Is NASA a BIg FAker?

I remember in the 70's when I was growing up in South America, it was pretty common knowledge that the Apollo Moon Landing footage was faked. Once I moved back to the US the story was a little different... ~~~ from a web ad for a video WHAT Happened on the MOON? An investigation into Apollo The main thrust of this video is to question the entire validity of the official record of mankind’s exploration of the Moon. Sending men to the Moon and bringing them back safely is widely held to be the greatest technical achievement of mankind so far. In fact the greatest achievement of the second millennium. Indeed the landing of the Apollo astronauts on the Moon is now considered by many to be the benchmark by which human endeavour is measured. A benchmark which might well be invalid. At the dawn of the new millennium some thirty years later, our present state of technology is inadequate for the safe passage of human beings through the potentially lethal radiation that awaits all those who venture through the Earth’s radiation belts into deep space, whether they be en route to the Moon, to Mars or beyond. Have we lost the technology to travel safely into deep space since Apollo? Or did we not have it in the first place? This story of Project Apollo presents an alternative viewpoint. The material in this video uncovers the numerous inconsistencies in the official NASA record of manned missions to the Moon. The anomalies highlighted bring into total question whether, over the period of three years from 1969, twelve named Apollo astronauts really did travel through deep space, and walk upon the surface of our celestial neighbour, the Moon. New evidence throws into serious doubt the authenticity of the Apollo record and suggests that NASA hoaxed the photographs taken on the ‘surface of the Moon’. This aspect of the lunar photography is dealt with in Part One. Part Two looks at the dangers of space radiation that have to be overcome by those journeying beyond our atmosphere. And Part Three examines the evolution of the rocket industry and the problems inherent in getting astronauts-together with their equipment-out to the Moon and then back again, alive and well. This production is the result of painstaking and extensive research. You will hear the testimony of many people from various disciplines and hear from individuals who, together with those who have left a legacy of visible clues, can be truthfully called ‘Whistle-Blowers’. So did the now famous Apollo astronauts sacrifice their personal integrity on the altar of NASA’s reputation? Did other unnamed surrogate astronauts sacrifice their lives? And if so, for what reason? Was it to cover for the fact that in the late 1960s it was not possible to guarantee the safe return to Earth of the Apollo astronauts? Such a scenario would answer that inevitable question ‘Why?’ And justify the serious anomalies in the official record which this investigation reveals. Could it be the case that NASA publicly stated that it was doing things one way, when in fact plans were in place to proceed in a very different manner? Was it realised very early on that apart from the unpredictable radiation hazards-and the massive technological challenges-the lunar environment itself created yet another set of insurmountable problems? In the case of major news stories here on Earth, many journalists witness and comment on news events. But once the Apollo astronauts had been launched, it was no longer possible to independently verify the authenticity of any communication, as the Apollo comms links were controlled by none other than NASA itself. In these circumstances, how could we know for sure that the images of those ‘live’ events were actually occurring at that moment? The Apollo lunar surface pictures have been presented to the entire world as authentic, actual photographs of this most significant event: Mankind’s first steps onto a planet other than his home. To ignore or dismiss the questions raised by the discovery of even one technically defective photograph purporting to be a part of this official record is to maintain the status quo and side-step the serious issues raised in this investigation. One single contradictory example would be enough to demonstrate that there is a problem with the integrity of the material published by NASA. There are many such examples presented in this video. The lack of continuity between the still photographs and the ‘live’ TV coverage of the same events, the Whistle-Blowing inherent in the lighting of these images, the faked set-ups, the clues hidden in the astronauts’ exchanges with Mission Control, the serious problems associated with radiation, as well as space technologies that did not always perform to specification. So why aren’t professionals in the aerospace industry speaking out? What could be the reason for such reticence? Well in fact, some have spoken out. A growing number of intelligent, thinking people are beginning to realise that all was not well with Apollo. In September 1999 it was reported by journalist