Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Moon Landings Hoax

    Posted by Michael Hiteshew on July 15th, 2004 (All posts by )

    It’s time we faced the truth. The evidence is irrefutable.

     

    19 Responses to “Moon Landings Hoax”

    1. Jonathan Says:

      I can’t handle the truth.

    2. In-Cog-Nito Says:

      I’ve always wondered about that… even though the gravity of the moon is 1/6 of Earth’s, how the heck does NASA expect us to believe one podunk itty bitty little rocket on the lunar module generated enough thrust to get it back into orbit??? I mean come on, it took a Saturn V rocket with millions of pounds of thrust to get 3 astronauts into Earth’s orbit. And they expect us to believe this? See, here on Earth, they have to put on a show since we can see what’s going on. So they shoot a huge piece of fire and smoke into the sky. But after that, we have to believe whatever they show us on “NASA-cam”. So they can go with fire and smoke “lite”. Who do they think we are, suckers??? Sheesh…

    3. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      In-Cog,

      Exactly. But it would also depend on the gamma factor. See here. Clear now? Good.

    4. Sylvain Galineau Says:

      The Moon is a socially-constructed myth created as a prop for the American supremacy propaganda machine.

    5. michael parker Says:

      It was obvious even before they took off that the “moon landings” were going to be faked. They took food with them, which they would only have needed if they were going to land in the desert. Everybody knows the moon is made of perfectly edible and mostly tasty cheese. Cheddar, mostly, with some wensleydale here and there I believe.

    6. Sylvain Galineau Says:

      Besides, in a post-modern world, there is no need for the moon concept.

      Except in a relative sense, of course.

    7. Jonathan Says:

      Hey man, don’t marginalize my discourse. I was doing better before you guys started explaining with yer facts ‘n’ stuff. I say we ask Michael Moore. He wouldn’t, like, lie to us or anything.

    8. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Jon,
      Your establishment propaganda *is* discounted because sheeple like you can’t deal with truth. Truth like Theory No 5.

    9. Jonathan Says:

      Good thinking for a change, Mike. That’s using the old AFDB.

    10. Jay Manifold Says:

      Then there’s this vital question:

      Safety on the moon: The surface of the moon is un-researched. There could be quicksand and the astronaut could just disappear in it. Why did the astronauts not have a cable attached to each other as a precaution so one could pull the other out of such a dilemma?

      I think a cable should be attached to the questioner’s head in order to pull it out, but that’s another story.

    11. DSpears Says:

      Nerd alert:

      “even though the gravity of the moon is 1/6 of Earth’s, how the heck does NASA expect us to believe one podunk itty bitty little rocket on the lunar module generated enough thrust to get it back into orbit??? I mean come on, it took a Saturn V rocket with millions of pounds of thrust to get 3 astronauts into Earth’s orbit.”

      Ok first the moon has 1/6 the gravity of the earth so lifting a given mass would take 1/6 as much force. But, the Lunar lander was only a fraction of the mass of the entire spacecraft since most of the mass of any rocket is fuel. Let’s say 1/10th the mass since I don’t have any numbers in front of me. So just those two facts alone mean that the propulsion system on the lunar lander would only have to be 1/60 the size. Now take into account that the Saturn V rockets had to overcome the air resistance in Earth’s atmosphere, creating drag proportional to the velocity squared, power required increasing by the velocity cubed. At 64,000 mph it takes a LOT of thrust to push through that. On the moon there is no air resistance. Finally, the distance to reach orbit would be 1/6 as high on the moon, requiring 1/6 less amount of fuel to reach orbit, where engine power is no longer needed.

      Neglecting air resistance, the lunar propulsion system would need 360 times less power to lift it off the moon surface.

      Of couse none of this matters since everybody knows that you can’t get any thrust from a rocket when it is puching against a big blob of cheese.

    12. Jonathan Says:

      DSpears, don’t forget to allow for the weight the astronauts would gain if the moon really were made of cheese.

    13. In-Cog-Nito Says:

      DSpears, you know your fancy math, I’ll give you that. But see, that’s the beauty of the conspiracy. And who gets to set the laws of physics and math? Why the government of course, in cohoots with academia. You may tell me 2+2=4, but for all we know, 2+2 really = 5. Open your eyes my friend to this wool that’s been pulled over our heads all these years.

    14. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Good thinking for a change, Mike. That’s using the old AFDB.

      Thanks for the link Jon. I’m way ahead of you though. I’ve been wearing one for years, although I do prefer the classic model.

    15. Jonathan Says:

      Whoa! Dude, no wonder you know so much.

      I just realized something and it’s big. For years the US govt subsidized cheese production. Maybe it still does. Cheese, govt, moon — do I have to spell it all out for you? I think the truth about the so-called moon landing should be obvious now, at least to anyone who can think for himself. Yes: the international cheese manufacturers — the infamous “merchants of cheese” — probably working closely with the Queen of England (ever notice that they speak English at NASA?), faked the entire space program! It was all a giant conspiracy to block competition from lunar imports!

      Does Michael Moore know about this? I’d better send him a detailed letter. He must be so busy that he’s overlooked it, but he’s sure to investigate once he learns the truth.

    16. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Jon, You could be on to something.

      1. Wisconsin, “Cheese Capital of the USA”, is a democratic stronghold. Now, who started the US on the path to the moon? JFK, a democrat. Coincidence? I don’t think so!

      2. Wisconsin is also famous for their cheddar. But cheddar is an *ENGLISH* cheese! Another coincidence? Not likely.

      3. NASA has so-called ‘tracking stations’ in Australia, a British Commonwealth country. Who leads the Commonwealth? The Queen of England!

      4. Who leads the opposition to the expansion of (the Queen’s) Anglosphere? France – the cheese capital of Europe!!

      The web continues to unravel sheeple. And the spider at the center is the Queen of England, and NASA is her tool. Wake up!

    17. Joseph Hertzlinger Says:

      Required reading

    18. Jonathan Says:

      Stop the presses!

    19. Jonathan Says:

      BTW, I found this at the website that Joseph linked to. This is BIG. I think it could be the key to proving the truth about the so-called Iraqi WMD.

      Michael Moore, call your office.