Many still doubt the moon landings but some still think we went-heres a good ole classic movie to show how it was done/faked-capricorn one

I watched this film last night. I highly recommend it to everyone. There are two questions you should all ask- and only one is the relevant one to the truth, and it is not the one you think.

1) Did NASA land on the moon?
2) Did the USA have the capacity to fake a moon landing?

We know the USA had Hollywood. No one had landed on the moon. Using Ockham’s razor, it makes more sense that the moon landings were faked.

That's what ALL the evidence indicates.


We are talking about the Moonlandings as documented, not a moon landing.

And for that the answer is no.
Nobody did, nobody does.


This implies that you think that is would be easier to fake it than to do.
Which is silly.
It also implies that you believe that the audio-visual documentation is all the evidence there is.
Which is even sillier.

All you are telling us that like all hoaxies you don't know much about Apollo.

Ignorance is bliss, it is limited mind sets, lack of mental and social development. Frankly primitive minds, limited to their surrounding and tribalistic in nature. Unfortunately this has ramification on a lot of other matters which are classified which could come out if people were able to deal with it, but they are not.

They don't. One former NASA engineer flat out stated that the original landing was pre-recorded. He didn't say the whole thing was faked, just that the video was transmitted with no delay, meaning it must have come from Earth and not the moon.

[citation needed]

I have a question for you.

In the movie, exactly how long were they able to keep the fake mission a secret?

.

if they managed to kill Brubaker, then they would have successfully perpetrated the hoax. don't forget, this is a film, designed for theatrical effect (lying happens in films), and the chance of a Brubaker getting away in real life is zero.

This catches one in a paradox: the theatrical effect (lying, hamming it up) , i am claiming, is:
1) Brubaker makes it out alive (he never would have in real life); in addition,
2) the theatrical effect, i am claiming, does not extend to the premise of the whole film of a faked extraterrestrial planetary body landing (the film's premise is true: NASA faked the moon landings).

So, the film is lying about (1); but, it is telling the truth about (2).

This is an important point that goes to the heart of the matter: detractors will claim that the theatre (it's just a film and it lies) extends to the whole film premise (faked moon landing), not just to the faked aspect: the faking is itself a theatrical faking, a lying about the lying ROFL! But that then gets back to the very gist of the film: why? why would one produce a fake film- a film with a fake plot- about a fake moon landing? that is, why would one fake the story of an apparently REAL moon landing? Or- more pertinently- why would one produce a FAKE film of a FAKE moon landing? That is, why would one expose THE TRUTH about their FAKERY to the world? It's like murdering someone, then making a film about the murder to reveal the evidence of the murder- on which evidence in a court of law you can be convicted- and then claiming it is all fake ROFLMAO!!!!!

It makes no sense.

Ok, so they did it for revenue, you can argue- real life couldn't contain such a far-fetched story, so they had to mock it up in a studio for fantasy purposes, just like Lord of the Rings. LOL. Sounds like bullshit to me. They would be better off making a film about landing on Mars and finding aliens- sounds more intriguing to me than faking a moon landing, which could only serve the purpose of impeaching a president and/or jailing all of the superiors, and to a lesser extent the juniors, involved.

This is the great lie: the film is either WHOLLY fake or WHOLLY real.
Either:
1) Brubaker would have made it out alive to expose NASA’s faked moon landings; and,
2) NASA’s moon landings were fake.

OR

1) NASA’s moon landings were real; and,
2) There was no Brubaker because nothing was faked.



But i think this is simplisic disinfo. the best disinfo is
when you tell a half truth:

1) TRUTH: NASA faked moon landings in a film studio; and,
2) FALSE: Brubaker would have gotten away.

This is a muddying of the waters, obfuscation so people can manufacture plausible deniability. The truth gets lost in the commotion. Furher, you then claim that moon hoaxers are anti-american pro-enemy socialists LOL. Your coverup is complete. So you reframe the debate away from the plausibility of the fakings- and the USA's capacity to fake lunar landings as greater than its capacity to genuinely execute lunar landings in real life- to one of a wholly other framework: nationalism, patriotism. This is a classic diversionary tactic.

