It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moon landing conspiracy theory

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Please see this website:

Moon Hoax



-Dagger




posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 09:10 PM
link   
How about checking this web page...

www.badastronomy.com...

It will debunk all the conspiracy theories, which are ALL covered quite extensively in many other threads here on ATS.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   
How about we just go to the moon again and take pictures with a digital camera to proove we were there.

I heard about these 3 guys that were the original people who were supposed to go to the moon. I cant remember their names but they were "mysteriously killed" in a simulation that exploded. Anyway the conspiracy is that at least one of them was going to tell the truth about how it was a hoax and just to make it look like we had a leg up on the soviet union. Can anyone help me remember these 3 guys? Its really buggin me.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Given the deisgn of the Saturn V Rocket, I sure would like to know how they survived passing through the Van Allen Belt. Flight Attendants in commercial airlines have elevated risks of cancer just from cruising around at 30,000 feet, much less in the direct path of the solar winds. That above all else bothers me, let alone the photographic anamolies, the prop mark numbers on the lunar rocks, the 'water cooled' suits and other equipment when they didn't that kind of water on board, the anamolous dust cloud when the lunar module lifted off, the amazingly thin skin of the lunar module protecting the astronauts on teh lunar surface, all of that aside, the Van Allen Radiation belt could not have been survived at that time with any less than lead shielding.

[edit on 11-12-2004 by twitchy]


E_T

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Anyway the conspiracy is that at least one of them was going to tell the truth about how it was a hoax and just to make it look like we had a leg up on the soviet union.
There's just one problem in that theory, why did they die with that way instead of some car accident?
You wouldn't have to be genious to realize that it wouldn't be good for whole project and would cause considerable delays in race with Soviet's moon program.


cems.alfred.edu...

www.nasm.si.edu...



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Given the deisgn of the Saturn V Rocket, I sure would like to know how they survived passing through the Van Allen Belt. Flight Attendants in commercial airlines have elevated risks of cancer just from cruising around at 30,000 feet, much less in the direct path of the solar winds. That above all else bothers me, let alone the photographic anamolies, the prop mark numbers on the lunar rocks, the 'water cooled' suits and other equipment when they didn't that kind of water on board, the anamolous dust cloud when the lunar module lifted off, the amazingly thin skin of the lunar module protecting the astronauts on teh lunar surface, all of that aside, the Van Allen Radiation belt could not have been survived at that time with any less than lead shielding.

[edit on 11-12-2004 by twitchy]


Well, I suppose that AF pilots which fly in excess of 30,000 ft also have an elevated risk of cancer as well as astronauts in space and those that make moon walks? Did the Russian cosmonaut who spent 438 days in space ever contract cancer? Plus the astonauts moved through the belt in almost 30 minutes in a space capsule with a metal hull 3 inches thick. The Radiation belt thearoy is overdrawn by skeptics who blow it way out of proportion. www.coursework.info...

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
www.clavius.org...



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   
badastronomy doesnt address all of the claims made by conspiracy theorists. www.xenophilia.com... this site has many claims that havent been covered. moreover i dont necessarily think all of the claims on badastronomy are correct. i also would be really interested to know how a site that has a 1600 link popularity beat one with a over 1 million link popularity unless it was placed there on purpose.


E_T

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by afklop
badastronomy doesnt address all of the claims made by conspiracy theorists. www.xenophilia.com... this site has many claims that havent been covered.
I wonder how stupid site owners keep people?


The LM engine smoke should have totally obscured the windows of the LM during landing

CLAIM: Hypergolic fuels are those that burn upon contact with each other. Tests at Simi Hills, CA produced thick, dense, opaque, dark red smoke. The TV frame of Apollo 17 taking off shows no smoke or rocket exhaust whatsoever...
However, if the TV footage is factual, the thick smoke somehow dispersed instantly on take off. Nitrogen tetroxide (the oxidiser) and Aerozene-50 (the fuel--a blend of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) are used today in the Orbital Maneuvering system in the space shuttle. This mixture is clearly visible when firing. The same fuel and oxidiser were used in the LM that somehow produced invisible thrust.
OMS uses Monomethylhydrazine.

en.wikipedia.org...



Rocket technology has decreased since Apollo

CLAIM: If Apollo's Saturn V rocket performed as claimed, why spend over three times as much on the Shuttle rockets which can only lift 1/7th (others calculate 1/16th) the claimed ability of the Saturn V? The Space Shuttle generates a lift off thrust of 6.6 million pounds while the Saturn V Boosters have 7.5 million pounds of thrust. The Space Shuttle can take 40,000 pound payloads into low earth orbit. A Saturn V rocket apparently took the complete 108,000 pound ( 49,376 kg ) lunar lander all the way to the moon. The Saturn V could therefore carry 280,000 pounds into low earth orbit
...
Even more recently, Boeings new Delta 4 rockets have a maximum payload into Low Earth Orbit of 50,794.5 lbs / 25.4 tons / 23,040 kgs.
I didn't know shuttle's empty weight is zero.

