

Post: #73

What people consider as proof of their claims is always limited by their understanding. This along with many other "proofs" presented here are narrow and limited in scope.

For some reason OP believes he's offered proof of a supposed hoax and his proof is better than anyone else's. Despite being a victim of public education, I hold a much higher standard of proof.

This isn't proof.

Post: #74

Eclectric  Wrote:

What people consider as proof of their claims is always limited by their understanding. This along with many other "proofs" presented here are narrow and limited in scope.

The name for that is the Dunning Kruger Effect.
"The Dunning-Kruger effect is a slightly more specific case of the bias known as illusory superiority, where people tend to overestimate their good points compared to others. The effect has been shown by experiment in several ways. Dunning and Kruger tested students on a series of criteria such as humour, grammar, and logic and compared the actual test results with each student's estimations of their performance. Those who scored lowest on the test, in the bottom quartile, were found to have "grossly overestimated" their scores. Conversely, those with the highest scores underestimated their performance in comparison to others."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect


In my Fellowship I've noticed that those who appear to be working a
good program are also those you hear say "The longer I stay clean
the less I seem to know and need to learn".

Post: #75

Wretch Fossil  Wrote:

Irrefutable evidence for Moon Hoax:
(Sorry for bad links. I am sure the links are good in this tested edition).

NASA produced Moon Hoax (ref. 1) and used phony moon rocks to study the Moon, resulting in misinformation on the Moon (ref. 2).

Yea, right. Thousands of geologists all over the world have looked at
and studied these Moon rocks and pronounced them genuine and yet
you know better than all of them.