# Proof: Moon Landing Fake

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by URI, Nov 11, 2005.

1. ### Communist HamsterCricetulus griseus leninusValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,022
Ah, my mistake.

3. ### allisone417i'll be in my roomRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
271
Is there a high-res photo that you can clearly see the reflection on his face shild?

5. ### qwerty mobDeicidalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
786
PHP:
 Proof: Moon Landing Fake  

LOL- Which one?

...

Buzz Aldrin was my neighbor and attended my parent's church in Houston, Texas (Webster Presbyterian); I had spoken with him on a couple occasions as a boy in the mid-1970's, and I recall him being very open and forthcoming about his missions and the Space Program in general.

The one question he was ever "guarded" about was that of extraterrestrial life; he'd said on more than occasion that "he wished he could say"- which (looking back) seems to be a slight double-entendre, which he was famous for.

Another example, when asked what it was like to walk on the Moon, he'd invariably say "like nothing on this world."

I admire Buzz's courage, he made it through the program and NASA's treadmill, but his greatest accomplishment (and often unwritten Human interest story) was that of "beating depression."

Greetings

7. ### WhitePhoenixRegistered Member

Messages:
10
Hi all. I would love more than anything to believe the moon landing really happened. If your argument is that NASA didn't have the technology at the time..well we all know that most of our current technology that we use today was developed by NASA years before the general public even knows it exists. Here is an article from Science at NASA regarding MOON FOUNTAINS...it's pretty simple but interesting with diagrams etc.

There's also talk about the radioatctive magnetic belt (Forgive my forgetfullness but I forget the name) That states something along the lines if we were to fly outside the Earths orbit the radiation would be too extreme. The only way we can sheild ourselves from the radiation would be lead. So my question is what is it that they use to protect from the radiation?

Sorry all I don't feel I have an opinion yet as to whether or not it happend but I do have questions... Thanks for reading.

8. ### Avatarsmoking revolverValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,083
"Space.com is reporting the beginning of construction on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Which is scheduled for launch in late fall of 2008. It will orbit the moon at fifty kilometers and image the entire surface at high resolution. A far Ultraviolet instrument will enable it to see into areas permanently in shadow and see if there is indeed ice there. LRO will count craters and image American and Soviet landing sites."

9. ### leopoldValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,455
they are called van allen belts
there are 2 of them

10. ### WhitePhoenixRegistered Member

Messages:
10
Thanks for the response ....thats it Van Allen Belts...so how does that effect anything flying outside of Earths orbit? Or does it?

11. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
Hi WhitePhoenix,
Phil Plait has an extensive page about the Fox TV program: "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?", including a brief take on the Van Allen belts and links to more authoritative information.

12. ### SilasasimovbotRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,116
Not that I normally quote people on my ignore list, but here goes:
I've noticed quite a lot of moon hoax advocates tend to use arguments extrapolating bizarre scenarios if things were seen as going wrong - here, it is large scale rioting, if Hasselblad's cameras failed. In fact the most important thing as far as the public were concerned was the TV coverage. And for Apollo 12, they didn't get any. Alan Bean, Lunar Module Pilot, set up the TV camera, pointed it at the sun, fried the receptors and that was that, no TV coverage of Apollo 12.

I've never heard that they stepped in with replacement coverage from Area 51

P), nor that the citadel of Nasa's offices were stormed by angry viewers (who were in fact already so bored with the moon by the time 12 finished, that the networks didn't even bother showing the mid-flight broadcast by 13, prior to the explosion).

13. ### SilasasimovbotRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,116
Now, it has to be said, that does look like one damn faked photograph! The dust in the foreground actually looks like damp sand!

But (as ever in these moon hoax questions) the points Uri was trying to make are actually contradicted in the photograph he's using as illustration. "none on the astronaut model". But there is clearly moondust around the knee area, and his boots are absolutely covered in it! "no dust, not even in the landing gear...." But on the side of the footpad facing the camera, the gold clearly cuts off with what looks like more than shadow - ie dust.

