Moon Landing, A Hoax?

[Vaiorom]

There is lots of people who think the moon landing was faked by the government. I just wanted to know what my fellow Sciforum Writers think.

[nietzschefan]

Nope, not a hoax. Happened.

[Oli]

Numerous threads in Pseudoscience and possibly the cesspool.
Also a Scipedia entry:Moon landing conspiracy
As per usual here you can find (with varying degrees of rationality) both sides of the argument.

[Vaiorom]

I think that the moon landing was not faked by the gvernment because what would the government benifit form lieing to its "Followers".

I also think that The U.S. had the technology to go to the moon so why fake it?

[Orleander]

I figured the Russians had to have been watching closely and if it was faked they would have been all over us about it.

[nietzschefan]

No the people who believe it's all Hoax, think both space programs are bullshit.

[Orleander]

WOW! That is one hell of a hoax. How many thousands of people would that kind of hoax involve then?

[nietzschefan]

Well obviously they acknowledge orbital flight. Most think the missions to the moon could not occur because of Van Allen belts. Passage through these belts, while at least as risky as say getting an x-ray done a couple times a day for 2 days(1960's xrays), does not mean for sure damage to cells. Pretty quick and dirty exposure.

They cannot fathom people willing to subject themselves to that kind of danger for that kind of adventure.

[superstring01]

What about the people who still think the world is flat. Really. They exist. In numbers:

Flat Earth Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society)

Idiots.

~String

[Orleander]

....They cannot fathom people willing to subject themselves to that kind of danger for that kind of adventure.


Have they never heard of unprotected sex?

[Reiku]

There is lots of people who think the moon landing was faked by the government. I just wanted to know what my fellow Sciforum Writers think.

It could have been faked, (yes i will get shouted at because of this), simply because the light from the sun did not corrolate to the position of the flag.

That is all i know.

[Oli]

What about the people who still think the world is flat. Really. They exist. In numbers:
Idiots.
~String

Idiots?
String, they can prove it!!
*cough*

[Orleander]

It could have been faked, (yes i will get shouted at because of this), simply because the light from the sun did not corrolate to the position of the flag.

That is all i know.

Yep, that may be true.

[superstring01]

Idiots?
String, they can prove it!!
*cough*

No. That's what makes them IDIOTS! ;)

~String

[nietzschefan]

And they say the starbursts on their helmets, the lack of starlights on the moon pictures, indicate a hoax. They cannot prove what effect light reflection off the moon's surface would have on these effects.

I'm the type that's pretty open minded to ideas that the government would fake this kind of thing. I just don't buy it. There ARE some kinda questionable pictures about Apollo 11-15, I will admit. Most are absolutely impossible to fake in 1969-70s, in my opinion.

[Yorda]

the day after the supposed moon landing the news in finland said that it might have been faked. the russians knew they faked it and the information got spread to finland.

[Orleander]

the day after the supposed moon landing the news in finland said that it might have been faked. the russians knew they faked it and the information got spread to finland.

was it the Weekly World News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_World_News)? I think I read that.

[11parcal]

What about the people who still think the world is flat. Really. They exist. In numbers:

Flat Earth Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society)

Idiots.

~String

That is the most ridiculous wikipedia article i've ever read

[Orleander]

If the earth is flat like a plate, and all teh continents are on one side, what is on the other side?

[Oli]

Lunch - I always knew we were missing out.

[superstring01]

That is the most ridiculous wikipedia article i've ever read

Well, to be fair, the article is quite good. It's the "society" that is quite idiotic.

~String

[Mr.Spock]

it was REAL.

[superstring01]

it was REAL.

It IS real. Weird, eh? [OMG, I'm starting to talk like a Canadian!!!! Argh! What can I do aboot it!?]

~String

[Mr.Spock]

It IS real. Weird, eh? [OMG, I'm starting to talk like a Canadian!!!! Argh! What can I do aboot it!?]

~String

its in past sentence, so why do you think the correct phrase is "is"?

[Steve100]

Doubt it was fake.
Unless all of the moon landings were fake.

[MacGyver1968]

I've seen a laser system, that uses one of the retro reflectors they left behind on the moon's surface, to measure the exact distance from the Earth to the moon. The system wouldn't have worked, if we hadn't been to the moon to put the reflector there.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

The moon landings were fake? That's small potatoes. Check out the Holocaust denial in wikipedia.

[John99]

fact: they took off.
fact: they left the atmosphere.
fact: they were pointed at the moon.
fact: they landed on Earth.

If they can take off and land on earth and make it into space:..

What did they do fly around space and drink tang?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_(beverage)

Ever hear of telescopes?

[Vaiorom]

Doubt it was fake.
Unless all of the moon landings were fake.


That is possible. They could have faked them all.

[cosmictraveler]

If they were faked then what am I going to do with my moon rock that I bought? Rename it fake moon rock? :shrug:

[John99]

ever hear of a telescope vavoom?

[Vaiorom]

I've seen a laser system, that uses one of the retro reflectors they left behind on the moon's surface, to measure the exact distance from the Earth to the moon. The system wouldn't have worked, if we hadn't been to the moon to put the reflector there.


It could just be something on the moon that the government could have found and told us they put it there.

[John99]

you look through them and can see the moon.

[Vaiorom]

If they were faked then what am I going to do with my moon rock that I bought? Rename it fake moon rock? :shrug:


It was probable fake to start with.

[Vaiorom]

you look through them and can see the moon.


What does that have to do with anything?

[cosmictraveler]

It was probable fake to start with.

I've been taken advantage of!! :eek: I'll have to try and sell it to someone who doesn't know about it being a fake, know of anyone???:D

[Vaiorom]

Why sell it now it might be worth so money later

No I dont.

[cosmictraveler]

It comes in a nice enclosure too.:)


http://www.vtmagazine.vt.edu/winter07/images/moonrock.jpg

[Vaiorom]

How much was it?

[cosmictraveler]

How much was it?

I am just having some fun with you. I never had any moon rocks. :p

[Vaiorom]

Lol

[Vaiorom]

lol Nice

[Vaiorom]

Sorry my computer is a little slow.

[cosmictraveler]

As we all are! :D

[Steve100]

That is possible. They could have faked them all.

Yep, but it would have been much easier to only "go" once, and only have to fake once.

[FatFreddy]

It was a hoax. Here's a link to a partial summary of the evidence.

s1 (dot) zetaboards (dot) com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/1/

[scott3x]

Thanks for the link Freddy, looks like an interesting forum. I can see it's mainly focused on 9/11, which is a topic I prefer anyway :-). I currently believe that -some- of the moon landings were faked, but I admit that I haven't studied the topic in depth. I think there are more important things.. such as what happened on 9/11.

[nietzschefan]

Comon this is ridiculous. I will admit there are some dodgy photos of certain aspects of the moon landings. Why NASA choose to do this, I have my own theories. There are some other aspects of the moon landings, pictures, film and current scientific tools(like that mirror) that make it indisputable fact.

[KennyJC]

Thanks for the link Freddy, looks like an interesting forum. I can see it's mainly focused on 9/11, which is a topic I prefer anyway :-). I currently believe that -some- of the moon landings were faked, but I admit that I haven't studied the topic in depth. I think there are more important things.. such as what happened on 9/11.

I guess your dishonesty has no boundary.

[halo07guy]

The Mythbusters had an episode a few days ago where they tested several myths about this. They concluded that all the supposed evidence was false. They proved the shadow thing wrong by building a scale set based off one of the photos, then positioning a camara at the same angle the photo was taken. They found that the shadows that led in opposite directions, supposedly, were actually caused by the terrain of the moon.

In other words though the shadows looked like they were going in diffrent directions, in actuality, they were going in the same direction, but a decently sized mound caused one to be wider, which, from the angle the camara was at, made it look like a straight line.

[KennyJC]

Well... what can you say? I remember the first time I became aware of a film trying to show that the moon landings never happened. Right off the bat, I was able to debunk some of it's main claims without even having to do any research.

