The other day i was watching a doc on the fake moon landing(I dont no whitch way i lean yet)then it hit me if the moon landing was fake could there be a conection with JFK getting shot? Perhaps he did not want to do it or perhaps he was going to tell?I am probably way of but perhaps there is somthing there.

joho!

Excuse me for saying this, but you�ve got your history book upside down.

JFK was assasinated on nov 22, 1963.

The first landing on the moon happened almost 6 years later; on july 22, 1969.

As for the false moon-landing theory in itself, I can give you one example of its credibility.

When you watched the documentary, they probably said that the moon landing was filmed in a studio with artificial light, and that the proof for that should be the "double" and "contradicting" shadows. Shadows going the wrong way according to where the sun is positioned.

The explanation is simply this:
The earth also reflects light, much more than the moon does, as we see it from here. Seen from the moon, the earth is sometimes "up" when the sun is up, and from that you get two shadows, in different directions.

I could go on debunking this theory if this hasn�t convinced you already...

FoxLeonard



[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-21-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
joho!

Excuse me for saying this, but you�ve got your history book upside down.

JFK was assasinated on nov 22, 1963.

The first landing on the moon happened almost 6 years later; on july 22, 1969.

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-21-2002).]

---

Yes but they did not wake up on 22 july,1969 and say right where going to the moon today did they.No we are talking years of getting ready real or not.and there was a lot more evidence than that suporting the theory that it was fake.the point is if it was could that have somthing to do with jfk.

It has to do with JFK in the sense that it was he who, in a speech in the early 1960ies, promised that USA would put men on the moon within the 1960ies.

Looking at where the US space program was at the time JFK promised this, it was an unrealistic plan.

This is also the basis for the faked moon landing theory; that they couldn�t have made it all happen in such a short time.

But even if that was true, why would NASA start a fake program almost emediately and kill JFK who forced them to, and then go on with the faked program and fullfill JFK�s promise?!

As for the other (so called) evidence that the moon landing was faked:

One is that the American flag is "blowing in the wind", while there is no air, much less wind, on the moon. The explanation is that they wanted the flag to look good on TV, so they stiffened it (with metal wire).

Another, much more interesting, point is that the radiation is, according to some, supposedly so strong that humans wouldn�t survive going outside of the stratosphear. Those who say so are supposedly scientists, knowing what they talk about. But so are the people who say that the radiation is strong, but not too strong. Assuming that it is at least very dangerous, it wouldn�t have been the first time people would have been willing to risk their lifes, and/or risk other peoples lifes for "a great cause".

And why would they go on, doing one faked trip to the moon after another, including one that FAILED?! Did they fake that failure to make it all more credible?!

FoxLeonard

The moon landing is a crock of cold war shit. Although, I don't blame the government for not fessing up later. Didn't the USSR fake a moon landing too?

quote:

---

Originally posted by buttthrax:
The moon landing is a crock of cold war shit.
Didn't the USSR fake a moon landing too?

---

Yes, the race for space was, at least partly, because of the cold war.

No! The USSR never claimed to have landed men on the moon. Neither did they fake any ofd their unmanned landings, as far as is known...

buttthrax, in your first post you said that you hadn�t made up your mind yet, about the documentary and its claims. But after that you seem to know for sure, that the moon landings were faked. You even argue in a way that suggest that you have known this for a long time and without any doubt. How come?

FoxLeonard

On 20July1969, man did NOT land on the moon. Simple as that. How do I know? Here's how.
I think what I'm about to tell you is fact.
The moon is artificial. It is a man made base built about 35,000 years ago. Our 'Gods' built it before they genetically altered primitive man. Then a long time later, they came back and artificially inseminated a woman named 'Mary'. A great man was born. We call him Jesus. He was a great man. Half human, half ET. The bible tells stories of chariots in the sky...flying saucers to us. Healing the blind; laser therapy. Whatever. To make a long story short, the moon is a base. It's hollow. The dark side always remains away from us because that's how it was designed. That's where they come and go. I could go on and on...but I don't have time today. I've been involved with these great people...all my life.

If so, greet them from me! FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

buttthrax, in your first post you said that you hadn�t made up your mind yet, about the documentary and its claims. But after that you seem to know for sure, that the moon landings were faked. You even argue in a way that suggest that you have known this for a long time and without any doubt. How come?

FoxLeonard

---

Dude, I only made one post and I said that the moon landing was fake (crock of cold war shit). My dad has always said it was fake and I watched the shit on Fox.

I did say that I don't blame the government for not coming out and stating that it was fake. That would discredit them forever. (ok, they are discredited, but I mean for the ignorant masses...)

