Is the Moon Landing a Hoax?...

So it's true because the good guys told you? And who would they be then?

Jeez, buddy...in 1969, it was the Americans in general (Viet Nam notwithstanding) and NASA in particular. That was then, this is now. I'm still rootin' for the Astronauts, though.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Ok, mea culpa. The iconoclast crack was a little on the glib side. Frankly, I don't over-analyze the science. I've done a little ranting on this site about the nature of belief versus knowledge. Having lived through the glory days of the space programme...having seen Echo 1 as it made its solitary American way through the skies...I don't take this stuff on faith. I know it happened, cuz the good guys told me so.

And when the landing occurred, it didn't matter what your nationality, the little plaque on the lander said "We came in peace for all mankind." For a little while we all believed that.

I find it harder to 'believe' in ufos and other fringe matters because they're outside of my realm of experience...see the difference? So, if I'm proven wrong and the whole thing was a fake...well, that'll be a sad day for America and the rest of the world.

JC,

Very fair comment. Thanks.

What I'm trying to get across is that there are a lot more 'anomalies' than just the alignment of shadows, photography strangeness, thoughts about whether the flag waved on its own, and lack of stars in the background.

When you look at the whole thing you slowly begin to realize that every freakin' thing about the Moon Landing and at least the first Apollo landing is full of 'problems'.

Answer me this. How can you plan on going to the Moon if you can't even orbit a space station in Near Earth Orbit.

What Kennedy SHOULD have said is that 'by the end of the decade we will have an orbiting space station'.

That would have solved several things:

1. a REAL icon that the US could identify with for purposes of PR and nationalism
2. Military High ground
3. An orbiting space telescope
4. A launch pad and test bed for an -actual- flight to the moon.

In 1959 a top NASA scientist analyzed the probability of us being able to go to the Moon and return safely. His estimate? It was not the 30% chance of success that Aldrin says (in video). It was .0014 chance. That's 14 chances in 10,000 (or 1 chance in 1,000). The mission parameters up to that time that NASA allowed was no less than 80% (or no more than 20% chance of catastrophic failure). I saw this very low percentage figure also when it was given in a documentary broadcast in the 1980s from the 1970s on a PBS type channel. So that's two sources (though I can't produce the video, it's been ~20 years since I saw it)

Note that in the attempts to climb Mt Everest, they usually have about seven base camps. Yet they are asking us to believe we went to the Moon with no support base (like an orbiting space station)?

Ludicrous.

Go watch Was It Only a Paper Moon?
video.google.com...
...on google video and then come back and give us your opinion.

Though you still might want to believe NASA, I bet you have some doubts after that. It is not a recap of the FOX video, though there are some photo anomalies, theres much more. (~90min)

I believe they were partially faked to hide the true nature of what is really on the moon (a breathable atmosphere). Painting the sky black in the moon landing video is a perfect explaination of why the sky lacks stars (shot during the day), and why the flag waves as if it would wave in the wind on earth. Why make the moon appear to be a desolate place? So that 3rd world countries don't have the desire/drive to start a space program.

I've heard a story that the first moon landing was done by a chimpanzee. The chimpanzee walked on the moon without a space suit and returned home healthy. Of course... we were led to believe the chimpanzee died during flight (disinfo).


[edit on 4-4-2007 by curiousbeliever]

Badge, I'll take you up on that, but it won't be today. I will report back, though...I doubt this thread ever stays buried for long...lol.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Badge, I'll take you up on that, but it won't be today. I will report back, though...I doubt this thread ever stays buried for long...lol.

JC,

No biggie. If nothing else it's pretty cool mind candy. I just originally watched it for info-tainment purposes.

Also see 'Dark Moon', and some others. I got about six of them from various online places, one which was two hours. (if you want I'll search my HD for the names). I kind of skip over Bart Sibrel's stuff since he's so confrontational, but the rest of those docos are plenty.

Take 'er easy.

BTW, I'm just an interested fan of Space science and soforth and am not on some crusade to 'expose' the Apollo missions.

Hi JC (and others),

Just wanted to post another link for an even better video than the 'Paper Moon', which is probably a bit 'out there'. This is very well produced and covers even more of the topic:

What Happened On the Moon - part 1 of 2 (2hrs, 20min)
video.google.com...

What Happened On the Moon - part 2 of 2 (1hr, 30min)
video.google.com...

It's long but totally engaging and very well done. If you use a FireFox plugin you can save the vid to your HD as an .avi. (I use "Ook? Video Ook; also can use 'VideoDownloader', both on the FF plugins and addon extensions Mozilla site)

Hope this helps!

