Nostradamus predicted the moon landing hoax

[acidhead]

Firstly, it's 'Likely', not 'Lucky'.

As near as I know we don't send satellites around the moon (what would be the point). Also, that the orbital photos that we do have are taken during high speed laps (they're not synchronous with the moon) so, by definition, they're not going to be crystal clear images. If someone has more information, I'll stand corrected.

Maybe the moon-hoax believers should chip in on a Hi-Res lunar synchronous satellite and prove the rest of the world wrong?

Edit: ...but, of course that would be impossible since we don't have the technology to go to the moon. It's a classic Catch-22.

The current Google Moon uses images from the Clementine mission in 1994.

Edited July 29, 2014 by acidhead

[flyingswan]

But to be perfectly honest I believe everybody here would love to see clear photos of the landing sites. It's been a long time and it would be super cool to see updated photos of the mission of the century. I anticipate those photos just as much as you or anybody. They will be like real-time photographs taken back in time. There also may be some changes to the existing environment.

If you want to see the pictures taken from orbit during the last few years, this is the place to start:

http://featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu/

[postbaguk]

Nostradamus: busted

Moon landing conspiracy: busted

End thread.

End thread?

Will never happen

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=227095entry4295580

[Thorvir]

End thread?

Will never happen

http://www.unexplain...5

It should have nearly 76 pages ago.

[DONTEATUS]

Its getting quite smelly right?

[rambaldi]

Its getting quite smelly right?

Turbs has been beating this dead horse for so long, it has been reduced to dust and bones, there is no longer any smell left

[Thorvir]

Then this thread should end.

[willowdreams]

Then this thread should end.

[turbonium]

Sad??? I find it amusing that the quatrains of Nostradamus can be interpreted to trash your moon hoax claim.

I'm still waiting to see such an interpretation, actually.

Yours didn't come close to it.

[turbonium]

As long as there is no proof of a hoax, there is nothing for Nostradamus to predict !

His predictions have yet to fully unfold. Should that happen one day, it will hardly be "nothing"!

[Thorvir]

His predictions have yet to fully unfold. Should that happen one day, it will hardly be "nothing"!

Doesn't that figure.

His "predictions" can only be revealed AFTER an event happens. Typical hogwash. Codswallop. Hooey.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Thorvir Hrothgaard

[Merc14]

His predictions have yet to fully unfold. Should that happen one day, it will hardly be "nothing"!

He's baaack!

[Czero 101]

His predictions have yet to fully unfold. Should that happen one day, it will hardly be "nothing"!

Cz

[turbonium]

You really think that by running a contest to design a lander that could simulate landing from lunar orbit, then getting back to lunar orbit, is an admission that Grumman that their Apollo lander could not possibly have landed on the moon? The purpose of the competition was to stimulate technological advances, and to inspire and engage the public. It was not to land and return 2 astronauts, a LM, and lunar samples.

That's quite an excuse, really....

Grumman supposedly built a lunar lander over 40 years ago, and didn't need lunar lander contests..

But now, they want to build a real lander.

.

Do you think the cost of getting them all to the moon to be tested might be a little prohibitive? Thus, if they are not going to the moon, then where can they possibly test them, except here on Earth? And if they are going to be tested here on Earth, is it not a reasonable assumption that they should actually work here on Earth?

Except in the case of your magical LM!

Look at it this way. If the LM had been designed and tested to land on Earth, you would be saying "Why did they over-engineer it to be able to land on Earth, if it was only ever going to land on the moon? They must have planned to land it on Earth, therefore the missions MUST have been faked!"

No.

If we had built such a craft, it would have only supported your claim. That's a no-brainer!.

Yeah, and if we had a supersonic passenger plane 40 years ago, we'd have one now.

If we wanted one now, we could build one now..

Not like a lunar lander, which we DO want, but can't build ...even now.

How would NASA carry on developing lander technology when congress didn't give them money to do that? Should they have misappropriated funds allocated to the Space Shuttle programme? Why would Grumman carry on investing their own money doing that when they had no potential customers?

They spent money on the reality, which was the Shuttle, instead of pursuing the fantasy, which was Apollo..and its phony 'lunar lander' called the LM.

[turbonium]

Doesn't that figure.

His "predictions" can only be revealed AFTER an event happens. Typical hogwash. Codswallop. Hooey.

His predictions have been revealed, after, and BEFORE, an event happens. I've already explained this, many times.

[turbonium]

You really didn't answer my question:

- Why didn't the Soviets tell the world that it was a hoax ?

