We Never Went to the Moon


And the rocks on display about 2 miles from my house prove we did, they're definitely not terrestrial, you can tell that simply by the composition and elemental density that most minerals of similar quality form on this planet, sorry sir, it's fail. Though perhaps I'm biased seeing as the majority of my family either works for Nasa or a contractor there of...I'm in on it...dontcha know?
I do love these theories. Besides the overwhelming physical evidence that I have seen personally and the rather large budgets that were expended over the years of the moon program that far exceeded the cost of a fake proof moon landing studio.........and the thousands of people that would have HAD to be bribed WELL to keep this little secret all these years including the media.....good luck with that!

outside of these pesky little details.....sure I could buy into conspiracy.

this may help too
many good links at the bottom in case you need more.

Of course we didnt go to the moon. The moon doesnt really exist. I think everyone knows that the existence of the moon is a government conspiracy. It is a projection similar to the batman beacon. Duh!

It is a light paid for and developed by the AIPAC. It is based in the nostril of the newly developed Bill Clinton head at Mount Rushmore, also paid for by the AIPAC.

Of course any historical reference to the moon is only the Zionist control of the media and history. ;)
Of course this never happened but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Exactly 38 years ago today - that would be Nov 14, 1969 Apollo 12 launched and became the 2nd successful moon landing that never happened. heheheh

It's also possible that they may have faked the first one just to get the headlines and then had a successful landing later.
There's a lot of video evidence that the missions were faked.

There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.


What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.

If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparant that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects differently.


Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
Here are some videos.


This is interesting.

The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.

Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.

If you look at the way the flag moves in this clip, it's clear that the astronaut doesn't touch it as the flag moves toward him.

If he'd touched it, it would have moved away from him.

It's analyzed here.

I'd like to hear some opinions on the way the flag moves.

There are a lot of plausible alternative scenarios for the moon rocks. All we have are documents that say they are real. If we aren't geologists in a laboratory looking at the rocks, we have no way of varifying that what we read is real.
There may be a lot of scientists who have sold out and are lying about the rocks and we only read what they say.
If there is video evidence that some of the footage was faked, it was probably all faked. Video evidence trumps what some documents or journals say as people can write lies.
Here are some possible scenarios for the rocks.
Another point here is that the moon rocks were fake. Are the moon rocks real?
No, they are not real. NASA has a well-developed ceramics laboratory with high-temperature ovens-
That's another way NASA could prove they went to the moon, 'cause they brought back these rocks. Interestingly enough, at the University of British Columbia here, David Strangway, the President of U.B.C., was the guy in charge of inspecting the moon rocks.
OK, fine, why don't you call him up and ask him what he thinks about them.
So what happened, the moon rocks were not real?
No, they were manufactured on Earth to look like moon rocks, but since nobody has any moon rocks to compare them with, it's very simple to make up a moon rock and say, hey, this came from the moon.
Well, how would you know it is a moon rock? Like, how do you know it's not a moon rock - how do you know it's a fake?
I had a Seattle geologist who examined moon rocks and he said, "There's no question, Bill, that these rocks were made in a laboratory on Earth."

9) Moon rocks are in Antarctica?
Barbara Cohen, a researcher from the University of New Mexico, was picking up rocks in Antarctica. She sent them to Houston, Texas for an analysis.
The scientists in Houston discovered that one of the Antarctic rocks closely matched the NASA moon rocks.
The scientists then concluded that one of the rocks from Antarctica was actually from the moon:
How did rocks from the moon get in Antarctica?
NASA and Ms. Cohen want us to believe that a big meteor crashed into the moon a while ago, and pieces of the moon were sent flying into space. A few of those pieces landed in Antarctica.
Take a look at how far away the moon is from the earth. If it were true that rocks were ejected from the moon with such velocity that they could escape the moon's gravity and fly out into space, what are the chances that any of them would survive the fall through the atmosphere and land on tiny Antarctica hundreds of thousands of kilometers away? Furthermore, the rock has to land in a location where humans can find it many years later.
A more sensible explanation is that the NASA moon rocks were rocks from Antarctica.
Therefore, when someone travels to Antarctica and sends rock samples to Houston, Texas for analysis, some of the rocks will closely match the Apollo moon rocks.

Here are some threads by a hoax-believer who seems to have done a lot of research. There's a lot of good stuff here.


I've seen lots of what I'd call conclusive proof that the missions were faked but I've never seen anything I'd call conclusive prooof that they were real. Somebody post something that he or she thinks is conclusive proof that they were real and we can talk about whether it's conclusive proof or not. There are plausible alternative scenarios for the rocks so they aren't conclusive proof.
of course we have been to the moon. The question at hand is more

when did we go to the moon

when armstrong landed. - maybe not

there may or may have not been ulterior motives to stage that first landing but we have been there. so this conspiracy is small
of course we have been to the moon. The question at hand is more

when did we go to the moon

when armstrong landed. - maybe not

there may or may have not been ulterior motives to stage that first landing but we have been there. so this conspiracy is small
One of the possible reasons for their not going is space radiation. Of course the official version is that it's possible to spend time in space without serious effects from radiation but there's a lot of stuff on the internet that says that's not so. I'm in no position to verify which version is true but the government lies all the time.

Here's some of the stuff I've found about space radiation.

There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.

Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.


two sets of radiation data
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)

Would it be possible to have the Hubble telescope beam in and take a few pictures of the moon's surface so that we can see the proof (the flag and any equipment left behind) that we actually were there?

Just curious...
Of course we didn't go to the Moon. How could we? The Moon doesn't exist. Consider the FactTm that sometimes during the month the Moon isn't there. Obviously the Moon is a holographic projection used by the Bush Crime Family to cover up the fact that the Moon was destroyed as a consequence of the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion.

Also, the world is flat and if you sail far enough away from land beware. Here there be monsters looks really cool on the maps, but they mean it.