Moon landings - faked, met with aliens or the official story?

#2 ... they landed ... aliens watched them like one does a puppy outside for the first time ... then they told us to piss off.

Thanks for the replies so far and if I have counted correctly so far:

Option 1 - faked - 6

Option 2 - We got there but are not being told everything (aliens/structures) 13

Option 3 - All true -7

Option 4 - Didn't land at all/ other -1

Some people were a bit of this and that, so aggregated those as best as I could and for those just discussing one side or other I ignored unless they explicitly stated which option they would choose

I say number 1 FAKE, mostly because nobody "went back" ever since which makes no sense.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

This picture just screams back drop. It screams staged. It's hokey and it's just not real and I'd bet my bank account (yeah, I'm that confident) that it wasn't taken on the moon.

And yet it screams digitized by NASA for a better picture...you can see the same pic you linked to here also.

unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov...

What amazig pictures tsurfer..esp love this one of James B. Irwin.

theunwrittenrecord.files.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: saudi
I say number 1 FAKE, mostly because nobody "went back" ever since which makes no sense.

They went 6 times and funds got diverted then the Shuttle program started.

Have a look at this.

Example below first posted by jra



Bottom the image from LRO the other from the DAC camera as Apollo 17 left the moon, look at the track of the astronaut movements , even small craters MATCH!!!

a reply to: wmd_2008

Exactly, plus the waning public interest in returning.
The Shuttle program was to create reusable LEO craft to enable programs such as the ISS to begin.

a reply to: johnb

How about option 3(A): everything that NASA did is a matter of public record and the absolute truth but there are still parts that are considered "classified." (Nothing UFO related, just laser rangefinding and other systems with military value.)

a reply to: DJW001

Mmhm

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST.....Soil or any combination of dust/moisture forming a soil/clay type of ground is impossible on what we know about the moon. And this question, well, it made you squirm. Your answers are far from sufficient.

Good on you for the question, the answer is one nobody anticipated in the nature of lunar dirt grains. Try answering it yourself by googling on the nature of lunar grains instead of assuming you've discovered the 'killer question' disproving the Apollo story. You haven't.

Oh, so reference a hoaxed mission to find out about the terrain of the moon. No thanks. Or, I could just "google". Interesting response.


I don't have to disprove, key word there being "I". The pictures themselves are all staged. Only a looney bin believes those pictures are on the moon and only a (this word isn't allowed) defends/apologizes for Apollo. Seriously, what's wrong with people that they can't question something so obviously fabricated? Nobody has even been close to accomplishing what Apollo record declares and because of patriotic sunglasses, people just go along with it. Oh, and heresay science. Science you'll never be able to verify about true vacuums, radiation, cosmic rays, micro meteors, rockets in space, navigating between planetary bodies, pooping in your own suit (well, maybe a few of you can testify), and the list is long.

So, members of ATS, you can either believe these ultra-arrogant, condescending Apollogists who look at pictures and know exactly what the moon is like or you can study for yourself. But, as a suggestion, I'd tell you to forget what you've been told about Apollo and the US and the Cold War, and just look at the photos through an unbiased eye - you'll see a 1970s movie production made to fool millions because propaganda was revolutionized with the advent of special effects and broadcast media. And that's where they decided to fool the tax payer. Hell, look at those silly ISIS productions - give me a break.

a reply to: IwillbeHONEST
"Apollogist"? That's a delightful neologism, thanks, I'll put it on a T-shirt.

a reply to: JimOberg

Wear it on your next "UFO" special on the HIstory Channel and give me a little wink.

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST.....Soil or any combination of dust/moisture forming a soil/clay type of ground is impossible on what we know about the moon. And this question, well, it made you squirm. Your answers are far from sufficient.

Good on you for the question, the answer is one nobody anticipated in the nature of lunar dirt grains. Try answering it yourself by googling on the nature of lunar grains instead of assuming you've discovered the 'killer question' disproving the Apollo story. You haven't.

Oh, so reference a hoaxed mission to find out about the terrain of the moon. No thanks. Or, I could just "google". Interesting response.


I don't have to disprove, key word there being "I". The pictures themselves are all staged. Only a looney bin believes those pictures are on the moon and only a (this word isn't allowed) defends/apologizes for Apollo. Seriously, what's wrong with people that they can't question something so obviously fabricated? Nobody has even been close to accomplishing what Apollo record declares and because of patriotic sunglasses, people just go along with it. Oh, and heresay science. Science you'll never be able to verify about true vacuums, radiation, cosmic rays, micro meteors, rockets in space, navigating between planetary bodies, pooping in your own suit (well, maybe a few of you can testify), and the list is long.

So, members of ATS, you can either believe these ultra-arrogant, condescending Apollogists who look at pictures and know exactly what the moon is like or you can study for yourself. But, as a suggestion, I'd tell you to forget what you've been told about Apollo and the US and the Cold War, and just look at the photos through an unbiased eye - you'll see a 1970s movie production made to fool millions because propaganda was revolutionized with the advent of special effects and broadcast media. And that's where they decided to fool the tax payer. Hell, look at those silly ISIS productions - give me a break.