I think this is precisely what happenened and any whistleblowers were 'disappeared'. Gus Grissom comes to mind here.


i posted this question on another thread:
why would they make such a film? it seems as if the USA are front-running disclosure: set the narrative, thus if anyone releases real information about the hoax you can co-opt/frame that information into the already-released narrative/framework of mocking fake-moon landings. this seems to be a catch-all loop methodology. so US intel financed this film; it is a disinfo film, which, irony of ironies, is about THE TRUTH OF WHAT HAPPENED: faked moon landing. it is very daring. i think the same thing might have happened with those alien pics we see around, especially the mockery ones- any one of them might be a picture/figurine of a real alien, ready to be mocked should real, classified footage/pics be revealed- that way, they can subsume the pictures into the mockery narratives already put into place (forward deployed) by US intel.

now my head hurts.
:bushhitler:

1) FAKING A: faking within the film. This is ordinary faking. i.e. I fake being sick to get out of work. You can apply this to the purported moon landings: I fake landing on the moon to get out of the real work of landing on the moon LOL.
2) FAKING B: duplicitous faking. This is paradoxical faking: it is faking that you are faking it, like faking you were faking an orgasm. The double negative cancels itself out to reveal that the orgasm was really real all along LOL. So why would you fake that you faked an orgasm? It seems very odd. It is like Nixon ‘acting’ like Obama who is acting like Nixon. ROFLMAO! It’s like acting that you’re acting. Well isn’t that just plain old ordinary acting? LMAO! Where does the nesting come into it when one is acting that they’re acting? There is no conceivable difference except to pinpoint truth and veridical reality as in the moon landings. i.e. whether we really landed on the moon or not LMAO.

Capricorn One is a film about faked moon landings. That is FAKING A- ordinary, run of the mill, every day, vanilla faking. Then, however, we find out that the fakery within the film was itself fake- just making up the making up. That is FAKING B. Why would you fake a fake? It’s like faking a fake orgasm or faking a fake Mona Lisa. Wouldn’t you just fake the original? If a moon landing never happened, then you could not fake the original. But you can, for you use imagination of what it would kind of be like, just like jumping around an outback US desert, or simulated desert in a film studio- only slower. ROFLMAO! It’s like faking god: something you don’t have (unlike the Mona Lisa, which you do have), and then imagining what he would be like. A bit like remote viewing heaven LMAO. Heaven at a distance, one non-deceased hominid’s attempt to understand the afterlife before one’s time. Kind of like faking a moon landing to beat the Russian devils.
A fake fake is real, no? So perhaps Capricorn One is more instructive than first meets the eye- it could be the Holy Grail we were looking for all along. Consider this: it could be the actual evidence of the first moon landings. Forget the real McCoy, first-hand evidence of Buzz and co could be obsolete, for we are now into a new paradigm, and we have to fabricate evidence, which is fake fake (fake plused, double fake), to cancel out the fakery so that it is real again. Magically divining. So not only is the real (fake) moon landing irrelevant, this double fakery of Capricorn One is the real, GENUINE, authentic article! I am now convinced of this. But I have a problem, which the brains trust at GLP can help me along with:
did we fake-fake-real land on:
1) the moon (as NASA fake-real claims); or,
2) Mars (as Capricorn One fake-fake-real claims)?

:)

TPTB are compelled to reveal their fakery/hoaxes/FF buy their own rules. They can do this anyway they wish. They can reveal them by using mockery or reveal it them clearly to anyone that wishes to see. This is true for Apollo, Sept 11 and events like sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon bombing.
Cognitive dissonance is a marvelous thing.

Of course the NASA fanboi apologists will invent all manner of pseudo science to fit their paradigms and even forgive NASA for the highest stupidity eg "losing" the high quality, colour Apollo 11 video or something as simple as not bringing a telescopic camera along...
The Moon landing believers are the greatest bane to our modern society next to religitards.

Somewhere on a Hollywood set.

*Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and Michael Collins, climb into the Lunar Lander.*

"Just remember, Buzz," says Neil, "three spins for the moon and four for Mars."