The one about the stars not showing up in the pictures should be debunked by anyone who has ever used a camera.

They also thought that the astronaut standing in the shade of the module should be completely black as there was only one light source. All you have to do is look around your room to debunk this one.

They tried to speed up the footage of the buggy to try and make it look like it was driving at Earth gravity, but what about the dust being kicked up? In accordance to a vacuum, it does not float around as it would do on Earth. It would look odd to say the least if you were driving on a dirt road without hanging dust trailing your car.

[scott3x]

I guess your dishonesty has no boundary.

Kenny, I admit that in the past, I thought you were perhaps a spook spreading disinformation. And who knows, maybe you are, but I would think that they'd be a bit more professional, like Manuel Garcia. Anyway, what I'm getting at is that what I was doing was making an assumption, even if I never voiced it as I'm doing now. Even at the point where I most thought that you were such, however, I was never sure and I would never have stated it with sureness.

What I'm getting at is that you are assuming that I'm being dishonest. When it comes to the moon landings, I have heard the story that all of them were faked, but Jim Marrs, an author that you may know I deeply respect, seems to suggest in his book "Alien Agenda" that only some of them were. I have said that I haven't researched it beyond what he's said and I know that while he does investigate things fairly well, no one's perfect and I know that some internet critics produced some evidence that seemed to suggest that some of his claims weren't factual (the evidence they provided was technical so I couldn't be certain who was right, but I admitted it was possible Jim Marrs was in the wrong).

When it comes to 9/11, I think I now have a firm grasp on the important facts in one aspect atleast; the collapse of the WTC towers. I have now brought up points that no one has contradicted with anything and I believe it's because people are incapable of doing so.

In conclusion: I admit that perhaps some of my beliefs are misinformed, but your assumption that I'm being dishonest is false.

[Read-Only]

Kenny, I admit that in the past, I thought you were perhaps a spook spreading disinformation. And who knows, maybe you are, but I would think that they'd be a bit more professional, like Manuel Garcia. Anyway, what I'm getting at is that what I was doing was making an assumption, even if I never voiced it as I'm doing now. Even at the point where I most thought that you were such, however, I was never sure and I would never have stated it with sureness.

What I'm getting at is that you are assuming that I'm being dishonest. When it comes to the moon landings, I have heard the story that all of them were faked, but Jim Marrs, an author that you may know I deeply respect, seems to suggest in his book "Alien Agenda" that only some of them were. I have said that I haven't researched it beyond what he's said and I know that while he does investigate things fairly well, no one's perfect and I know that some internet critics produced some evidence that seemed to suggest that some of his claims weren't factual (the evidence they provided was technical so I couldn't be certain who was right, but I admitted it was possible Jim Marrs was in the wrong).

When it comes to 9/11, I think I now have a firm grasp on the important facts in one aspect atleast; the collapse of the WTC towers. I have now brought up points that no one has contradicted with anything and I believe it's because people are incapable of doing so.

In conclusion: I admit that perhaps some of my beliefs are misinformed, but your assumption that I'm being dishonest is false.

It's very refreshing to see your last sentence - I believe there's hope for you after all.

As to the Moon landings, none were faked and the people who claim that they were are conveniently avoiding the best evidence of all:

Each and every Moon shot was tracked by stations around the world which were operated by every modern country on the globe. In addition to that, the US was in a race with the USSR to get there - and Russia never ONCE made any claims of "hoax." You can be SURE they would have SCREAMED if there had been even the slightest bit of evidence to support it. But, unlike all the conspiracy nuts, their scientists were smart enough to understand that the photos, films, etc. were genuine. So they said nothing.

So tell me - how does any rational person get around at least the fact that they were tracked? They would have to sheer idiots to claim the WHOLE WORLD was involved in perpetrating a hoax!!:D

[madanthonywayne]

It could have been faked, (yes i will get shouted at because of this), simply because the light from the sun did not corrolate to the position of the flag.

That is all i know.That issue, along with all the other major points of the conspiracy nuts, was dealt with quite effectively on a recent episode of mythbusters. The variations seen in shadows seen in pictures (for instance) was simply caused by the topography of the moon.

[Ophiolite]

As to the Moon landings, none were faked and the people who claim that they were are conveniently avoiding the best evidence of all:As a geologist the best evidence of all is the geochemistry of the moonrocks. It is wholly different from anything that was imagined and has led to intrepretations and understandings that were unimagineable.
I make that last statement with care and deliberation. I was an undergraduate at the time of the first landing. Trust me, half the geologists on the planet were coming up with bizarre predictions of what would be found. Not one predicted what we actually found.
For me, that is the clincher.

[Gustav]

well?
the composition?

why is it only at 55 posts down actual evidence is being presented?
were you fucks talking about pussy?

[Read-Only]

As a geologist the best evidence of all is the geochemistry of the moonrocks. It is wholly different from anything that was imagined and has led to intrepretations and understandings that were unimagineable.
I make that last statement with care and deliberation. I was an undergraduate at the time of the first landing. Trust me, half the geologists on the planet were coming up with bizarre predictions of what would be found. Not one predicted what we actually found.
For me, that is the clincher.

You are correct of course.

I was making reference only to what is readily available to every ordinary lay person in the world. It requires no special understanding or training to know that the tracking was done - and announced on world-wide TV and radio as it was happening - and that the USSR never made any complaints.

[Read-Only]

well?
the composition?

why is it only at 55 posts down actual evidence is being presented?
were you fucks talking about pussy?

Well, for me it's because I haven't paid this stupid thread any attention. But just now there wasn't anything interesting to read so I pulled up the last page of it just to see what was here.

Ho-hum. {Yawn}

[Ophiolite]

You are correct of course. I think I am only correct for myself. The tracking data, the absence of whistle blowing by Russia, a dozen other things, are all individually and in combination, irrefutable. I can just relate most easily to the geology.

[KennyJC]

Kenny, I admit that in the past, I thought you were perhaps a spook spreading disinformation. And who knows, maybe you are, but I would think that they'd be a bit more professional, like Manuel Garcia. Anyway, what I'm getting at is that what I was doing was making an assumption, even if I never voiced it as I'm doing now. Even at the point where I most thought that you were such, however, I was never sure and I would never have stated it with sureness.

A spook? Does that mean some sort of undercover agent? If so then that is just absolute batshit crazy. Are you really THAT paranoid?

Jesus... put your tin hat on.

What I'm getting at is that you are assuming that I'm being dishonest. When it comes to the moon landings, I have heard the story that all of them were faked, but Jim Marrs, an author that you may know I deeply respect, seems to suggest in his book "Alien Agenda" that only some of them were. I have said that I haven't researched it beyond what he's said and I know that while he does investigate things fairly well, no one's perfect and I know that some internet critics produced some evidence that seemed to suggest that some of his claims weren't factual (the evidence they provided was technical so I couldn't be certain who was right, but I admitted it was possible Jim Marrs was in the wrong).

Just because you conceed one or two errors doesn't mean you are an honest person. You still accept the whole flawed picture. Yourself and Jim Marr want life to be like the X-Files and you won't let anyone tell you that it isn't.

When it comes to 9/11, I think I now have a firm grasp on the important facts in one aspect atleast; the collapse of the WTC towers. I have now brought up points that no one has contradicted with anything and I believe it's because people are incapable of doing so.

You have a good grasp of the truther propaganda, but the events of 9/11 are a totaly different thing.

And your version of the towers collapsing has no merit until you can explain why the towers were bowing and how this wasn't due to fire.

In conclusion: I admit that perhaps some of my beliefs are misinformed, but your assumption that I'm being dishonest is false.

You prove yourself dishonest with every sentance you write.

[Ophiolite]

Unless you are claiming dishonesty and self-delusion are identical I can see no grounds for calling scott dishonest. Perhaps you can point me in the necessary direction.

[KennyJC]

Unless you are claiming dishonesty and self-delusion are identical I can see no grounds for calling scott dishonest. Perhaps you can point me in the necessary direction.