And Saturn V completely dwarfs all current rockets.


Misplaced reticles show photo tampering

CLAIM: A reticle is a cross hair placed within half a micron of accuracy on the film plate by metal evaporation at Zeiss. Small ridges on the film transportation edges raise the plate about one 800th of a millimeter above the film's surface. They were used to determine if the film had curved...
The full area of image AS11-40-5903 (click small image on the right to enlarge) has an off-center reticle. This is physically impossible given the fixed position of the cross-hairs in the camera's design.

Boys, boys, try again...
Cropped image: cross hairs aren't aligned with photo's edges!


There was no damage to the gold Mylar on the LM legs from the tremendous heat of the engines

CLAIM: Again, with the engine burning at 3,250C/1,788C when throttled back to 65% and it should have damaged the legs of the craft.
Mylar is very reflective material, and because of vacuum it could be heated only by radiation which mylar reflects away effectively.


If it was possible, the soviets would have done it, possibly first
CLAIM: The USSR had superior rockets which lead to these firsts...
Sending human and necessary equipment for life support (and getting back from there) to moon requires entirely different calibre rocket.
Making good rowing boat doesn't mean you can automatically do good cruise ship.

And in one part they're first talking about propellant and in next just fuel.
So we're talking about major lack of knowledge... term propellant just happens to include both fuel and oxidizer.

So credibility % = George WMD lier Dubya's speeches.

Here's also very nice article.
www.weeklyuniverse.com...


And if there would have been any real evidences about faking moon landings you can bet Soviets would have been yelling about it to rest of the world!



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
[edit on 10-12-2004 by kdx175]
dude, I live in Canada, I can believe my government (to an extent, damn referendum). But hey, I don't care about america (to an extent, damn florida) ..... whatever the presidents say past '71 is in one and out the other.. or what-not...
[edit on 10-12-2004 by satchbfoot]

Sorry man, that gave me a good laugh yesterday, no offense.
I know you didn't probably mean it like it sounded.
I suppose Canada's gov is a bit better than the US.
But Canada is going to officially say whatever the US says it did.
If the US says it went to the moon, Canada has no reason to dispute it.

Personally I am on the fence on this one.
Maybe we went to the moon that day, maybe we didn't.
There would have to be alot of faking to pull it off, and alot of people on the inside would have to keep quiet.

Now another question is do we have the means to travel there without rockets, and I think the answer is yes. With UFO tech that would be alot easier, and faster.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   


And if there would have been any real evidences about faking moon landings you can bet Soviets would have been yelling about it to rest of the world!


feel free to send all of your answers to that guy, maybe, he'll put them in the best claims yet category. I noticed however, that you did not debunk the claim that it takes over 2 seconds for light to travel to the moon. its pretty clear that there isnt nearly that much of a delay. I think it might be pretty hard to debunk einstein. also, do you not find it curious about the search results?


E_T

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by afklop
...it takes over 2 seconds for light to travel to the moon. its pretty clear that there isnt nearly that much of a delay.
Actually now it's you who are wrong if we are going to be exact.
Average distance to moon is ~384 000 km which means it takes about 1.3 s for light to make one way trip to moon. For getting response back to Earth it would take double time.

But first: Prove me that record is genuine and original. Editing audio is extremely easy in current computer-era.
Fact that it's in site which has so many obvious errors kinda makes credibility of record go down to zero.

Also it isn't very clear, what I get with couple listening times is that it's almost completely report from LM crew how landing is proceeding.
And because it's very propably recorded in Houston that communication delay is required only between question of flight control (or what's that english word) and answer from crew. (or other way in case of recorder in LM)



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Like I asked before - who put those damn mirrors up there?? Santa, aliens, Nazi's - who??

We've been there - move on to the next so called conspiracy - "chemtrails" seem like a good one that has a whole host of people running for the hills and HAARP is pretty good too....



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by E_T
Actually now it's you who are wrong if we are going to be exact.
Average distance to moon is ~384 000 km which means it takes about 1.3 s for light to make one way trip to moon. For getting response back to Earth it would take double time.

But first: Prove me that record is genuine and original. Editing audio is extremely easy in current computer-era.
Fact that it's in site which has so many obvious errors kinda makes credibility of record go down to zero.

Also it isn't very clear, what I get with couple listening times is that it's almost completely report from LM crew how landing is proceeding.
And because it's very propably recorded in Houston that communication delay is required only between question of flight control (or what's that english word) and answer from crew. (or other way in case of recorder in LM)


hmm.. yes, point taken, it says its from abctv, but theres no guarantee. I cannot find other audio either. I listened to it quite a few times, and if it is real, the problem remains. I will try to find more audio, but probably wont. hehe... and just admit that page at the top of the search rankings is fishy.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   
One thing I've never been able to find any information on, is how the astronauts get out of those damn suits. The outer layer on the suits is made of some fancy teflon coated material. Thats fine with me, they can make them out of whatever they like, that isn't my main problem.