They had their own moonlanding programme (the present Soyuz spacecraft was developed for that), they knew about the "dangerous" Van Allen belt, they had samples from the moon (Luna 16, 20 and 24), they were monitoring the US, they even had US moon samples to compare with their own and they had one of the most effective intelligence services in the world, yet they never thought it was a hoax.

Doesn't that tell you something ?

Same as their silence on JFK tells me - the Cold War was nothing like they told us.

An enemy would jump at JFK's assassination, like wolves .

[Abaddonire]

His predictions have been revealed, after, and BEFORE, an event happens. I've already explained this, many times.

Give an example of a Nostradamus prediction as opposed to a postdiction, please.

Otherwise admit it for the superstitious nonsense that it is.

[turbonium]

Give an example of a Nostradamus prediction as opposed to a postdiction, please.

Otherwise admit it for the superstitious nonsense that it is.

He predicted the moon landings are a hoax, which means it would be a past event.

He also predicted the hoaxed moon landings will eventually be revealed, and causes a great scandal. This would be a future event, obviously.

[Abaddonire]

He predicted the moon landings are a hoax, which means it would be a past event.

He also predicted the hoaxed moon landings will eventually be revealed, and causes a great scandal. This would be a future event, obviously.

Nope. You simply used the hammer of ignorance to bash Nostradamus' vague ramblings to fit a crackpot theory. Got any other examples of Nostradamus' "accurate" predictions? Anything he got right ahead of time? Anything at all? No? No track record? No history of anything other than postdictions?

[turbonium]

Nope. You simply used the hammer of ignorance to bash Nostradamus' vague ramblings to fit a crackpot theory. Got any other examples of Nostradamus' "accurate" predictions? Anything he got right ahead of time? Anything at all? No? No track record? No history of anything other than postdictions?

So far, I'm only aware of these 4 quatrains, denoting this specific event.

And that's the issue I'm trying to discuss here. Nothing else is relevant.

[willowdreams]

So far, I'm only aware of these 4 quatrains, denoting this specific event.

And that's the issue I'm trying to discuss here. Nothing else is relevant.

you are not aware of any quatrain denoting this specific event. YOU decided how to translate these quatrains, YOU are the only one to see it. has not been proved even by a percentage.

It is just you basically repeating what you translate over and over and over and over as if repeating it makes it true.

so basically nothing of nostradamus has been proven to be factual, and your translation, the least factual of them all.

however, i do like your 'spunk'... you bite into a peice of meat on a bone and even after the meat is ate and the bone nothing more then slivers.. you still hang on to those slivers as if the meat is still there.

[turbonium]

you are not aware of any quatrain denoting this specific event. YOU decided how to translate these quatrains, YOU are the only one to see it. has not been proved even by a percentage.

It is just you basically repeating what you translate over and over and over and over as if repeating it makes it true.

so basically nothing of nostradamus has been proven to be factual, and your translation, the least factual of them all.

however, i do like your 'spunk'... you bite into a peice of meat on a bone and even after the meat is ate and the bone nothing more then slivers.. you still hang on to those slivers as if the meat is still there.

He named two of NASA's first three manned space missions as objects in the heavens.

He said one was Mercury. And it cannot be the planet Mercury.

The other was called the Sun, but cannot be the real Sun. He refers to Hermes, which gives us Apollo, the Greek Sun god.

Both names, as merely incredible luck? Fat chance.

This is 400 years before manned flight even began!!.

If you'd like to explain this, go right ahead...

[postbaguk]

That's quite an excuse, really....

Grumman supposedly built a lunar lander over 40 years ago, and didn't need lunar lander contests..

But now, they want to build a real lander.

Which part of the LM didn't work? What proof have you got apart from... well, looking at it, you don't have any proof. Just innuendo.

If the LM could not possibly have worked, then all the engineers at Grumman who worked on it and were convinced it could wrok were clearly "in on it". So much for the grand conspiracy being comparmentalized and limited to just a handful of NASA top brass.

.

Except in the case of your magical LM!

If it had flown and landed on Earth, that really would have been magical. In a vacuum, in 1/6th g? A triumph of engineering, but Newton's Laws are hardly magical. I admit, they must seem magical to some of the hoax fraternity.

No.

If we had built such a craft, it would have only supported your claim. That's a no-brainer!.

Nonsense. There isn't a single piece of Apollo hardware that you think supports the claim that men landed on the moon. You've tried and failed to shred them all - even the freaking glove. You've even tried to diss the LLTV, so quite clearly, if the real LM had been able to land on Eart, you'd have been all over it like a cheap suit.

If we wanted one now, we could build one now..

Not like a lunar lander, which we DO want, but can't build ...even now.