"Fake moon landing" heh, heh, heh, how stupid. I love the "US flag flying in the wind" the flag did not "fly in the wind" this shows how lazy some conspiricy nuts are, the flag has a rod in the upper border to simulate being open as having no wind would leave the flag limp. You can plainly see the rod in any picturs. How stupid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buttthrax:
Dude, I only made one post and I said that the moon landing was fake (crock of cold war shit). My dad has always said it was fake and I watched the shit on Fox

---

buttthrax!

My appologies, I must have believed that you were joho. I�ll remeber to put on my glasses before posting next time!

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-21-2002).]

I'm still debating on weither the moon landing was real, ive also heard the theory of there was no stars in the sky and how come it was bright on the moon and dark in the sky. To me it looked like a overgrowned picture of the moon that they did in a studio but i have no right saying that cause i have not fully looked into it yet. But i think right now its fake until i read some more and prove my self wrong or prove my self right.

I saw that documentary too, and a lot of the things they call proof is really nothing solid, (i.e. the crosshairs, the shadows cast) but others seem very substantial (i.e. the flag waving (YES IT DID WAVE) the idea of that radioactive belt around it). Overall I'm not sure, but I think I would lean towards that idea that we didn't land on it. It would be so applicable for a country like ours, to wag the dog on something like this. The problem with this country is, that eveyrone believes what the media tells them, and they do it so unquestiongly. Like the whole fuckin political correctness bullshit. Have any of you ever asked who came up with this, who said it is wrong to call a fag a fag? It was some writer in california writing for some sitcom or some other damned thing! My biggest concern as to why this didn't happen is because it just seems pretty unlikely that all aspects of the mission would be succesful on the first mission. Sure they scouted it out and everything but still.

Also, just to set the record straight, I hate how anyone (i.e. the common people who are so fuckin stupid) believes that Kennedy started NASA and the moon race. My favorite president, Ike, created NASA, not kennedy. Kennedy just said "See that durn thing up der? lets go der!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
It has to do with JFK in the sense that it was he who, in a speech in the early 1960ies, promised that USA would put men on the moon within the 1960ies.

Looking at where the US space program was at the time JFK promised this, it was an unrealistic plan.

This is also the basis for the faked moon landing theory; that they couldn�t have made it all happen in such a short time.

But even if that was true, why would NASA start a fake program almost emediately and kill JFK who forced them to, and then go on with the faked program and fullfill JFK�s promise?!

As for the other (so called) evidence that the moon landing was faked:

One is that the American flag is "blowing in the wind", while there is no air, much less wind, on the moon. The explanation is that they wanted the flag to look good on TV, so they stiffened it (with metal wire).

Another, much more interesting, point is that the radiation is, according to some, supposedly so strong that humans wouldn�t survive going outside of the stratosphear. Those who say so are supposedly scientists, knowing what they talk about. But so are the people who say that the radiation is strong, but not too strong. Assuming that it is at least very dangerous, it wouldn�t have been the first time people would have been willing to risk their lifes, and/or risk other peoples lifes for "a great cause".

And why would they go on, doing one faked trip to the moon after another, including one that FAILED?! Did they fake that failure to make it all more credible?!

FoxLeonard

---

The moon speach was in september 62 the killing was in november 63 that is one year 2 months plenty of time to relize that it can not be done and decide that a fake moonlanding would be the only way to win.
As for whether it was fake or not.

1)Was there a reason to fake it.
Yes
2)Could they fake it.
Yes
Take any one bit of evidence that it was fake and you can dimiss it.But when there seems to be so many odd things you have to start to question,to not would be foolish.If you where married and you found one clue that your wife was cheating you could dismiss it.But to find nine or ten or eleven clues and dismiss them.Then you diserve to be cheated on.

joho

I totally agree that it would be foolish to not look at the evidence; each and everyone, separately as well as a whole. This is also what I�ve already done, by reading books and magazines and watching the different documentaries on the subject (more than once, as I have them in my collection).

But when you�re supposed to look at ALL the evidence, it also includes what NASA, as well as other (independent) scientists claim as proof that the moon landings DID occur.

It�s also a sign of warning - in any conspiracy theory - when some of the alledged evidence is in total lack of scientific support.

In the case of the fake moon landing theory, all that is said about: "contradiciting" shadows; no stars to be seen in the sky and other light phenomena, is simply wrong. As wrong as claiming that the earth is disc-shaped.
This has been pointed out, time and again, but it remains a vital part of the theory.