*technicians spin the module around 3 times*

"Wow! We're not in Kansas anymore, Neil," says Buzz.

acting is faking. to fake a moon moonlanding with actors is to fake a fake. that is what happened in Capricorn One.

but the 'astronauts', Buzz, Neil, Michael were not actors- they were 'astronauts'. astronauting ≠ faking.

therefore, the astronauts- unlike the actors of Capricorn One- were not faking a fake, they were just faking. ordinary, FAKING A, not FAKING B, faking.

tell me if this is wrong.

Oh, boy! I post a 2 sentence response and you come back with a dissertation on a movie? I didn't know I was responding to a PHD in probabilities.

If you say Brubaker would not have gotten away in real life, you are basing that upon a personal opinion. So I will offer mine. Dr. Kelloway, being a knowledgeable man, weighs the consequences between having the manned space program scrapped or being exposed as a conniving douchebag and chooses the former.

See how easy that is?




Opinion




Simply unsupported by evidence. Again, an opinion.




That's it! It's called "entertainment". It happens all the time. In 1969 I was talking to a black janitor where I worked and first heard about the doubts in the black community of the moon landing. This is where movie writers get their ideas from - the pulse of the public.

IT WAS A MOVIE!





Your paragraph above your last sentence makes no sense. You are really letting this Hollywood/government connection get the best of you.

IT WAS A MOVIE!




You could probably up with a movie story yourself with that imagination.



I don't consider you a real enemy. You are just someone deceived by a lack of research which is complicated by reinforcement on CT sites. Nationalism to me is bullshit. I am definitely not a "my country - right or wrong my country" kinda guy. If you could see my USN file from 1968-69 you could know me better.



See? This is where I call bullshit. Grissom, White, and Chaffee died. The probabilities on a past event are 100%.

They died. What about that proves Grissom was a whistleblower?



They? The USA? You believe the USA made this film?





Your head probably hurts 24/7. You remind me of those guys who saw the Larry Silverstein video where he was talking about building 7, and when he said the famous words "we made the decision to pull it", all of the CT'ers around the world believed that he had been the first criminal in the history of insurance fraud to go on camera and admit to the dastardly deed while also incriminating higher-ups in the FDNY and not only did he get away from prosecution - THE INSURANCE PAID HIM OFF!!

Capricorn One was a movie. From this movie, you are willing to believe that a hoax was perpetrated upon the world but you are not willing to believe that the hoax could not be easily exposed.

Enjoy the cherries you picked.

.

The Clowns, I do believe the USA made this film- that is the only logical conclusion.

"The Watergate scandal from the early and mid-1970s also made the premise more plausible."
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

I believe Nixon would fake something like a moon landing; but, i don't believe Nixon had a clue about it- i think he was as had as the rest of them. It's possible he was in on it, i wouldn't discount that. the bottom line is that of trust, i just don't trust Nixon nor the US disinfo intelligence community. if you don't believe the USA faked the moon landings, nor were behind the Capricorn One front-running narrative-framng for possible future-disclosure-proofing, then can you tell me of some examples where you believe the US intelligence community actively participated in disinformation campaigns?

"To stay within the budget, NASA's co-operation was needed. Lazarus had a good relationship with the space agency from Futureworld. The filmmakers were thus able to obtain government equipment as props despite the negative portrayal of the space agency, including a prototype lunar module."
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

So NASA just helped someone with a film to fake a moon landing within the film- though they thought this wouldn't have a bearing on people's thoughts of that other film they made: Apollo 11 moon landing. right.

check out this MKultra twist:
"Hyams later joked, "O. J. Simpson was in it, and Robert Blake was in (Hyams' first feature) Busting. I’ve said many times: some people have AFI Lifetime Achievement awards; some people have multiple Oscars; my bit of trivia is that I’ve made films with two leading men who were subsequently tried for the first degree murder of their wives."[3]"


shit. what are the good Doctor Kelloway's statistics on that 'coincidence'- two first leading men also killing their wives.

Easy on the disinfo. Bay of Pigs planning is a good one but the difference is there is proof and admission of it. On NASA you have zero proof. No admission. What else do you require?