No, he's pretty much just dishonest. He obviously enjoys having an X-Files outlook on life, and he will lie as much as it takes to continue the fantasy.

[Ophiolite]

So you can't cite an example of where he is lying. Very scientific of you. You just ;know it'. What you are describing is self-delusion and not lying. He believes what he writes. It is therefore irrelevant whether what he believes is true or false, in terms of his honesty.

Indeed, if you continue to accuse him of dishonesty I would be inclinded to say that you were now the dishonest one and your accusation is as well grounded as his claims about UFOs.

[KennyJC]

So you can't cite an example of where he is lying. Very scientific of you. You just ;know it'. What you are describing is self-delusion and not lying. He believes what he writes. It is therefore irrelevant whether what he believes is true or false, in terms of his honesty.

Indeed, if you continue to accuse him of dishonesty I would be inclinded to say that you were now the dishonest one and your accusation is as well grounded as his claims about UFOs.

I've been debating him for pages upon pages, and have called him out on his dishonesty point for point. A typical example of such dishonesty would be when he said he heard bombs in 2 YouTube videos I gave him of the collapse. As there were none, he can only be lying, or have a hearing problem. End of story. Or when he said dust clouds were proof of explosives, and so I gave him a video of a building collapsing due to fire (not 9/11 related) and the dust clouds that followed, and he continued some posts later to repeat the same lie even after he had seen the video.

We are not dealing with mystical discussions here were, these things can be seen and heard. Or not, as the case may be.

[FatFreddy]

The Mythbusters had an episode a few days ago where they tested several myths about this. They concluded that all the supposed evidence was false. They proved the shadow thing wrong by building a scale set based off one of the photos, then positioning a camara at the same angle the photo was taken. They found that the shadows that led in opposite directions, supposedly, were actually caused by the terrain of the moon.

In other words though the shadows looked like they were going in diffrent directions, in actuality, they were going in the same direction, but a decently sized mound caused one to be wider, which, from the angle the camara was at, made it look like a straight line.

The hoax-belivers have made a ffew mistakes. That may or may not be one of them. There is some irrefutible evidence of a hoax that they did not address.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
youtube (dot) com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

It swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.

Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
uk (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

This is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.

One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point.

Look at pages three and four of the comment section of the first YouTuve video. Three different pro-Apollo people have given three different explanations for the swinging jacket corner. The person who made the video (svector) won't answer requests that he comment on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They tried to speed up the footage of the buggy to try and make it look like it was driving at Earth gravity, but what about the dust being kicked up? In accordance to a vacuum, it does not float around as it would do on Earth. It would look odd to say the least if you were driving on a dirt road without hanging dust trailing your car.
It's possible to treat sand to make it dust-free.

Jay Windley (the webmaster at Clavius) 3W's (dot) clavius (dot) org/about (dot) html got caught lying about that issue.

apollohoax (dot) proboards21 (dot) com/index (dot) cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

3W's (dot) geologyrocks (dot) co (dot) uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

There's more on that issue here.
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc

As to the Moon landings, none were faked and the people who claim that they were are conveniently avoiding the best evidence of all:

Each and every Moon shot was tracked by stations around the world which were operated by every modern country on the globe. In addition to that, the US was in a race with the USSR to get there - and Russia never ONCE made any claims of "hoax." You can be SURE they would have SCREAMED if there had been even the slightest bit of evidence to support it. But, unlike all the conspiracy nuts, their scientists were smart enough to understand that the photos, films, etc. were genuine. So they said nothing.
We are told the missions were tracked but there are several plausible scenarios.

That might not be true at all. The press may be lying to us.

Those countries may have been bribed or blackmailed to announce they were tracking the missnions.

Unmanned craft might have actually gone to the moon and orbited for the length of the alleged missions and returned.

3W's (dot) nardwuar (dot) com/vs/bill_kaysing/index (dot) 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish Chomsky's analysis of the cold war were still on line but it isn't. This video series explains a lot of what Chomsky explains.
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/results?search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&search_type=&aq=f

As a geologist the best evidence of all is the geochemistry of the moonrocks. It is wholly different from anything that was imagined and has led to intrepretations and understandings that were unimagineable.
I make that last statement with care and deliberation. I was an undergraduate at the time of the first landing. Trust me, half the geologists on the planet were coming up with bizarre predictions of what would be found. Not one predicted what we actually found.
For me, that is the clincher.
There are alternative scenarios for the rocks.

Scientists can be bought so some of them might have lied. Some of them might have been fooled by bogus rocks and NASA might have collected some real rocks with robot craft to fool the ones who couldn't be bribed or bought.

Read the comment section of this video.
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=VCN7qWrLHVw

Here's more about the rock "Proof".
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=4AQQHTjeMkA

The rock "Proof" is pretty much debunked.

Sorry but I wasn't able to post hot-links. This site seems to be having technical problems. I've made more than twenty posts but I got a notice saying I'd only made nineteen posts. I trust the moderators will correct the problem.

[Read-Only]

The hoax-belivers have made a ffew mistakes. That may or may not be one of them. there is some irrefutible evidence of a hoax that they did not address.


Wow - according to you, about 20% of the modern world at the time MUST have been in on making the "hoax" work!!! Including ALL of the Russian scientific and military organizations who were VERY dismayed at having lost the race!!

That's a TREMENDOUS leap of either faith or stupidity on your part - which one is it?

Edit: And you can't even count very well, can you!?! That was exactly your 20th post so there's nothing that needs correcting. If you try now, you'll find that you can insert links with no problem. Sheesh!!!

[FatFreddy]

Wow - according to you, about 20% of the modern world at the time MUST have been in on making the "hoax" work!!! Including ALL of the Russian scientific and military organizations who were VERY dismayed at having lost the race!!

You're just assuming everything we read in the US reflects reality.

In the US we learn false history in school. We are taught that we are and have been defending democracy and freedom in the world. Look at the truth.

http://mtwsfh.blogspot.com/
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/


There is some good evidence that scientists lie.

This is the official government version of the effects of depleted uranium.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm

That version seems pretty doubtful after watching some of these videos.
http://video.google.es/videosearch?q=depleted+uranium#

Here's the official government version of the dangers of GM foods.
http://rand.org/commentary/051204FT.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US, the world's leading producer of GM crops, points out that 81 EU-funded research studies on GM foods in the past 15 years have found that crops with gene modifications posed no dangers to human health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That looks suspicious after reading stuff from the alternative press about the same subject.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-dangers-of-genetically-modified-food-confirmed/

This woman talks about how a lot of the science community has sold out at around the thirty minute mark of part one.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3626298989248030643

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


The US press give us an upside down version of what's happening in the world.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1525

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0

It seems quite plausible that what we read about what other countries say about Apollo is quite different from what they are really saying considering all the other lies we read.

Edit: And you can't even count very well, can you!?! That was exactly your 20th post so there's nothing that needs correcting. If you try now, you'll find that you can insert links with no problem. Sheesh!!!
When I tried to do post #26 in this thread, I got a note saying that I'd only made 19 posts so I couldn't post a hot-link.

When I did post #4 of this thread, I was able to post my first hot link.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84228

When I tried to do post #7 in the same thread, I got a note saying I'd only made 19 posts so I couldn't post any hot-links. Then, I tried to do post #65 in this thread and the same thing happened. There was some kind of "Technical problem".

Anyway, the video evidence proves the hoax.

Look on pages three and four of the comment section of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98

Three different pro-Apollo people have given three different explanations for the swinging jacket corner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wrong! The jacket is tied at the back. When his body goes down, so does the back of the jacket. Which is attached to the front corner of the jacket. Simple."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Its obviously a result of destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In zero-g, the corner will return to rest in the same position as related to its position in the rest of the jacket, regardless of orientation. This is not a diffucult concept. Ciao !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first two are very well-known pro-Apollo people.


This is who HeadLikeARock is.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1107&page=1#33457
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=9663&view=findpost&p=98465


This is who SpreadingtheMuse is.
http://es.youtube.com/user/SpreadingtheMuse

The third is an unknown.