The interesting part of the theory is what is said about the dangers of space radiation. IF it is true that man wouldn�t survive outside of the stratosphear, then there is no doubt whatsoever that the moon landings were faked! It is supposedly scientists who claim this, and perhaps they are. But if so, all the totally unscientific, and therefore easily dismissed, "evidence" could have been removed from the theory and from the documentaries. Instead it�s reapeated over and over again, and given more room than the part about space radiation.

Yes, if there was no option, there had been reasons to fake the moon landings. At least the first one, and perhaps one more to make it credible. But was there really a reason to fake a whole series of moon landings, INCLUDING one that FAILED?! A failure that caused a loss of prestige, not only for NASA, but also for USA.

As JFK was the initiator of the speeded up moon program, and mainly for propaganda reasons, he would most likely have been the first one to support a fake, had there been no other options left.

That was is most obvious, is often most worth of analysis.

FoxLeonard

Here we go with yet another moon landing conspiracy.

I suggest you go through the archives and look at what has been posted before.

There was a moon landing in July 1969 by the US. That 'documentary' is bogus.

Nox

Nox thats just your viewpoint. People have the right to feel what they feel and if they think its fake then let them think that if you think it did happen then its cool but your saying that it wasnt fake it was real and thats it.

I will repeat a small part of what I've posted before:

When this moon landing occurred, the entire world was watching. Every telescope on earth was fixed upon the landing site and lunar landing equipment. Every country on Earth with radar equipment tracked the spacecraft from launch, to landing, to return.

The space race was alive and well (as was the cold war). Had the Soviet Union been able to do so, it would have exposed this fake landing with unmitigated glee. The Soviet Union lost great prestige with the US landing on the moon.

This is not just my opinion. It is fact. The entire world watched it at the time.

Some moron makes a 'documentary' and a whole bunch of folks fall in line. Pity.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by RejectJC:
Nox thats just your viewpoint. People have the right to feel what they feel and if they think its fake then let them think that if you think it did happen then its cool but your saying that it wasnt fake it was real and thats it.

---

As long as you adopt this philosophy of sorts on fringe conspiracy theories it could be OK.

If you adopt it on serious historical and/or political issues it�s dangerous, to say the least.

If you adopt it on your everyday, ordinary life, it�s suicidal!

Ignorance is a socio-semantic disturbance that affects all of us!

Ewige Blumenkraft! FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:

Some moron makes a 'documentary' and a whole bunch of folks fall in line. Pity.

Nox[/B]

---

I think taking either way without any consideration of bullshitting is dangerous. Don't trust anyone....

It's true. With how fats technology evolves everyday is no surprise we did it in 1969. Although I would expect it a bit earlier.

As for it waving.. the moon has enough wind to move it. If not, then yes. metal wires were placed in it to give it the waving motion looks. How else would they show it was us americans who set foot on it.

Just one document and u trust likehell,
and almost the whole world say it's true,
but u dont trust.

quote:

---

The interesting part of the theory is what is said about the dangers of space radiation. IF it is true that man wouldn�t survive outside of the stratosphear,

---

That's bullshit. In order for that to be true, humans would have had to fake going into space each and every time it happened. The mir space station had to be faked by the russians, and the upgrading of the hubble telescope had to be faked by the Americans as well as all other instances.

Now with that in mind, the hubble telescope is working several times better than it did prior to the upgrade, so to say that man could never leave the stratosphear due to radiation is downright lunacy.

Dark Magneto!

I see that you erased my name from the qoute, the way you used it, and with good reason; thank you!

I was merely trying to discuss the (so called) theory as it happens to stand...

Dumbfounded by now, one would think, but for some reason it survives and pops up time and again, without any significant changes. An interesting phenomena in itself.

FoxLeonard

For me to say this, I'll lose all credibility with you fine people...but I will anyway.
I was told by someone not from our planet that the moon is artificial. I have had contact with this woman since I was two years of age. She's an astronaut from another planet...like our 'Gods'.
Man did not land on the moon. All the major governments know that. For the sake of sanity, they keep it a secret.
Remember...'War of the Worlds' in the '30's.
I am sane. I have witnesses. I know the truth.
Take care guys and gals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syntex:
As for it waving.. the moon has enough wind to move it. If not, then yes. metal wires were placed in it to give it the waving motion looks. How else would they show it was us americans who set foot on it.

---

It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. No, the moon has NO wind, we all learned that in third grade. The argument is that the wire held the flag up, so it wouldn't droop, not that the wire made it wave. How does a wire make "waving motion looks"? Some people are saying it's a false statement altogether, some saying the flag was doctored by film editors, some saying it just flat out supports the conspiracy theory.

