Moon Landing A Fake or Fact - expose

[king]

in nine parts

this is the ultimate expose of Moon landing hoax

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1 - YouTube

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1 - YouTube

this should put speculations to rest once and for all

Stanley Kubrick, Nixon, Rumsfield, Haig, Kissinger,
Eagleburger and rest of hacks are speaking, so this is not only exposure of moon hoax conspiracy but also a proof of conspiracy to silence all eyewitnesses who were part of the moon landing conspiracy.

[chris]

Very interesting but the interviews with Kissinger and Rumsfeld has brought it completely into disripute...It seems to have been edited carefully to sound like they are talking about the subject but they could be talking about something completely different and most likely are.

[king]

Originally Posted by chris

Very interesting but the interviews with Kissinger and Rumsfeld has brought it completely into disripute...It seems to have been edited carefully to sound like they are talking about the subject but they could be talking about something completely different and most likely are.

that is a very good observation.
I would say that it is possible that certain parts were edited to sway one's opinion.
however, i thought that CIA and Nixon parts of the videos were very telling, as how people in power think and operate.
trail of dead bodies is very telling as well.

[hagbard_celine]

I've only watched the first few minutes, but it looks familiar and I've a feeling that is a spoof.

I think that NASA did faked the moon landings, but this is not a factual programme about it.

[rocco marchegiano]

Its a mockumentary as they say.

King its not edited in certain parts to sway your view its all edited and made up. Its supposed to be a bit of a giggle. It wasnt made by people who believe in the Moon hoax and then edited like Sibrel does.
I dont think anyone watched it till the end you do have to watch it all because at the very end you see the outtakes.
Its a good way to show people how moon hoaxers edit interviews to make you sound like you are saying something you are not. This is why most people refuse to do interviews with Bart Sibrel.

This is the same film they are talking about it has around 3 titles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Si...n_(documentary)

[limelady]

Originally Posted by hagbard_celine

I've only watched the first few minutes, but it looks familiar and I've a feeling that is a spoof.

I think that NASA did faked the moon landings, but this is not a factual programme about it.

Dead right hagbard. This was on telly here a year or so ago.

Its a scripted spoof. At the end they showed the out-cuts
and they were all having a jolly good haw-haw about how clever they
all were to take part in this production.

None the less, very telling that they went to all this trouble....me thinks
its Illuminati double-speak

[rocco marchegiano]

Originally Posted by limelady

Dead right hagbard. This was on telly here a year or so ago.

Its a scripted spoof. At the end they showed the out-cuts
and they were all having a jolly good haw-haw about how clever they
all were to take part in this production.

None the less, very telling that they went to all this trouble....me thinks
its Illuminati double-speak

It was an exercise in Jean Baudrillard's theories of hyperreality.

The whole idea of it being filmed in a London studio should have given the game away. Its the same as the desert one the desert is not a vacuum and where the footage was shot is a vacuum. All you have to do is watch the dust to see that.

[davidbarstis]

Originally Posted by king

in nine parts

this is the ultimate expose of Moon landing hoax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOItuKm5UE

this should put speculations to rest once and for all

Stanley Kubrick, Nixon, Rumsfield, Haig, Kissinger,
Eagleburger and rest of hacks are speaking, so this is not only exposure of moon hoax conspiracy but also a proof of conspiracy to silence all eyewitnesses who were part of the moon landing conspiracy.

The Moon landing hoax needs no help from people. It is obvious on its own with the original proof. I will say this again for people who are having a hard time understanding. The burden of proof is on NASA or anyone who blindly believes them. No one here has been to the Moon and so does not know what is real or isn't. I believe we had technology way beyond the space shuttle and to this day, we never have manned travel into deep space only low earth orbit. Why is that? Could it be because with the technology they want people to think is all they have (ie the space shuttle), it can't be done? I think so.

[rocco marchegiano]

David i understand you perfectly well. The reason you offer no evidence for a hoax is because you dont have any.
You are right about one thing though deep space travel is not possible for the Shuttle. Then again it wasnt designed for that so its a null argument really.
OK one thing at a time if they didn't go to the Moon where did the Moon rock come from?
Actually here's another question what in your mind would constitute proof?

[raffles]

Originally Posted by rocco marchegiano

David i understand you perfectly well. The reason you offer no evidence for a hoax is because you dont have any.
You are right about one thing though deep space travel is not possible for the Shuttle. Then again it wasnt designed for that so its a null argument really.
OK one thing at a time if they didn't go to the Moon where did the Moon rock come from?
Actually here's another question what in your mind would constitute proof?

why dont you post some evidence that the moon landings are real ?
Because you can't thats why !!

[rocco marchegiano]

I cannot post conclusive proof but we can go on evidence for and against. We need a starting point i believe it was true others do not but the will not post reasons they believe its a hoax. Lets face it some hoax believers state even if they went themselves they still wouldn't believe it so what would be the point of debating them?

I posted if they didn't go to the Moon where did the Moon rock come from?
That's my starting point. Moon rock is evidence.