Wow...your a pleasant felow aint ya?

So, im a looney because:

- I understand wat it took to get to the moon, how they did it, i get the science and physics and it all works out?
- I get it and understand camera exposure levels and i have seen some of the "not so perfect" pics that were taken.?
- I understand how dust and sand would react in almost zero atmosphere. No billowing therefore no dust on top of the landing pads?
- I realise that the photos released to the mainstream were obviously the cream of the crop?
- I realise that the logistics in faking the landings are not really feasible to keep quiet about all these years?
- I have understood that EVERY SINGLE claim by hoax pushers has been answered and explained to a satisfying level?
- I understand that politics involved would mean that the russians would have called us out?

Yes...I'M the looney.

I'm ot the one looking at a few photos and screaming "FAAAAKE!!!! It LOOKS too perfect...that is all the proof i need"

a reply to: 3danimator2014


- I understand wat it took to get to the moon, how they did it, i get the science and physics and it all works out?
Funny claim - I think a lot of people think this but have to rely on faith to beleive it. Why? Well, feel free to show me your results of dosimeter readings in the VAB or beyond
- I get it and understand camera exposure levels and i have seen some of the "not so perfect" pics that were taken.? The pictures look fake and are becoming increasingly obvious. You clearly have an emotional attachment to NASA and it's pouring out in your responses. Go America!!

- I understand how dust and sand would react in almost zero atmosphere. No billowing therefore no dust on top of the landing pads?
This is my favorite excuse by your side. When I go to the beach and frolic around, there's no billowing of sand, in fact, it looks just like the astros. You ever noticed the center of gravity for the astros? It's like something is holding them up. They lean forward as they gallop. Odd, why don't you try doing that? Oh, nevermind, on the moon in 1/6th gravity this is perfectly acceptable because you understand science.
- I realise that the photos released to the mainstream were obviously the cream of the crop?

Yes, yes they were. They were just taken on Earth and heavily edited for public consumption. How does that taste 50 years later? Hoaxey???
- I realise that the logistics in faking the landings are not really feasible to keep quiet about all these years?

Derp. this Fallacy has been beaten to death. Desparation reeks in this post. Hint: people have talked, you just think they're looney because you're told to think that way.
- I have understood that EVERY SINGLE claim by hoax pushers has been answered and explained to a satisfying level?
"Hoax Pushers" So, I'm making money off of this? Who makes money off of hoax theory? Everything is free now on the web. I suppose you think being a "hoax pusher" is easy and you'll be living on a yacht or something. If so, DERP.
- I understand that politics involved would mean that the russians would have called us out?
no you don't and that's extremely ignorant to act like you know what Russian intelligence would do with any information. Again, another fallacy that's been beaten to death. Funny how we joined space ventures right after Apollo and they got a sweet deal on wheat.

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: 3danimator2014


- I understand wat it took to get to the moon, how they did it, i get the science and physics and it all works out?
Funny claim - I think a lot of people think this but have to rely on faith to beleive it. Why? Well, feel free to show me your results of dosimeter readings in the VAB or beyond

There are plenty of radiation studies in the VAB and beyond carried out by a variety of space agencies, probes and at various times. I would suggest you look through them and find anything that disagrees with the dosimetry recorded by Apollo.

- I get it and understand camera exposure levels and i have seen some of the "not so perfect" pics that were taken.? The pictures look fake and are becoming increasingly obvious. You clearly have an emotional attachment to NASA and it's pouring out in your responses. Go America!!

So making a point is somehow flag waving for NASA and the US? I could care less about the either, but you'd be better off sparing us the ad hominems and showing us photos that you think "look fake" and discussing why. Your opinion that things "look fake" are worthless unless you can back them up.

- I understand how dust and sand would react in almost zero atmosphere. No billowing therefore no dust on top of the landing pads?
This is my favorite excuse by your side. When I go to the beach and frolic around, there's no billowing of sand, in fact, it looks just like the astros. You ever noticed the center of gravity for the astros? It's like something is holding them up. They lean forward as they gallop. Odd, why don't you try doing that? Oh, nevermind, on the moon in 1/6th gravity this is perfectly acceptable because you understand science.

To say it's your favourite you clearly haven't looked at much of the 16mm, live TV or photographs that show lunar surface material behaving exactly as it should in a zero atmosphere 1/6 G environment. There is no billowing of sand on the moon because there is no atmosphere, and you never see any in the Apollo record. The centre of gravity of astronauts is dictated by where there mass is balanced. Try wearing a heavy backpack and see how far you lean forward when you move. If you think there are wires, where are they? Who is manipulating them? Where are they attached to the suit? Come on , let's not just have lame hand waving, give us some actual deductive reasoning. Oh, and learn t understand the science, it will help you a lot.

- I realise that the photos released to the mainstream were obviously the cream of the crop?

Yes, yes they were. They were just taken on Earth and heavily edited for public consumption. How does that taste 50 years later? Hoaxey???