I have some knowledge of science and physics (A-level in the UK, not sure what that equates to for you guys across the pond) and what I know is that those suits were keeping the heat and radiation and whatnot from getting to the astronaut. The surface temperature on the moon is pretty much all caused by the radiant heat from the Sun, therefore if you stand on the surface you will also be subject to the same radiant temperatures. www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm I went here for information on the moon, it reckons the mean surface temperature is 107 degrees celcius with a maximum of 127 degrees celcius.

So if you stand on the moon, your suit will reach an outside temperature of about 107 degrees, which is pretty hot. Or if they were stood in the dark it would be -153 degrees celcius upto a maximum of -233 degrees celcius! So you're out on the moon doing your astronaut thing and youve been out there for several hours (the suits carried ventilation and cooling equipment for 7 hours usage at a time) you come back to the lunar module go up the ladder and get in. What happens next? Did these guys have to sit around for a while while their suits either cooled off or warmed up? And if they were out in the cold, I'm not sure they were though, you'd be sitting around for a while waitng in a 19-21 degree celcius airlock for your -153 degress spacesuit to warm up enough for you to touch it with your bare hands once you habd the gloves off, which I assume were the one of the last bits of gear to go on, therefore one of the first to come off. Same applies for having a suit at +107 degrees, youd be waiting for it to cool down to at least 60 degrees before you handle it, thats the temperature out of your hot taps at home and even thats enough to cause scold your fingers on.

Anyone know anything about this aspect of the missions? I'm not stating it for anti moon landing purposes, this topic resurfaced so i thought it might be an appropriate place to post it. If i were stating it then i might well ask how well the suits managed to cope with the expansion and contaction due to temperature fluctuations, but thats a whole different kettle of fish and one I cant be naffed to get into.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by afklop
just admit that page at the top of the search rankings is fishy.

What exactly is fishy about it?

The fact that it comes in above a NASA page? It doesn't if you use more correct terminology and enter "Lunar Landing".

But that aside, batesmotel.8m.com... is on a freeservers domain (8m.com) theres probably thousands of sites on the same domain, which means links to any of them boost the google rankings of all of them. Not all that surprising that its pulling high ranks. As far as it being a 'bad' example of the moon hoax genre, its probably above average, its just that the science and understanding that most of these moon hoax pages are based on is so bad to begin with.

At least the google rankings idea is a refreshing change from the same old boring theories though.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I think that some of you are forgetting that Bad Astronomy DOES NOT explain all the inconsistences in the film, even if they were able to, is it likely all those things would happen?

I personally DO believe we went to the moon, around the time, or pretty much on time when they said we went to the moon, however they faked the footage, because of UFO's and such, because they didn't want to scare people, lots of astronauts have seen UFO's in space...


E_T

posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terminal Velocity
One thing I've never been able to find any information on, is how the astronauts get out of those damn suits. The outer layer on the suits is made of some fancy teflon coated material. Thats fine with me, they can make them out of whatever they like, that isn't my main problem.

I have some knowledge of science and physics (A-level in the UK, not sure what that equates to for you guys across the pond) and what I know is that those suits were keeping the heat and radiation and whatnot from getting to the astronaut. The surface temperature on the moon is pretty much all caused by the radiant heat from the Sun, therefore if you stand on the surface you will also be subject to the same radiant temperatures.
Well.. they were on the moon when it wasn't midday or night.

Did they also teach how different colored materials absorb radiation, white doesn't absorb heat radiation so well?
Also different materials can store different amount of heat and conduct it at different rate.

If you would take some 50 C warm piece of fabric it might feel warm but it couldn't really cause nothing else, but now lets change object to piece of metal, in this case you might well get burns because metals store and conduct heat well. (and cells start damaging before 50 C temperature)

Even different woods differ much in how they conduct heat. For example Aspen (Populus tremula, more exactly) is one of those trees which doesn't conduct heat well, you could heat piece of it to 100 C and after that handle it without any problems... actually I could as well sit half hour on that!



Temperature unit converter:
www.convert-me.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
why would anyone fake the landing on the moon????

huuuuhhhh...hmmmm.... the words "POWER, CONTROL, FEAR" come to mind... but my mind is always fuzzy ...
oh and by the way ??? if it so easy to go to the moon, how come noone went back ? there were plans to build moon stations and everything stopped? why ? cant say it a money problem .......



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Personally, I don't think there is a moon conspiracy. Just think about the time, coverups, and money that nasa will have to put into. There is just to many holes in our government. If Russia or other countries had the slightest feeling or intelligence that there was a conspiracy, they would of broadcasted all over the world. It will be much easier to build a rocket and send a man to the moon.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   
hahaha i can't believe people still are writing and thinking that the moon landing was a conspiricy. well as you may not know special mirror reflectors were placed on the moon and a laser beam is shot there from earth to measure the orbit, how far the moon is from us etc. So stop trying to disprove something that obviously is true and go make up some conspiricy about something else



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join