Illegal psychological experiments on Sheffield?

[RootsBooster]

How would you respond to these claims?

 

http://www.envasion.net/2002/moon.html

 

"in the 1960's automobiles and airplanes were still in their infancy. every attempt at manned spaceflight had been a colossal failure. and yet, they want us to believe that NASA was able to make a great stride forward and fly to the moon with not one but three perfect flights - a feat that forty years later we have yet to duplicate. no nation had the technology necessary to land on the moon. the landing crafts and spacesuits were not yet designed to withstand the radiation and extreme temperatures. america didn't even have the technology for direct communication with a space ship, and yet despite these seemingly insurmountable hurdles, NASA safely and successfully landed three crews on the lunar surface and broadcast the feed back to televisions in every living room.

 

people all over the world found it hard to believe that NASA could land a man on the moon, so NASA produced evidence, and that evidence will be their undoing. millions of people watched the first moonwalk on TV. they sat in awe as the american flag fluttered gently in the breeze, although there is no air in the vacuum, atmosphere-less surface of the moon.* none of the still pictures match up with the film footage. the reason that the video quality was so bad was that news crews were only allowed to film the footage projected onto a large screen inside of NASA."

 

I'd say it falls flat on it's face in the first few words:

""in the 1960's automobiles and airplanes were still in their infancy"

The first automobile was created in the 1600's

[dosxuk]

How would you respond to these claims?

 

http://www.envasion.net/2002/moon.html

 

From that very same page...

i am not an expert in radiation or physics. what i am an expert in is conspiracies, and the moon landing has "FAKE!" written all over it.

 

OK, so the author admits he doesn't have any expert knowledge of the subject, however, he's quite happy to state

i can give you dozens of scientific reasons to prove that man never landed on the moon. i can lay out at great length what radiation and extreme temperatures would have done to any astronaut. i could explain how the laws of physics, gravity, and photography could not have produced any of the "proof" that NASA has released

 

Just for clarity, he's "not an expert in physics" yet he can "explain how the laws of physics could not have produced any of the "proof" that NASA has released".

 

The rest of the article is full of such nonsense. For example how he says that every single photo is perfect. Does he not consider the fact that only the usable photos will have been released? If it took 20 good shots to get one good one, would NASA really release all 20, or would they just release the good one?

 

He concludes with

if the only evidence of america's flight to the moon is false, and the possibility that NASA could have conducted a lunar landing is slim, they add up to only one thing. man has yet to set foot on the moon.

carefully ignoring the fact that photos are not the only evidence of the flight, by a long way. There's video, there's transcripts of recieved data, there's the fact that amatuer radio enthusiasts could pick up the signals, there's the vehicles and equipment still on the moon today, and there's the minor issue of the several kilos of Moon rocks which have a composition not possible to find on the Earth.

 

Either we built a massive conspiracy to send automated probes to the moon and plant the equipment and instruments, then return with a load of rocks, while transmitting audio and data from the path of the spacecraft immitating human occupants, an endeavour many more times complicated and prone to failure than actually sending people up there, or we set foot on the Moon.

[Royston1]

As a kid I read a book called The People Shapers by Vance Packard. part of it was about performing social experiments on the masses and on individuals. This is quite an old book now but what I read still haunts me today.

With the use of TV's, CCTV, Radio, Control over the water supply (more over what goes in to it) control over food supplies, etc, etc, it seems more likely than ever that some one some where will be performing some experiment or another on the masses or on individuals, either rogue groups of scientists or sanctioned scientists from which ever country.

 

I find it terrifying to think people are capable of such terrible things but the more crazy things get the more obvious it seems that some one is playing us all like a fiddle.

 

My Friend thirty years or maybe more: in one of the London's underground tube Station some Scientist with the permission of the government was to expose some form of virus into the tube station and in doing so; a day was set to see if this airborne virus would have effect upon those who were living within London? In my opinion it was stupid: why! Commuter's from hundreds of miles would be infected with this Virus. Scientists were waiting to receive information from both family doctors and also Hospitals there was an epidemic of people suffering from flu like symptoms: the virus was to last much longer than expected. If it were not for the freedom of information act we would never know about this Virus? It was an experiment Just to see if something like anthrax could possibly be brought down into the tube station by some terrorist and released. The Virus supposedly harmless except for a few mild dizzy spells were to try and see if the antidote of which they had would be sufficient enough to cope with the Virus: You know how stupid we people are: most of us would not bother seeing a doctor or Hospital and would either die or ride it out? it was something of a failure: There are many things which carry on that we the public at large never know about; we are lab rats but not caged

