BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


NASA writing book to 'prove' moon landing took place...

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Fist of Fun
14:59 / 07.11.02
God, it's so pathetic. We all know it was a hoax, but they still try to justify their enormous budget. Read this clearly influenced by the International Illuminati Conspiracy article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2410431.stm

For a moment I saw this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/1399132.stm
and thought "Hmm, maybe the BBC really are taking an independent view of the matter". But then I realised - of course they want us to think that. And then they send in the Black Helicopters, just after we've fallen asleep.
 
 
MJ-12
15:08 / 07.11.02
Well, of course they can prove that it took place. The hoax was to cover up the fact that it took place in 1952, using crashed UFO's deengineered by captured Nazi rocket scientists.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:54 / 07.11.02
Honestly, of course they had to fake it, they didn't have that Russian man Korolev to copy off anymore.
 
 
Linus Dunce
16:53 / 07.11.02
But why fake it? All they needed was a big fucking missile, a few slide rules and a bunch of guys brave enough to risk crashing and the radiation. It ain't exactly rocket science ... :-)
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
09:11 / 08.11.02
I've never really understood this whole "It never happened" theory. Perhaps some of the conspiracy theorists could answer some questions on this for me.

1) The whole theory seems to evolve around the moon landing never happening and actually being shot in a film studio or other Earth based location. If this is indeed the case, what is the CT stance on the previous orbital missions that did not include lunar surface activity and why are these missions never the subject of scrutiny?

2) Information gatherd on the original moon landing was used to improve and enhance subsequent lunar missions. If the landings never took place and were in fact faked, where then did this information come from?
 
 
tom-karika nukes it from orbit
10:39 / 08.11.02
Course they were fake. The whole thing was done in a big warehouse

On Mars.
 
 
arcboi
12:03 / 08.11.02
Never mind moon landings, I have a theory that this message board and the whole Barbelith community is being faked using actors in a specially constructed studio in the Nevada desert.

That shade of grey used on the pages is completely wrong, the envelopes in the graphic are not scaled correctly and the letters in 'BARBELITH' are too close together. Subtle, yet telling differences.

Nice try, but you have to get up pretty early in the morning to catch arcboi out....
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:27 / 08.11.02
Damnit Ganesh, I told you he could see you peeking out at him from behind the letter 'm' in the title...
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:30 / 08.11.02
... But hey meanwhile on channel 'real'... what do the 'moon landing was a hoax' people expect to achieve if they could prove it was faked? The Russians and Chinese to work overtime to really get the first men on the moon? Is it just a 'the Government must be lying because they lie about everything' thing?
 
 
Hieronymus
15:30 / 08.11.02
Yep. Same tired old games. Either by 'knowing' the supposed arcane truth or by being involved in it somehow, the uber-vain can involve themselves in these half-ass one act plays. Like mystery cults. And Amway.

FOX even had some asinine special on it. Hosted by the guy from the X-Files.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:50 / 08.11.02
Maybe they discovered a race of spiders just looking for a tasty human treat and so couldn't go to the moon. Maybe that's why we need to know if they faked it!
 
 
arcboi
15:57 / 08.11.02
Maybe there's no moon really, hence the hoax. Or maybe they landed on one of our other moons (IIRC there were 3 at the last count...)
 
 
w1rebaby
17:13 / 08.11.02
I won't believe they landed on the moon until they bring back a Clanger.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
21:15 / 09.11.02
I've heard that one of the main supports for the "the moon-landing was a bunch of hooey" is that the light sources in all the pictures taken on the moon wouldn't be where they are in the pictures if they were really taken on the moon, and that it was a bunch of photographers who realized this. But a photographer told me this, so who knows.
 
 
Hieronymus
23:32 / 09.11.02
*sighs* Give this a gander. Bad light sources my arse.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
23:35 / 09.11.02
Is it just a 'the Government must be lying because they lie about everything' thing?

What I love about the conspiracy nuts in this case: most conspiracy theories are designed to cover up an underlying worry that life shouldn't be this boring, hence the 'government conspiracy to keep us in our place/cover up the truth/keep the good stuff for themselves' reasoning. There must be something better than this, but we never seem to find it, therefore it's being hidden from us.

But they always get it backwards here. Claiming that the moon landing never took place is robbing yourself of an actual, honest-to-goodness bit of magic.