But we do want one now )supersonic plane). Barely a year goes by without another company coming up with an idea for a supersonic craft. Different ideas have been proposed for years, none come to fruition. If they wanted one now, they could build a replica of Concorde, according to Turbologic.

They spent money on the reality, which was the Shuttle, instead of pursuing the fantasy, which was Apollo..and its phony 'lunar lander' called the LM.

The reality was, Nixon pulled the plug on the last 3 Apollo missions. No more money, no continued development. That's the real answer to your original question.

What's this Turbs? You've totally ignored the glove comparison? Mr Mythbusters versus Ralph 'Wiggum'?

I don't blame you, it makes Rene look utterly incompetent.

[Peter B]

We believed we were enemies, because we only looked at it from the surface. It goes deeper.

Look at the Gulf of Tonkin, the sinking of the USS Maine, the Reichstag fire, and many more events. They were CONTRIVED EVENTS.

Well, let's look at each briefly.

Gulf of Tonkin: Yes, seemingly contrived. And the USA committed troops in large numbers. And what did the Soviets and Chinese do? Supply arms to the North Vietnamese: hardly the act of nations behaving like the Cold War was contrived.

Sinking of the USS Maine: The claim that the sinking was contrived is hardly a consensus among historians. Do you definitely rule out the possibility, for example, of a coal bunker fire causing an accident?

The Reichstag fire: As with the sinking of the USS Maine, the theory that the Reichstag fire was contrived is hardly a consensus among historians. In any case, are you now claiming there was no conflict between Communists and Nazis on the streets of Weimar Germany?

Enemies in a Space Race do not share critical information on space radiation. That's ridiculous.

Maybe not. But since the Cold War many nations have sent satellites through the Van Allen Radiation Belts to geosynchronous orbit. Are they all pretending the Van Allen Belts are less dangerous than they really are, just to keep the USA happy? If so, who's paying for the extra shielding your theory requires them to have?

And they don't go on joint space missions in the midst of a Cold War, either! That's a joke.

So the Apollo-Soyuz mission was faked too?

And in any case, do you disagree with the concept that the level of antagonism between two countries can change over time?

[Peter B]

Well, of course the proxy wars were all communists versus democracies, in a battle for 'world supremacy'. That's my point.

And what do you think might have happened if, say, Soviet-backed blocs/parties/whatever had gained power across Western Europe, say, in the aftermath of massive protests in 1968? Would NATO and the Warsaw Pact still be facing off against each other across the Iron Curtain? Or would the newly-Communist Western European nations pull out of NATO and demand American forces leave their soil?

The Space Race was a big part of the Cold War. It was also an illusion they were in a race that is 'won' by landing the first man on the moon.

JFK announced the goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade (1960's). Afaik, the Soviets did not announce they had the same goal, correct?

No, but so what? We know now that they acted like they were in a race.

1. They launched a series of one-off missions designed to constantly one-up the Americans' announcements: the Americans announced their two-man Gemini missions so the Soviets launched a three-man mission (as previously described, probably the most dangerous manned space mission ever). The Americans announced a space walk so the Soviets did one first (which used an inflatable airlock and which almost ended in disaster). The Americans announced their first manned moon landing mission so the Soviets attempted an unmanned sample retriever mission.

2. They designed the Soyuz spacecraft specifically to be used in manned lunar landing missions.

3. They flew unmanned circumlunar missions intended to be a precursor to manned missions, but never achieved a sufficient level of success to be willing to try a manned mission.

4. They designed, built and attempted to fly the N-1 rocket, which had no purpose other than for launching a manned lunar landing mission.

5. They designed, built and flew the LK spacecraft intended to allow a man to land on the Moon.

What makes this a US-USSR 'Race to the Moon', then?

The fact that the Soviets took part, even if they didn't publicly announce it.

There's nothing unusual in this. They didn't announce any of their launches ahead of time, and only announced them if they were successful. If a launch was successful but the mission objective secret or not met, the spacecraft was simply called Kosmos.

A 'Space Race' is won by going to the moon first? Uh, space doesn't stop at the moon. Or at Mars. Or the solar system. Nobody can 'win' the Space Race. because space is infinite.

If anything, one could say it was the Soviets who 'won' the Space Race, because they sent the first man into space. At least that makes some sense - 'Space Race', meaning 'a race to be the first nation in space'.

Superb semantics on your part, and completely irrelevant. It was called the Space Race most likely because it's easy to say, which is what propagandists and newspaper editors like. Would you drop your objection if the Space Race was renamed The Race To The Moon?

Kennedy set a specific challenge, and the Soviets responded.