If you read pages 3 and 4 of the comment section, you'll see that SpreadingtheMuse has said that all three are correct. You'll also see that the person who made the video (svector) has been ignoring requests that he comment on this for three months now.


Look at the corners of the woman astronaut's jacket in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

This is real zero-gravity.

I'd like to hear what you pro-Apollo people say about this.

[Read-Only]

You're just assuming everything we read in the US reflects reality.

In the US we learn false history in school. We are taught that we are and have been defending democracy and freedom in the world. Look at the truth.


Yadda, yadda, yadda, FF.

You made no attempt whatsoever to address the very simple things I called your attention to. Instead, you come back with TONS of propaganda totally unrelated to those points.

Bait and switch, eh? That's for lawyers and politicians - I'm not playing your silly game.

[Ophiolite]

There are alternative scenarios for the rocks.

Scientists can be bought so some of them might have lied. Some of them might have been fooled by bogus rocks and NASA might have collected some real rocks with robot craft to fool the ones who couldn't be bribed or bought.
Nonsense. You have completely misunderstood the point here. The composition of the rocks is remarkable, surprising and wholly unpredicted. You can't claim that someone made up the geochemical analysis data because it is, as noted, wholly unpredicted, yet totally consistent with the new paradigm of lunar formation.
The suggestion about robot return is so silly it isn't even wrong.

[FatFreddy]

Yadda, yadda, yadda, FF.

You made no attempt whatsoever to address the very simple things I called your attention to. Instead, you come back with TONS of propaganda totally unrelated to those points.

Bait and switch, eh? That's for lawyers and politicians - I'm not playing your silly game.
In other words you can't refute the claim that the clip we were told was filmed halfway to the moon was faked. If you think that was zero-gravity, explain why the corner of the jacket goes back down instead of continuing upward as it woud according to Newton's first law of motion. The only identifiable force making it go back down is gravity.

[Read-Only]

In other words you can't refute the claim that the clip we were told was filmed halfway to the moon was faked. If you think that was zero-gravity, explain why the corner of the jacket goes back down instead of continuing upward as it woud according to Newton's first law of motion. The only identifiable force making it go back down is gravity.

In other words YOU cannot dispute the simple, plain facts I pointed out to you. Address them or forget it.

I clearly told you I wasn't going to play your silly games with you.

[EndLightEnd]

Ive no doubt we went to the moon. Its what we found there the government is lying about.

The whole "faked moon landing" is just misdirection.

In other words YOU cannot dispute the simple, plain facts I pointed out to you. Address them or forget it.

Says the king of avoiding questions...

[Gustav]

The composition of the rocks is remarkable, surprising and wholly unpredicted.

well?
the composition?

how dare you ignore me!! :D

[KennyJC]

Ive no doubt we went to the moon. Its what we found there the government is lying about.

What do you think they found there that they are lying about?

This should be good...

[EndLightEnd]

I have no idea. Ask Neil Armstrong.

“There are wonders beyond belief on the moon for those who can remove protective layers of truth”
Neil Armstrong

But if our government tells us everything Kenny, what protective layers of truth is he referring too?

Was it as good for you as it was for me?

[KennyJC]

I have no idea. Ask Neil Armstrong.

“There are wonders beyond belief on the moon for those who can remove protective layers of truth”
Neil Armstrong

But if our government tells us everything Kenny, what protective layers of truth is he referring too?

Was it as good for you as it was for me?

I knew you wouldn't let me down. I had a good laugh.

That quote is false (unless he made it in a different speech), here's what he actually said:

There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove...one of the truth's protective layers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUx1SURbb3g

It's quite clear given the context of the speech which was directed to the next generation, that there remains great work to be done in making new discoveries and furthering our understanding of the universe. Not a controversial statement given that is what science strives for.

[Read-Only]

I have no idea. Ask Neil Armstrong.

“There are wonders beyond belief on the moon for those who can remove protective layers of truth”
Neil Armstrong

But if our government tells us everything Kenny, what protective layers of truth is he referring too?

Was it as good for you as it was for me?

Falsely quoted statement. It's been debunked many times. See why I keep saying you are so quick and ready to believe anything you hear or see??

[Gustav]

opi wants me to go back to hs

/dejected

[Ganymede]

Here's the best Scientific argument that I've seen that concludes beyond a reasonable doubt the moon photo's were staged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

[KennyJC]

Here's the best Scientific argument that I've seen that concludes beyond a reasonable doubt the moon photo's were staged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

Looks like someone needs to watch an episode of mythbusters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAcXBT-GZCo

Oh, and your claims that the photos were staged are irrelevant anyway since reflective mirrors on the Apollo landing site do in fact prove we were on the moon.

[Read-Only]

Here's the best Scientific argument that I've seen that concludes beyond a reasonable doubt the moon photo's were staged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

You actually accept THAT as evidence???

Why is it that nutters and woo-woos pretty much all feel that youtube is THE best source of information on the Internet???????? If it can be shown in a video it MUST be the truth, right? Say... wait a minute... isn't it photos and videos that they disbelieve in the first place???? (That sure says a lot about their lack of ability to discern fact from made-up fiction.):rolleyes:

[FatFreddy]

You made no attempt whatsoever to address the very simple things I called your attention to. Instead, you come back with TONS of propaganda totally unrelated to those points.

What I was doing was pointing out that almost everything Americans "Know" is wrong. Therefore, if we read that the Russians and Chinese tracked the Apollo craft to the moon, it isn't necessarily true. You are assuming it's a fact.

Here's some stuff from my other post. Tell me what you think of it.

http://www.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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&search_type=&aq=f


The only thing on which we can form opinions is the video footage and still pictures as we have no idea what kind of deals the US government might have made with other countries or what the press is failing to report or is lying about as illustrated by the info in post #67.

Here's some serious evidence of a hoax that you ignored.
Look on pages three and four of the comment section of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98

Three different pro-Apollo people have given three different explanations for the swinging jacket corner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wrong! The jacket is tied at the back. When his body goes down, so does the back of the jacket. Which is attached to the front corner of the jacket. Simple."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Its obviously a result of destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In zero-g, the corner will return to rest in the same position as related to its position in the rest of the jacket, regardless of orientation. This is not a diffucult concept. Ciao !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first two are very well-known pro-Apollo people.

This is who HeadLikeARock is.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...7&page=1#33457
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...ndpost&p=98465

This is who SpreadingtheMuse is.
http://es.youtube.com/user/SpreadingtheMuse

The third is an unknown.

If you read pages 3 and 4 of the comment section, you'll see that SpreadingtheMuse has said that all three are correct. You'll also see that the person who made the video (svector) has been ignoring requests that he comment on this for three months now.


Look at the corners of the woman astronaut's jacket in this clip; this is real zero-gravity.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

As far as I'm concerned this evidence closes the whole case. The corner of Collins' jacket is swinging back and forth the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon and the pro-Apollo people who were in charge of obfuscating hoax evidence on YouTube weren't very organized and contradicted each other. Then they had to say that the different explanations were all correct and that they were just different ways to describe the same thing which is ridiculous as the explanations are very different from each other.

Don't you pro-Apollo people have anything to say about this? Please say what you think of those three explanations for why the corner of Collins' jacket doesn't continue going upward as it would according to Newton's first law of motion. Is only one of them correct? Are they all correct? Are none of them correct?

[Ganymede]

You actually accept THAT as evidence???


Yes I do, we didn't land on the Moon. That's why you'll never see it happen again for as long as you live.

[KennyJC]

Yes I do, we didn't land on the Moon. That's why you'll never see it happen again for as long as you live.

Can someone please make the point to Ganymede (he claims to have me on ignore), that there are reflective mirrors on the Apollo landing site that is confirmed by astronomers on Earth?

[Read-Only]

Can someone please make the point to Ganymede (he claims to have me on ignore), that there are reflective mirrors on the Apollo landing site that is confirmed by astronomers on Earth?

It would accomplish nothing. He would just claim that it's yet another part of the conspiracy that the WHOLE world is involved in.