I too watched the show Conspiracy Theory about man landing on the moon and it's my belief that no man did not land on the moon in 1969 but i also believe that they have landed there since then. How else could all of the shuttle take offs be accounted for? And if the moon landing was faked and we have NEVER been, does that mean that the US is in some sort of conspiracy with the Soviets? Could that be some sort of New World Order deal? They're possibly working together secretly in order to eventually take over the world? Who really knows for sure and who can say what the govt is doing other than those who have top security clearance. If the CIA had the capabilities to do such things, then why the hell not? It seems perfectly logical that they would want to control the minds of their citizens, even if that meant faking the landing on the moon. But if the moon landing was faked, who's to say that it wasnt for a good purpose...to encourage NASA funding and to boost the morale of Americans and their belief in science. But like I said, who knows for sure, i mean this all specualtion. No one here who has posted a message could really know.

JGirl17!

The beginning of your post is correct and a good analysis, coming to the conclusion that the moon landings must have happened. Then you stumble into the trappings of conspiranoia...

If you carefully read Nox�s and Dark Magneto�s posts on page one of this subject you�ll find that there is undisputable proof that the moon landings DID happen! If you read the rest you�ll also find that the no-landings theory is unscientific in itself!

There are a lot of conspiracies in this world, but this is not one of them!

Start digging for a real one!

Learn more about everything, including how to learn more!

Ewige Blumenkraft! FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-24-2002).]

Just out of curiousity Fox, what does Ewige Blumerkraft mean?

I mean Blumenkraft sorry!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by JGirl17:
Just out of curiousity Fox, what does Ewige Blumerkraft mean?

---

It�s German for Eternal Flower Power (the old Hippie proverb), but it�s also a hint at a certain conspiracy. Further it�s a hint at a religion, of sorts...

Wiecny kwiat wtadza! Hail Eris! FoxLeonard

Well now im intrigued and I insist you explain

quote:

---

Originally posted by JGirl17:
Well now im intrigued and I insist you explain

---

The conspiracy is one of the more infamous; The Illuminati; a secret society from the late 18th century who some believe are still at large and "ruling the world". Others just use the name "Illuminati" for their own favourite conspiracy of today.

You�ll se that name often enough here at the Conspiracy board.

For the religion, of sorts, you better take a look for yourself!

Click below:

www.kbuxton.com/discordia/

Also use the links there, and the links you find at the sites you arrive to...

...to learn more and understand even less...

And welcome back to give me your first impressions, even if this is the wrong thread for a personal conversation. But I guess the moderators don�t mind as this is the best part of this thread. The only part that makes some sense.

If you didn�t already guess: Wiecny kwiat wtadza is the same thing in Polish! Hail Discordia!

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-25-2002).]

Well thanks for the info, but as soon as you said illuminati i knew exactly what you were talking about, i once checked out a sight and it had all kinds of stuff on the New World Order and The Illuminati and how there workin together to take over the world and some other stuff like that

I guessed you had at the very least heard about them, especially as you arrive here at totse and write your first post on the Conspiracy board.

But without being patronizing, I�d like to say this:

Be wary; all that is called "the Illuminati" and "The New World Order", and said about them, is not even conspiracy theories, much less conspiracy facts. It�s pure and simple propaganda for other, political reasons.

Did you have a nice trip to Discordia?!

Ewige Blumenkraft, as Adam used to say!

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by JGirl17:
I too watched the show Conspiracy Theory about man landing on the moon and it's my belief that no man did not land on the moon in 1969 but i also believe that they have landed there since then. How else could all of the shuttle take offs be accounted for? And if the moon landing was faked and we have NEVER been, does that mean that the US is in some sort of conspiracy with the Soviets? Could that be some sort of New World Order deal? They're possibly working together secretly in order to eventually take over the world? Who really knows for sure and who can say what the govt is doing other than those who have top security clearance. If the CIA had the capabilities to do such things, then why the hell not? It seems perfectly logical that they would want to control the minds of their citizens, even if that meant faking the landing on the moon. But if the moon landing was faked, who's to say that it wasnt for a good purpose...to encourage NASA funding and to boost the morale of Americans and their belief in science. But like I said, who knows for sure, i mean this all specualtion. No one here who has posted a message could really know.

---

Shuttles are different than the moon landing. That's ex post facto. Either it has no connection or its all still one giant "wag the dog."

YES! Finally a regular...


[This message has been edited by YouAreNotYourKhakis (edited 10-25-2002).]

Well by shuttles i was referring to an earlier post saying that the moon landing had to be faked because outer space was full of deadly radiation. So i was saying that just people going into space sort of proves that man has at least gone that far.