[raffles]

Originally Posted by rocco marchegiano

I cannot post conclusive proof but we can go on evidence for and against. We need a starting point i believe it was true others do not but the will not post reasons they believe its a hoax. Lets face it some hoax believers state even if they went themselves they still wouldn't believe it so what would be the point of debating them?

I posted if they didn't go to the Moon where did the Moon rock come from?
That's my starting point. Moon rock is evidence.

The only evidence you can provide is government info aka NONE !!
the same people who told us obl did 9/11 and oswald killed jfk
Moon rock is not evidence prove it came from the moon !!

Yeah like thats eveidence .. lol

Come back with some real proof.

[rocco marchegiano]

I notice your playing the same game as the the other chap.

You say the moon rock isn't proof but you dont state why. How can it be possible to debate your thoughts if you dont Post them? It can be proved the Moon rock came from the Moon it can also be proved its not from the Earth. So whats your point? Hes a little gem, not all geologists work for the government. If the Moon rock didn't come from the Moon then where did it come from?

[raffles]

Originally Posted by rocco marchegiano

I notice your playing the same game as the the other chap.

You say the moon rock isn't proof but you dont state why. How can it be possible to debate your thoughts if you dont Post them? It can be proved the Moon rock came from the Moon it can also be proved its not from the Earth. So whats your point? Hes a little gem, not all geologists work for the government. If the Moon rock didn't come from the Moon then where did it come from?

moon rock can be created in a laboratary.
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=166052007

Now why dont you answer my questions from yesterday, the video i posted and the apollo 12 pictures.

[chris]

lol I made my post before I had watched it all...I was interested until I saw the 'kubrick' picture on the moon, that was hilarious but that was when I realised it was all completely made up...

I'm glad that I had the power of discernment not to trust it though, I thought the other people could all be actors, but still they were quite convincing. Bear in mind I wasn't paying too much attention to it, I was working and listening to the audio and would look up when I heard something interesting.





When it comes to the moon landing I don't believe it at all. I think the lack of pictures is what really does it for me. Still it's not something I'm going to focus on, in fact I'd pretend I do believe in the moon landing to others to make me not sound so crazy when discussion real hardcore evidence on 9/11.

[lumukanda]

neither side can prove anything either way, so it really is a pointless argument, but we all have our takes on it based on what we choose to believe, agree to disagree and all that.

[david ickes bike]

Originally Posted by chris

lol I made my post before I had watched it all...I was interested until I saw the 'kubrick' picture on the moon, that was hilarious but that was when I realised it was all completely made up...

I'm glad that I had the power of discernment not to trust it though, I thought the other people could all be actors, but still they were quite convincing. Bear in mind I wasn't paying too much attention to it, I was working and listening to the audio and would look up when I heard something interesting.





When it comes to the moon landing I don't believe it at all. I think the lack of pictures is what really does it for me. Still it's not something I'm going to focus on, in fact I'd pretend I do believe in the moon landing to others to make me not sound so crazy when discussion real hardcore evidence on 9/11.

Lack of pictures thats a new one on me. Ive heard to many pictures before, what makes you say there's a lack of pictures Chris?

Bart Sibrel did go though a phase of telling people there's only 12 pictures.

[david ickes bike]

Originally Posted by lumukanda

neither side can prove anything either way, so it really is a pointless argument, but we all have our takes on it based on what we choose to believe, agree to disagree and all that.

I surpose that could be said of any discussion it dosent make them pointless. A HB generally changes their theory as parts of there evidence are shown to be false eventually they end up contradicting themselves.

[david ickes bike]

Originally Posted by raffles

moon rock can be created in a laboratary.
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=166052007

Now why dont you answer my questions from yesterday, the video i posted and the apollo 12 pictures.

Any geologist would be able to spot the fake Moon rock instantly because of its convection patterns. Convection is a function of gravity, and lunar rocks exhibit convection patterns that were obviously produced in the much less lunar gravity. Also the radiological effects observed in lunar rocks are produced by the long-term bombardment of solar particles, the solar wind, and cosmic radiation Which the fakes wouldn't have.


Mail Edinburgh University i think you will find this is correct and they will tell you that its easy to distinguish between fake and real.


Still if they could make Moon rock on Earth in a recently discovered technique that cannot be seen to be fake how would that have been used to create rock in the 60's a time machine?

[hagbard_celine]

Originally Posted by rocco marchegiano

It was an exercise in Jean Baudrillard's theories of hyperreality.

The whole idea of it being filmed in a London studio should have given the game away. Its the same as the desert one the desert is not a vacuum and where the footage was shot is a vacuum. All you have to do is watch the dust to see that.

Yes. There are plenty of genuine documentaries about the faked moon missions, but this ain't one of them.

It may well have been intended as disinformation. Anyone who watched it all the way through thinking it was real, only to be told at the end that it was a mockumentary will probably feel pretty foolish. It might well put them off watching any of the serious documentaries.