Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illiniblue35

Did we land on the moon?

14,116 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Czero 101

Thanks for your options.

However I will not be posting the link or the pic.

Such actions on this thread maybe deemed as flame - baiting? or trolling?

I feel certain that both you and the viewers can find the image of the footprint on the net or web.

I resolutely stand by claim.

My credibility . . . and freedom to post remains intact me thinks :-D

So in other words, you stand by your claim so much and believe in its veracity so completely, but you actively refuse to do anything to prove it.

What you are doing by this post above is trolling.

What you would be doing by posting the pic or a link to it would be actively participating in this debate and providing a source for your claim.

Thanks for letting us know what you prefer to do here... we can now ignore anything further you have to say.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

Believe what you will . . . or must?

But having been banned from posting on UM once already for flame - baiting or trolling upon this thread???

I now tread carefully - as if I am walking on glass in fact! . . . Please don't confuse the aforementioned with the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Believe what you will . . . or must?

But having been banned from posting on UM once already for flame - baiting or trolling upon this thread???

I now tread carefully - as if I am walking on glass in fact! . . . Please don't confuse the aforementioned with the moon.

Apparently you didn't learn much or anything from your previous banning, since you now seem to think that making a claim, insisting its is true / fact and then actively, purposely refusing to provide any form of support for it is something other than trolling.

Good luck with that assumption.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

NAH!

I kinda realised a while back as to who has the " CON " on this thread come debate?

Do you remember that line from the Apollo?

Those who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions; the buggy with no tyre tracks; the fake moon rocks; the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

NAH!

I kinda realised a while back as to who has the " CON " on this thread come debate?

Do you remember that line from the Apollo?

Those who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions; the buggy with no tyre tracks; the fake moon rocks; the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

If you are thinking that simply using numerous question marks in a post constitutes a debate, I really think you should refamiliarize yourself with the term. If, however, you would simply provide the picture or link to it, then we could use that term. Credibility is a lot like respect, it must be earned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

NAH!

I kinda realised a while back as to who has the " CON " on this thread come debate?

Do you remember that line from the Apollo?

Those who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions; the buggy with no tyre tracks; the fake moon rocks; the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

You're introducing more arguments into the debate... arguments we all now know you will not back up or provide any support for. That kind of behaviour is typically looked upon as trolling.

With your admitted history of being banned in the past for similar behaviour, you may wish to limit the amount of trolling you do here.

Suffice it to say, however, that since you are not willing or even able to defend your hoax beliefs (and beliefs are all they are without facts or evidence to support them) it is fairly safe to say that not many people will be jumping on your particular bandwagon.

Seriously, why would someone wish to follow another person who puts so little faith in the veracity of their claims that they will purposely refuse to do anything to prove their point...?

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

Thanks for your options.

However I will not be posting the link or the pic.

Such actions on this thread maybe deemed as flame - baiting? or trolling?

I feel certain that both you and the viewers can find the image of the footprint on the net or web.

I resolutely stand by claim.

My credibility . . . and freedom to post remains intact me thinks :-D

In other words, you won't post the link or pic because it doesn't exist. Your credibility does remain intact because most of here already knew you were a troll. Zero credibility can't go any further down.

Believe what you will . . . or must?

But having been banned from posting on UM once already for flame - baiting or trolling upon this thread???

I now tread carefully - as if I am walking on glass in fact! . . . Please don't confuse the aforementioned with the moon.

Admitting to a previous banning and current sock-puppeting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

Those who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions;

What dubious pics and transmissions? Haven't seen any yet and since you refuse to back up your claim I doubt I ever will.

the buggy with no tyre tracks;

already well explained. Not our fault you don't understand the explanation.

the fake moon rocks;

There are none. I'd ask you to back up your claim but we all know how much credibility you have already.

the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

Irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

. . . the question DID WE LAND ON THE MOON will never be answered truly. . . . its debate come argument will never be WON.

I don't know if you knew it or not, but Mr. Reality has already said that the moon hoax folks have lost the war.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
Gentlemen, I have to say that I am disappointed with these posts, both in my role as a moderator and as a participant in this thread.

I apologise unreservedly.

My only excuse is that indeed, the post was intended as humour. I shall try to refrain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Jackdaw, just to clarify.. You made these claims:

And not with fluttering flags or fake moon rocks or touched up photos or a moon buggy that has no tracks or footprints around it?... as to how it got there or was built etc etc etc

...

And please explain why there is a pic on the net or web of a footprint that does not match the so called landing on the moon and the giant step for mankind?

i.e. differing tread pattern to the so called astronauts?

But now, you are withdrawing those claims as you have no evidence you are willing to produce here, on the grounds that the images are "flame-baiting or trolling"? How could they be, if genuine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BertL

Thanks for your options.

However I will not be posting the link or the pic.

Such actions on this thread maybe deemed as flame - baiting? or trolling?