How anyone can be so stupid as to believe that MILLIONS of people all over the world are working together - and have been for over 20 years - to perpetrate a single hoax is way beyond me.

Yet there he is.:shrug:

[Ganymede]

I
How anyone can be so stupid as to believe that MILLIONS of people all over the world are working together - and have been for over 20 years - to perpetrate a single hoax is way beyond me.

Yet there he is.:shrug:

Millions of people all over the world believe in Jesus too.

[KennyJC]

Millions of people all over the world believe in Jesus too.

See... he makes no attempt to explain the reflective mirrors on the moons surface.

[FatFreddy]

Can someone please make the point to Ganymede (he claims to have me on ignore), that there are reflective mirrors on the Apollo landing site that is confirmed by astronomers on Earth?
If the surveyor landings were real, they had the technology to soft-land unmanned robotic craft on the moon. A robotic craft with adjustable mirrors attached to the sides could have soft-landed on the moon. Mirrors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html

How anyone can be so stupid as to believe that MILLIONS of people all over the world are working together - and have been for over 20 years - to perpetrate a single hoax is way beyond me.
It wasn't necessarily millions. Not everybody working on the Apollo program had to know it was a hoax. The program was compartmentalized. Not that many people were in a position to know if the whole thing would work. If there were robotic craft on the moon, the transmission could have really come from the moon fooling the people at mission control. In other countries only people in high levels of government had to know about the hoax. There might have been lots of people talking about it. If the US press doesn't report it, it might as well not have happened as far as Americans are concerned; the press keeps everybody in the dark.

http://www.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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1525
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0

You should read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war. It's off-line now but it's in his book entitled "Deterring Democracy".

This the videos in this series deal with the same subject.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&search_type=&aq=f

It's very plausible that the US and the Soviets made a deal.

Sorry about posting the same links more than once but people don't seem to be considering the information in them. If anybody thinks it's wrong, we can talk about that too.

The video evidence proves it was a hoax. There are plausible scenarios that explain how people were fooled, etc.

In post #82 I asked you pro-Apollo people to say what you think about the way the corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

Let's hear your analyses of this issue.

[KennyJC]

If the surveyor landings were real, they had the technology to soft-land unmanned robotic craft on the moon. A robotic craft with adjustable mirrors attached to the sides could have soft-landed on the moon. Mirrors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html

If that was the case, then NASA wouldn't have bothered mentioning anything about retroreflectors since that would mean they would have to fly probes to the moon and go to the extra effort to have them exactly placed in the Apollo landing sites.

Anyway, here is independent evidence for the Apollo moon landings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

I guess the only way to know for sure is at some point in the future when man eventually returns to the Apollo sites. At which point future CT's will claim that the revisitation was a hoax also :rolleyes:

The media is controlled by the government.

If the media is controlled by the government, then why is the media always so critical of government institutions and the president?

It's very plausible that the US and the Soviets made a deal.

What a conveniant justification for you to continue your tin-hatted antics.

In post #82 I asked you pro-Apollo people to say what you think about the way the corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

I'm not sure why you think this proves anything? Correct me if I'm wrong, but even in zero gravity, objects are affected by momentum and collisions with other objects.

[FatFreddy]

I'm not sure why you think this proves anything? Correct me if I'm wrong, but even in zero gravity, objects are affected by momentum and collisions with other objects.
Look at it again. There's nothing that hits the jacket corner to make it go back down. The only identifiable force making it go down is gravity. Please identify the force you see making it go back down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

If that was the case, then NASA wouldn't have bothered mentioning anything about retroreflectors since that would mean they would have to fly probes to the moon and go to the extra effort to have them exactly placed in the Apollo landing sites.

For all we know, there is only one reflector. Maybe there are several. That would have been expensive to do but it was possible. The video shows it was a fake so either several mirrors were placed on the moon by robotic craft or we're being lied to about the mirrors.


There's nothing here that isn't explainable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

There might be few geologists who think the moon rocks are fake but the press and scientific journals are ignoring them. Also, if any geologists were to say that they were fake, their carreers would be ruined.

Look in the comment section of this video about the rocks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCN7qWrLHVw

Here's more about the rocks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQQHTjeMkA

It's also plausible that some of the rocks were actually collected by robot craft on the moon.

We are told that third parties tracked the missions. There are plausible scenerios that would explain that. If you think that it's implausible that secret deals were made, you should read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war. Also, you can watch this series of videos.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&search_type=&aq=f

Those videos were in my last post. Have you watched them?

It's also plausible that a robot craft went to the moon, orbited during the length of the alleged missions and returned. All this may seem far-fetched but the video and still picturers show that the missions were faked.

It says a fuel dump was photographed. Pictures are fakable.

All the sightings have altenative explanations. The people who "Sighted" the craft might have been working for NASA or there might have been an actual robot craft.

If NASA says the parts of the Surveyor probe were exposed to moon conditions, it isn't necessarily true. NASA is the party accused of faking the whole thing.

The ultraviolet photos could have been taken from an orbiting craft or from a robot craft on the moon.

With the technology available today any picture is fakable so any future pictures of the equipment left on the moon will not be proof of anything.

There's nothing in that link that proves the missions were real and the video shows it was faked.


If the media is controlled by the government, then why is the media always so critical of government institutions and the president?
The media criticize the government between very narrow limits. Can you imagine some anti-establishment pundits like Noam Chomsky, William Blum, Edward Herman, James Petras, Michel Chossudovsky, or Michail Parenti talking on one of those Sunday pundit shows? They wouldn't allow it as the realistic discussion that would ensue would go way beyond the accepted limits.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/
http://petras.lahaine.org/todos.php
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Edward_Herman.html
http://www.chomsky.info/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/

[Steve100]

Look at it again. There's nothing that hits the jacket corner to make it go back down. The only identifiable force making it go down is gravity. Please identify the force you see making it go back down.


What about tension?

[FatFreddy]

What about tension?
Go into some more detail.

When I look at the movement, I see rippling in the fabric. It looks pretty loose to me. When you say "Tension", do you mean like in elastic? If that's what you mean, it would have to be pulled--not pushed. It would have to be stiff to be pushed and it doesn't look stiff at all.

Also, did you compare the movement with the way the corners of the woman astronaut's jacket behave in this clip?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

Her jacket corners are floating--not hanging.

[KennyJC]

Look at it again. There's nothing that hits the jacket corner to make it go back down. The only identifiable force making it go down is gravity. Please identify the force you see making it go back down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

The corner if the jacket is attached to the rest of the jacket, which is attached to someone jumping up and down. The jacket corner simply goes with it.

For all we know, there is only one reflector. Maybe there are several. That would have been expensive to do but it was possible. The video shows it was a fake so either several mirrors were placed on the moon by robotic craft or we're being lied to about the mirrors.

If we are being lied to about the mirrors, then how come any independ astronomer in a large laser telescope can have it's light reflected back to it when pointed at the Apollo landing sites?

And the video does not show it was faked at all. Much of the video vindicates the physics you would expect on a lunar landscape.

There might be few geologists who think the moon rocks are fake but the press and scientific journals are ignoring them. Also, if any geologists were to say that they were fake, their carreers would be ruined.

Look in the comment section of this video about the rocks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCN7qWrLHVw

Here's more about the rocks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQQHTjeMkA

We are told that third parties tracked the missions. There are plausible scenerios that would explain that. If you think that it's implausible that secret deals were made, you should read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war. Also, you can watch this series of videos.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&search_type=&aq=f

Those videos were in my last post. Have you watched them?

It's also plausible that a robot craft went to the moon, orbited during the length of the alleged missions and returned. All this may seem far-fetched but the video and still picturers show that the missions were faked.

It says a fuel dump was photographed. Pictures are fakable.

All the sightings have altenative explanations. The people who "Sighted" the craft might have been working for NASA or there might have been an actual robot craft.

If NASA says the parts of the Surveyor probe were exposed to moon conditions, it isn't necessarily true. NASA is the party accused of faking the whole thing.