Originally posted by Badge01
All other expeditions, North Pole, South Pole, Everest, and other far reaches of the globe are required to have INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION of the event before it is deemed worthy and right to be entered into the record books.

How were those expeditions independently verified? I honestly don't know.

Despite many 'landings' on the moon by alleged astronauts, and unmanned vehicles from the US and other countries, guess what one event has never been independently verified?

That's right, the Apollo moon landings have NOT been subjected to verification.

I had given you this link before on amateur astronomers observing and tracking the Apollo missions, independently. I'll also add this link from Wikipedia about the independant tracking of Apollo.

1. pictures were faked (see Brian Leary's infamous comments);

You mean the comments from that horrible Fox program that took his comments out of context? For the record, Brian O'Leary believes that the Apollo landings happened.

2. the actual astronauts were substituted. The US may have landed astronauts on the moon (at least the first landing) but they may not have been Aldrin, Armstrong and Michael Collins;

Why substitute them? That makes no sense.

3. the entire first mission may have been faked (we never left low orbit);

Radio communications work differently at low orbit then they would while going to the Moon. People with HAM radios were able to listen in on the communications from Apollo. You can't do that if they are in low orbit since the spacecraft would only be in sight for a few minutes every 90min or so.

5. we have never sent humans through the Van Allen Belt and we never will (until we have better space capsules). We have sent humans to low earth orbit and on one occasion we sent the shuttle higher, but near the beginning of the first Van Allen belt;
6. the Van Allen Belts are far deadlier than we first imagined (One doco has the real newsreport on this comment).

I replied to your comment on this in another thread and again you seemed to have ignored it. I'll quote it for you.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Badge01
Actually, there was a news broadcast a few years ago saying that the VA belts were more deadly than originally thought.

The electrons are energized to speeds much higher than previously thought, yes, but the are still not deadly if you are just flying through them. Satellites that have 3mm of aluminum shielding receive 25 Sv per year in the belts and they still operate. The highest radiation dosage received out of all the Apollo missions was by Apollo 14. It was 0.0285 Sv. The legal limit per year for people who work with radio active material is 0.05 Sv. That's 1/700 the lethal dose for humans. So I really don't think the Apollo astronauts had much to worry about when coasting through the belts.

To recap, ONE or more of the above may be true. (it's not clear which, as far as real proof).

But you're not willing to accept that it happened how NASA says it did?

To explain #2, if you have high profile astronauts and something goes wrong, it could be a -major- PR disaster. So the solution is to "seem" to send Aldrin, Armstrong and Michael Collins, but to use 'no name' guys in the actual ship. That way if there was a catastrophe they could do some spin control and cover up the deaths and say either we didn't make it, here's Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, safe and sound, or we did make it and "they" got back OK.

I'm sorry, but that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. They were test pilots. They knew the danger and accepted it. Astronauts have died in accidents before and after Apollo. NASA never covered them up, yes it's bad for PR, but so what. Accidents happen and you learn from them and move on.

Numerous people died before Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier. None of them had "no name guys" replace them incase they died. Chuck Yeager himself continued to break many aviation records. He was never replaced by a "no name guy". And if you can land "no name guys" on the Moon then why the cover up? It makes no sense.

I'm not alleging this, just offering an explanation for this fairly clever scheme, if in fact, it was true. Remember the whole Moon Landing thing was not about exploration or gathering data (such as taking UV pic of the stars, or using an astronomic telescope and special camera to take star pics), it was only about 'landing a man' and jumping around and planting a flag.

If that's all you think the Moon landings were about, then you are sadly mistaken. It was about exploration and gathering data. It was also about beating the Russians and creating National pride as well.

Additional factoids:
Aldrin mentions that the chance of making the blast off and docking with the orbital module after liftoff from the moon was about, or less than 30%. I.e. two in three chances that they'd not dock successfully and thus two of the members would perish.

I heard a documentary back in the 80s that was made in the 70s which said that the chances of missing the docking with the Orbiter was a LOT less than 30% (more like 8%). They said they really got lucky and with some last minute course corrections, Armstrong was able to dock.

I find those numbers hard to believe. Do you have a source at all for that?

Look at the press conference after the mission. Three very strange acting guys who appear to be embarrassed by the whole thing, and not proud guys returning from the greatest expedition of all time.

Maybe they were tired after spending many days on a long trip in a small capsule and then 3 weeks in quarantine after that? Maybe they were also a little nervous being infront of all those people and camera's in the press conference. I know I would be, as I don't like speaking to large audiences myself. Many people feel anxiety when speaking to groups of people. I know Armstrong does for sure. To simply watch the footage and say, "They look nervous and uncomfortable. They must be hiding something." is foolish. I've watched clips of it and I never got the impression that they were hiding anything or not proud of there accomplishments.