Unless it's all a double bluff, started by the FBI and their cold-blooded masters...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
05:27 / 10.11.02
I once heard a great theory on this that was just banal enough to be plausible- they DID go to the moon, but all the film was fucked when they got back. So the landings weren't faked, but the photos were, cos they didn't want to look stupid.

It has an endearingly human element to it which I like.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:37 / 10.11.02
I've never understood the faked-moon-landing business either. I've also never understood why so many people are ready to eat up this kind of drivel with such uncritical eagerness. (But then I'm an evil white-coated bastard. Eat up your sheepdrone mulch, kiddies. It's bedtime.)

What makes me spit tacks is that when people's attention gets caught up in this kind of nonsense, they aren't looking for the real lies.
 
 
bjacques
05:45 / 11.11.02
Maybe they feel powerless to fight against official lies over things that really do affect their everyday lives. I used to be a real fan of conspiracy theories, especially since I worked at NASA (and heard some great kook stories).

That's why I wrote this:

http://www.vermilion-sands.com/rantlib/greencheese.html

AND SOME GUY BELIEVED IT!!

I had to let him down easy.

6 years and only one nibble. No wonder I couldn't get a job at MiniTrue...
 
 
Spatula Clarke
13:32 / 12.11.02
The book's had its official NASA backing pulled. Story here.
 
 
Linus Dunce
13:57 / 12.11.02
I'm guessing Nasa figured they didn't need to spend the money in the current flag-waving political climate.

But, oh no, all those unimaginative freaks will write that this is "proof" too. :-(
 
 
Mr Tricks
00:09 / 13.11.02
I always figured they hoaxed the moon landing to keep the flat earth secret, well... secret!
 
 
Imaginary Mongoose Solutions
02:38 / 13.11.02
My favourite faux moon landing theory is that the deal about the hoax was created to get people caught up in asking questions about the validity of the moon landing and thusly ignoring the important question: Why are we not on Mars yet? (Or why haven't the Mars missions gone public?)
 
 
Mr Tricks
19:00 / 13.11.02
OT: I guess...

A buddy of mine used to work for a Photo lab that did ALOT of the photo processing for Nasa...

He would take home lots of extra picts including a bunch that where taken out in Arizona (vehicle tests etc.) we would hang out and compare the differences between MAR's landscape, the Moon's landscape and the landscape of the deserts outside of Tempe Arizona... Not Much difference at all...(insert X-file music here)

.... carry on.
 
 
wonderful wino
19:32 / 13.11.02
Whether it's real or not, to the best of public knowledge no one has been there in thirty years. Of course they could have been traversing space and it's radiation all this time right under our noses--err, right above our heads.
It's likely that it did! happen, and all these years without going further out just aids in the creation of any number of theorys and conspiratorial conclusions. What about John Glenn's intimations of E.T. contact during orbit? That's the reality of it, people.

You wanna know what's going on? Start Stargazing. Watch the infinite night sky--very closely. Pay attention or you might miss something.

Right now a Jupiter in the east correlates to Sirius to the south-east, with a smaller star named Procyon mediating the two constructing a triangle. Go out and watch very still-like; it would be relieving to me if some of you posted seeing something a little strange.

Afterthought: 1969, right? The fulfillment of JFK's superhuman promise? Maybe they shot hime cause the public wasn't s'possed to know? 1969. Man on the moon-okay, ssure-all the while VIETNAM rages?
bring it all down.
 
 
arcboi
21:28 / 13.11.02
Don't tell me you believe that the Vietnam war actually happened...... Boy! Those goverment types have got you just where they want you....
 
 
wonderful wino
19:35 / 14.11.02


For what it's worth check out moonmovie.com. Or try to find the film "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon".

The story goes that an investigative journalist documentary filmaker dude asks NASA for archived fotos and such and they just give him a box full of stuff--one item being an unlabeled reel of film on which you get to see conclusive proof. Haven't seen the movie yet, but dig, it's s'posed to be legit.

Oh, and the Van Allen radiation belts are said to be impossibly lethal.
Wonder how the 'government types' could respond to that. Soooo.....
 
 
Linus Dunce
22:02 / 14.11.02
Oh. My. God.

Burn it>

-John Glenn didn't see ETs -- he saw sparks flying off his super-fucking-sonic ass.

-There are *a lot* of stars in the sky. Some of them are going to make patterns.