But the strangest claim is - never mind that with no atmosphere the dust settles straight away and doesn't float on air that isn't present - that Uri seems to think that as soon as the craft touched down, the astronauts were out the door and taking photographs. I can't remember how long it was before Neil and Buzz stepped out (though I know it was several hours ahead of schedule), but it was certainly not less than an hour after landing. Even if they'd actually landed in the Mohave desert, the dust kicked up by the landing would have settled by then!

WhitePhoenix, please rest assured. Man has walked on the moon. We went far too soon, and going was the result of some bizarre collective madness on the part of the Americans and the Soviet Union, but it happened. About that there can be no doubt. Or just call Armstrong, Aldrin, Conrad (dec), Bean, Shepard (dec), Mitchell, Scott, Irwin (dec), Young, Duke, Cernan and Schmitt liars.

14. ### leopoldValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,455
first of all i am a sceptic. second i have never been to the moon
but given those two points i can say with certainty that we indeed landed a man on the moon and brought him back safely

now why am i certain?
first of all there are the russians
they have not provided one scrap of dissenting evidence

second, the conspiracy itself
this conspiracy theory falls under two scenarios
there was a massive conspiracy
nasa somehow managed to silence everyone involved
do you realize the number of people involved in the moon landing? 1,000s

the second senario is a few insiders pulled it off
but in this instance we have the rocket makers and all the quality assurance people
in short the rocket makers had to build a rocket that would work
it actually had to do the job
if they built the rocket why not use it to go to the moon

therefor i am certain that we went

15. ### Froogle KingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5
Last edited: Feb 14, 2006
16. ### Froogle KingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5
Yeah! We'll See How Many Of You Conspiracy People Are Brave Enough To Even Check It Out! Whoops Looks Like Your Fun Is Over!

It Really Irratates Me To See You People Undermining Real Accomplishments Done By Real People. They Had To Work For Their Results And Many Good People Died In The Procces. I Wonder How They Would Feel If About 30 Years Later They Are Remembered As "fakes". It Makes Me Sick.

17. ### qwerty mobDeicidalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
786
We could always round up the "Moon Landing was Hoaxed" crowd and cram them into a cage on top of a Titan III. Problem solved.

18. ### Walter L. WagnerCosmic Truth SeekerValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,551
Now why would we send Apollo 13 to the moon with a moon-lander pod (that served as the rescue pod for the crew following the explosion on their way to the moon), if we didn't intend to land on the moon? We kept doing that afterwards as well. Did we just intend to send moon-lander pods to the moon, to orbit the moon, just to pretend that they were going to land? That's nuts.

No one is debating that we went to the moon and orbited it. That was the hard part! Once in orbit about the moon, with a moon-lander, actually landing was not that much extra technologically (yeah, I know, we had to have enough fuel to land, and then to get back into orbit - not an easy task, but easier than actually getting to the moon in the first place).

I happened to be hiking in the Sierras as a teenager when Armstrong landed in 1969, and I listened to it on the radio (I didn't pack a TV, which were bulky back then). I followed every Apollo launch with keen interest (as well as every predecessor lauch of the Mercury and Gemini programs). Clearly, it doesn't make sense to believe that we would have gone to all that trouble to create a moon-lander, and send it to the moon, only to have it simply orbit, but not actually land!

What this thread does represent, however, is the fact that a large factor of our society are technological idiots, more interested in their superficial needs to look for 'ill' in society, than doing anything positive themselves to make society better.

Walter

19. ### OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
I suggest the adjective technological is superfluous in the above sentence.

20. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
I'm not voting in the "Is the moon landing hoax a hoax" issue.

But, if I were the head hoaxer, and wanted to tip my hand to as few detectives as possible, would I publicly exhibit and launch a rocket WITHOUT the lander module?

21. ### OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
I don't follow your logic on this one. Can you expand and expound?

22. ### sniffyBannedBanned

Messages:
2,945
Oh for moon's sake. Is anybody here old enough to remember the moon landing broadcasts?

23. ### OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
Yes, but that hardly proves anything, except that some of us are old.