Another Factoid. Despite being on the 'high ground' for the first time, the Astronauts, present at the HIGHEST OBSERVTORY in the solar system (at the time) did NOT take any pictures of the stars. They did take a UV scope on a later mission, but NO pictures from this scope have been published anywhere (that I'm aware). Though it's hard to take pictures of stars and people and bright landscape AT THE SAME TIME, it is NOT impossible to take pictures of the stars from the Moon, if you use the right exposure and right camera and do it in the shadow of the LEM.

We've gone over this before. They didn't have a tripod for there still film camera. As for the pictures from the UV telescope I gave you direct links to the pictures. And yet again you seemed to have ignored my replies.

IMO, going to the Moon and not taking a 'Hubble-like' photo or two of the stars, is like going to the Mauna Kea observatory in Hawaii and never looking up at the stars. It's ludicrous.

A Hubble like photo? They didn't have the room to bring along so much equipment. There are a lot of weight restrictions. Bringing a big telescope and mount and all that would have added a lot of unneeded weight to the LM. Every little gram was accounted for and if it wasn't needed, it wasn't going.

Again, you can't take a regular camera and take a pic of an Astronaut and get stars in the background, but you can use proper equipment (which was available, or very light and easy to take - like a spotting scope with a time-lapse camera) and get pictures of the specific stars.

You're not going to get Hubble like images from a spotting scope. You need something like Hubble to get Hubble like pictures. Taking photos similar to Hubble's can require up to many hours worth of exposures. They didn't have the time to do that sort of stuff. They were pretty busy during the EVA's as it was.

Why not do this? One reason. Because these stellar photographs would NOT have been able to be faked. The precise alignments and orientation of the various stars could be checked subsequently by Earth astronomers, including Amateurs and any attempt at faking would be instantly detected. Thus they claimed they did not take the pics. (in fact Collins says he doesn't recall SEEING any stars).

The stars alignments and orientation would look no different on the Moon then they would on Earth. Why do you think that taking photos of stars on the Moon would be proof they went there?

When Collins said he couldn't see any stars, he was referring specifically to when they were photographing the solar corona and not for the entire mission. Seeing as how they used star charts with there navigation tool during there trip and spotted stars with it.

To expand some on the Van Allen Belt, since everyone seems to insist that humans can't get through it:

The trapping regions of high-energy charged particles surrounding the Earth are called radiation (or van Allen) belts (Van Allen et al., 1958; Van Allen and Frank, 1959). The inner one, located between about X = 1.1 - 3.3 Re (Earth radii, geocentric) in the equatorial plane, contains primarily protons with energies exceeding 10 MeV. Flux maximum is at about X = 2 Re. (Distances given here are approximate, since the location of particles is energy dependent.) This is a fairly stable population but it is subject to occasional perturbations due to geomagnetic storms, and it varies with 11-year solar cycle. The source of protons in this region is the decay of cosmic ray induced albedo from the atmosphere.

www.oulu.fi...

The Earth has two regions of trapped fast particles. The inner radiation belt discovered by Van Allen is relatively compact, extending perhaps one Earth radius above the equator (1 RE = 6371 km or about 4000 miles). It consists of very energetic protons, a by-product of collisions by cosmic ray ions with atoms of the atmosphere. The number of such ions is relatively small, and the inner belt therefore accumulates slowly, but because trapping near Earth is very stable, rather high intensities are reached, even though their build-up may take years.

Further out is the large region of the ring current, containing ions and electrons of much lower energy (the most energetic among them also known as the "outer radiation belt"). Unlike the inner belt, this population fluctuates widely, rising when magnetic storms inject fresh particles from the tail of the magnetosphere, then gradually falling off again. The ring current energy is mainly carried by the ions, most of which are protons.

However, one also sees in the ring current "alpha particles," atoms of helium which have lost their two electrons, a type of ion that is plentiful in the solar wind.In addition, a certain percentage are O+ oxygen ions, similar to those in the ionosphere of the Earth, though much more energetic. This mixture of ions suggests that ring current particles probably come from more than one source.

www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The most dangerous portion of the Van Allen belt is over the Equator. That's why sattelite/space probe, and manned missions don't go through there. For the rest of the Belt it requires very long exposure to it, which Apollo didn't have.

I know the moon landings were a hoax.

Google 'a funny thing happened on the way to the moon'.

One thing's for sure, either NASA landed on the Moon in 1969, or else they'll be landing on the Moon within the next couple of years. In secret. Before the Chinese get there and discover the flag, lunar buggy etc aren't there ....

