I do not beleive that we have ever been to the moon. there is just too much evidence. Photo inconsistencies, mostly. Too much radiation to survive. Plus the fact that our government lies constantly (Roswell, Area 51, etc.). Is it possible that I am wrong? Ehh, maybe, but probobly not.

US lies about area 51? They just don't say anything about it.

I wish the US didn't go the moon. So much money just to go to the moon and back :(

If they didn't go to the moon then how come they brought back moon rock?

I think the handle 'BrainWithAGun' says it all.
There is tons of evidence that we have been to the moon. There is NO credible evidence that it was a hoax. Fairly simple decision we have here.

come one people this is like the 4th fake moon landing thread ive seen in like two weeks.:rolleyes:

sorry if im not origional:) new here. lol

There IS a contraversy over whether or not the film and photos of the moon landing are authentic but there is no question whether man walked on the moon, we definately did.
The president was worried because there was difficulties arising over being able to get photos and so on and he actually did set up a fake photo session just in case, but I think in the end they figured it out.
I saw a documentary on the subject.

Again, this should be moved to pseudoscience.

sorry if im not origional new here. lol

its ok I forgive you;)

The photos are real. The moon landing was real.

All so-called "inconsistencies" in the photos and other information surrounding the moon landing which have been pointed out by the conspiracy theorists have been convincingly explained.

If you have only read the conspiracy theories, I suggest you start by taking a look here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

Every full moon this subject surfaces on forums and I give my usual explanation:

Don't you think the Russian KGB experts would'nt be happy to expose this American moonlanding medialie at the height of the cold war, iow: the russian experts believed America went to the moon. They are not stupid and probably would have spoiled the american party if they could...

wouldn't you be able to see the old landers with a good telescope?

Sure I think a bit of both perspectives are necessary, so I propose this scenario.
What did they find when they got to the moon?
Check the paintings that Buzz did of the moon, full of color and beauty, but that is not what we saw in the pics and footage, but that is what he remembered it looking like.
They got alot of money for the moon program, if something or someone didn't want us to go back to the moon, then they would be more inclined to fake the last moon shots. With the advent of space odyssey and new filming techniques at the time, maybe they did fake the last ones.
They did see some anomalies that we can't explain. They did also ping the moon and it rang like a hollow barrell.
So I am of belief that we did go to the moon, then they did a bunch of goofy filming that is faked to keep the money coming in.
But the big question remains, if they did fake a bunch of it because they couldn't go back to the moon, why?
Note: A private company is building a moon orbiter to be launched soon. It will take many high res pics of the front and back lems, as well as drop a time capsule of earth items.
bemorphy:eek:
Oh by the way, maybe the Russians couldn't go back to the moon either. See these from their Lunokhod Rover mission
http://www.somelscornucopia.com/atvenus/anoms/moon/moon1.html They may have found more to the moon than we did with many, many of their rover pics unreleased even to this day.

If we have not been to the moon, then I will be a believer of WTF BULLSHIT and thats just the start. Revolution(my name?!) is in order.


I love the USA but maybe its time for a change..............

Give me some proof........Off Art Bell though......

evidently, one of the items left behind on the moon is a mirror. as proof that we where there, scientists can shoot a laser, whos beam will travel back to the earth after striking the mirror.

wouldn't you be able to see the old landers with a good telescope?

Maybe if you had 100 people looking round the clock for 10 years.

The moon is a very big rock and the landers are incredibly tiny in comparison. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack that is over 1/4 the size of earth. :)

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Maybe if you had 100 people looking round the clock for 10 years.

The moon is a very big rock and the landers are incredibly tiny in comparison. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack that is over 1/4 the size of earth. :)

Given that the exact landing co-ordinates should be known (Or how did they do the sums to get back...) and the Hubble telescope can see further than anyone can imagine I don't think that would pose too much of a problem.

Oh yes - the guys that own the telescope have too much to lose!!!

Given that the exact landing co-ordinates should be known (Or how did they do the sums to get back...) and the Hubble telescope can see further than anyone can imagine I don't think that would pose too much of a problem.
Good point, gnasher.

This is entirely conjecture...but I believe the hubble is designed for deep space...I don't think it will work/focus on something so relatively close.

Also, it might be that only the most powerful telescopes on earth would be able to spot a lander...and even then it might be hell getting the exact coordinates, etc. Due to the line of scientists waiting to get time on these 'scopes, maybe the scientific community feels their time is better spent doing something else.

I suggest you work out the angular size of a lander on the moon as it would be seen from Earth. Next, work out how big a telescope you would need to resolve an object of that size at that distance (e.g. use the Rayleigh criterion).

actually many people use the refence to the picture .
But the picture proves nothing, it may actually prove that we dint go and the moon is just one big fabricated story.
1) you clearly see foot steps on the sand. Stange, because on the surface of the moon, wind speed is tremendous. Therefore, footsteps were supposed to be removed in a flash.
2) there shouldnt be any shadows on the moon and in the picture its clearly shows Armstrong with our great old glory and its shadow.
*darkness falls*

Originally posted by Darknightness
1) you clearly see foot steps on the sand. Stange, because on the surface of the moon, wind speed is tremendous. Therefore, footsteps were supposed to be removed in a flash.
What wind speed is this without an atmosphere? Perhaps you meant the solar wind, but it isn't strong enough... as is cleary shown/tested by satallites we have in orbit.

2) there shouldnt be any shadows on the moon and in the picture its clearly shows Armstrong with our great old glory and its shadow.
Hello idiot? Why wouldn't there be shadows? You block the light, you get a shadow. Not quantum physics here Einstien. If you don't know what a shadow is something is truely wrong.

My bad
hmmm then you are right we did set foot on the moon.
:p

James,

I suggest you work out the angular size of a lander on the moon as it would be seen from Earth. Next, work out how big a telescope you would need to resolve an object of that size at that distance (e.g. use the Rayleigh criterion).

In 1980, the US had satellites that could see a matchbox on a picnic table from space.

Now, twenty three years later, I'm pretty sure that todays satellites can easily see a lander on the Moon.

Tom

I believe it is absurd to believe that the government lied about the moon landing. Why would it do such a thing? What good might come out of it? And technicaly I certainly believe that it is possible... so why the heck not?

Originally posted by Alien Mastermind
Why would it do such a thing?

Money. Lots of it.

yah, u know what too! i saw that dvd 'interview with the assasin' .. really really really fuckin good interview. Well ill spoil it for you, its this guy who tries to tell his story about how he was the guy who shot kennedy, anyways, the guy goes to his next door neighbor who's a camera man and wants to tell him a story. Anyways, the guy was in a mental institution , but just said its a cover..etc.. always new ways to come up facts/lies. In the end they cant find anyone who can corroborate his story, but he kept the shell with which he killed kennedy in a safe deposit box and they tested the shell, ballistics showed it was fired in 1962 +-3 years. alot of stuff and this camera man really gets involved, eventually they end up at a press conference for the president and the guy tries to kill the president to show that he can get close...but the things leading up to that fact are quite strange...all his evidence slowly dissapears until he doesn't have anything.

Also , he kept the shell that he killed kennedy with. The shell was confiscated by the police and they charged the cameraman with fake charges to keep him in jail. Anyways, the shell was mysteriously lost after the police got ahold of it.

Maybe this just goes to show that the gov't is running the country?

"if you kill the most powerful man in the world , doesn't that make you the most powerful man in the world '
-Rob Kilkurichuck

<i>In 1980, the US had satellites that could see a matchbox on a picnic table from space.</i>

Who told you that?

The most conclusive evidence I've seen are the pictures with part of the crosshair BEHIND some objects and in front of the others. I've never read or heard an explanation for this.
Alien mastermind there's one word for you...IDIOT
it's obvious why the usa would want to go to the moon, the usa's arse had been kicked in the space race and going to the moon would mean they had achieved SOMETHING before the russians had. Most of the tests before the moon landing had failed, so even if the US did land on the moon, it was a stupid thing to do as the risks were very high and it put human lives at risk, let alone the millions of dollars which the government was probably more worried about. In fact, the reason the Russians didn't try a moon landing, which they were cabaple of doing, was because of the high risks of failure.
As for the radiation, if the suits really could block out that high level of radiation I'd like to see someone wear one into 3 mile Island.I believe it is absurd to believe that the government lied about the moon landing. Why would it do such a thing?

James,

Who told you that?

I can't be sure, but I think I saw it on a TV documentary sometime in the mid 80's.

