40 Year Old Conspiracy

SHOOT2KILL66

The Gardener
I agree samuri its great if they did get there
but the technlogy so so poor then and the say its the greatest achivment to man why not go back at least once just to make sure

For exsample TV came out about the same time as the sayed landed on the moon with about 1 or 2 diffrent channels and a starting handle lol now look at them LCD HD sky tv cable internet on the tv , how come there never been no more progess still unhanged in all them years its just a bit funny

russia and america were the two big guns of the world then and it was a race to get there macho bullshit and neather wanted to lose
 

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
I agree samuri its great if they did get there
but the technlogy so so poor then and the say its the greatest achivment to man why not go back at least once just to make sure

For exsample TV came out about the same time as the sayed landed on the moon with about 1 or 2 diffrent channels and a starting handle lol now look at them LCD HD sky tv cable internet on the tv , how come there never been no more progess still unhanged in all them years its just a bit funny

russia
They went to the moon several times over a period of a few years.
 

Erniedytn

Master of Mayhem
Watch this video. Even just this Part 1. It is just a bit of knowledge and lots of common sense. If they were in a studio, or out on open land on Earth, how is it possible that they never kick up dust clouds?

Also watch when the astronaut loses his balance. In those bulky spacesuits, even if they were fake ones that weren't as heavy and restrictive as real ones, it would be nearly impossible for him to NOT fall over, unless he was actually on the moon with much less gravity. Think about how much a suit like that would weigh, and how you could conceivably regain your balance while almost horizontal, while in our gravity.

YouTube - Lunar Legacy Episode 1, Part 1 (Did we land on the moon?)
OK I will watch it so that maybe I see things from a different POV. You will have to give me a while to respond though as I am at work and about to go home. I will let you know what I think by tomorrow this time.:peace:
 

SHOOT2KILL66

The Gardener
see being honest that film just made me beleave more that it dident happen its just a film thats trying to prove somthing that happened over 40 years ago did you watch part 2 with the flag that could of been a solid flexable type it all seems to planed to me and looks like the back of las vagas it took 45 min,s to put a flag in the ground

they would be going there still if they could do you not think and shouldnt need a film to prove people they were there im sure they,d love to show off new videos to the world of them on the moon with better cameras and in perfect colour instead of showing some film and trying to prove people wrong with that
 

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
see being honest that film just made me beleave more that it dident happen its just a film thats trying to prove somthing that happened over 40 years ago did you watch part 2 with the flag that could of been a solid flexable type it all seems to planed to me and looks like the back of las vagas it took 45 min,s to put a flag in the ground

they would be going there still if they could do you not think and shouldnt need a film to prove people they were there im sure they,d love to show off new videos to the world of them on the moon with better cameras and in perfect colour instead of showing some film and trying to prove people wrong with that
It could have a been solid flexible flag. Or not. Saying it could have been doesn't mean anything. Going to the Moon was probably the biggest thing to ever happen, so naturally they wanted lots of footage of it.
 

SHOOT2KILL66

The Gardener
must not of been that big a thing seeing the dident go back after the 60,s lol

Theres not lots of footage theres a few black and white clips of people in suits bounching doing the same thing the hole time before most people on this site were born
wheres the modern LCD HD colour clips
Its 2007 and they are still trying to prove they went to the moon in 1969 by video clips just from back then
Now were the fucks the scence in that lol
 

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
must not of been that big a thing seeing the dident go back after the 60,s lol

Theres not lots of footage theres a few black and white clips of people in suits bounching doing the same thing the hole time before most people on this site were born
wheres the modern LCD HD colour clips
Its 2007 and they are still trying to prove they went to the moon in 1969 by video clips just from back then
Now were the fucks the scence in that lol
The last time someone was on the Moon was 1972, not the 60's. They took some quality photos in '72. You can also see how "solid" and "flexible" the flag is on the second picture.



 

Erniedytn

Master of Mayhem
Ok so I actually watched the whole series (5 parts) and I'm still not buying it. I'll give you this much: there was alot of common sense trying to be pointed out, but I could provide you with 100 more videos that make just as much sense, but argue the exact opposite. I mean if we were still going there, or even making mention of the fact that we could if we wanted too, I might buy into it. But here we are 35 years since the last time we supposedly landed there and we're concerned with the ISS which is just outside of Earth's atmosphere, and on top of that, is a joint effort between several nations. Now I'm supposed to believe that we went to the moon back then, and now we can't even get past the outer atmosphere........ or even get the space shuttle program right. They are going to scrap the whole deal in a few years and they haven't even produced the replacement shuttles. Seems to me that we still have a long way to go. Sorry man....I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.
 