No, they weren't. How did they get images of Earth showing weather patterns exactly as weather satellites show them? How did they photograph surface details that were not known about in advance but are now verified by probes from several countries, not just American ones? Saying it does not make it so, show us your proof they were done on Earth. Show us your proof that they were edited for public consumption to hide details, or add them. I have original copies of plenty of them dating from the time of the missions, how did they edit those?

- I realise that the logistics in faking the landings are not really feasible to keep quiet about all these years?

Derp. this Fallacy has been beaten to death. Desparation reeks in this post. Hint: people have talked, you just think they're looney because you're told to think that way.

Not by you it hasn't. Explain how they kept it quiet for us.

- I have understood that EVERY SINGLE claim by hoax pushers has been answered and explained to a satisfying level?
"Hoax Pushers" So, I'm making money off of this? Who makes money off of hoax theory? Everything is free now on the web. I suppose you think being a "hoax pusher" is easy and you'll be living on a yacht or something. If so, DERP.

You are pushing the hoax. No-one said you were making money off it, you need to be smart to do that. If you want to know who is making the money then search on Amazon for books and DVDs on the subject, look at the advertising revenue on youtube videos.

- I understand that politics involved would mean that the russians would have called us out?
no you don't and that's extremely ignorant to act like you know what Russian intelligence would do with any information. Again, another fallacy that's been beaten to death. Funny how we joined space ventures right after Apollo and they got a sweet deal on wheat.

It's pretty ignorant of you to decide how the Russians were behaving. I'm willing to bet you weren't alive in the first Cold War and have no understanding of the politics of the time. They would have loved to have exposed it as a fraud. The fact is that they were desperate to beat the US to the moon and failed.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Ah, the heavy back pack. Feel free to put one on that's half your weight and lean foward and gallop. Please use video and show us the results.

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: 3danimator2014


- I understand wat it took to get to the moon, how they did it, i get the science and physics and it all works out?
Funny claim - I think a lot of people think this but have to rely on faith to beleive it. Why? Well, feel free to show me your results of dosimeter readings in the VAB or beyond
- I get it and understand camera exposure levels and i have seen some of the "not so perfect" pics that were taken.? The pictures look fake and are becoming increasingly obvious. You clearly have an emotional attachment to NASA and it's pouring out in your responses. Go America!!

- I understand how dust and sand would react in almost zero atmosphere. No billowing therefore no dust on top of the landing pads?
This is my favorite excuse by your side. When I go to the beach and frolic around, there's no billowing of sand, in fact, it looks just like the astros. You ever noticed the center of gravity for the astros? It's like something is holding them up. They lean forward as they gallop. Odd, why don't you try doing that? Oh, nevermind, on the moon in 1/6th gravity this is perfectly acceptable because you understand science.
- I realise that the photos released to the mainstream were obviously the cream of the crop?

Yes, yes they were. They were just taken on Earth and heavily edited for public consumption. How does that taste 50 years later? Hoaxey???
- I realise that the logistics in faking the landings are not really feasible to keep quiet about all these years?

Derp. this Fallacy has been beaten to death. Desparation reeks in this post. Hint: people have talked, you just think they're looney because you're told to think that way.
- I have understood that EVERY SINGLE claim by hoax pushers has been answered and explained to a satisfying level?
"Hoax Pushers" So, I'm making money off of this? Who makes money off of hoax theory? Everything is free now on the web. I suppose you think being a "hoax pusher" is easy and you'll be living on a yacht or something. If so, DERP.
- I understand that politics involved would mean that the russians would have called us out?
no you don't and that's extremely ignorant to act like you know what Russian intelligence would do with any information. Again, another fallacy that's been beaten to death. Funny how we joined space ventures right after Apollo and they got a sweet deal on wheat.

I stopped reading what you wrote after your attack on me. Im not even American, im from the Middle East. Well done mate.

Maybe someone else will read what you wrote and repoy, but it aint gonna be me buddy

By the way, its EXTREMELY obvous to everyone reading this thread who is the desperate one here...

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Ah, the heavy back pack. Feel free to put one on that's half your weight and lean foward and gallop. Please use video and show us the results.

The entire backpack (the PLSS plus the OPS) weighed about 20 pounds on the moon.

That 20 pounds would make a relatively large difference to the center of mass of an astronaut who weighs 30 pounds on the Moon (180 pounds on Earth), However, his musculature wouldn't change, so carrying the extra 20 pounds would not be difficult, even if it did affect his center of mass.


EDIT TO UPDATE:
Originally, I incorrectly calculated the total weight of the PLSS and OPS together as being 17 pounds on the Moon. The actual weight of those two pieces of backpack equipment on the Moon would be about 20 pounds. I made the correction above.

a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

And how are you looking at the photographs through unbiased eyes, exactly?

a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

i will " rise to the challenge " - and video the results of me attempting various manouvers with a loaded pack .

there is one ` snag ` however - i want YOU to specify the correct mass . and explain how you calculated the figure you give

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Good on you