<i>The most conclusive evidence I've seen are the pictures with part of the crosshair BEHIND some objects and in front of the others.</i>

Look at the photos carefully. You'll notice that whenever the crosshair appears to be behind an object, the object it is behind is very bright. What has happened is that the bright object has washed out the crosshair in the developing process.

Yes the lunar landings could be a fake and there are good reasons for this. The first reason obviously is money the next being moral of beating the Russians at their own game. Yes their are all these theories behind the so called lie. Here's the thing though conspiracies and government cover ups have a major requirement. That they be held with in a small amount of people. Now in the 60's NASA was huge with thousands of people working for it. A vast majority of those people would have to be on a conspiracy of the size of the lunar landings. This would over time not necesaraly the first few years but atleast by now have come to a lot of people giving confesions to tabloids which has not happened.

Originally posted by Prosoothus
James,

I can't be sure, but I think I saw it on a TV documentary sometime in the mid 80's.

Oh, it must be true then.

Trouble with the tv documentaries is that they are not always what they seem. Controversy is a breeding ground for viewership. Doesn't have to be the truth, just has to attract a lot of viewers for the ratings game.

You will notice that the documentary never ties to explain how we got a near total of 800 pounds of moon rocks here on earth from all the missions that have went to the moon. Thing is you can not just grab a hand full of earth rocks and say this is moon rock. They have different compositions. Different trace elements. It is easy to take a picture and say see it doesn't look this way or that way. But physical evidence is something that is hard to explain away...

Originally posted by Prosoothus
James,



I can't be sure, but I think I saw it on a TV documentary sometime in the mid 80's.

Then either they were sadly mistaken, or you remember incorrectly.

In order to get that type of resolution, you would have to have a huge(in terms of diameter) lens.

Janus58 and James,

Here are the specs for the KH-7 satellite launched in 1963:

"Code Name: Gambit. Class: Surveillance. Type: Military. Nation: USA. Agency: U.S. Air Force. Manufacturer: Lockheed. Total Mass: 2,000 kg. Description: US reconnaisance satellite. Still classified. Camera believed to have ground resolution of 0.46 m. Film returned in two capsules. Typical life seven days. References: 5 , 126"

Here's the link:

http://www.friends-partners.ru/partners/mwade/craft/kh7.htm

If the KH-7 satellite in 1963 had a resolution of 0.46 m, what was the resolution of the military satellites in the 1980's.

Tom

Resolution can't go below a decameter because of air distortion; even so computer-corrected images could help lower that to say 1 cm resolution.

why in all heck are we talking about this, we have been to the moon live with it!!!
1. Millions of people watch the rockets take off
2. Thousands of people design, built and controlled the rockets, and to think all of them could hold a secret like this would be insane!
3. Radio signals and camera images were transmitted from the moon, verified by Russian, Australian and British radio telescopes: faking these kind of transmissions were beyond the technology at the time.
4. 800lb of moon rocks were return that were verified by scientist from all over the world as being moon rocks.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Resolution can't go below a decameter because of air distortion; even so computer-corrected images could help lower that to say 1 cm resolution.

why in all heck are we talking about this, we have been to the moon live with it!!!
1. Millions of people watch the rockets take off
2. Thousands of people design, built and controlled the rockets, and to think all of them could hold a secret like this would be insane!
3. Radio signals and camera images were transmitted from the moon, verified by Russian, Australian and British radio telescopes: faking these kind of transmissions were beyond the technology at the time.
4. 800lb of moon rocks were return that were verified by scientist from all over the world as being moon rocks. Hear Hear. I seriously wonder what kind of medication the moon hoax people are on. How the hell do you fake something that big? Having said that, we've seen most of their "evidence" in this thread, and it keeps getting shot down at the very next post...

Originally posted by Prosoothus
Janus58 and James,

Here are the specs for the KH-7 satellite launched in 1963:

"Code Name: Gambit. Class: Surveillance. Type: Military. Nation: USA. Agency: U.S. Air Force. Manufacturer: Lockheed. Total Mass: 2,000 kg. Description: US reconnaisance satellite. Still classified. Camera believed to have ground resolution of 0.46 m. Film returned in two capsules. Typical life seven days. References: 5 , 126"

Here's the link:

http://www.friends-partners.ru/partners/mwade/craft/kh7.htm

If the KH-7 satellite in 1963 had a resolution of 0.46 m, what was the resolution of the military satellites in the 1980's.

Tom

Not much better. The resolution is limited by the size of the objective lens. So, in order to go from .46m to .02m (about the size of a match book the objective lens would have to increase in diameter by 23 times, which equates to a like increase in focal llength for the same magnification. So Let's assume an aperture of 6 in for the KH-7 and a focal ratio of 10 for a focal length of 60 inches. to increase this resolution to 2cm would require an aperture of 11 .5 feet and a focal length of 115 ft. Thats a little big for a spy satellite.

Janus58,

Instead of increasing the size of the lense in the satellite to get a higher resolution, why not just increase the chemical density of the photo film and then just enlarge the picture until the correct resolution is achieved?

Tom

BrainWithAGun: I do not beleive that we have ever been to the moon. there is just too much evidence. Photo inconsistencies, mostly. Too much radiation to survive.

Most of this evidence has been shown to be complete rubbish. The theory came first, then the conspiracy theorists simply made these allegations to make their case seem at least slightly plausible to ignorant people. A lot of the hoax “evidence” itself is filled with inconsistencies, and even, in some cases, outright fabrications.

Dr Lou Natic: There IS a [controversy] over whether or not the film and photos of the moon landing are authentic

I’m afraid that this brand of hoax “theory”, promulgated by Percy and Bennett of Aulis (http://www.aulis.com) publishing, is similarly regarded to be complete nonsense.

There is no credible evidence for any brand of the hoax theory. If you know any different, provide the evidence.

Bemorphy: Check the paintings that Buzz did of the moon

I think you’re referring to the paintings by Apollo 12 LMP Alan Bean.

The rest of your post is piled with conjecture upon conjecture and you still want us to ponder the implications of your scenario. Find a shred of credible evidence that the moon landings were faked, or the “record” was, first. Then we can discuss why it might have been faked.

Rexagan: evidently, one of the items left behind on the moon is a mirror

The Lunar Ranging Retro-Reflectors (LRRRs) were indeed deployed by Apollo astronauts. However, I believe the Russians also managed to deploy their own similar devices with unmanned spacecraft. So the moon hoaxers claim, quite rightly, that it was possible to deploy them without Apollo astronauts.

Gnasher: Money. Lots of it.

Where was the money supposed to come from? Lots of Apollo equipment undoubtedly still exists. Real spacecraft would have had to have been made and flown towards the moon – if you swallow the conspiracy theorists’ argument. Literally hundreds of thousands of employees’ salaries would have had to have been paid as well as fees paid to contractors. After all of this expenditure, how would they been able to actually have any money remaining, enough to justify the risk and effort of faking the moon landings?

Rambo:As for the radiation, if the suits really could block out that high level of radiation I'd like to see someone wear one into 3 mile Island.

What high level of radiation are you alluding to that the suits were meant to block out? You’re just mimicking the words of “self-taught physicist”— and professional conspiracy theorist — Ralph Rene.
Rambo:Most of the tests before the moon landing had failed, so even if the US did land on the moon

Most of what tests failed? The risks were high, but acceptable.

The crosshairs being behind an object are due to emulsion bleed. There’s some really good examples of it on this (http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html) page. Just scroll down until you see the examples. Like this (http://www.clavius.org/img/flag-reticle.jpg) one.

Patter: The first reason obviously is money the next being moral of beating the Russians at their own game.

I don’t see how any of these reasons are obvious reasons for hoaxing the moon landings. As I explained above, the money has to somewhere. Real spacecraft have to be made to show people. Employees and contractors have to be paid. And as far as beating the Russians “at their own game”, then I’m sure that this would best be satisfied by a real moon landing, don’t you think?

Wet1: Trouble with the tv documentaries is that they are not always what they seem.

The Fox documentary frequently bent the truth, and in some cases, made outright fabrications.

Doubters ought to read the Clavius (http://www.clavius.org) website. It is a very good website discussing and refuting nearly all moon hoax claims.

Originally posted by Prosoothus
Janus58,

Instead of increasing the size of the lense in the satellite to get a higher resolution, why not just increase the chemical density of the photo film and then just enlarge the picture until the correct resolution is achieved?