-So, an unlabelled film you haven't seen yet with no more provenance than hearsay contains conclusive proof? I have a picture of the Loch Ness Monster I could let you have for a very good price ...

-Yes, the Van Allen Belt is, like, totally radioactive. The only way I'd go through it is, like, really quickly? Like, attached a rocket or something?

Or are you just a moontroll?
 
 
wonderful wino
09:44 / 15.11.02
Yes, you have it, Iggy m'boy!

The moon is made out of CHEESE.

Next topic!
 
 
Linus Dunce
16:52 / 15.11.02
Not quite sure how I can be classed as your "boy." I will be sure to return to this forum regularly to work out your current suit.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
11:06 / 12.12.02
Hum, i've heard many versions of the moon landing hoax, and there's this story twist that is better than many: NASA actually got up there with the help of aliens, and that Neil Armstrong and the others really met aliens on the surface of the moon (but was it Neil who came back, or some duplicate? Or was he infected with alien DNA? Who gives a damn, anyway?)

It happened!
 
 
bjacques
12:25 / 12.12.02
By the way, James Oberg wrote two other excellent books: Red Star In Orbit and Soviet Space Disasters. Unlike the U.S., the USSR classified all hard information on their space program as state secrets, and because of the propaganda value, made failures and embarrassments disappear. As well, eastern Europeans tend to be very socially conservative, despite western cold-war rhetoric about "commie free-love." We couldn't get any information out of the Soviets about their space toilets, for example, or one cosmonaut's urinary tract infection. A lot of hard work and lives dropped down the memory hole. One hushed-up 1961 incident, if made public, could have saved the lives of the Apollo 1 (launch test) astronauts 6 years later.

Oberg's books show clumsy photo-retouching efforts. Oberg approached the subject out of curiosity and with respect, and now that the secrecy is pretty much over, the books are still fascinating.

One last secret, though: There's one manned launch attempt, possibly around May Day 1960, that is still only a rumor. I read of it in Robert A. Heinlein's USSR travelogue "Pravda Means Truth," from Expanded Universe.



Yep, I worked at NASA- Johnson Space Center 10 years; hence my Operation Green Cheese stunt. It's still rocket science, as ESA found out yesterday with their Ariane 5 failure.
 
 
grant
14:17 / 12.12.02
Is that Ariane thing as big a deal as it seems?

And did you ever do work with anyone from Pratt & Whitney? They're probably the biggest employer in my home county....
 
 
bjacques
15:30 / 13.12.02
Yeah, I think the Ariane crash is serious for the EU launch business. U.S. commercial launch services are pretty expensive, while Russian launchers are considered not very reliable (my info is 5-10 years old), let alone Chinese Long March rockets ESA are trying hard to build a reliable rocket for the medium-sized (5-10) payload market (replacement comsats, etc.). Also, the Americans can refuse a customer for "strategic" reasons.

NASA-JSC was pretty much manned space operations, so that was mission control, space medicine and related logistics. Rockets would probably be George. C. Marshall Spaceflight Center (formerly Redstone Arsenal) in Huntsville, Alabama. I know they have a static test stand there. They also used to test solid rocket motors in Utah somewhere, since Morton Thiokol, which make them (they make salt, too), are located there.
 
 
bjacques
16:07 / 13.12.02
I really miss scouring the office copy of Aviation Week & Space Technology (aka Av Leak), a weekly industry mag that, in the '80s, was your guide to the fantastic Star Wars crap the Reaganites wanted to toss into space. My favorite was a neutral particle beam weapon, codenamed something like Teal Ruby (that was actually the name of some whopping ICBM-killing orbital laser I think). It was U-shaped, with a source of nuclei, then magnets to accelerate it along the track and guide it through the U-bend, and then a negatively-charged screen to strip away the protons. The beam had to be neutrons, or else the earth's magnetic field would warp it. The beam raceway was 150 feet long, so folded the thing was 75 feet long. Since it had to fit inside a Space Shuttle payload bay, which is only 60 feet long, so it would be deployed via the mechanical arm, then it would telescope to its full 75-foot length. The designers neglected to mention how the thing would be powered, since known radioisotopic thermal generators (RTGs) couldn't deliver that kind of wattage. Fairy dust and moonbeams? I think the designers were huffing BZ gas behind the machine shop at the Skunk Works. And, no, the thing never got launched.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply