It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Buzz Aldrin confronted about Moon Hoax

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:29 AM
This video is posted on Google and show's Buzz Aldrin's reaction to a reporter claiming that he never walked on the moon.

I find this hilarious and had to share it. I hope you find the humor in it as well.

Buzz Aldrin Video

Another much longer one.

Multiple Astronauts

[edit on 17-5-2006 by stealthyone]

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:38 AM
That is great!

So did Buzz go off because the reporter was right, or because the reporter was calling him a coward and a lier and a thief?

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:41 AM
That was hillarous and that guy got exactly what he deserved for making such accusations.

funny to see an old man whip a youngster

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:42 AM
He was prolly afraid that the guy was trying to stop his gravy train. I find it humorous AND disturbing that a grown man can't handle himself without more class. If the moon walk is real, he would have laughed the guy off. People who resort to violence in the face of confrontation only prove thier low intelligence. Just like people who beat the crap out of their kids just to shut them up. And we all know how much intelligence it takes to be someones pawn in a hoax, right?

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:44 AM
Good question!

Personally, if I had risked my life to go to the moon for my country I would be insulted and probably react the same way as the astronauts did. I believe we did go and this is why they are angry.

On the other hand, if I was sworn to secrecy and told I would be eliminated if I ever told the truth, then I would be pretty anxious as well.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:47 AM

Originally posted by W_Smith
He was prolly afraid that the guy was trying to stop his gravy train. I find it humorous AND disturbing that a grown man can't handle himself without more class. If the moon walk is real, he would have laughed the guy off. People who resort to violence in the face of confrontation only prove thier low intelligence. Just like people who beat the crap out of their kids just to shut them up. And we all know how much intelligence it takes to be someones pawn in a hoax, right?

He told him "will you get away from me!" and he kept on.....people like that only understand one response.

for one buzz aldrin has accomplished more in his life than this snot nose punk who has seen to many conspiracy TV shows

It would of annoyed me as well.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:00 AM
You are right XphilesPhan, for some unexplainable reason I didn't have audio for the first clip. Now it works and I would have never approached someone that way. Especially if I was convinced he was lying and I was trying to get the truth out of him. I have seen other footage where he (Aldren)acts pretty suspicious though...

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:13 AM
For those of you saying that his actions were unwarranted i'm sorry but you know the whole truth. I read this awhile back but apparently this reporter had been harrassing Buzz for a couple days and was harrassing him and his daughter. IF it had been me i'd of punched him too. Kutos to Buzz for standing up for himself and his daughter. This reporter is a jackass.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:34 AM
I love the second clip where they knee that annoying idiot in the ass hahahaha. Where do these people come from?!

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:34 AM
I suppose after living a lie for all of those years and having people call you out time after time, anyone would reach their breaking point and drift a reporter in the chops.

Kinda funny but the joke's on Buzz....Gotta have some class when your entrusted with one of the biggest lies of all time.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:58 AM
This video has been discussed many times here in other threads.

Originally posted by JackJuice
For those of you saying that his actions were unwarranted i'm sorry but you know the whole truth. I read this awhile back but apparently this reporter had been harrassing Buzz for a couple days and was harrassing him and his daughter. IF it had been me i'd of punched him too. Kutos to Buzz for standing up for himself and his daughter. This reporter is a jackass.

Jack's correct. This "reporter" has been stalking him (with this SAME accusation) for years. This was a setup by the reporter (who just HAPPENED to have a cameraman who just HAPPENED to be positoned not beside the reporter (as is usual) far away enough to get the whole action (but not the whole dialogue clearly. Real no-no for a news camera unless it's some sort of impromptu action that they caught.)

And it wasn't days of harrassment. He's been at a lot of Buzz's public appearances and has shouted the same "you're a liar!" kind of questions at him for years.

Those of us who watched the whole thing have no doubt that Buzz was on the moon. And we have no doubt that this "reporter" idiot wouldn't accept the truth even if we shot him up into space and landed him on the moon and showed him the artifacts and footprints. He'd still manage to come up with an idiotic theory such as: "you're in collusion with aliens who planted that just this past year!"


posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:25 AM

Originally posted by W_Smith
If the moon walk is real, he would have laughed the guy off.