Tom

The resolution is determined by the opitical limits of the lens system, not the graininess of the film(except in those cases where the film resolution is already less than the opitical resolution.)

No lens can focus to a perfect mathematical point. The focus is always spread over a small region called the "Airy disk". This limits the resolution. Larger apertures are needed to reduce this effect.

Increasing the density of the film would just mean that the Airy disk would encompass more grains in the film, without increasing the resolution of the image.

The Lunar Module's descent stage measures 31 feet across the landing gear. That's the widest measurement. The mean lunar distance is around 239,000 miles, I think.

Now, (2 * &pi; * 239,000)/ 1,296,000 = ~1.16 arcseconds per mile at the lunar distance. Making the Lunar Module's descent stage: (31 / 5,280) * 1.16 &asymp; 0.0068 arcseconds in angular subtension.

Now, how big a primary mirror/lens would you need in order to get that kind of resolution?

Instead of increasing the size of the lense in the satellite to get a higher resolution, why not just increase the chemical density of the photo film and then just enlarge the picture until the correct resolution is achieved?

I think the maximum resolution that you'll receive is only as much as the optics will let you.

It's all a bit silly anyway. Even if the US government did have the required optics in their spy satellites, why would they be trusted by moon hoaxers to give unaltered images? These are the same people who they're accusing of faking the moon landings.

the film particles or CCDs can not be effective if they are smaller the size of the light wave (usually below 700nm, depending on color)

I spotted an error in my previous post. It unfortunately compounded to make both calculations invalid.

Where I wrote "arcseconds per mile", it should obviously be miles per arcsecond. That makes the real value for arcseconds per mile the reciprocal of 1.16. Or roughly 0.86.

This makes the more accurate calculation for the angular subension of the Lunar Modules' descent stages to be around 0.005 arcseconds.

I think that the Hubble Space Telescope is limited to around half an arcsecond in resolution. Two orders of magnitude difference. If I understand correctly, you'll need a mirror a hundred times larger than HST's to resolve the largest of Apollo remnants. I think Hubble's mirror is around ninety six inches in diameter, or eight feet. Meaning you'd require a telescope with a mirror eight hundred feet in diameter.

I wish the US didn't go the moon. So much money just to go to the moon and back

I'm saddened to think that, with all the money my own country's government has wasted on socialist programmes, we could have gone to the moon. :D

Seriously, the money spent on the Apollo programme had numerous pay-offs beyond just having been able to go to the moon.

hey this war on iraq costed us enough money to go to mars and back 3 times!

Ground based multiple interferometer telescopes (to be complete before 2007) could pick out the Landers on the moon.

Originally posted by BrainWithAGun
I do not beleive that we have ever been to the moon. there is just too much evidence. Photo inconsistencies, mostly. Too much radiation to survive. Plus the fact that our government lies constantly (Roswell, Area 51, etc.). Is it possible that I am wrong? Ehh, maybe, but probobly not. There are 800 pounds of moon rock that would like to have a word with you.

If that's not enough to penetrate the tinfoil temple your head is camped inside of, how do you explain the reference mirror that we use, to this day, to measure the distance to the moon for tidal forecasting?

Of course we have been to the moon! There is too much evidence and to high of technology to say we havent.

http://www.clavius.org

To help you see the truth.

http://www.dictionary.com

To help you with the big words.

Thank you rapid transit, looks like this is going to come in handy!

Yeah, reference that instead of bringing up in the mirror argument. An unmanned mission could have put that there easily, and it isn't conclusive proof that we've put a man on the moon. But there's plenty of other proof, and hordes of refuting to do with the hoax theory.

Once you show that the technology is present, and that the hoax theory isn't plausible, it's really hard to deny the truth.

I do have an open mind, though. I might consider the hoax theory should I be presented with a single piece of evidence supporting it. So far, I've yet to see anything that couldn't be explained away. Nothing at all has suggested a conspiracy.

But, if one has undeniable proof, I'll hear him out.

Go on, someone take me up on the offer. :)

I just have a few questions about this:

1.How many times have man gone to the moon after 1969?
2.If none or very few, why?
3.And how come you never hear about people today going to the moon, If we could do it in the 60's there shouldnt really be a big problem doing it today right?

1.How many times have man gone to the moon after 1969?

Four manned lunar landings occured after 1969.

2.If none or very few, why?

Do you consider four to be very few?

3.And how come you never hear about people today going to the moon, If we could do it in the 60's there shouldnt really be a big problem doing it today right?

It would be possible, if the venture could be funded. I wouldn't say that it would be "easy."

We don't see people going to the moon any more because it cost 1 billion dollars a shot! And with today’s space technology it still cost that much because so little development has happened over the last decades because no one is willing to put up the money!

http://www.clavius.org

To help you see the truth.

As I mentioned earlier, the Clavius site is extremely good. There are none better at debunking the so-called "theories" that suggest that the moon landings were faked, or the "record" was.

Yeah, reference that instead of bringing up in the mirror argument. An unmanned mission could have put that there easily, and it isn't conclusive proof that we've put a man on the moon.

Indeed. Like I said earlier in the thread, the Russians did deploy such a device at least once -- on Lunokhod 1 (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lunokhod.htm).

We don't see people going to the moon any more because it cost 1 billion dollars a shot!

The Apollo programme cost twenty five billion dollars. Adjusted for inflation, that's around eighty billion dollars in today's money.

If another similar programme were started these days, the cost would likely be similar, and the development time longer.

Everywhere I go I see these moon hoax threads. Sure, the moon shot was a money pit but I think it happened. It would be too huge a conspiracy to pull off. Conspiracy topics sure are popular though. I think this board has the right idea. They've put conspiracy into its own little corner. http://www.spacemessageboard.com
Thats the new space board for SpaceDaily.com. The poll here was 61 to 13 when I checked just now. Thats a high rate of moon hoaxers. I wonder what fuels this cynicism. I wouldn't put it past the US government or any government for that matter to mislead people but I don't think they have the brains to pull off a global conspiracy of this magnitude. Come on. These are politicians we are talking about. They can't even keep their pants on through a single term as a general rule. Russia, the US and Britain and Australia would have had to be in on it. Give me a break. We can't even all agree on a currency or which side of the street to drive on or what form of measurement to make standard. Colluding on a moon landing and keeping it quiet for over 30 years without assasinating hundreds of people. Riiiiiiight!!!

I think this board has the right idea. They've put conspiracy into its own little corner. http://www.spacemessageboard.com

And here: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/index.php

There is a lively discussion board dedicated to alleged lunar conspiracies. You don't find many moon hoaxers there. However, there is a lot of reasoned discussion of the "theories" and many of the posters are scientists and engineers.

I wonder what fuels this cynicism.

Ignorance. Stupidity.

Oh wow. Phil Plait actually posts there. I saw a link to that at the Space Science category of space message board while I was perusing it but hadn't checked it out yet. I see he posts as the bad astronomer too. Cool. That's duly bookmarked. I love his wry sense of humour. We should just go steal his replies to moon hoax conspiracy claimants and post them whenever the topic surfaces. It would be better to delete them though. They are only after exposure. Every thread you see with """Moon Hoax"""" all over it is intended to register a response and provoke arguments. They want to see this topic talked about aas frequently as possible everywhere so it shows up in search engines and they gain more followers from the ignorant masses.

Ok thanks for all the answers, but one other thing that I can't really understand is how the astronauts could resist the radiation from the Van Allen Belt with the little protection they had?

And does anyone have any link to a site that shows the 4 latest manned moonlandnings, I only seem to find pictures of the first one

Because of there speed the exposure to the Van Allen Belt was only a few minutes. And no there are pics of the other moon landings.

one other thing that I can't really understand is how the astronauts could resist the radiation from the Van Allen Belt with the little protection they had?

First of all, you know nothing about radiation, the protection afforded by Apollo spacecraft nor the measures taken on Apollo to protect against radiation. Nor do you know anything about the level of radiation in cislunar space, nor the dose an Apollo astronaut would have received. Dr. van Allen himself has dismissed the claims of conspiracy theorists concerning radiation as having no merit.

The duration of exposure was one thing that reduced the radiation danger to Apollo astronauts. Another was the design of the trajectory -- it took the spacecraft around the worst areas of radiation in the van Allen belts. The trajectory was designed with the help of Dr. van Allen.

The hoax theorists have magnified the danger presented by radiation. They have not performed any kind of analysis whatsoever to show that it did indeed present the kind of obstacle they say it did.

95% of anything you hear a moon hoaxer say about radiation is complete rubbish.