Don't you think the USA's enemies would have outed them by now? Or are they conveniently in on it too?

NASA has collaborated on many movies. I guess they just did not have the forethought that there were so many moonbats out there that would take a movie so seriously.

.

that's a good point; i'm not sure why the cold war foes haven't exposed the hoaxes. i suppose it's because they didn't have enough 'evidence', as you require; and one could imagine the US ridiculing any disinformation campaign, which would fall flat in the west. further, i suspect, and this i think is a more solid answer, that the US have something on the Russians. so it's a kind of blackmail game they play with each other. not sure what the USA has on the russians, but it must be big.


yeah, the bay of pigs is a good answer.

i don't think NASA will ever come clean- so i'm not looking for that. i think they'll most likely go down the secret alien/ET craft path explanation if there were a concerted effort to debunk the moon landings. they would just claim the publicly revealed info was staged to cover up ultra-secret reverse-engineered UFO craft LOL. the deception will just get weirder.

to be perfectly honest, what gives it away for me is that the USA never went back. why not? it just doesn't make sense that the USA will not be back well over 50 years later. if the chinese make it in the coming decades, it would have been 70 years since anyone got back. that's just unbelievable. further, why didn't the russians ever go there? late is better than never.


the USA is saying they are preparing for mars missions as a way to divert all of this questioning yet more decades. it's all a smokescreen.

personally, nothing surprises me. we're all fixated upon the geopolitics of these nation-state battles; but, it could very-well be the case that behind the scenes there is an alien controller species enslaving our species. the world powers know about this, so they feed us some clap-trap about moon landings and programs, etc., while they work away in secret to somehow liberate humanity from our ET overlords. this is quite plausible. sure, it is x-files-ish, but it makes more sense than believing the USA landed on the moon, and there won't be a single other attempt to do so until 70 years later, at best. that's absurd.

Sure he did and yet you provide no name or reference to back up you bullshit statement.

Pre-recorded video would not explain the live interaction with mission control including talking about current sports events that happened on each mission.

the space program was firmly under the operational authority of the military at the time of the disputed lunar missions. if you think the military has ever in its murderous history done anything that moved our human family forward then there is swill and swampland you'd probably buy, as well

Can't find this vid...?

Cliking the link - getting this answer:

The requested URL /videoplay?docid=-364883774856478814&ei=z5RMSo_ICYXqqALW_4yED​Q&q=capricorn%20one&hl=en was not found on this server. That’s all we know.

You know I believe what the public saw was faked by Kubrick. But I also believe they did go there and just couldn't show us any footage because what is up there.

Or scenario two: They did try to go there and couldn't get past the van allen belt so faked it instead..

or scenario 3: They fake filmed it, took the astronauts into heavy mind control programs and made them think they went there. The reason I say this is because after all these years they haven't gone back. Which means they can't.. also, all the footage we see from iss or nasa in general is highly suspicious in their shooting techniques. The photos look too fake to me like some guy was tasked with covering up and faking many shots from out space. And this all goes back to the lone shot of the earth they have released to the public, that apparently is the only single shot of earth they have and they keep doctoring the same photo to make is seem like there is multiple pics of the earth.

This guy is nuts but he explains it:

thanks for that video. i'm not sure if that guy is nuts or telling the truth lol. i get the impression that it might be some comedy routine where he immerses himself into society to take comedy to the world beyond the stage. it wouldn't surprise me if he comes out in a few years to claim he was hoaxing it all along- giving an example of how easy it is to hoodwink people into believing anything. this guy's credibility has to come into question, i would think. he's most likely producing comedy or paranoid. it wouldn't shock me if something like this were true; i just have a problem with this guy, he seems suspicious, he is after all a comedian.

OJ!!!

Yep a great movie if you know what you're watching.


Otherwise it's a brilliant piece of brainwashing.


This is what "they" always do. Every conspiracy theory also gets a full blown Hollywood movie that deals with that conspiracy.
So whenever you want to talk to someone about the subject, that person already knows that you got the "idea" from a silly Hollywood movie.

Brainwashing 101