The ultraviolet photos could have been taken from an orbiting craft or from a robot craft on the moon.

With the technology available today any picture is fakable so any future pictures of the equipment left on the moon will not be proof of anything.

There's nothing in that link that proves the missions were real and the video shows it was faked.

I would reply to all this stuff one by one, but I realise that they are all the same fallacy. If something is used as proof for lunar landings you are full of thin justifications that they are all fakable or they are secret NASA agents or "deals" were made. Basically, I'm not impressed by the sheer amount of baseless allegations against the evidence for the Apollo Moon landings.

It's also plausible that some of the rocks were actually collected by robot craft on the moon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no unmanned space craft has been able to land, collect rocks, take off, and come back to Earth. If we could do this, we would have rocks from Mars on Earth that were collected in such a manner.

The media criticize the government between very narrow limits. Can you imagine some anti-establishment pundits like Noam Chomsky, William Blum, Edward Herman, James Petras, Michel Chossudovsky, or Michail Parenti talking on one of those Sunday pundit shows? They wouldn't allow it as the realistic discussion that would ensue would go way beyond the accepted limits.

Not true. The media virtually destroyed the Bush administration about it's failure during hurricaine Katrina. Bush's approval rating is a pathetic 27% and has always been falling. If the government controlled the media, that would be a completely different story.

[FatFreddy]

The corner if the jacket is attached to the rest of the jacket, which is attached to someone jumping up and down. The jacket corner simply goes with it.
It would have to be stiff for that to happen. It's loose.
What do you think of the other three explanations that I posted? Are those people right?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wrong! The jacket is tied at the back. When his body goes down, so does the back of the jacket. Which is attached to the front corner of the jacket. Simple."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Its obviously a result of destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In zero-g, the corner will return to rest in the same position as related to its position in the rest of the jacket, regardless of orientation. This is not a diffucult concept. Ciao !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we are being lied to about the mirrors, then how come any independ astronomer in a large laser telescope can have it's light reflected back to it when pointed at the Apollo landing sites?
We read that independent astronomers have light reflected when they point to the sites but is it really true? They might be people working for NASA. The journals in which we read this might be printing lies. There are lots of plausible scenarios. Video evidence trumps evidence that has several plausible alternative scenarios. The video evidence of a hoax is irrefutable.

Much of the video vindicates the physics you would expect on a lunar landscape.
Check out this video.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og

I would reply to all this stuff one by one, but I realise that they are all the same fallacy. If something is used as proof for lunar landings you are full of thin justifications that they are all fakable or they are secret NASA agents or "deals" were made.
The fact that those scenarios are plausible means that none of the stuff on the list you posted is conclusive proof. The only thing we can really go on is the video footage and still pictures that have been released by the government. If there are unexplainable anomalies there, all the stuff on that list falls by the wayside.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no unmanned space craft has been able to land, collect rocks, take off, and come back to Earth. If we could do this, we would have rocks from Mars on Earth that were collected in such a manner.
We have no idea what kind of classified equipment the government has or what kind of classified missions have been carried out.

Not true. The media virtually destroyed the Bush administration about it's failure during hurricaine Katrina. Bush's approval rating is a pathetic 27% and has always been falling. If the government controlled the media, that would be a completely different story.
The criticism takes place between very narrow limits. If they can criticize the government for something like negligence, it gives a false appearance of objectivity on the part of the press. You don't seem to have read any of the articles I've posted that show what it's like to go beyond the limits.

Those guys I listed in post #90 would eat Bush for lunch at a press conference of they were allowed to attend one. Nothing they say is printed in the mainstream press. Most people don't even know they exist because the press ignores them. They write articles and book that explain the way the world really works to Americans.

Tell me what you think of these articles that would never pass the US mainstream press censors.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/

You can also do YouTube searches on those people and listen to their analyses of what the US does in the world.

Noam Chomsky
William Blum
Edward Herman
James Petras
Michel Chossudovsky
Michail Parenti

[Ophiolite]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no unmanned space craft has been able to land, collect rocks, take off, and come back to Earth. You are completely wrong.

Sept. 12, 1970 E-8-5 No. 406 Luna-16 Sample return UR-500 First automatic lunar sample return
Feb. 14, 1972 E-8-5 No. 408 Luna-20 Sample return UR-500 Returned samples from the Moon
Aug. 9, 1976 E-8-5M No. 413 Luna-24 Sample return UR-500 Returned lunar samples

There were three other unsuccesful attempts.

[KennyJC]

It would have to be stiff for that to happen. It's loose.
What do you think of the other three explanations that I posted? Are those people right?

I don't follow...

We read that independent astronomers have light reflected when they point to the sites but is it really true? They might be people working for NASA. The journals in which we read this might be printing lies. There are lots of plausible scenarios. Video evidence trumps evidence that has several plausible alternative scenarios. The video evidence of a hoax is irrefutable.

That's a ridiculous claim. I've seen programs like mythbusters and a BBC program about the moon were they take cameras to these observatories and the light reflection is demonstrated empirically. When they point to random parts of the moon, nothing is reflected except background light, when they point to Apollo sights, there is a large spike in reflected light.

Check out this video.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og

The start of that video shows the astronaut gracefully bouncing accross the moon as if in low gravity. I know you will say the tape was just slowed down, but we have tried the same thing here on Earth (like in the BBC program), and it revealed that even when slowed down, signs of Earth gravity were still obvious. On Moon landing footage, there is no such obstruction or 'heaviness' in the astronauts movements.

As for the rest of the video... are you fucking kidding me? Because James Bond movies built a Moon set, that means NASA did too? How did NASA have a large studio that was a vacuum, and did they suck out all the extra gravity from the studio too? Impressive.

The fact that those scenarios are plausible means that none of the stuff on the list you posted is conclusive proof. The only thing we can really go on is the video footage and still pictures that have been released by the government. If there are unexplainable anomalies there, all the stuff on that list falls by the wayside.

With each justification you make for all the evidence, your fantasy becomes more and more unlikely.

The criticism takes place between very narrow limits. If they can criticize the government for something like negligence, it gives a false appearance of objectivity on the part of the press. You don't seem to have read any of the articles I've posted that show what it's like to go beyond the limits.

I wouldn't call it narrow limits. Katrina was a disaster not only for the victims, but for the government.

[FatFreddy]

It would have to be stiff for that to happen. It's loose.
What do you think of the other three explanations that I posted? Are those people right? ”
I don't follow...


This is what you had said.
The corner if the jacket is attached to the rest of the jacket, which is attached to someone jumping up and down. The jacket corner simply goes with it.
In order for the jacket corner to go with it, it would have to be pushed down from the top. If a force pushes down on a loose piece of cloth, it will wrinkle. Only a very stiff object would move down without wrinkling.

If you look at the comment section of the YouTube video in question, you'll see that three different pro-Apollo people gave three contradictory explanations for the movement of the jacket corner. Two of those people are well-known pro-Apollo posters. One of them is a regular poster at the Clavius forum.

I'm asking you what you think of the three explanations that they gave and what you think of the fact that three pro-Apollo people give different explanations.

That's a ridiculous claim. I've seen programs like mythbusters and a BBC program about the moon were they take cameras to these observatories and the light reflection is demonstrated empirically. When they point to random parts of the moon, nothing is reflected except background light, when they point to Apollo sights, there is a large spike in reflected light.

I can't see any way to prove that what we read is true when they claim that there is a large spike in reflected light when they point at the Apollo sites. If it turns out to be true, there's the plausible scenario that NASA soft-landed robotic craft with adjustable reflectors attached to their sides at all the alleged sites. The only thing we can use as proof of anything is undoctored video footage and still pictures released by the government as there are plausible alternative scenarios for mere arguments. The footage and stills are full of anomalies such as the one being discussed now.