I feel certain that both you and the viewers can find the image of the footprint on the net or web.

I resolutely stand by claim.

My credibility . . . and freedom to post remains intact me thinks :-D

"Hey so there's this pic that shows that the Moon landings are fake, but I'm not gonna show it. But it's definitely there and it's definitely real! I'm just not gonna post it because... something with trolling."

Logic at its finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrbusdriver

NAH!

I kinda realised a while back as to who has the " CON " on this thread come debate?

Do you remember that line from the Apollo?

Those who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions; the buggy with no tyre tracks; the fake moon rocks; the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

Please elaborate...(that means "provide details and evidence")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

NAH!

I kinda realised a while back as to who has the " CON " on this thread come debate?

Do you remember that line from the Apollo?

T

What "line from the Apollo"? What does this mean?

hose who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions; the buggy with no tyre tracks; the fake moon rocks; the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

As the vast majority have, people will learn about APollo; what happeened, how it happened, and they will also learn that...

1. There are no dubious space pictures.

2. There are no dubious transmissions (save those that were obviously faked)

3. There was no "buggy" that left no tire tracks.

4. There are no fake Moon rocks...only about 800 pounds of real ones.

5. The Nixon Administration did not fund the space program. Congress did that. It was Nixon himself that decided to scrap the program. And Congress of course, stopped the funding. This most certainly had alot to do with his desiring his own space legacy, but it also had alot to do with the money he was spending on the war. Of course, the only legacy he would get was Watergate and his resignation in disgrace and deftly escaping impeachment.

If you're here, which it seems you are in spurious fashion, then the opportunity for you to avail yourself of the resources present here, and to indulge in the real purpose of it--learning something about that which you obviously know little--is right here.

We welcome question and doubts. They can all be addressed and answered here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

There you go again pulling fantasy out of thin air with the expectation of thinking that people with common sense will believe you. I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the Apollo moon flights, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with a moon hoax and yet, they confirmed the United States sent men to the moon. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing hoaxed Apollo moon flights to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they confirmed that we landed men on the moon..

They were totally silent on the JFK conspiracy, despite being such an easy target for our 'sworn enemy' to pounce on!!

How do you explain that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

They were totally silent on the JFK conspiracy, despite being such an easy target for our 'sworn enemy' to pounce on!!

How do you explain that?

What does that have to do with the Apollo moon landings and the fact the Soviet Union confirmed that the United States landed men on the moon? The fact of the matter is, we have sent men to the moon and the moon hoax folks have failed to provide s shred of evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps, the is why we have that "Magic 94."

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

What does that have to do with the Apollo moon landings and the fact the Soviet Union confirmed that the United States landed men on the moon?

Absolutely nothing at all. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thunkerdrone

excellent interview of Jay Weidner yesterday from Red Ice Radio:

http://rediceradio.net/radio/2012/RIR-120426-jweidner-hr1.mp3

Jay Weidner - Hour 1 - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings

April 26, 2012

Jay Weidner is an author, filmmaker and hermetic scholar, considered to be a "modern-day Indiana Jones" for his ongoing worldwide quests to find clues to mankind's spiritual destiny. He returns to Red Ice to talk about his film, Kubrick's Odyssey. Jay presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. Weidner also tells how Kubrick's film, The Shining is the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

excellent interview of Jay Weidner yesterday from Red Ice Radio:

http://rediceradio.net/radio/2012/RIR-120426-jweidner-hr1.mp3

Jay Weidner - Hour 1 - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings

April 26, 2012

Jay Weidner is an author, filmmaker and hermetic scholar, considered to be a "modern-day Indiana Jones" for his ongoing worldwide quests to find clues to mankind's spiritual destiny. He returns to Red Ice to talk about his film, Kubrick's Odyssey. Jay presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. Weidner also tells how Kubrick's film, The Shining is the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

Should I even bother listening to this? The last time I listened to an interview with Weidner I had a pretty severe reaction to his idiocy...

Um... after just 13 minutes into this I can tell that Jay Weidner is a complete nut case. It took less time than that for me to realize actually, but I decided to pause at this point. I'll listen to the rest of this silliness though, just because I have nothing better to do right now and can use a good laugh while I relax after a long day at work.

Edit... Finished it... it was worse than I originally thought.

Really? You suggested people listen this nonsense? If Jay were here right now, my only response would be this:

:blink:

Why should I think this interview with that nut case would be any less painful to listen to than the previous one?

I'm honestly asking here.

What does he offer now that is different from the previous drivel?

Edit to add... the prospect of listening to Weidner's interview reminds me of another Kubrick film...

clockwork_big.jpg

I'm not joking. It really was that bad.