And does anyone have any link to a site that shows the 4 latest manned moonlandnings, I only seem to find pictures of the first one

Well, I'll have to say that you just haven't been looking hard enough.

The four "latest" moon landings occured thirty years ago -- between 1970 and 1972. You should try the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/)).

Far more danger would be from solar flares and the charged solar wind than from the Van Allen Belts. If you go back through some of the earlier "hoax threads" there is mention of this "radation danger" from the Van Allen Belts. If I remember correctly there is also a link concerning the amount of radation. Further that the amount of radation was negligible. While higher than what they would have recieved within the atmosphere, it was still quite low. Radation effects for people are measured by an amount vs time span method.

One of the problems with the hoax believers is that by far, the majority are not looking at both sides. Instead they come in already believing it is so. They have, for the largest part, done no homework on it nor have they researched any sites.

This responce is quite typical and hoax believers have been at an all time high since the "Fox Special" that aired.

I did see one site for the hoax side that someone had spend a larger amount of time on. Only thing was, he started with the presumption that it was a hoax and a lot of his logical deductions take some "swallowing" to get by. Many things, like why stars aren't visable in the lunar shots, should never have been brought up. While many have thoughtful replied with the correct answers, no one has bothered to mention that of all folks, those that deal with images for a living know exactly what is what. It was better not to mention what was true, because that doesn't make for good viewership when you are trying for ratings. But you can bet they knew the answer to that one even as they were filming it. I would imagine that somewhere someone was asking if they should even air that particular point as it would make the rest of the subject very doubtful if others readily knew what the professionals do. It is evident there is no fool like the public. Most have never questioned that those who aired the show would certainly know the answer. Just as readily, it is easily evident that Fox thought more of ratings and money than the need to expose the truth.

It's true that solar flares did present a significant danger to Apollo astronauts; and this is the radiation danger that caused Apollo scientists and engineers the most concern.

There were measures to deal with such events in some instances. Like pointing the rear-end of the CSM toward the sun, giving fifteen feet of Service Module to shield the crew from the radiation.

Lots of moon hoaxers present the fact that solar flares presented a danger at all as evidence that the Apollo landings were hoaxed. Although that doesn't make any sense. If you go out and drive in your car, you could be killed in an accident. You could be the safest driver in the world and some idiot could still plough into you. People who drive cars obviously see it as an acceptable risk.

Have we been to the moon?

I say----most likey:p

Doesn't this thread belong in psuedoscience?

Originally posted by Darknightness
actually many people use the refence to the picture .
But the picture proves nothing, it may actually prove that we dint go and the moon is just one big fabricated story.
1) you clearly see foot steps on the sand. Stange, because on the surface of the moon, wind speed is tremendous. Therefore, footsteps were supposed to be removed in a flash.
2) there shouldnt be any shadows on the moon and in the picture its clearly shows Armstrong with our great old glory and its shadow.
*darkness falls*

What total arse. Wind speed on the moon? As there's no atmosphere, where does wind come from?

No shadows? Why? TWO things cause shadows on the Moon, one from the Sun, and the other from the next brightest thing in the sky, the Earth.

You are a Troll, right?

I think he was being sarcastic :p

Were the moon landings a hoax? According to the Fox documentary they were...

Now let's just look at the credibility that Fox and the Rupert Murdoch empire have built over the years. What becomes evident is that few media networks are found to be as unreliable as Fox. Rupert Murdoch television has a long history of supporting both socialist (government) and capitalist interests, which ultimately are the same. Therefore, it should always be remembered to filter information from Fox News, knowing that THEY broadcast what THEY(the few most powerful) want you to believe!

So THEY want the majority of humanity to believe that 4 moon missions (only) have been carried out, after which humanity has curiously stopped traveling to the Moon (...). To meet those who are aware of the great conspiracy that is going on (the information war to deceive humanity at large), the idea is launched by the high and mighty that there were no moon landings at all...

It seems most likely that what is REALLY going on, is that BOTH standpoints are misinformation. As an economist I know this is the trick that has lured humanity to believe that all economic reality is either left or right, or a combination of those two. Fact is that the true science of economics shows both left and right economic theories to be hoaxes, which have the ultimate effect of covering the real truth, namely that both left and right can ultimately only lead to widespread poverty, and the effective accumulation of all resources and power by the mighty few.

Like Lenin knew, Capitalism MUST ultimately lead to fascism, because it was DESIGNED to do so. What he left out, is that communism is in itself a form of fascism (dictatorialism), so that left can never be the solution to right, or vice versa. Left and right support each other to keep up their power which is based on the same theoretical hoax. I know this to be true, because I have investigated this myself, and have graduated on this economic research. A great amount of historical proof of this hoax is given by Anthony Sutton (look him up!), as well as many others.

If the same trick is applied to lure humanity into accepting disinformation, which is very likely, what is this third alternative that they are covering up? Well, do a google search for "Alternative Three", or rent the video, and you will get an idea. It seems to me that what they are REALLY covering up, is that there have been MANY MORE than 4 moon landings. There seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that man has been on the moon, and even much further, long before the first apollo missions, and that countless missions have been carried out ever since, with the moon only as an intermediate base to travel far beyond...

We all know that technically the government and military have always been capable of much more than they want us to believe. Hitler had his UFO's. How many ordinary Germans would have known about these UFO’s? Hitler was the first to have nuclear long range missiles, which he could have used to gain control of humanity forever, if only he would have used them.

There is no common sense to explain why Hitler never used the Bomb, unless it is accepted that THEY just wanted us to believe that the Nazis lost the war, while the nazis had actually silently taken over the white house, even long before the war started (even before WW1, with the Federal Reserve Hoax, which still goes on today. Or to put this differently, the world leaders of those days had always been silent supporters of the fascist (dictatorial) "ideology", and still are today.

Looking at the close ties between fascism and the European Royalty, and the close ties between the European Royalty and American Aristocracy (especially the presidents), it becomes clear that fascism, or (hidden) dictatorship, has always been the goal of the elite, and has always been the (hidden) state of the society (yes, including the so-called "Land of the Free"). The false presumption that we are free makes them much more powerful to manipulate our minds and thoughts toward supporting them, instead of revealing their malicious tricks, manipulations and cover-ups.

The enormous secret space program that appears to be going on seems to have a religious (spiritual) goal beyond its superficial scientific mask. To understand this, remember those strange mystical Nazi expeditions to the Himalayas and Antarctica. Only by looking at the names of various space ships and missions, it becomes clear that ancient mythology plays an important role in the minds of those who plan these missions (in the minds of those in power). Curious expeditions are probably best hidden by making the most suspicious minds believe the exact opposite of the truth: that there were no moon landings at all, to cover the REAL hoax, which is: an enormous secret space program they want us to know nothing about.

The most likely reason that THEY don't want us to know about their secret space agenda, is that it would probably reveal humanity's mystical past, and lead humanity to self-empowerment. Obviously, THEY want to empower themselves, at the expense of humanity, rather than assisting humanity to empower itself.

So the question should not be whether they did or did not land on the moon. The question should be: what information are they hiding from us by covering up at least thirty years, and probably many more, of secret space agenda?

...

I'm completely underwhelmed. Just another conspiracy theory nut. Can you spell woo-woo??

Looking at the close ties between fascism and the European Royalty, and the close ties between the European Royalty and American Aristocracy (especially the presidents), it becomes clear that fascism, or (hidden) dictatorship, has always been the goal of the elite,

No offence but this is funny
I can not make a comment that might remotly fit in your little reality.

Were the moon landings a hoax? According to the Fox documentary they were...
Now let's just look at the credibility that Fox and the Rupert Murdoch empire have built over the years.

First off, as with anything, you should be making your judgments as to the validity of something based on what you perceive to be the reliability of the source. They are making a report on something, and you should be looking at the facts and the source of the facts that they are presenting, not them themselves.


It seems most likely that what is REALLY going on, is that BOTH standpoints are misinformation. As an economist I know this is the trick that has lured humanity to believe that all economic reality is either left or right, or a combination of those two. Fact is that the true science of economics shows both left and right economic theories to be hoaxes, which have the ultimate effect of covering the real truth, namely that both left and right can ultimately only lead to widespread poverty, and the effective accumulation of all resources and power by the mighty few.

Jesus, where to begin on this one. First of all, that literally makes no sense at all. If something is neither left nor right nor nothing in between what is it? NOTHING. I'm not going to debate whether going in either extreme would lead to the conclusion you have come to, however, to say that there is a secret path to good government being hidden from us by the government is ridiculous unless you can tell us just what the alternative should be.