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
Ok so I actually watched the whole series (5 parts) and I'm still not buying it. I'll give you this much: there was alot of common sense trying to be pointed out, but I could provide you with 100 more videos that make just as much sense, but argue the exact opposite. I mean if we were still going there, or even making mention of the fact that we could if we wanted too, I might buy into it. But here we are 35 years since the last time we supposedly landed there and we're concerned with the ISS which is just outside of Earth's atmosphere, and on top of that, is a joint effort between several nations. Now I'm supposed to believe that we went to the moon back then, and now we can't even get past the outer atmosphere........ or even get the space shuttle program right. They are going to scrap the whole deal in a few years and they haven't even produced the replacement shuttles. Seems to me that we still have a long way to go. Sorry man....I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.
The ISS stays just outside of Earth's atmosphere because it uses the gravity to orbit Earth. You don't think the Apollo astronauts got any further?
 

Erniedytn

Master of Mayhem
The ISS stays just outside of Earth's atmosphere because it uses the gravity to orbit Earth. You don't think the Apollo astronauts got any further?
I understand why the ISS is just past the atmosphere, what I am saying is if we went to the moon 35+ years ago, why the hell didn't we just build it there. Sorry bud, but I don't think man has gone much further than that.
 

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
I understand why the ISS is just past the atmosphere, what I am saying is if we went to the moon 35+ years ago, why the hell didn't we just build it there. Sorry bud, but I don't think man has gone much further than that.
So the pictures and video taken from much further out were faked?
 

Erniedytn

Master of Mayhem
They sent a probe up in a ship and had it move around and shoot the video like a human?
Which videos? The ones on the moon or the ones inside the spacecraft? The ones on the moon were shot on a set and the ones in the spacecraft had a image of the Earth taped to the window. It's the pictures that were taken from a probe.
 

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
Which videos? The ones on the moon or the ones inside the spacecraft? The ones on the moon were shot on a set and the ones in the spacecraft had a image of the Earth taped to the window. It's the pictures that were taken from a probe.
Inside the spacecraft. How would they manage to keep changing out the pictures to keep up with the Earth's rotation?
 

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change could be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.
Western Australia received their coverage in a different way to the rest of the World. They were the only Country where there wasn't a delay to the 'live' transmission. Bill Kaysing says 'NASA and other connected agencies couldn't get to the Moon and back and so went to ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) in Massachusetts and asked them how they could simulate the actual landing and space walks. We have to remember that all communications with Apollo were run and monitored by NASA, and therefore journalists who thought they were hearing men on the Moon could have easily been misled. All NASA footage was actually filmed off TV screens at Houston Mission Control for the TV coverage... No one in the media were given the raw footage.'
Bill Wood is a highly qualified scientist and has degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and a space rocket and propulsion engineer. He has been granted high security clearance for a number of top secret projects and has worked with Macdonald Douglas and engineers who worked on the Saturn 5 rocket (the Apollo launch vehicle). He worked at Goldstone as a Communications Engineer during the Apollo missions. Goldstone in California, USA, were responsible for receiving and distributing the pictures sent from the Apollo to Houston. He says early video machines were used to record the NASA footage here on Earth by the TV networks. They received the FM carrier signal on Earth, ran it through an FM demodulator and processed it in an RCA scan converter that took the slow scan signal and converted it to the US standard black and white TV signal. The film was then sent onto Houston. When they were converting from slow scan to fast scan, RCA used disc and scan recorders as a memory and it played back the same video several times until it got an updated picture. In other words the signal was recorded onto video one then converted to video two. Movie film runs at 30 frames per second, whereas video film runs at 60 frames per second. So in other words the footage that most people saw that they thought was 'live' wasn't, and was actually 50% slower than the original footage!!!
Clavius: Bibliography - una ronald and the coke bottle

"Clavius researcher Peter Barrett examined surviving copies of The Western Australian dating to the time in question and failed to find any mention whatsoever of Coke bottles in the moonwalk telecast.


Chief librarian Tracey Bennett (no relation to Mary) for The Western Australian has confirmed that no letter or article regarding a Coke bottle in the moonwalk telecast was printed in either of their two newspapers for at least two weeks following the broadcast. (And it only took Clavius researchers 48 hours and one request to confirm this.)


The claim that The Western Australian published those letters comes from -- you guessed it -- Una Ronald herself. She claims there was a protracted discussion in print which was abruptly terminated. But no evidence of such a discussion can be produced."


And also for the claim that the video was slowed down to 50%. They say the guys were hopping around or hanging by wires, and when slowed down it looks like they are on the moon with less gravity. If you look at a recreation of someone in a spacesuit hopping around in the desert, and play it at 50%, it looks NOTHING like the astronauts on the Moon. You can't recreate the way it looks, even if you are using wires.
 
Top