No. Ever since the lunar space program started people have constantly screamed hoax - especially at Neil and Buzz. How would you feel if people called your greatest achievement a hoax for almost 40 years? The reporter needs to grow up...swearing on a bible? What is he 8, maybe 9 years old? OH MY GOD DUDE I SWEAR - STICK A FRIGGIN' NEEDLE IN MY EYE!

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:33 AM
What a lot of people don't realise is that these guys got back virtually nothing, I think Charlie Duke only got a few dollars if I remember rightly (it's in the Podcast I put up of a lecture by him if you search for it).
Imagine being to the Moon, getting nothing financially for it then practically being made redundant. Imagine having to earn the majority of your money by writing books, giving talks and signing autographs like some run of the mill celebrity and then imagine having some idiotic twerp that's been stalking you for years calling you a liar and a coward in public just to help him sell his own books and DVDs.
I think Bart Sibrel got of lightly to be honest, I'd have ..?

[edit on 17-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:38 AM
1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:39 AM
16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.

21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?

30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:48 AM

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Imagine being to the Moon, getting nothing financially for it then practically being made redundant.

The video aside, and that's a big freakin' aside, I'm a big believer in body language and those guys did not go to the moon. I mean what else does somebody have to see other than their reactions to the questions in general, and their total meltdowns when confronted with video footage of them using slides to get over on us.

The papers not wide enough going through a lie detector maching to contain the violent criss-cross movements that these astronauts would produce.

BTW, I went to military school here in Texas and I had the honor (at least I thought) of meeting Jim Irwin. He gave me an autographed picture of him walking on the moon. I once though it was really cool but I guess now I can just wipe my arse with it.


[edit on 17-5-2006 by Dr Love]

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:50 AM
nice list of points census,but i have to disagree with # 1. I always thought that the reason you cant see any stars from the moon surface pics is because the human eye cant differentiate between the contrasting light and dark. The light being the bright moon surface,and the dark being the black space.

The same from nasa vid/pics of earth astronaut orbits on the day side of the planet,no stars are visible for the same reason. The same reason goes for living in a big city. The light of the city is brighter than the light of all but a few planets/stars. Which is why in L.A kids think stars are 5 pointed shiny things

Another example would be walking into a dark room after being outside in the bright summer sunlight,and vice versa. At least that's what i thought the reasons were,but if im wrong i welcome someone with the correct answer to correct me.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:58 AM
W.Smith/Census, what the heck? I get the impression that both of you feel it's ok to harass people to the breaking point as long as you get the attention/story you're looking for. In short "the end justifies the means". Not even a journalist (and I believe he calls himself one) has that right. As a matter of fact a journalist has the bigger responsibility of not making himself "the story" which this guy appears to do over and over again..

Buzz, all the power to you for defending yourself.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:59 AM
Cenus, you obviously have no real understanding of physics and how light, gravity, and other things work. Your hoax arguements hold about as much water as a sieve.

The fact that the starts could not be seen in the photo is not evidence of anything but ignorance of photography.

On earth, photographs made on the spot by of areas at night do not show stars either, no matter how dim or how bright the surrounding light is. Even the most modern and advanced digital cameras cant seem to pick up on the stars without special photographic equipment.

the rest of your "points" have been thouroughly debunked by educated and very intelligent people from all walks of life. Its not even worth addressing each one in this thread because they have been so thouroughly torn apart in countless other threads.

As for Mr. Aldrin, good for him. Id have done worse to that psychotic, annoying tinheaded "reporter". I give Aldrin two thumbs up for remarkable self control.

Its like, if someone was stalking me for years, showing up everywhere i went, harrassing my family with accusations claiming I had never been to Germany or something like that, Id have gotten fed up with the moron and knocked his genatalia in the dirt long ago.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:05 PM
Census don't change the subject...
This thread isn't about the reality of the moon landing, it's about a jerk harassing our international heros and getting his a_ _ whipped.

Why aren't you discussing that?

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in