[Phanerothyme]

My Friend thirty years or maybe more: in one of the London's underground tube Station some Scientist with the permission of the government was to expose some form of virus into the tube station and in doing so; a day was set to see if this airborne virus would have effect upon those who were living within London? In my opinion it was stupid: why! Commuter's from hundreds of miles would be infected with this Virus. Scientists were waiting to receive information from both family doctors and also Hospitals there was an epidemic of people suffering from flu like symptoms: the virus was to last much longer than expected. If it were not for the freedom of information act we would never know about this Virus? It was an experiment Just to see if something like anthrax could possibly be brought down into the tube station by some terrorist and released. The Virus supposedly harmless except for a few mild dizzy spells were to try and see if the antidote of which they had would be sufficient enough to cope with the Virus: You know how stupid we people are: most of us would not bother seeing a doctor or Hospital and would either die or ride it out? it was something of a failure: There are many things which carry on that we the public at large never know about; we are lab rats but not caged

 

That's all broadly true. Porton Down got up to plenty of other nefarious behaviour in 'defence of the realm'.

[PaliRichard]

But even if we could see material, like the reflector, it still doesn't mean man walked on the moon.

I guess it's pretty hard to prove anything either way.

 

I'll look up some reasons why people think man didn't walk on moon.

 

 

I realised that after I posted it, sorry for contributing absolutely nothing!

 

I am enjoying reading it though.

 

Actually, just a quick afterthought, ifwe can see lunar buggies from the earth it would be a reasonable assumption to think man had been there wouldn't it? It seems to me rather too elaborate a hoax to go to the trouble of sending buggies up there just on the off chance we can see them from the earth.

[barleycorn]

From that very same page...

 

 

OK, so the author admits he doesn't have any expert knowledge of the subject, however, he's quite happy to state

 

 

Just for clarity, he's "not an expert in physics" yet he can "explain how the laws of physics could not have produced any of the "proof" that NASA has released".

 

The rest of the article is full of such nonsense. For example how he says that every single photo is perfect. Does he not consider the fact that only the usable photos will have been released? If it took 20 good shots to get one good one, would NASA really release all 20, or would they just release the good one?

 

He concludes with

 

carefully ignoring the fact that photos are not the only evidence of the flight, by a long way. There's video, there's transcripts of recieved data, there's the fact that amatuer radio enthusiasts could pick up the signals, there's the vehicles and equipment still on the moon today, and there's the minor issue of the several kilos of Moon rocks which have a composition not possible to find on the Earth.

 

Either we built a massive conspiracy to send automated probes to the moon and plant the equipment and instruments, then return with a load of rocks, while transmitting audio and data from the path of the spacecraft immitating human occupants, an endeavour many more times complicated and prone to failure than actually sending people up there, or we set foot on the Moon.

 

Some would say it would be easier to just to send a few guys to the moon, probably cheaper too...

 

 

jb

[vResistance]

 

I realised that after I posted it, sorry for contributing absolutely nothing!

 

I am enjoying reading it though.

 

Actually, just a quick afterthought, ifwe can see lunar buggies from the earth it would be a reasonable assumption to think man had been there wouldn't it? It seems to me rather too elaborate a hoax to go to the trouble of sending buggies up there just on the off chance we can see them from the earth.

 

If we could yes. I'd have though we'd have had a satellite go close enough to get pictures showing at least the bigger pieces before now. I wonder how much it would cost to send a rover to the moon to have a good look around. It would be fascinating to see it with modern equipment. An eye on the moon we could all look at on the Internet.

'Google moon "street view".. it'd be reet good.

[Halibut]

Can't believe we're still indulging the witless idiocy of the moonfakers.

[vResistance]

 

 

Not much difference really.

[Phanerothyme]

 

 

Not much difference really.

 

Good god man, if you're that unobservant then I'd seriously doubt your opinion of what is currently right under your nose, let alone something that happened on another planet 40 odd years ago.

 

Get a grip. I'm interested in how the A11 radio broadcasts were sent from the moon when there was no one there? And how come the moon rock returned from the Apollo missions wasn't fake if the missions were?

 

The thing is, you blow what little credibility you have when you splurge cack like this onto a forum.