A great amount of historical proof of this hoax is given by Anthony Sutton (look him up!), as well as many others.

Not true, Sutton was a conspiracy theorist who believe that the Soviet industry was actually built and owned by the United States...problem with that is that if that was true, why didn't we see the benefits in the US as Russia has risen, and why do we have less control than ever over that country if we own all their industrial assets?


There seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that man has been on the moon, and even much further, long before the first apollo missions, and that countless missions have been carried out ever since, with the moon only as an intermediate base to travel far beyond...

If you're saying what I think you're saying, which is that somewhere somehow in complete secret some humans have achieved interplanetary travel and have been using it for years, well then you're obviously off your rocker and I'm wasting my time.


Hitler was the first to have nuclear long range missiles, which he could have used to gain control of humanity forever, if only he would have used them.

Source?


There is no common sense to explain why Hitler never used the Bomb, unless it is accepted that THEY just wanted us to believe that the Nazis lost the war, while the nazis had actually silently taken over the white house, even long before the war started (even before WW1, with the Federal Reserve Hoax, which still goes on today.

And after achieving secret world dominance he just killed himself for kicks did he?


Looking at the close ties between fascism and the European Royalty, and the close ties between the European Royalty and American Aristocracy (especially the presidents),

Again source? What presidents had any other than diplomatic ties with Europe, and in case you haven't notice, the "royalty" in Europe isn't in charge anymore.


To understand this, remember those strange mystical Nazi expeditions to the Himalayas and Antarctica.

What "mystical" expeditions, source?


Curious expeditions are probably best hidden by making the most suspicious minds believe the exact opposite of the truth: that there were no moon landings at all, to cover the REAL hoax, which is: an enormous secret space program they want us to know nothing about.

So because a news channel put out a report that there were no moon landings, the obvious explanation is that we have secretly been going to Mars all this time?


Obviously, THEY want to empower themselves, at the expense of humanity, rather than assisting humanity to empower itself.

Who is 'They' and what 'powers' do these people have the rest of us don't?

You just continue to make all people ridiculous who are aware of the great conspiracy that is going on. Keep laughing, but keep in mind you are laughing at yourself. Those in power, those who just keep on committing worldwide genocide, will thank you for it.

If you want sources, please do your homework. I don't mention any facts not commonly known to serious researchers. I have thousands of sources confirming these facts, and you have not encountered one yet? If you have not encountered these facts yourself, perhaps you should not consider yourself a serious researcher.

p.s. THEY is of course the Illuminati, but probably you never heard of them either. Perhaps you heard of the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commision, the CFR, the Freemasons and many other secret societies? Do some research before calling someone a nut. I know what I am talking about. But if you can't handle the truth, keep on fooling yourself that justice exists in our world...

If you want sources, please do your homework. I don't mention any facts not commonly known to serious researchers. I have thousands of sources confirming these facts, and you have not encountered one yet? If you have not encountered these facts yourself, perhaps you should not consider yourself a serious researcher.

Do some research before calling someone a nut. I know what I am talking about.

Well, first of all, I never called you a nut; instead, what I did was take the time to look at all the arguments you put out and responded to them individually. You could, at the very least, have a look at my counter-arguments and address them.

Second of all, when you post on a forum and you make an argument, it is not up to the rest of us to spend time scrounging around the internet to try back up your claim, it is up to you to provide us your sources so we may either agree with you or disagree. I disagreed, however, you shouldn't take that as a personal attack, instead, gather some sources and back up your arguments. You can not expect us to just 'take your word on it'.

You just continue to make all people ridiculous who are aware of the great conspiracy that is going on. Keep laughing, but keep in mind you are laughing at yourself. Those in power, those who just keep on committing worldwide genocide, will thank you for it.

If you want sources, please do your homework. I don't mention any facts not commonly known to serious researchers. I have thousands of sources confirming these facts, and you have not encountered one yet? If you have not encountered these facts yourself, perhaps you should not consider yourself a serious researcher.

p.s. THEY is of course the Illuminati, but probably you never heard of them either. Perhaps you heard of the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commision, the CFR, the Freemasons and many other secret societies? Do some research before calling someone a nut. I know what I am talking about. But if you can't handle the truth, keep on fooling yourself that justice exists in our world...

I haven't call you a nut either but your IDEAS are certainly nutty!!!!!!!

Yes, yes, we've heard about those so-called shadow groups for years - and you forgot to mention the Rothschild's who are imagined to control about 90% of the world's wealth.

Instead of wasting your time posting this garbage here you SHOULD be spending it getting some serious help for your delusional paranoia. Better hurry, too, before all those bad guys find out who you are and come after you for letting their secret out. HURRY!!!!

Here's the latest evidence that's come up on the internet.

youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

It looks pretty clear to me. That's atmosphere.

Hey, we should have no trouble finding the landers on the moon. I've been told in another thread that we would easily be able to spot missile launchers on the moon even if they're the same color as the surrounding regolith and otherwise carefully hidden.

Here's the latest evidence that's come up on the internet.

youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

It looks pretty clear to me. That's atmosphere.

Static electricity. It's extremely hot and exposed to a lot of ultraviolet.

Static electricity. It's extremely hot and exposed to a lot of ultraviolet.
Wouldn't the flag have been attracted to the astronaut as soon as he'd gotten to the closest point to the flag? The point at which the flag moves is consistent with the air current explanation.

It's also consistent with simple inertia.

The point at which the flag moves is consistent with the air current explanation.
i guess you realize that the moon has moonquakes.
that could also explain the observed motion.

If you want to look for atmosphere, look at the dust the astronauts kick up. fine particulate matter that rises and falls in a parabolic arc - no eddies or billowing patterns, just up, then down. This is not possible in atmosphere.

I suspect this person to be IceAgeCivilizations or ummm that other fellow

If you want to look for atmosphere, look at the dust the astronauts kick up. fine particulate matter that rises and falls in a parabolic arc - no eddies or billowing patterns, just up, then down. This is not possible in atmosphere.

There is also the low gravity. On Earth you can spread any fine powder that you want. It won't kick up way high just because someone stepped in it.

And no, man has never set foot on the moon. He was wearing boots.

This topic belongs on a paranoid fantasy website!

There is also the low gravity. On Earth you can spread any fine powder that you want. It won't kick up way high just because someone stepped in it.


Try kicking a fine powder up to shin height and let me know how quickly it all resettles to the ground.

Why don't we just look at where anyone says they were on the moon with

the Hubble telescope to see whether or not anything is there?

Why don't we just look at where anyone says they were on the moon with

the Hubble telescope to see whether or not anything is there?

because that would solve this whole debate/issue........then what the hell would we do with ourselves....:eek:

Threads like this prove that with a sufficient amount of time a society is likely to question everything and anything about it's past or any past event no matter how well documented the evidence is.

I wish they would spend more time questioning the virgin birth fable

Why don't we just look at where anyone says they were on the moon with

the Hubble telescope to see whether or not anything is there?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060713-9999-lz1c13laser.html

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

Wouldn't the Russians have been screaming if we hadn't gone to the moon? Or were they in on the conspiracy as well??

Why don't we just look at where anyone says they were on the moon with

the Hubble telescope to see whether or not anything is there?

Because the Hubble has a maximum resolution of 0.1 arcseconds, which at the distance of the Moon works out to over 150m. Meaning the smallest an object can be and still be seen as a distinct object is over 150m across.

Besides that, even if the Hubble were able to see the artifacts left on the Moon, those who believe that the landings were faked would just believe that the Hubble images were faked as well.

If you want to look for atmosphere, look at the dust the astronauts kick up. fine particulate matter that rises and falls in a parabolic arc - no eddies or billowing patterns, just up, then down. This is not possible in atmosphere.

It goes such a short distance that the effect isn't noticable.

Watch the footage of the rover.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZxdPP7DdieI
youtube.com/watch?v=npARfNtO7u8

You can also see the rover footage played here at double speed.
video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736
21minute 10 second mark

It looks just like a dune buggy on earth. The theory is that the rover footage was taken on earth and played back at half speed.

Try kicking a fine powder up to shin height and let me know how quickly it all resettles to the ground.
The material the rover kicks up looks like course sand. Also, sand can be treated to be dust-free by sifting and washing it.

signonsandiego.com/news/s...1c13laser.html

sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips...olloLaser.html
Reflectors could have been attached to an unmanned craft that was soft-landed.


