The US Never Landed on the Moon!!

I wanted to see if anyone had anything NEW to add to the theory, and by and large they don't. No offense to those thinkers amongst you who made good comments!

My own personal opinion is that the Apollo missions did land on the moon, but they may not have been the only people who went there...

Anyway, let this thread die. There's nothing more to say here without any new information.

BTW, good photo analysis site, seekerof!

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Lampyridae]

Thanks Lampyridae....


Kronos asked:
"Do we have any result out of the Deny Ignorance Steering Committee (DISC) works?"

Yes.....one issue resolved, by ILP and members of the DISC, was the survey given to the ATS members on forum choices on forum choices resulting in the implimentation of those results by William.

We are currently working on other "issues".


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Seekerof]

Apollo Internet Images and Videos With Inconsistencies & Anomalies Link

This guy did a nice job.

well i only looked at that site breifly and just watched a few videos and looked at some pics. where were the "Inconsistencies & Anomalies"? It seems as though the guy was expecting flames to be shooting out of the thrusters of the LM craft. Perhaps some one should tell him there is no Oxygen in space for fire to burn.

Overall the pics and vids are nice, but the guys comments and remarks on them seem quite uninformed in my opinion.

Jah! Your girlie little link is broken.


WRATH OF THE RISING SUN

When you see the lander feet clean after landing Why no dust on anything.
All the pictures taken by chest mounted cameras were in focus even the Hasslebald engineer who designed the system couldn't get it to do that even on Earth?
I think someones telling porkies

I'm still stunned people are adding to this.

Die, thread, die.


[Edited on 29-11-2003 by Zzub]

Agreed Zzub.....

regards
seekerof

agrees..with seeker...and zz.....this has been debunked to death..face it peps..the US landed

I didnt read all the posts here, but I looked a the size of the rover compared to the ship combined with all the crew and other equipment. it doesnt seem possible even if the rover folded up, and someone also spoke briefly on the radiation level when leaving the atmosphere, the ship doesnt look that sturdy. The thing probably couldnt fly from La Guardia to Kennedy.
lets be real, just look at the thing, it looks like a hut.
not only that, who filmed the first step on the moon if everyone was still inside the craft? Don't tell me theres a camera outside the ship pointing to the door either.
just too many inconsistencies. so many years passed and yet we're still talking about it, if its possible I'm sure we would have went back more times, built a station on it and had people up in a moon lab for the world to sse by now. Still up in the air

TRUESABBATH

Sorry, I can't help it. I have to bite...

Reap: not all the pictures were perfect. i've seen a number of badones myself. Just like any magazine out there. NASA mostly published the best ones. read this if you want more information. www.clavius.org...

There is no dust flying about, simply because there is no air on the moon. some of the dust did scatter when the LM landed. i've even seen it on some vids. but the thrusters don't kickup a lot of dust like they would on earth. read this if you want more details. www.clavius.org...

STOLENSCRIPTURE: The radiation was not an issue at all. There are many kinds of radiation. Some can be blocked with a peice of paper. Others need thick slabs of lead. The radiation around earth was proton radiation. It can basicly be blocked by a peice of wood. For more information about radiation go here: www.clavius.org... and more specificly on the van allen belts go here: www.clavius.org... .

As for the footage of the first step on the moon? I believe there was an external camera, but then i'm not supposed to tell you that cause you said not too... Armstrong also did a lot of filming of Aldrin coming out of the LM. I think some TV programs tend to use that footage cause it's much clearer and of better quality than of the footage of Armstrong coming out. But i'd need to research that more to be sure.

Regardless of how you flimsy the LM looks to you it was fairly sturdy and works in space. It wasn't made to fly on earth.

We can't go back to the moon because:

1) NASA doesn't have anything to get to the moon with.
2) NASA doesn't have the funding to develop a vessle to get to the moon let alone develop a base on it. We're having a hard enough time with the ISS.

[Edited on 29-11-2003 by jra]

but Jra you gotta look at the size of the thing compared to the size of the rover ,the astronauts with their suits, the food and water they must of had with them, where'd they release themselves? sleep? There looks like so many things can be questioned. the footage of it leaving looks like it was pulled up by a string. 'm wrong, and how'd they get the footage of them leaving in the first place? even if they set up a camera to shoot while they liftoff, HOW'D THEY BRING THE FOOTAGE HOME WITH THEM? wouldnt the film still be in the camera?
maybe I'm wrong, if you could answer that last question that'll be great cause I don't think anyones brought it up yet & that could therefore be a new angle to look at.

TRUESABBATH
"He went around all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues..."

It was transmitted by radio back to Earth I belive.

Or, you can read the debunking of the silly crap that is used as evidence as the U.S. not going to the moon:

www.badastronomy.com...

sounds shaky, we wouldda got a whole lot more footage after they left, they coulda shot until the batteries died if that's the case, why'd they cut it off after liftoff, it would be a great way to tell if anything is up there. for that matter they should have left more up there, made them run off solar power then we could have eyes on the moon till this day. I dont think it happened that way.

TRUESABBATH

Silly Crap huh?

How much wattage and how big of an anttenae would the astraunats have need to beam footage from the moon to earth?

Remember that in the 1960s Film cameras and transmission equipment were huge.

The only silly crap here is the continueious non stop lies,

websuspect: not sure on the wattage and size of anttenae needed. But the Pioneer 10 probe which was launched back in the early 70's was sending signals and images of Jupiter back to Earth. It's last signal was sent on 23 January 2003 from about 7.8 billion miles away.

Voyager 1 which is just over 90 AU away from Earth is still sending back signals. It's the furthest man made object. It also sent back images of Jupiter and Saturn when it flew past them. And Voyager 2 sent back images of Uranus and Neptune.

I don't believe they had huge cameras and transmission equipment. But then it all depends on how you define huge.

So my main point is that i don't think "huge" transmitters were needed on the moon. Don't forget space is also an emtpy vacuum. There is no atmosphere to degrade the signal until it reached Earth.

SO WHY DID WE STOP ROLLIN THE TAPE?
IF IT WERE POSSIBLE THEN WHY NOT, GOT NOTHIN TO LOSE?

Well i was checking around a bit and the ascent footage of the LM was filmed from the LR (Lunar Rover). I'm sure the things batteries were near dead by that time.

The first 1969 landing on the moon was FAKE, the flag was even waving (no air on the moon), they just wanted to get the Russian's hopes down. Later on maybe they did makeit on the moon