(btw Mountaineering achievements very rarely have independent verification - although in some case the summiteers can be seen from below by telescope, this is not always the case. The reason we knew that Tenzing Norgay and Ed Hillary reached the summit of Everest is because Tenzing Norgay and Ed Hillary said they reached the summit of Everest )

Originally posted by Essan
(btw Mountaineering achievements very rarely have independent verification - although in some case the summiteers can be seen from below by telescope, this is not always the case. The reason we knew that Tenzing Norgay and Ed Hillary reached the summit of Everest is because Tenzing Norgay and Ed Hillary said they reached the summit of Everest

)

That's what I'm wondering. How some of these expeditions get "independently verified". I couldn't imagine a second group of people climbing Everest to check and make sure they really got up there.

I also wonder how the Trieste, which holds the Worlds deepest depth ever reached, (10,911m / 35,798 ft) was "independently verified".

Badge01, I just want to understand what you mean by "independent verification". What all is required to make for a satisfactory verification. And in what ways does Apollo not meet those requirements. Also if you could tell me how other events and expeditions were verified, that would be great, thank you.

When you think that Stanley Kubrick may have been part of this trickery ...

Fact and fiction mixed together as someone said in a documentary

They've probably landed on the moon... but not the day/year we all thought and that since nearly 4 decades now


[edit on 8-4-2007 by themaster1]

Originally posted by jra

That's what I'm wondering. How some of these expeditions get "independently verified". I couldn't imagine a second group of people climbing Everest to check and make sure they really got up there.

I also wonder how the Trieste, which holds the Worlds deepest depth ever reached, (10,911m / 35,798 ft) was "independently verified".

Badge01, I just want to understand what you mean by "independent verification". What all is required to make for a satisfactory verification. And in what ways does Apollo not meet those requirements. Also if you could tell me how other events and expeditions were verified, that would be great, thank you.

I don't mind going over that, but it seems like you're trying to 'counter' some of the ideas in my posts by addressing them obliquely.

Others show, to me, that you just haven't done any research.

For instance you're in here arguing these points, but have you looked at all the 'conspiracy vids' that are freely available on the 'Net?

I doubt it.

So let me challenge you to go look at Google video and watch the vids I posted to JC.

Then come back if you have any more questions.

On the 'substituting different astronauts' question. That's not my assertion, just one of a list of things I've seen alleged. It's a bit far out, but if you'd researched the question and Nixon's conflicted feelings over it and the speech he prepared, I don't think you'd be asking me that.

Maybe you think you don't need to view these 'nutty' videos and you can just go on your 'opinion'. Well, it's nice to have opinions, but even better if they're informed.

That doesn't mean you have to believe the conspiracy vids. But they're part of the 'material'. so if you're going to discuss them, I think it's only fair to ask you to look them over.

Deal?

is this not real?....

i86.photobucket.com...

how about this?...

i86.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by jra

How were those expeditions independently verified? I honestly don't know.

Why are you asking me to do your googling for you? You're not one of those people that just because they can't find the answer, make something up that sounds right, are you? If someone said 'why didn't they use the Saturn V to launch the shuttle and then construct a Space Station with the spare parts', would you just cut and paste what some 'expert' has said, or would you dig into it yourself? Did you know they lost the plans to the Saturn V? (yep, good old NASA, Land of the Lost).

If someone told you the 'moon rocks' couldn't be faked, would you take that as gospel, or would you look into the characteristics that are used to verify the 'moon rocks', look into CoC, look into the size of the sample of the moon rocks that are sent out.

Did you know they only send out very tiny samples, less than the size of a bouillon cube?

Did you know that NASA has facilities that can precisely duplicate the conditions that exist on the moon, and had done some experiments to try and duplicate the property of the rocks found on the moon?

Did you know that the rocks found in Antarctica are similar to moon rocks, but with a couple notable exceptions?

I don't mean to be pedantic but here's some ideas:

1. look up Guiness Book of World Record. See what documentation they require to verify a record;
2. some events require the recording and transmitting of various data. Depending on the mission, they're different;
3. other events involve planting a flag, or putting a stake in the ground that other explorers can visit and verify. Some events might not be verified immediately.

The poster that said that Norgay and Hillary were credited with the climb of Everest because they said so has got to be kidding.

Nobody's record is taken as fact because of their fame or notoriety, not even Hillary's.

So don't be one of those posters that hide behind expert opinion and just stand back and snipe at those who are trying to uncover potential deception, while not doing the basic reading and viewing needed to intelligently articulate the discussion, m'kay?

or this,...

i86.photobucket.com...

here is another...

i86.photobucket.com...

...

i86.photobucket.com...

If they were faked ,what was the need to create the apollo 13 disaster?