Wouldn't the Russians have been screaming if we hadn't gone to the moon? Or were they in on the conspiracy as well??


You are assuming the official version of what was happening reflects reality. Have you read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?

zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-3-1.html
zmag.org/Chomsky/dd/dd-c01-s01.html

nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides that, even if the Hubble were able to see the artifacts left on the Moon, those who believe that the landings were faked would just believe that the Hubble images were faked as well.
We wouldn't think Hubble was faked. Pictures can be faked though so if they ever say that an orbiting craft took some pictures of the landing sites and publish them, we'll have to keep that in mind. They should be examined by objective experts. We also have to keep in mind that scientists can be bought.

This woman talks about how a lot of the science community has sold out.

Look what this scientist says about science fraud.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #1
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3626298989248030643
(around the 30 minute mark)

GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #2
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7451332617120640846

It goes such a short distance that the effect isn't noticable.

Watch the footage of the rover.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZxdPP7DdieI
youtube.com/watch?v=npARfNtO7u8

You can also see the rover footage played here at double speed.
video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736
21minute 10 second mark

It looks just like a dune buggy on earth. The theory is that the rover footage was taken on earth and played back at half speed.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=970468912270147433&q=dune+buggy+video&total=1903&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

It does?

Looks like non-interfered arcing with a slower acceleration curve, to me.

It is sad to discover that as of my last look, about 1 in 6 voters do not believe that man got to the Moon.

[Sarcasm]


It was all shot in a Studio.

I think the nay-sayers were impressed by an excellent movie about a faked space mission. I think James Brolin played the lead role.

In that movie the empty space craft was destroyed on return to Earth and a key NASA honcho wanted the astronauts to go under cover & allow all to believe that they died.

They decided not to trust the honcho and did not want to play dead anyway. Most of the movie followed the astronauts as they attempted to reach a major city to report the hoax.

Each took a different route from the desert location of the movie studio in hopes of one of them evading the bad guys. In addition to giving them better odds of at least one of them reporting to a news media, they knew that none would be executed until all were captured.

I do not beleive that we have ever been to the moon. there is just too much evidence. Photo inconsistencies, mostly. Too much radiation to survive. Plus the fact that our government lies constantly (Roswell, Area 51, etc.). Is it possible that I am wrong? Ehh, maybe, but probobly not.

of course e have been to the moon, if you have never been to australia does it not excist?

if you have never been to australia does it not excist?

I've not seen it so it doesn't exist to me! ;)

I think the nay-sayers were impressed by an excellent movie about a faked space mission. I think James Brolin played the lead role.
This is the movie you're talking about.
video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-364883774856478814

I saw Capricorn one when it had first come out back in 78 or so. After the movie, none of us even thought the moon missions might have been faked. We didn't even discuss it.

I saw Diamond are Forever when I was fifteen or so. There's a scene in which James Bond stumbles upon the moon set during the filming. It's described here.
truthseeking.org/Apollo_moon_landings.html

My friends and I thought they were training. It didn't even occur to us that the moon missions might have been faked after seeing that scene.

I believed in Apollo until the arrival of the internet and the evidlence was made available. I posted some of the evidence that convinced me in posts #95 and #77.

You have to copy and paste the links; I'm not able to post hotlinks yet as I'm new.

We may not have but the Nazis have. I wonder if they've starved to death yet in their moon base.

Has anybody seen this?
aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/as17-145-22169.jpg

Here's close-up of the circled object.
aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/%20a17moonsquare.jpg

It's obviously some kind of plate. It's close to the footprints so the possibility that it fell off of the astronaut's backpack has to be considered. If it can be shown that the object is not part of the astronaut's equipment, we have some pretty good evidence of a hoax here.

It has been argued that it's not an object, but a partial boot print.
hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22158HR.jpg

It's obviously not a boot print because it's elevated off of the ground. The bottom left hand corner of the object is resting on a rock and the shadow is visible under it.

Here's some more stuff.
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw

It turned out I was wrong about the object. Somebody showed me this on another forum.
unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113834&st=3210&p=2072455&#entry2072455

The highlighting in this picture is what made it look like an object.
aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/%20a17moonsquare.jpg

When you copy and paste those links, put three Ws in front of them.

How come this topic keeps going and going....?

Is there any new information that Russians and Chinese do not know about?

How come this topic keeps going and going....?



Probably because that Fox 'documentary' keeps getting aired on TV every now and again, even though it's been thoroughly debunked. I think it's a litmus test, Fox air the program, and if enough people still swallow it, Fox know they can tell people anything they want them to hear, and be believed.

You know, The moon photo's had to be "touched up" because film was sensitive, and I don't think anything would be picture perfect if it went through the Van Allen belt and suffered from cosmic background radiation for 7 days.

The missions were tracked by Soviet Union, UK and probably other countries. Van Allen belt and the type of radiation is easily shielded. The not landing on the moon hoax is DEAD.

Nobody has come close to debunking this.

youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
(2 minute 35 second mark)

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

Sorry but you have to copy and paste those links and put three Ws in front of them; I can't post hot links yet as I'm new.

At the thirty eight second mark the astronaut is right next to the flag and it isn't attracted to him at all but at the two minute thirty five second mark, the flag moves toward him. If it was static electricity, wouldn't it have moved toward him at the thirty eight second mark too?

I have a lot of evidence for the hoax that I want to post here but I'm afraid I'll be accused of spamming
[Mod edit]
Removed External URL to other forum. After all that is Spam, saying your not then doing so is pretty contradictory
[/edit]

Nobody has come close to debunking this.

youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
(2 minute 35 second mark)


Maybe his pack brushed the flag?
Maybe stomping the soil near the pole caused it to flex, and wave a little?
Maybe both?

There, two reasons why the flag might wave at that point. You really think that this wave is a reasonable piece of evidence to infer the whole thing was faked? That's pretty weak, please try harder.

The missions were tracked by Soviet Union, UK and probably other countries.

Australia too, have you seen the film 'The Dish', it's a light comedy about the Australian crew that manned the Australian Parkes radio telescope that kept communication with Apollo 11 when the American radiotelescopes were obscured by the Earth?

Maybe his pack brushed the flag?

If you look at the beginning of the video when the astronaut is right next to the flag, you'll see that the size of his arm is a lot smaller than it was when he's walking by the flag at the 2 minute 36 second mark He's at least three feet away from the flag.

Maybe stomping the soil near the pole caused it to flex, and wave a little?

If that were the case the horizontal rod that supports the flag would be moving too. I see no movement in the rod.

Here's something else.

There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
(first six seconds)

hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

(Copy and paste these links and put three Ws and a period in front of them; I can't post hotlinks yet as I'm new.)

What I hypothesize is that only half-speed slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
video.google.es/videoplay?docid=413...757736&q=apollo

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.

The missions were tracked by Soviet Union, UK and probably other countries. ”
Australia too, have you seen the film 'The Dish', it's a light comedy about the Australian crew that manned the Australian Parkes radio telescope that kept communication with Apollo 11 when the American radiotelescopes were obscured by the Earth?
Just because we read that it happened doesn't mean it really happened.

Consiracy theorists are fascinating. Nixon could not keep Watergate a secret. In the late 1940's or early 1950's the USA could not keep atomic secrets secret. In the 1920's the government could not supress knowledge of the Teapot Dome scandal.

Yet people claim that they kept knowldege of UFO encounters secret, and were able to fake the moon landing without anyone ratting on them.

Do conspiracy theorists have any idea of how many people would have to be shutup to supress knowledge of the alleged Roswell incidents and the alleged moon landing hoax?

Do conspiracy theorists have any idea of how many people would have to be shutup to supress knowledge of the alleged Roswell incidents and the alleged moon landing hoax?
The press is controlled. There probably have been people talking but if nothing appears in the press, it didn't happen.

I still can't post link as I'm new but if you go into Google and enter "Chomsky media", you'll see some analyses of the American press.

Of course man has gone to the moon,. we brought back a moon rock from arizona!!!

The press is controlled. There probably have been people talking but if nothing appears in the press, it didn't happen.


What? ...At the height of the cold war, America controlled Russian media, the government, Chinese Media and the government....????

The website Clavius has the answer to the rippling flag conundrum, and to every other question which has been raised aboiut the Apollo missions.
http://www.clavius.org/envflutter.html
NASA designed a telescoping horizontal support that would hinge to the top of the pole. The flag itself was a commercially available nylon flag. A hem was sewn into the top edge into which the horizontal crossbar could be slid. The astronaut deployed the flag by driving the steel-tipped aluminum pole into the surface, then raising the crossbar on its hinge until it locked into the horizontal position. He could then extend the telescoping segment of the crossbar to support the entire width of the flag.