Graham Birdsall that at the First Pacific UFO conference in Hawaii, the astronaut Dr Brian O’Leary (who worked alongside the likes of Armstrong and Aldrin for many years) commented: “If some of the film was spoiled, it’s remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment.” For an 'insider' to consider this faking a possibility is quite remarkable. When that individual worked for NASA in the 1960s and specifically on the Apollo 11 mission during 1967 and ’68, this really is some statement. All these matters underline one simple fact: A representative of humanity may well have gone to the Moon in 1969, but the images published by NASA of a manned lunar landing do not appear to be the true and accurate record of such an event. From the sheer weight of evidence the firm conclusion of this investigation has to be that, in the case of Apollo, NASA stated that the agency was doing things one way when in fact a hidden, surrogate program proceeded in a very different manner. During the 1986 Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, the eminent physicist Richard Feynman found that NASA’s analysis, claims and methodology were consistently incorrect. In a lengthy paper (that was so embarrassing for NASA it was relegated to a mere appendix within the Commission’s final report) Feynman made several observations that seem remarkably applicable to the NASA of eighteen years previously. He wrote: “It would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or external consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability of its product, to the point of fantasy.” And: “When playing Russian roulette the fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the next.” Feynman finished his report with these words: “NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support, to be frank, honest and informative. And so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations-for nature cannot be fooled.” ~~~ what do you folks think? ;0) __________________ The Pleasure of Finding Things Out-the Best Short Works of Richard Feynman. ISBN 0713 994371 ~~~ __________________ [lloyd christmas] alllllright!!... WE'VE LANDED ON THE MOON!!! [/lloyd christmas] __________________ where do you come up with these things...I like alot but hard to believe. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by AmRivlin where do you come up with these things...I like alot but hard to believe. ...the rest of the world has a hard time believing that NorteAmericanos believe the badly faked footage. ;0) __________________ Where exactly are these "radiation belts"? Don't they affect the satellites in orbit? At least the ones in geo-stationary orbit? What about the deep space probes? Is the shuttle a fake too? If so, perhaps you should say something to the people that Skylab fell on. __________________ I got this from one of my astrol... er, astronomy book. I'm not exactly sure where the moon is in relation to the van allen belt. and i'm way too lazy to look. The radiation does not cause the satelites much damage because they are protected by the van allen belt. And they won't be damaged much if it were out side of the van allen belt. Biological tissue will be harmed because the radiation can cause mutation in the tissue. Oh, and renots, do you believe everything you read? __________________ just realized that there is a distance meter on the pic. the moon at it's furthest distance from earth is 405500km away. so the moon would definitally be inside the van allen belt (when earth is between the sun and the moon.) __________________ Oh, and one more thing. The moon has no magnetic field, so it can't screw up the earths magnetic field. __________________ I read a book several years ago "It Was Only A Paper Moon". Obviously, most Americans beleieve we went there. However, this book convinced me that the program was probably the biggest hoax perpetrated on American citizens ever! If you look at the space shuttles, they always fly below the radiation belt. Once you go above that belt, the radiation would kill you within months.Besides, the extreme variation in temperatures would freeze you or fry you in a matter of moments. And don't tell me about the high tech heating and cooling system they had on board. This craft had a very thin skin, and the heating and cooling requirements would have to be so huge that it would require another craft alongside of it. There has been no insulation ever invented that would be able to reduce these requirements. If it had, why don't you see it in use today? They talk of the spinoffs from the Space Program, but I wonder where they are. Another thing, the Land Rover ... How did they get it to fit in that tiny craft and get it back in the unit and then blast off back to Earth safely and without problems? One more thing... one of the famous pictures that you often see showsm a portion of a dropped ceiling in the upper left or right view and a number on one of the so-called rocks. These are just a few of the points the book brought up. If you examine every issue, you will be stunned at the amazing con job that was accomplished over thirty years ago. And you know, we don't even have the technology today to go to the moon and back today! __________________ Personally, I'm very afraid of people like you. Van Allen belt includes the moon. The radiation is overstated. Yes, they spent billions of dollars, lost lives, and wasted all that money to convience us we went to the moon, but they can't fake a decent probe landing on Mars? Gimmie a break. I think all those that believe the Moon landing was a fake do a great diservice to all that were involved in that endeavor, and are frankly too stupid to live. __________________ Questioning the credibility of the Moon landing in America is close to heresy. You can question everything else: a person's religion, his political beliefs, his stand on abortion ad infinitum. But question the Moon landing. It's like questioning the flag, Mom and Apple Pie. It has been become so interwoven into America's fabric as to become some sort of foundation of America's greatness. But I guess that if you can convince people that this marvelous Earth and the Universe evolved from some kind of primordial soup, you could easily convince them we went to the Moon and actually came back. __________________ So to add to the mix I am sure Apollo 13 mission was half scraped due to the moon base "set" was undergoing improvements, and they wanted to mix up the stuff! Other countries would not believe it due to jealousy. If this were true, why would NASA even publiscize the fact the 3 Mars missions have been failures. Yes I am proud to be an American, but that does not mean I am brain washed. The Xprize program will prove to some that this jibberish is silly. Xprize.com (it won't be going to the moon, but this is the commericalization of space) Uh and I claim rights to Asteroid X-45GFq. __________________ The electronics in satellites are radiation hardened, therefore the components are safe from space radiation. __________________ so why doesn't one of you get out your super duper high powered telescope and point it at the moon and see if you can find the flag up there? more likely, the fakes were the pictures made by people that didn't believe we made it to the moon. (i.e. people took real moon pictures and "edited" them with dropceiling tile and the number 1 to try to convince others that it was al fake...) __________________ ...they did get to the moon[but later], but it was too hard to get good pictures, so the pictures were faked ever wonder why the russian capsules were so THICK while the American capsules looked like they were wrapped in tin foil? also if you've ever seen russian space footage[Very Rare in the US], it seems alot more chaotic [and life-threatening] than the sterile emptiness of the American "effort" you don't have to buy into cheesy propaganda to be a Patriot. Just Think For Yourself instead. ;0) __________________ Quote: Originally posted by LPM I think all those that believe the Moon landing was a fake do a great diservice to all that were involved in that endeavor, and are frankly too stupid to live. Ugg. brain s h u t t i n g d o w n from excess stupidity; must digest NASA disinformation before systems reach critical. I think all those that truely believe that Moon landing could NOT have been a fake do a great diservice to all that paid the tax bill for that endeavor, and shouldn't take too many federal agencies at their word ;0) p.s. the photo 'artists' at NASA were a bunch of hacks. imagine what they could have done with Photoshop. By the way 3 failed missions to Mars cpould be construed by some as proof that NASA never had the capability for successful missions to other planets[ or Moons] in the first place. and if you think the shuttles are effective 'space exploration' I've got some land in Florida you might be interested in... ;0) __________________ ...the Americans were no more 'first' on the moon than Columbus was 'first' to discover the Americas ;0) __________________ ...because I do. It's just so sad to see the space program turned into just one more porkbarrel product produced in DC. Or does anyone think the Space Shuttle program is cheap and efficient? ~~~ from a site devoted to Carl Sagan How much would ANY of our ancestors, chained to their limited times and their isolated places, have given to know even a small fraction of what we, in our time, know of the cosmos? I say this: how can we, in good conscience, deny the fulfillment of all that desire? How can we, knowing all that we do and having the power to know even more, turn our backs on the precipice off of which we are ready to fly? I think that if those generations past could see us now, they would literally scream at us to keep going. Sagan said it best, where our ancestors are concerned: we see for them, as they first saw for us. If we deny them that vision, if we cave in to our petty and myopic lifestyles that promote triviality and immediate gratification, then we commit the greatest of crimes. Generations past would damn us for our foolishness in