• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Moon Landing is a Fake

  • Thread starter Thread starter stitcherman
  • Start date Start date
Forums New posts

Free episodes:

S

stitcherman

Guest
i just found this website i really enjoy it..

i must comment that i suggest all take a objective look at the moon landing. it is my contention that it was faked. definetly.

"the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge" steven hawking
 
The moon landings were quite real. Proudest moments of the 20th century, which will not likely be equalled in our lifetimes. The notion that the landings were staged or hoaxed is right up there with the Holocaust denial nonsense. It's not like you could somehow fake the liftoff of an Apollo spacecraft, for crying out loud. Let's close this thread out right now, or cluster it together with a Flat Earth Society "discussion".

dB
 
I don't know for a fact that the USA did land on the moon - the only 'evidence' I've seen are the books and photos kindly supplied by the NASA public relations machine - on balance, I think that the USA probably did land on the moon.

But, for the record, I do think that it is possible to fake such a thing - the question is how can you verify NASA claims?

The answer is - you can't. You have to have faith in what NASA is presenting as the facts and hope that they are telling you the truth.
 
Don't forget to mention film, photos, moon rocks and documents along with NASA (which includes astronauts, technicians etc., none of which say it was hoaxed. Even if there is a few I don't know about, there's way more testimony to the contrary). It's no more faith than concluding dinosaurs once existed as far as I'm concerned. And that lacks eyewitness testimony. The evidence that we have been to the moon on all reported occasions is simply better than the rhetorical questions used by the hoax theorist. It reminds me of someone once saying, "Why would OJ kill Ron and Nicole, right outside his babies' home!?", implying that because they didn't know the answer, that means he didn't do it. The same tactics are used in the NASA moon landing ordeal. Someone doesn't understand that the flag was propped up, and declares that NASA was soooo stupid as to let this slip in their hoax. Allowing wind to blow a flag etc.

In the end the sides aren't equal in levels of blind faith at all.
 
A.LeClair said:
Don't forget to mention film, photos, moon rocks and documents along with NASA (which includes astronauts, technicians etc., none of which say it was hoaxed. Even if there is a few I don't know about, there's way more testimony to the contrary). It's no more faith than concluding dinosaurs once existed as far as I'm concerned. And that lacks eyewitness testimony. The evidence that we have been to the moon on all reported occasions is simply better than the rhetorical questions used by the hoax theorist. It reminds me of someone once saying, "Why would OJ kill Ron and Nicole, right outside his babies' home!?", implying that because they didn't know the answer, that means he didn't do it. The same tactics are used in the NASA moon landing ordeal. Someone doesn't understand that the flag was propped up, and declares that NASA was soooo stupid as to let this slip in their hoax. Allowing wind to blow a flag etc.

In the end the sides aren't equal in levels of blind faith at all.
Click to expand...

Okay, all fine points.

Now, why isn't the case for the UFO reality proven?
 
Wow! I hope this thread doesn't close! After all, it is conspiracy "theories", is it not? I love reading the different opinions, questions leading to more questions. For me it is not about the goal or "answer", it's about the proccess. I am an artist, analyzing shadow and light, color and composition and I find a lot of interest in all views of the moon landing theories.

P.s. Luv The Paracast...inspiration for future projects!
 
I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the FIRST moon landing was faked simply because the science required for it wasn't quite ready yet but from mission 2 onward there's no question of the authenticity.
 
CapnG said:
I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the FIRST moon landing was faked simply because the science required for it wasn't quite ready yet but from mission 2 onward there's no question of the authenticity.
Click to expand...

I am convinced that some of the photographic record has been manipulated - but I'm not sure that this is proof that the whole thing was faked.

I'm prepared to 'go along' with the 'consensual' reality - but I won't be at all surprised if, at some later date, an alternative 'truth' is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

I'll be much happier when another country successfully lands a man on the moon - my money is on China - okay, that could be faked too, but it'll be interesting to see how NASA responds...
 
Hi All,

Rick Deckard said:
If you lap up the 'official' version of reality then you have more problems than I - you just don't realise it yet.
Click to expand...

To throw in another "screw ball" twist in here regarding the Moon. Steven Greer, has often stated that on the dark side of the moon are alien / ET installations on the surface. Not from an archaelogical perspective ala 2010 a Space Oydessy, but an active and habitated outpost etc...

We have no proof of this either, just the face value of Greer amongest others tossing that out as a dicey topic.

So if the US or any other future State government wants to weaponize the moon as a platform against the Earth or the solar system at large. Such alien / ET neighbors if they do exist on the lunar environ won't put up with it. That could be the pre-cursor mock up of the hostile nemesis ET that Hollywood has been pushing on us for decades. Done as a spin-job for all Earthlings to stand as one to repeal such a new found threat. What horse pucky.
 
Atrayo said:
...on the dark side of the moon...
Click to expand...

<pedantry>
You mean't the far-side of the moon, right? ;D
</pedantry>

Sorry about that, I seem to share this 'peeve' with one of the recent paracast guests - can't remember who...

One of my other 'pet peeves', which I heard again the other day, is when people ask "do you believe in UFOs?" - when what they really mean is "do you believe that some UFOs might be ET craft?"

Oh, and for the record, I don't care if you say "Doctor Spock" or "Mister Spock" ;D

[Edited (again!) for grammar :)]
 
Now, why isn't the case for the UFO reality proven?
Click to expand...


It is to some. Those people who don't think ufos are real suffer from the same thing people who think OJ is innocent suffer from. I think I touched on that in one of my replies here.
 
A.LeClair said:
It is to some. Those people who don't think ufos are real suffer from the same thing people who think OJ is innocent suffer from. I think I touched on that in one of my replies here.
Click to expand...

Well, what I meant was that people are not consistent in their demand for evidence/proof - they accept everything that NASA tells them, but question similar quality evidence/proof from non-NASA sources. The truth is tempered by the credibility of the messenger rather than the message...

Why do people readily accept that the USA landed a man on the moon, but don't accept that the Earth is being visited by ETIs? IMO, the evidence supporting the ET case is no less convincing than the evidence supporting the moon landings, so why do people accept one and dismiss the other?
 
A.LeClair said:
It is to some. Those people who don't think ufos are real suffer from the same thing people who think OJ is innocent suffer from. I think I touched on that in one of my replies here.
Click to expand...

Now please elaborate this statement, why would this be so?
 
Back
Top