Check out this video.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og ”
The start of that video shows the astronaut gracefully bouncing accross the moon as if in low gravity. I know you will say the tape was just slowed down, but we have tried the same thing here on Earth (like in the BBC program), and it revealed that even when slowed down, signs of Earth gravity were still obvious. On Moon landing footage, there is no such obstruction or 'heaviness' in the astronauts movements.
When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled in speed, it looks exactly like movement on earth.

http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286
(30:55)

http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736
(21:00)

Also, when Apollo 11 footage is compared with later footage, the body movements at different.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021

In Apollo 11 they used a crude 50% slow-motion. Later they used a slow-motion of about 67 percent and wire supports.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXALCQgrvPE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

That's why gravity seems to be affecting the astronauts differently.

As for the rest of the video... are you fucking kidding me? Because James Bond movies built a Moon set, that means NASA did too? How did NASA have a large studio that was a vacuum, and did they suck out all the extra gravity from the studio too? Impressive.

It wasn't filmed in vacuum. Look at the way atmosphere makes the flag move when the astronaut walks by it in this video.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

The criticism takes place between very narrow limits. If they can criticize the government for something like negligence, it gives a false appearance of objectivity on the part of the press. You don't seem to have read any of the articles I've posted that show what it's like to go beyond the limits. ”
I wouldn't call it narrow limits. Katrina was a disaster not only for the victims, but for the government.
The people who control the government are never in any danger of losing their control as they've got the system rigged. They let the press criticize the government about things like huricanes as it gives the illusion that the press is independent.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ruling_Elites/BilderbergClub.html

Go into Google Video or YouTube and enter "Bilderberg" and "Chomsky media" for more.

You're not considering the info in any of the articles or videos that I've been posting. Are you looking at the info at all?

[KennyJC]

If you look at the comment section of the YouTube video in question, you'll see that three different pro-Apollo people gave three contradictory explanations for the movement of the jacket corner. Two of those people are well-known pro-Apollo posters. One of them is a regular poster at the Clavius forum.

I'm asking you what you think of the three explanations that they gave and what you think of the fact that three pro-Apollo people give different explanations.

I don't know what the precise scientific explanation would be, but to me just watching, it simply looks like the movement of the jacket is based upon the movement of the astronaut and nothing to do with gravity.

I can't see any way to prove that what we read is true when they claim that there is a large spike in reflected light when they point at the Apollo sites. If it turns out to be true, there's the plausible scenario that NASA soft-landed robotic craft with adjustable reflectors attached to their sides at all the alleged sites. The only thing we can use as proof of anything is undoctored video footage and still pictures released by the government as there are plausible alternative scenarios for mere arguments. The footage and stills are full of anomalies such as the one being discussed now.

By saying that independent astronomers and TV crews can fake their evidence just reduces the credibility of your claims. The reason you should concede that there are without doubt mirrors on the Apollo landing sites is due to the fact that you can not have independent astronomers in on the conspiracy from now and the end of time. Go ahead and say they got there by robotic craft, even if that is in itself also very stupid and baseless. But the mirrors are there. A conspiracy that tries to persuade independent astronomers to join them from now till far in the future is doomed to failure.


When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled in speed, it looks exactly like movement on earth.

Not true. I remember watching a BBC documentary were they tried to replicate the Moon landings and one of the tests they carried out was to film an astronaut bouncing across the desert and then slow the footage down by half. Even when the footage was slowed, the astronaut showed tell tale signs of Earth gravity as his body was more violently affected by each step made when compared to Moon footage. I do agree that perhaps the inclusion of wires would have been able to lessen the effect of Earth gravity, but there is just no evidence for that. And if you are going to say that the "wires" glinted in the Sun, like I saw in one of your videos, that was simply glare from the helmet.

I tried to find footage of the documentary I mentioned above. I watched it on Google Video last year. Perhaps it's still there, but I can't find it.

It wasn't filmed in vacuum. Look at the way atmosphere makes the flag move when the astronaut walks by it in this video.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

As far as I'm aware, the space suits would be venting Co2 and water vapor from the cooling system. As the astronaut was walking past it's likely the gas emitting from the suit came in contact with the flag.

Further evidence of a vacuum:

If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#doubletime

[FatFreddy]

I don't know what the precise scientific explanation would be, but to me just watching, it simply looks like the movement of the jacket is based upon the movement of the astronaut and nothing to do with gravity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98

When the jacket corner is pulled up by Collins' upward movement, it would keep going up according to Newton's first law of motion. Gravity is what's stopping it from continuing upward.

This is real zero-G. Look at the corners of the woman's jacket.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4


By saying that independent astronomers and TV crews can fake their evidence just reduces the credibility of your claims.
Lots of them were probably working for NASA. If any intependent astronomer not working for NASA were to say anything different, the press and astronmy magazines would ignore him.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1525

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0

The reason you should concede that there are without doubt mirrors on the Apollo landing sites is due to the fact that you can not have independent astronomers in on the conspiracy from now and the end of time.
How can independent astronomers see what's on the moon if the Hubble telescope can't even make out the landing sites?

Not true. I remember watching a BBC documentary were they tried to replicate the Moon landings and one of the tests they carried out was to film an astronaut bouncing across the desert and then slow the footage down by half. Even when the footage was slowed, the astronaut showed tell tale signs of Earth gravity as his body was more violently affected by each step made when compared to Moon footage. I do agree that perhaps the inclusion of wires would have been able to lessen the effect of Earth gravity, but there is just no evidence for that. And if you are going to say that the "wires" glinted in the Sun, like I saw in one of your videos, that was simply glare from the helmet.

Watch the video of Apollo 11 played at double speed at the 30 minute 55 second mark of this video.

http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286

In the first missions, they used 50% slow-motion. In the later missions they used a faster slow-motion combined with wire supports.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXALCQgrvPE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

That video you mentioned does not debunk this evidence. They just moved their bodies a little differently to get the effect they wanted.


As far as I'm aware, the space suits would be venting Co2 and water vapor from the cooling system. As the astronaut was walking past it's likely the gas emitting from the suit came in contact with the flag.

Watch this three part series about the flag movement.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ


If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum.
Watch the clip in slow-motion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo66TOwxXGQ

I once mistakenly thought that the soil was moving like this.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/grandprix01.jpg

It was pointed out to me that it was moving according to these arrows.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/gp_frames_2.jpg

In order to see the trajectory, we have to look at a section of dirt that is ejected at a low angle. When I look at a section of dirt that is ejected at a low angle in the video, I see that it is not landing at the same speed at which it is ejected as would be the case if it were in a vacuum.

[Ophiolite]

I don't lbeleive loose thinking should be encouraged. I do think ridiculous ideas should be ridiculed. If you find any of my remarks offensive, please accept your responsibilty for having prompted me to make them.

When the jacket corner is pulled up by Collins' upward movement, it would keep going up according to Newton's first law of motion. Gravity is what's stopping it from continuing upward.Have you heard of strength of materials? You don't think the attractive forces within the jacket might tend to resist movement? No, obviously you don't think so. As a consequence I am forced to ask are you stupid, or just poorly educated? Take your time to answer.
Lots of them were probably working for NASA. If any intependent astronomer not working for NASA were to say anything different, the press and astronmy magazines would ignore him.
You don't have any knowledge of how the media work whatsoever, do you? You are woefully ignorant of the incessant pressure to come up with stories that sell copy. If an independent astronomer came up with such evidence then the media would be falling over themselves in a bidding war.
Here's a suggestion. Why not try to meet some real people once in a while? You may learn to like it.[/QUOTE]
After such a weak opening I have little incentive to wade through the rest of your delusions.

[Avatar]

Hey, idiots! Yes, it is true, there was no Moon landing!]
It's safe now, the world is not too complicated for your little, moron brains. Sing a song...

[FatFreddy]

Have you heard of strength of materials? You don't think the attractive forces within the jacket might tend to resist movement? No, obviously you don't think so. As a consequence I am forced to ask are you stupid, or just poorly educated? Take your time to answer.
The material isn't stiff enough to force the corner back down.

Also, here's something I've posted several times.