surrendering our power at the very point when we are learning how to use it. Generations of the future will damn us for making their dreams that much harder to achieve. Shall we become known, to past and future humans both, as the Generation of Cowards? Are we, who have the keys to the cosmos in our hands, too weak of spirit and too frail of vision to unlatch the locks and let the doors of the cosmos swing wide? Ask yourselves these hard questions next time you feel yourselves turning away from the dreams of space flight. How can we afford to spend on space? That is not the true question. The question is: how can we afford to NOT spend? The eyes of past and future are upon us. Let's make sure our mark in time is a worthy one. ~~~ ;0) __________________ We got to the moon, Armstrong touched first... Blah Blah... Where were you born Renots? Cuba? I will admit Americans are quite sheltered all we know is what is said on the late show, yet I can say with confidence, having lived 2 decades and this is the first mention of a cover-up... If the governement covers something up or a story is faked you hear stupid theories all the time, JFK, Elvis, UFO's... If Nasa didn't honestly get there how come Chris Carter didn't persue that as an episode... I tend to believe, they cover something up on the moon, ie Yes Houston there is an Easter Bunny.... But they didn't fake it. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by LPM Personally, I'm very afraid of people like you. what people can not easily understand they automatically hate and fear __________________ Quote: Originally posted by AmRivlin Where were you born Renots? Cuba? Close, Washington D.C.[both of them ruled by petty tyrants] I did grow up in Nicaragua and Ecuador, though; probably where my unorthodox viewpoints originated ;0) __________________ I like ya Renots, I am just disagree with you. Did the US fake the atomic bomb too? All I have ever seen is video clips, does that make it fake? Developed at the MGM USAF video labratories in Los Alamos. In fact that was what was on that hard drive, the scripting for Moon landings... That is why Nevada is 30% Keep Out land, they don't want people to see the filmings of the next Jupiter mission (They archive everything till government propaganda requires release.) Infact that is why Kennedey was shot... They told him it was not possible except in Hollywood. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by AmRivlin If Nasa didn't honestly get there how come Chris Carter didn't persue that as an episode... the only thing X-Files say at the beginning is "the Truth is out there", not "if it doesn't happen in the X-Files it doesn't exist" every culture has a right to believe in its specific myths; hey not too long ago the Japanese believed their emperor was God[and so did the French!], so Americans are justified in believing whatever they want. If a belief in the Apollo program is what is needed to push for REAL space exploration, I'll be behind it all the way. ;0) __________________ Never About Something Actual So you are saying in say 100 years when the world as we know it ceases to exist (only a few humans exist according to the Matrix) we (what is left of humanity) will see Apollo as a figure head to promote the future... Did we get there and leave them there? Or have we not gone... Creating the hoax you are describing, is not only unbelievable, but requires much more attention than just sending the mission up... The missions were a culmination... First we blow up people, then we send them out and around, then they land, then we continue, and finally we lose intrest. Without being harsh Apollo is not what Jesus is to Christianity. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by renots They not too long ago the Japanese believed their emperor was God[and so did the French!] Why did the french believe the japanese emperor was god? __________________ Quote: Originally posted by AmRivlin I like ya Renots, I am just disagree with you. Did the US fake the atomic bomb too? would have been nice, but NO. on a side note my mother's hometown was originally targeted for the second bomb but was overcast on the scheduled date. The backup target was Nagasaki __________________ Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Evil Quote: Originally posted by renots They not too long ago the Japanese believed their emperor was God[and so did the French!] Why did the french believe the japanese emperor was god? ;0) __________________ Books were written back then which exposed the matter. However, we were in the middle of Vietnam, Russia was our enemy and the Space Race was a real thing. It was a matter of who gets to the Moon first. Besides, people really wanted to believe in it. Just like today, facts can get hidden, muddied or just plain disregarded. Basically, people will believe anything if it has a credible source. __________________ ...I'm not arguing whether the Apollo Program did what it said it did. I'm just arguing that what they showed us could have easily been altered and/or fabricated ;0)