The flag was held oustretched by the crossbar through the top hem. The inner bottom corner was fastened to the pole. The outer bottom corner is free to move. The astute reader will have recognized this as a type of pendulum.
The astronauts said it was hard to drive the pole into the lunar surface. [Ibid.] Apollo 11 had no means of hammering it in. In later missions they reinforced the top of the pole so that a geology hammer could be used to drive it. During the process the flag pole was twisted in the fashion of a drill bit to bore it into the denser layers. Twisting the pole would cause the outer tip of the crossbar to describe an arc with a radius of about five feet (1.5 meters). The free corner of the flag, suspended from the tip, could whip back and forth.
In an atmosphere this motion would be impeded ("damped" in engineering terms) by air resistance. But on the moon there is no resistance from air to the pendulum motion of the flimsy fabric.


Basically the flag moved because the free outermost lower corner was effectively a pendulum, and there was nothing to stop it moving once started.In these instances the astronaut has just let go of the flagpole. The flagpole and its horizontal rod are bouncing, resonating in response to the residual motion from the astronaut's manipulation. If the wind is causing this motion then why are the flagpole and horizontal rod moving (bouncing), but the flag itself doesn't move at all? And why, in any of these cases, is there no secondary indication of wind such as blowing insulation on the lunar module or dust raised by the wind.

The flag is off-balance when the pole is perfectly vertical. It is balanced when tilted back slightly. Frequently the crossbar will rotate slightly just after being released by the astronaut, much as the door of an off-balance refrigerator will find its own equilibrium point.

The press is controlled. There probably have been people talking but if nothing appears in the press, it didn't happen. ”
What? ...At the height of the cold war, America controlled Russian media, the government, Chinese Media and the government....????
If anybody did talk about it there, it wouldn't appear in the American press.

(Copy and paste this and put three Ws and a period in front of it)
nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, how did the media fall for this?
Well, the media doesn't fall for anything. The media is controlled by the government. The Dutch papers on July 21 [1969] said that the moon landing was a hoax, was a fake, and I have been unable to find any of those Dutch papers, although it's well documented that they did publish information, with proof, that the U.S. was spoofing everybody.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The website Clavius has the answer to the rippling flag conundrum, and to every other question which has been raised aboiut the Apollo missions.
clavius.org/envflutter.html
They aren't discussing this particular case of the flag moving. In this case the flag moved at the precise moment at which it would be expected to move in atmosphere if somebody walked past it.

youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
(2 minute 35 second mark)

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

What do you think of what I posted above about the difference in body movements of the astronauts in the two different missions?

I think the footage was awfully convient, the quote might have been scripted. We probably have been to the moon several times, but the government likes to keep things secret. The video was probably just to shut Russia up.

In this case the flag moved at the precise moment at which it would be expected to move in atmosphere if somebody walked past it.
I'd say that the vibrations of the astronaut as he 'bunnyhopped' past caused the flag restarted its pendulum movement- the vibrations were transferred via the compacted regolith.What do you think of what I posted above about the difference in body movements of the astronauts in the two different missions? Armstrong and Aldrin tried out several different types of movement on their mission, then reported back to NASA with a number of recommendations Some astronauts used the bunnyhop originally recommended by NASA, others used the 'lope' developed by Aldrin. Finally Jack Schmitt developed a 'toe-push' method, similar to ski-ing, which seems to have been very efficient; unfortunately that was on the last mission.

In this case the flag moved at the precise moment at which it would be expected to move in atmosphere if somebody walked past it. ”
I'd say that the vibrations of the astronaut as he 'bunnyhopped' past caused the flag restarted its pendulum movement- the vibrations were transferred via the compacted regolith.
What do you think of the fact that the flag moved at the exact place where it would move if somebody walked past is as is shown in this analysis?

youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs
(3 minute 5 second mark)

What do you think of what I posted above about the difference in body movements of the astronauts in the two different missions?
It looks to me like the gravity is affecting the astronauts differently. It's not because they are deciding to walk differently.

It looks to me like the gravity is affecting the astronauts differently. It's not because they are deciding to walk differently.
Nevertheless that is the explanation. Given only a few hours on the Moon, in an entirely unfamiliar gravity regime, each astonaut had to try to develop his own method of locomotion; sometimes they tried to use the methods recommended by NASA or by earlier astronauts, other times they made their own method up. As I have said Schmitt found a very good way of moving, on the very last mission.

It looks to me like the gravity is affecting the astronauts differently. It's not because they are deciding to walk differently. ”

Nevertheless that is the explanation. Given only a few hours on the Moon, in an entirely unfamiliar gravity regime, each astonaut had to try to develop his own method of locomotion; sometimes they tried to use the methods recommended by NASA or by earlier astronauts, other times they made their own method up. As I have said Schmitt found a very good way of moving, on the very last mission.
What do you think of what they said at Clavius about this?

clavius.org/

apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1181164839

apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1181164839&page=2#1181432141
apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1181164839&page=3#1181526467

(Copy and paste those links and close the gaps. I'm still too new to be able to post hotlinks.)

Only two posts actually dealt with the topic; the rest is just filler.

Note that walking on a low gravity moon or planet is a bit like walking on ice without spiked shoes or ice skates.

Your mass is the same as it was on Earth, requiring the same amount of horizontal force to accelerate from a still position. However, friction is directly related to your weight, which is about 1/6 of your weight on Earth. You do not have as much traction on the moon as you did on Earth.

Even with specially designed track shoes, I do not think you can run as fast on the moon as you can on Earth.

Your vertical leaping ability is much greater, but I do not think you could broad jump as far as on the Earth. I could be wrong about this: There are two effects to consider.You cannot run as fast and cannot get as much horizontal force as you can on Earth, making the broad jump more difficult.


You can leap higher and will stay in the air longer, allowing you to travel farther before landing. This enhances your broad jumnping ability.I am not sure of the net result of the two effects. Tiger Woods might be able to put a golf ball in orbit on the moon, but he would take more time to walk 500 yards from tee to green.

BTW: Some of the more naive SciFi authors did not describe the effects of weightless and/or reduced gravity properly. For example in a weightless environment, you could use hand grips or a rail to accelerate down a corridor and get up to a running speed or faster. If you had to make a right angle turn, you could be in a lot of trouble due to having the same mass as you do on Earth. An astronaut could hit a wall hard enough to do some serious due to not being able to slow down. An object in motion tends to keep moving unless acted on by a force. The Force = Mass*Acceleration equation uses mass, not weight.

Tiger Woods might be able to put a golf ball in orbit on the moon,
I doubt it: lunar orbital velocity is about two kilometers per second.

Tiger's ball speed is 180 mph. When the folks at Nike Golf tested him with graphite shafts a while back, his ball speed jumped to nearly 200 mph which is 321 KPH only.

The documentary "What Happened on the Moon" is back online. It's the best moon-hoax video I've ever seen.

Part 1
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3622009579385499503

Part 2
video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748

It usually doesn't stay online for very long so watch it fast; I've seen it go on and offline twice before.

Tiger's ball speed is 180 mph. When the folks at Nike Golf tested him with graphite shafts a while back, his ball speed jumped to nearly 200 mph which is 321 KPH only.

Tiger balls move really fast don't they! :eek: :D

I've heard you can do a lot with good balls and a strong shaft. Go get'm, Tiger.

I do not beleive that we have ever been to the moon. there is just too much evidence. Photo inconsistencies, mostly. Too much radiation to survive. Plus the fact that our government lies constantly (Roswell, Area 51, etc.). Is it possible that I am wrong? Ehh, maybe, but probobly not.

So the U.S never made it to the moon - but you think there is secret bases where the U.S trades tech secrets for wombs, with aliens?

Talk about ironic.

NietzSchefan: A psychologist once told me that some people believe in (or claim to believe in) various conspiracy theories and/or occult phenomena due to a mildly neurotic personality quirk.

Advocacy of such beliefs suggests that they have special knowledge and/or special skills not possessed by most other people. It is a variation on a childhood themeI know something you do not know!!The above was often heard on the playground when I was 6-11 years old. The one making the claim never described what they cllaimed to know.

Adults recognize that you must at least describe your special knowledge to have any credibility.