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

BooNy, I really wish you would stop beating around the bush and tell us how you REALLY feel about Mr. Weidner... :rofl:

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

excellent interview of Jay Weidner yesterday from Red Ice Radio:

http://rediceradio.n...weidner-hr1.mp3

Jay Weidner - Hour 1 - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings

April 26, 2012

The Shining is the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

WTF?? In the first place, The Shining was written by Stephen King. In the second place.. WTF?? What, a haunted movie set took over Kubrick's mind and caused him to murder some actors? This is so ridiculous, it is telling me not to bother listening to the audio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

BooNy, I really wish you would stop beating around the bush and tell us how you REALLY feel about Mr. Weidner... :rofl:

Cz

He sugar coats a lot, doesn't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

BooNy, I really wish you would stop beating around the bush and tell us how you REALLY feel about Mr. Weidner... :rofl:

Cz

:lol:

And I really wish that I had listened to my own advice instead of listening to this new interview which is equally filled with complete and total nonsense... Why am I listening to this crap? I mean really... this guy is completely nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Well, Weidner's "theory" has been around for a while. Here's a January 2010 Discovery News article discussing it:

Faked Moon Landings and Kubrick's 'The Shining'

Everyone at Discovery Space loves a good space conspiracy theory, from Ray Villard's awesome post about NASA airbrushing out moon cities to Ian's weekly battle against whatever the latest cosmic doomsday craze happens to be. We all know these "theories" are just so much bunk, but we can't look away.

To quote John Hodgman: “Truth is stranger than fiction, but never as strange as lies." We love strange things, and the following conspiracy theory is one of the strangest (yet oddly compelling) ones I've ever heard. Are you ready?

The U.S. government hired director Stanley Kubrick to film the fake moon landing and, to protect the lives of himself and his wife, he made 1980's "The Shining" as a veiled confession of his part in the secret project. This would have seen Kubrick filming the landing conjointly with "2001: A Space Odyssey."

That's the argument Internet conspiracy theorist Jay Weidner makes on his webpage "Secrets of the Shining." Yes, all the new age advertisements, Egyptian fonts and Alex Grey illustrations along the rail make this a very hard sell on the discerning reader. But the whole theory (like the best of them) is strangely fascinating. Weidnere grasps onto various bits of imagery in the film and deviations from Stephen King's novel as Kubrick revealing his secrets to the unsuspecting audience.

The basic premise is that, in the film, the protagonist Jack Torrance and his son Danny both represent different aspects of Kubrick, the pragmatist and the artistic visionary. Jack (Kubrick's practical side) makes a deal with the manager of the Overlook Hotel (America) to protect it through the coming winter (the Cold War). Weidner also points out that the Overlook, like America, is new, garish and built on the bones of Indians.

All of this builds on the notion that the moon landings were faked as a show of strength to the Soviet Union. But Weidner waves his crackpot flag a little more fervently by stating it was all necessary to "hide the advanced U.S. saucer technology from the Soviet Union."

Consider the following additional evidence:

Room 237: In King's novel, the haunted room is numbered 217. In the movie, it's 237. Why? "Because the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 237,000 miles." It's actually 238,857 miles, but close enough, right? Weidner proposes that the haunted room represents the filming of the faked moon landing itself. "It's just like pictures in a book, Danny. It isn't real."

The Twins: You probably remember the creepy twins from the film, the slain children of the previous Overlook caretaker. In King's novel, however, there was only one slain child. Weidner insists that Kubrick's alteration is a nod to NASA's previous Gemini (Get it? twins!) program. Given the genuinely creepy nature of this scene, you might not have noticed that Danny is in fact wearing an "Apollo 11" sweater. It's easy to get caught up on that last little factoid. View it here.

sweater.jpg

The Bears: The film features a large number of stuffed bears and, in one disturbing scene, Danny witnesses a man cavorting in a hotel room with a stranger in a horrifying bear suit. (Sheer nightmare juice!) Follow the conspiracy argument and all these bears, naturally, represent the looming Soviet threat.

The Typewriter: In one scene, the film reveals that Jack has been typing "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again. In one of Weidner's more, um, far-fetched moments, he proposes that "all" should actually be read "A11" for Apollo 11.

The Dead Guy: In King's novel, Danny sends a psychic distress signal to the hotel's elderly black chef Dick Haloran -- and Haloran lives to escape the Overlook with the child and his mother. In the movie, however, the Overlook uses Jack to kill Haloran pretty much the second he arrives on the scene to save everyone. The reason for this alteration? Weidner insists that Kubrick wanted to tell the world that he had naively tried to tip someone off about his role in the moon landing hoax -- and his doing so resulted in their murder. Worried for his own life and that of his wife, Kubrick had to reveal the secret both widely and clandestinely to protect himself.

So there you have it. Are you won over by any of this and, if so, do you agree that "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" actually reveals the secrets of the Kennedy assassination cover-up?

Either way, I'll never view this film the same way again. You can view the original film trailer here.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Oh... the pain...

Reading that was just as bad as listening to the interview. Or maybe I'm feeling them both equally because I just need to take a shower afterwards. I don't know, but I do know one thing... that guy is bat guano crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.