Look on pages three and four of the comment section of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98

Three different pro-Apollo people have given three different explanations for the swinging jacket corner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wrong! The jacket is tied at the back. When his body goes down, so does the back of the jacket. Which is attached to the front corner of the jacket. Simple."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Its obviously a result of destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In zero-g, the corner will return to rest in the same position as related to its position in the rest of the jacket, regardless of orientation. This is not a diffucult concept. Ciao !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first two are very well-known pro-Apollo people.

This is who HeadLikeARock is.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...7&page=1#33457
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...ndpost&p=98465

This is who SpreadingtheMuse is.
http://es.youtube.com/user/SpreadingtheMuse

The third is an unknown.

If you read pages 3 and 4 of the comment section, you'll see that SpreadingtheMuse has said that all three are correct. You'll also see that the person who made the video (svector) has been ignoring requests that he comment on this for three months now.

What do you think of those other three explanations? HeadLikeARock is a regular poster at the Clavius forum.
http://www.clavius.org/

SpreadingtheMuse made this video.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=VCN7qWrLHVw
He's a pretty well known pro-Apollo poster.

Both of those people have said that all three of the explanations are different ways of looking at the same phenomenon. Now you have put forth a fourth explanation.

If you think the explanations given by SpreadingtheMuse and HeadLikeARock are wrong, please say so.

Also--

Watch Collins' dogtags that are around his neck. They bounce up and down the way they would in gravity. They go up, stop, and come back down in rythm with his jogging.

Watch the dogtags the woman in this clip is wearing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3dGBSggYq8
(1 minute 49 second mark)

When they are sent up, they don't stop until they hit her chin.

You don't have any knowledge of how the media work whatsoever, do you? You are woefully ignorant of the incessant pressure to come up with stories that sell copy. If an independent astronomer came up with such evidence then the media would be falling over themselves in a bidding war.

Here's some stuff about the American press.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1525

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0

It would be downright dangerous to openly say Apollo was a hoax. Look at the case of Thomas Baron.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

Lots of people who are a thorn in the govenment's side have "Accidents".
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/455971/1/

Look at the info in these two links.
http://mtwsfh.blogspot.com/
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

This reflects the truth about American foreign policy. Anyone who lives abroad for a few years finds this out without having to read anything. If any reporter wanted to print an article similar to the ones in those sites, the editor would never approve it and he would probably be delegated to a lower post or worse. Reporters can't just print whatever they want whether it's about Apollo, or anything else.

[Ophiolite]

Of course Freddy. You are quite right. The X-Files wasn't a drama it was a documentary. Aagh! We are at risk even writing here on this forum. Only the fact that I am an agent provocateur can save me. You, however, are doubtless doomed.

[Stryder]

I find the "Moon Golf" to be an interesting show of physics.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KZLl3XwlAIE

At 00:55 seconds in Alan Shepard hits a golf ball with a one armed stroke which is only about a quarter swing, the ball shoots off in a flurry of dust. The dust comes up similar to how Ashes would, as the golf balls has relatively low resistance and speeds along undeterred by the dust/debris.

To me, that would prove Men were on the moon and anyone that says otherwise is a complete loon.

[Uno Hoo]

I find the "Moon Golf" to be an interesting show of physics.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KZLl3XwlAIE

At 00:55 seconds in Alan Shepard hits a golf ball with a one armed stroke which is only about a quarter swing, the ball shoots off in a flurry of dust. The dust comes up similar to how Ashes would, as the golf balls has relatively low resistance and speeds along undeterred by the dust/debris.

To me, that would prove Men were on the moon and anyone that says otherwise is a complete loon.


Why are you holding two caulk applicators Xd on your chest? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just be careful to avoid shooting yourself in the mouth. I know you would not want to waste caulk. And do not injure yourself! Please do not shoot your mouth off!


I don't see the Ashes thing. To me it looks like sand hit in a vacuum and in a one gee environment. Golf balls has much higher restitution factor than sands and so golf balls is expected to accelerate off the club head more effectively and spectacularly than sands. If it is all in a vacuum then resistance ( air resistance? ) makes no difference to flight of golf balls or sands.

To me it looks like a slow speed playback of a movie of a golf balls and sands clubbed in vacuum and in one gee.

You seem to be saying that your appreciation of the movie proves that men were on the moon. But you might be seeming to say that a movie that looks like it was made at original normal speed in vacuum and in one gee proves that men were on the moon. Please clarify.

And lastly as well as leastly, you seem to be calling people loons if they don't believe that the movie proves to you that men were on the moon. But what about people who are unconcerned about your threshold of proof but don't believe that the movie proves to themselves that men were on the moon. Are those people left without being called loons? Now, this loon name calling itself: you seem to be calling people the name of a fish eating, diving bird species. But you might be creatively linguistically alluding to those obsessed with lunar subjects; perhaps thereby called lunes as would be derived from the word lunar.

As soon as you clarify these one or two trifles then I can try to schedule sufficient time to study and reflect upon any important points in your post. Providing, of course, that I can make the time. I am terribly busy right now.

[GeoffP]

I find the "Moon Golf" to be an interesting show of physics.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KZLl3XwlAIE

At 00:55 seconds in Alan Shepard hits a golf ball with a one armed stroke which is only about a quarter swing, the ball shoots off in a flurry of dust. The dust comes up similar to how Ashes would, as the golf balls has relatively low resistance and speeds along undeterred by the dust/debris.

To me, that would prove Men were on the moon and anyone that says otherwise is a complete loon.

He was using special dust. Duhr! What, you think NASA is dumb? They're rocket scientists, man! If they can outsmart gravity they can outsmart smarmy science-and-reason lovers like you.

[fedr808]

Well there is proof. The third succesful landing on the moon placed a large mirror on the moon. Using geometry scientists on earth can measure the real distance from the earth to the moon using lasers bouncing off the mirror. If you know where to look on the moon the mirror is still up there.

Also another group of astronauts on the moon dropped a hammer and feather. The old theory that two objects when dropepd will fall at the same speed. It's hard to prove this on earth because of air resistance. So they tested it on the moon and what do you know they fall at the same time. And no there were no vacums of size enough to do that at the time.

[GeoffP]

Pfft. Don't think we'll fall for the old mirror-on-the-moon trick. That's just a much, much bigger mirror in orbit.

[sniffy]

oh god not non moon landing conspiracies again....

shoots self in head

[GeoffP]

You can't handle the truth.

[sniffy]

The truth is out there. Please pass large plaster and fast acting flu remedy...

[fedr808]

Pfft. Don't think we'll fall for the old mirror-on-the-moon trick. That's just a much, much bigger mirror in orbit.

dude if your serious than you are A TOTAL FREAKING MORON! dude if it was a big mirror the ISS would see it. Two, A lot of astronomors US and international would see it. So you are a total freaking retard. And why would the mirror be bigger, basic geometry dumb butt, it would have to be smaller. I hope youre not serious otherwise you must be like a 4th grade drop out or something.

[MacGyver1968]

Dude...Geoff was joking..god...at least I hope he was joking..:)

His sense of humor is sometimes hard to get....I don't get it most of the time. :)

[CutsieMarie89]

They did this on Mythbusters.

[GeoffP]

dude if your serious than you are A TOTAL FREAKING MORON! dude if it was a big mirror the ISS would see it. Two, A lot of astronomors US and international would see it. So you are a total freaking retard. And why would the mirror be bigger, basic geometry dumb butt, it would have to be smaller. I hope youre not serious otherwise you must be like a 4th grade drop out or something.

Uhh uhhh they would move it back and forth with rockets! Or it could fold out! The moon is made of styrofoam!

Heh.

[OilIsMastery]

Apollo 18 is a hoax. Apollo 10 through 17 were real...:D

[fedr808]

Uhh uhhh they would move it back and forth with rockets! Or it could fold out! The moon is made of styrofoam!

Heh.

Sorry, it's hard for me to understand sarcasm on the internet.

P.S. its made of cheese, lolz.

Also, Apollo 18 is not a hoax cuz it never took off. It was cancelled.

[GeoffP]

See! Conspiracy! And who would play golf on the moon, I ask you. Especially as it's made of cheese.