Dinosaur, I only believe in conspiracy theories on evidence and rational thinking. I believe that we did go to the moon because there is a huge amount of self-consistent evidence. I believe in the 911 conspiracies because the evidence seems to be better for than against them.

ja

plausibility
scaled from one to ten
disposition defining position
rationale be damned

Here's the latest piece of evidence I've come across.

Start watching this clip at the 50 second mark.

es.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98

The jacket Collins is wearing moves the way things move in earth gravity even though they were supposed to be in zero-gravity.

Here's something else I just came across. Look at the way the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing behave in zero-gravity.

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
(first 10 seconds and last 30 seconds)

It's pretty different from the way the corner of Collins' jacket behaves.

es.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

I think the handle 'BrainWithAGun' says it all.
There is tons of evidence that we have been to the moon. There is NO credible evidence that it was a hoax. Fairly simple decision we have here.

I don't know, someone demonstrated that you can't make a "thumbs-up http://www.sciforums.com/images/icons/icon14.gif" gesture in a vacuum. I'm only offering the truth.

On the otherhand, if Hollywood can make pretty convincing outerspace and alien movies, there is no reason why NASA with all the resources, could not have so that these issues would not arise....

I don't know, someone demonstrated that you can't make a "thumbs-up http://www.sciforums.com/images/icons/icon14.gif" gesture in a vacuum.

I wonder how can someone demonstrate a negative...

Wow, the ignorance, the ignorance... so shocking... One of these days a private (unmanned) mission is going to go up and photograph that lander, and anyone here insisting that NASA didn't or couldn't have done it, is going to feel like a real tool.

In the meantime, go to one of the labs where they're bouncing laser signals off mirrors NASA's "nonexistent" astronauts left on the moon. They left mirrors there so they could precisely measure the moon's distance from Earth and its orbit. If you can give an alternative and credible explanation for how you could be getting a sharp return signal, and how the effect is inconsistent with a man-made mirror placed on the moon at one of the landing sites, you will get all the fame and attention you could ever crave.

I think if all the scientists of the world got together and united as one, we could get a lot of these conspiracy nuts running around on wild goose chases unwittingly doing our bidding. Let's invent a new religion of our own, fake some evidence for it and take over the world!

In the meantime, go to one of the labs where they're bouncing laser signals off mirrors NASA's "nonexistent" astronauts left on the moon. They left mirrors there so they could precisely measure the moon's distance from Earth and its orbit. If you can give an alternative and credible explanation for how you could be getting a sharp return signal, and how the effect is inconsistent with a man-made mirror placed on the moon at one of the landing sites, you will get all the fame and attention you could ever crave.

They had the technology to land unmanned craft on the moon then so the mirrors are not proof that there were people on the moon.

Google "surveyor moon".

I have always wondered, after all these years, how come, we have not sent a few habitat modules to the moon in preparation for sending new batches of people....we should get our technology straight before going to Mars.

Look... people who try to discredit the moon landing, may as well try to discredit the Weekly World News hahaha

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/07/25/PH2007072501705.jpg

http://gregbardsley.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/clinton_alien.jpg

LOL :eek:

KmGuru: Getting a manned craft to the moon with the equipment to do some expoloring outside the space craft is an amazing feat.

It is at least an order of magnitude more difficult, costly, & resource consming to get enough material, food, tools, et cetera for the building & maintenance of a living habitat on the moon.

I have always wondered, after all these years, how come, we have not sent a few habitat modules to the moon in preparation for sending new batches of people....we should get our technology straight before going to Mars.
Because getting us to the Moon cost 5% of the federal budget each year for eight years. NASA hasn't seen that kind of money for thirty-plus years. Congress cut NASA down to 0.5% of the federal budget in the early seventies (thanks, Republicans; they cut the program largely because it was viewed as a Democratic program). The budget has stayed at that paltry level ever since (thanks Democrats, who now see NASA funding as a threat to welfare, and thanks Republicans, who now see NASA funding as a threat to fighting in Iraq).

Three-plus Apollo missions to the Moon were canceled as a result of the cuts. Parts of one of the vehicles was eventually launched as Skylab. The remaining two complete vehicles and parts of the third are now very large lawn ornaments and museum exhibits at Johnson Space Center, Michoud Assembly Facility, Kennedy Space Center, and the National Air and Space Museum.

WOW. 23 people think this was a hoax? :bugeye:

Astronauts did go to the moon but the return to Earth splashdowns were faked in that the real spacecraft never returned. All lunar astronauts were unknowingly on a one way trip. That's why each mission went to a different landing area. CIA trained look-a-likes assumed the Earthly roles of each non returning astronaut. The Apollo 13 crew were purposely crashed on the dark side of the moon to avoid them returning..

You want evidence: Look at Armstrong, never sought out celebrity status, became reclusive, moved to a farm and him and his wife dissolved their marriage. Do you think she knew something? And how about Aldrin, 3 marriages and booze problems after his so-called return...same guy that left for the moon? Don't you believe it!

If the landing was faked, what about the rockets going up? Where did they go?

WOW. 23 people think this was a hoax? :bugeye:

Why so surprised? Idiots are everywhere - why would this place be any different?

If the landing was faked, what about the rockets going up? Where did they go?

They went to the moon, landed, astronauts did their thing, took pictures. The astronauts thought they were returning but they are still on the moon inside their landing craft. Remember Gus Grissom and crew, supposed to be the first guys to go to the moon. They were killed in an apparent testing accident but what the powers to be didn't tell you was that they were experimenting with ways to kill the atronauts humanely once they completed their lunar surface work..

Are you saying the technology does not exist or that did not exist to lift the lunar lander from such low gravity of moon to connect to the transporter in the orbit?

This could be the greatest hoax in the human history next to 9/11 - or the nutttiest idea ever....:D

This could be the greatest hoax in the human history next to 9/11 - or the nutttiest idea ever....:D

Yes, it could very well be.

Originally Posted by kmguru
I have always wondered, after all these years, how come, we have not sent a few habitat modules to the moon in preparation for sending new batches of people....we should get our technology straight before going to Mars.

Because getting us to the Moon cost 5% of the federal budget each year for eight years. NASA hasn't seen that kind of money for thirty-plus years. Congress cut NASA down to 0.5% of the federal budget in the early seventies (thanks, Republicans; they cut the program largely because it was viewed as a Democratic program). The budget has stayed at that paltry level ever since (thanks Democrats, who now see NASA funding as a threat to welfare, and thanks Republicans, who now see NASA funding as a threat to fighting in Iraq).


The Chinese Lunar orbiter cost $187 million. The Japanse will be sending a moon lander at $487 Million in 2015. Mars polar lander Phoenix cost $420 million. NASA budget is $14 Billion per year, not counting special projects.So I am sure it would not break the bank to send a few habitat modules first.....

WOW. 23 people think this was a hoax? :bugeye:

You aught to count the number of people that;
Believe there is a lochness Monster,
Believe that Elvis still lives,
Are waiting for the Second Coming of Christ,
Believe the Earth is flat,
Believe that evolution was Darwin making a Monkey out of us,
Believe that Roswell was Extraterrestrials Crash landing on Earth. (They can navigate all that hostile cold absence of space, but forget to put their landing gear down when landing.)
Believe that their is a God or Devil.
Believe that Iraq had WMD's.
the list goes on....

People love to latch onto certain conspiracies from time to time because perhaps it makes them feel more self important, perhaps they delusionally see it a reality and in the very rare cases perhaps it is a reality... however those rare cases require a lot of consistent proof to back up the claim.

Why so surprised? Idiots are everywhere - why would this place be any different?

there are many of those here.

Ok then, if you don't believe that Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong went to the moon, are you suggesting that all 'supposed' visits in the 40 years afterwards were equally as false?

Look... people who try to discredit the moon landing, may as well try to discredit the Weekly World News hahaha

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/07/25/PH2007072501705.jpg

http://gregbardsley.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/clinton_alien.jpg

LOL :eek:

Hey that's the same alien - has anyone asked it about the next election as it has been right on the money for both the previous ones

did you know that armstrong found ancient structures on the moon?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWkGTJEK0Mc&feature=related

real or fake? i think they should use better cameras when they are on the moon, not cameras from 1920's.

Armstrong was a talented astronaut, but a lousy photographer.

did you know that armstrong found ancient structures on the moon?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWkGTJEK0Mc&feature=related

real or fake? i think they should use better cameras when they are on the moon, not cameras from 1920's.

Thats why Im pissed we havent been back in so long.