Yeah, the Van Allen Belt. That's why everything up to this point would probably be one giant "wag the dog". We couldn't very well propose a fake moon landing then say "Alright, no more space exploration."

I'm still not sure which way to lean to...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skymasterone:
On 20July1969, man did NOT land on the moon. Simple as that. How do I know? Here's how.
I think what I'm about to tell you is fact.
The moon is artificial. It is a man made base built about 35,000 years ago. Our 'Gods' built it before they genetically altered primitive man. Then a long time later, they came back and artificially inseminated a woman named 'Mary'.

---

Mister Von Daniken? Is that youuuuuu???

Isn't it possible, with the right telescopes, to see the landing sites on the moon?

It is impossible to see any trace of man on the moon with a telescope.
If it were possible, you'd see that man didn't land there. You'd see evidence of another species - not ours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:
Isn't it possible, with the right telescopes, to see the landing sites on the moon?

---

I can verify the first part of Skymasterone�s answer.

It�s not possible to see any traces of the landings. Wich is not surprising, as the moon car is nothing but an oversized go-kart, and the landing-gears for the moon units are frames made of tubes, a few inches in diameter each. Everything else that might be left behind is even smaller than that.

Perhaps it is possible to see something blurry, using a lot of expensive time with one of the really strong telescopes they now have. But a telescope photo would of course be declared as just another falsification to add to the list...

Unfortunately I can�t verify, nor refute, the second part of Skymasterone�s answer...

But I guess that he can...

All that is, is metaphor.

FoxLeonard

I would have thought if the problem of the moon's reflective glare could be overcome, sufficiently powerful telescopes would exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:
I would have thought if the problem of the moon's reflective glare could be overcome, sufficiently powerful telescopes would exist.

---

I believe so to. But it�s far from easy. A telescope is built to boost incoming light, and the stronger the telescope is, the more it boosts light. Until the point when they now look at stars so far away that the stars don�t shine bright enough even for the strongest telescope. Then they have to do the final boost electronically on the monitors.

If they are going to be able to see such small details as what�s left behind from the moon landings, they need one of the strongest telescopes. One that boosts light to a high degree. Then they must filter away enough light, without distorting too much of the picture, and then they could perhaps use the electronic devices to do the rest.

It�s probably possible, but it would be a whole research project in itself, requiring a lot of money and time. As it is today, most telescopes are already overly booked for use, and astronomy and space research have a hard time getting money for important projects.

And the only reason there is to point a telescope at the moon and take som pictures of what�s left behind, would be to disprove the faked landings conspiracy theory. But even if the astronomers managed to get perfectly clear pictures, the conspiranoiacs would call it more forgeries and another part of the ongoing conspiracy. I guess that NASA et al are satisfied with knowing that they have been to the moon, and that most people know that to be true.

FoxLeonard

Don't they already have a telescope like that in a big building thats shaped like a dome on a hill in the middle of nowhere to avoid pollution getting in the way of the stars???

quote:

---

Originally posted by JGirl17:
Don't they already have a telescope like that in a big building thats shaped like a dome on a hill in the middle of nowhere to avoid pollution getting in the way of the stars???

---

If you call Hawaii and the mountains in Chile, the middle of nowhere, yes. There they have the worlds two largest telescopes. Perhaps strong enough to see stuff left by man on the moon. But the problem is that the moon reflects so much light from the sun, that such a strong telescope gets "blinded" by light. The picture from it will be all white. A smaller telescope picks up, or boosts, less light, so it�s possible to see the mountains and craters, but not small things, such as the moon car or the landing gear for the moon unit.

The stars are matter, we are matter, but does it matter?

FoxLeonard

Fox,

You are morphing into a Totseite.

Nox

its time for the usa and nasa to amitt that
the moon landing was fake for the one simple reason tecnology, it wasnt advanced to send
a man to the moon computers were only advaced to do a few bits of graphics on a atari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skymasterone:
For me to say this, I'll lose all credibility with you fine people...but I will anyway.
I was told by someone not from our planet that the moon is artificial. I have had contact with this woman since I was two years of age. She's an astronaut from another planet...like our 'Gods'.
Man did not land on the moon. All the major governments know that. For the sake of sanity, they keep it a secret.
Remember...'War of the Worlds' in the '30's.
I am sane. I have witnesses. I know the truth.
Take care guys and gals.

---

Insane people don't know they're insane. How'd ya meet your 'astronaut?'

quote:

---

Originally posted by NxDragon76:
Insane people don't know they're insane. How'd ya meet your 'astronaut?'

---

thats my mother.
no, really...