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.


Is the Moon Landing a Hoax?...

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Kilgour
What makes me doubt the official version is all the equipment,money,planning and man power to leave Earth but once on the moon, all to get back is a small LEM.Powered by dodgy thrusters.
Apart from all the photo anomalies and radiation problems,we should of been there for the year 2000.
Think of all the improvements in modern technology we've had since 63.
By now getting to the moon should be as easy as microwaved meals,makes me wonder why we havent set up bases there yet.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by Kilgour]

Money. Money and lack of enthusiasm by governments. Of course that all changed when someone discovered that the moons surface contains a superabundance of Helium 3, which at $1500/gram is one of the most precious substances we know of. At last count 5 countries are racing to get back there.
Anyone that seriously doubts that the human race has set foot on the surface of the moon (including robotic missions, there have been more than 70 successful visits to the moon and it's orbit), has to explain how we got These back.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 08:29 AM
Didn't wan't to start a new thread, but you might want to take a look at this article.

Russian bloggers has downloaded one of the pictures of the Moon landing from the official NASA website and enhanced it with the means of modern photo imaging software. They have found something that could point on the editing of the image by the primitive methods that were widely used at that time (30 years ago) in many magazines etc.

Full Article

I'm not sure if it's been discussed here already... just contributing.

Meh, most probably it's been analyzed and re-analyzed 100s of times and that already explained, just couldn't find it on ATS.

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 05:24 AM
I think we went the Russians wouldnt of let that kind of a lie slide and the Chinese deffinetly wouldnt.

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:36 AM
reply to post by theutahbigfoothunter

I've watched a lot of video and reviewed a lot of the photographs and something strange is going on [photos , link].

I think perhaps we hoaxed it to boost our image as world super power.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:01 PM
So I was in my office today and a lady friend walks in and wants my opinion on whether the moon landing was a hoax, she says it definitely was. I told her I've heard good arguments both for and against but I wasn't there so I can't say for sure either way. Then I told her that I personally believe we did land on the moon.

I believe we landed there because sometimes it's better to give mankind the benefit of the doubt. Like I said, I wasn't there so I can't say for sure, but having looked at the evidence from both sides of the argument, I would rather believe that we as a species actually rose to the occasion the achieved something great, rather than lied and abused the faith of our fellow man once again.

I came home and looked up this thread once again just to re-check the arguments. I still stand by my statement that both sides have very valid points and we may not ever know the truth. At least not in our lifetimes.

Still, I think sometimes it's important to believe that we can achieve great things, that not all the world is a lie. What a truly terrible world this would be if there were no moments of glory.


posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:40 PM
Since the only GOOD argument in favor of a non-hoax is "we put reflectors on the moon to send back radio frequency signals on earth" I'd like that someone enlighten me:

1- Who sent signals on this/these reflector(s) (what institute/agency other than nasa itself)
2- When (the precise date) this was first tried.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by themaster1]

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 05:50 PM

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
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.

What an instructive factoid to use. The plaque DID NOT say that. Nixon had it changed. It just read, "WE CAME IN PEACE". And the date had a typo in it.

If you are going to try and champion alleged facts, at least get the details right. Otherwise you really aren't even an iconoclast. If that is even the right word to us in this context, which is something I am less than certain about. What is iconoclastic about attacking a secret agency? Isn't it NASA that is indulging in iconoclasm by subverting the open and rigorous processes of science into some kind of kiddie version of the CIA?

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:00 PM
Still nobody to answer the two supposed simple questions above(for the knowledgeable guys).Well too bad that would have enlighted me a lot.I'll leave it here with unanswered questions.

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:15 PM
reply to post by themaster1

Any astronomer or telescope with a laser. The laser is shot through the telescope, hits the reflector and bounces back to the receiver. The number of places that have used them is almost too many to mention.

Apollo 11, 14, and 15 left them all. The first time they were used was August 1969. The first one was placed July 21st, 1969. It was first used about a month later. Two were placed using unmanned probes by the Soviets, but one has never returned any data. All three placed by the Apollo missions continue to function to this day.

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

I keep seeing posts saying "there is a mirror on the moon" therefore everything suspicious about the Apollo program is absolved. I think that there may very well be mirrors on the moon we can bounce lasers off of. Thanks for reminding us all again.

My reaction to this groundbreaking knowledge is : so what.
We have a rover on mars.
mirror on moon = men on moon rover on mars = men on mars right?

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by themaster1

Any astronomer or telescope with a laser. The laser is shot through the telescope, hits the reflector and bounces back to the receiver. The number of places that have used them is almost too many to mention.

Apollo 11, 14, and 15 left them all. The first time they were used was August 1969. The first one was placed July 21st, 1969. It was first used about a month later. Two were placed using unmanned probes by the Soviets, but one has never returned any data. All three placed by the Apollo missions continue to function to this day.

Thanks for this answer.

So according to you, many amateur telescopes with such a laser have made this experiment from the year 1969 'till now.That's an interesting piece of information we got here.
I will see with my local radio telescope if we can do the same.I'd be curious to see the result by myself.

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 09:28 AM

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
reply to post by Zaphod58

mirror on moon = men on moon rover on mars = men on mars right?

Well back in late 60's the robots weren't that advanced according to my knowledge, so i'm affraid men were the best option to put these reflectors on the moon.Don't you think?

But my curiosity was more on "the year" all these experiments were first made & by whom.
Looks like it's 1969 & by many people, including amateurs so after all, chances the u.s went on the moon are strange as this sounds for some.

But i don't get why would the nasa brushout part of moon's satellites photos, this being a proven fact to the experts.

posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by David2012

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 02:01 PM
Of course the moon landing was a hoax.

Google NASA and Nazi scientists. Its full of them. And what were the Nazis famous for? PROPOGANDA.

I mean here we have Kennedy making an announcement man was going to the moon within a decade and we did it without a hitch! Wow. Just amazing. And this in 1969 when a modern calculator would fill a room lol..

I mean I know many of you like to get emotional and you want to believe we went to the moon but we didnt. Im sorry. If you apply reason and common-sense it will become clear. It just wasnt possible back then ands probably not possible even today with all our advances in technology.

And not even considering all the anomalies (shadows, flapping flags, 4 wheel drives as big as the LEM driving around on the moon etc etc) just consider mans other FIRST attempts at comparitively insignificant milestones. Hindenberg, Titanic, mans first attempt at flight. ALL FAILURES. Yet here the US govt claims we blasted off some 385000 km to the moon, landed safely, played golf, drove around like were on a beach, took some holiday snaps, jumped back in, flew another 385000 km home, and landed safely. LOL. And all this without one single hitch. Just amazing. Suddenly man despite all his past failures gets it right or the Govt lied to us. Which one do you think is more likely?

This lady watching the transmision in Australia before it was edited and beamed to the US even spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. LOL.

No, unfortunately past records speak for themselves. Propoganda was rife in the 60's during the cold war and your governments ability to lie to the American public, and the world, has been shown many times over since the 60's.

Common-sense and what we know now about technology now tells you the moon landing was all a LIE. If it smells like, looks like, and walks like, it probably is a ....

[edit on 16-2-2008 by dscomp]

[edit on 16-2-2008 by dscomp]

posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 06:27 AM

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.

Every human on the planet with a TV set qualify for this?

Originally posted by Badge01
3. the entire first mission may have been faked (we never left low orbit)

If you can get that far, wouldn't it be tempting to go the rest of the way? Remember how many previous space missions there had already been. If we didn't get that far, what happened to the launcher? Still up there?

Originally posted by Badge01
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

It is possible to survive the small doses of radiation involved. Prolonged exposure is what does the damage. NASA knew about the Van Allen Belt, had missions to examine it and the results of those examinations would have told them the minimum safe shielding required.

Originally posted by Badge01
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.

Agreed. It was a propaganda exercise, but remember whom they were trying to fool, if you are right about the fakery. The Russkies. The Commies. Ivan. The very people who could prove they faked it and who wouldn't keep quiet about it, either. But they verified the radar track, didn't they?

Originally posted by Badge01
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.

A skilled pilot, like a skilled sportsman or a skilled anything, can beat the odds. Quick reflexes and a steady hand, my man.

Originally posted by Badge01
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.

In fact, three exhausted guys. I drive thirty miles a day to get to work. As soon as I get home, I collapse in a sofa and doze for twenty minutes. I think flying to the moon and back might be even tougher.

Originally posted by Badge01
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.

NASA forgot to send a photojournalist along with them. It was short-sighted of them, but perfectly understandable. They hadn't gone to study stars. Just to make a point and show us something we had NEVER seen before: The surface of an alien world. Pictures of stars would have been a waste of time and resources.

Originally posted by Badge01
MO, 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.

I understand your view, but you're presuming the crew went to look at stars in the first place. They didn't. They were pilots with a little bit of science. Collins didn't recall seeing stars because he was in the orbiter looking down most of the time. Like the others, he was more intrigued by what lay beneath them-

sorry to say, contd>>

[edit on 6/3/08 by hidatsa]

posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 06:37 AM
.... than by what was and would always be above them. Random pictures of the stars wouldn't advance our understanding of the universe and the payload, surprisingly, didn't include motorised time-lapse telescopes. Every ounce was measured and quantified and justified on that mission, whose primary objective was to ......

Your analysis is intriguing but, I believe, flawed. I wouldn't throw my hands up in shock if it were one day revealed to have been a faked PR event (just to stay inside JFK's "end of the decade" deadline, which was issued to gee-up NASA and Congress rather than to disturb the Soviet Union), but I don't think the evidence for such a monumental hoax is in what you have cited, and I don't think that man has never set foot on the moon; just probably not in the way we think he has.

Astronauts have frequently returned with a new respect for their religious teachers and a strengthened belief in God. I wonder if any of them would be able to sustain the lie for so long.

People here have asked why scientists from NASA and elsewhere aren't devoting any of their valuable time to disproving the hoax. Seems to me, this isn't a trial. The presumption of innocence is pretty strong. The need to defend against a rather demeaning and insulting contention must be somewhere around Item Number Zero on the average scientist's "to-do" list. What could the result possibly be, anyway? Little more than "Oh, no you didn't", "Oh, yes we did" ....

[edit on 6/3/08 by hidatsa]

[edit on 6/3/08 by hidatsa]

posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 07:43 AM
Yes the moon landing was faked and hoaxed.

There is not enough solar winds to move the flag as in the consitancy it can be seen moving throughout the video.

It is AVIDLY moving which is all signs of a fake.

In my general assumption, the flag wouldn't move more than an inch an hour.

And like state, I see science and I speak it.

However, there is moon bases on the moon.

But then again, I'm just a scientist and/or pioneer.

So anyways, everyone can round about page after page in mindless debate between the skeptics of all sorts the fact is we faked it because on the mission to the moon we had seen UFOs, we had seen Moon Bases, and we sure as the hell couldn't tell that to the public could we?

Otherwise religion would of started to crumble into pieces far before it has now.

Anyways, no one ever really takes into the concern of my points, not atleast for the most part, so keep fathoming why they faked it if they faked it blah blah blah blah.

If you don't go to and do your own 20 hours of research, you may never know.

However, I will stand by my belief and not debate it.

No one can and or will change my mind, ever.

posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by SomeGuy34

No one can and or will change my mind, ever.

That's my kind of argument. (I've patented it, btw. You'll get my bill in the next post)

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:25 PM
Pro Apollo people like to use every piece of mis-information given to them by NASA without considering the laws of physics which are undeniable and universal.

For starters, we believe the Moon's gravity to be 1/6 that of the Earth's. By that rationale, movements would be FASTER on the moon regardless of so called pressurized space suits and not in the "slow motion" we see in footage.

Also, it is very, very clear in film footage taken from the "moon" that whenever an Astonaut falls, the dirt he kicks up falls faster. It's visible to the naked eye! According to the LAWS of physics, this is IMPOSSIBLE unless the astronaut has resistance keeping him from falling at the same rate (like wires).

I'm not going to get into a photography debate about stars in the sky, flags flapping in a wind or any other tired argument. For me it is SIMPLE, based on the LAWS of physics, the footage shown to the public was NOT shot on the moon.

It was shot right here on good ol' mother Earth at Mauna Kea in Hawaii. (not Area 51 and not the Australian outback either).

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:44 PM
Hi all, I believe the landings were faked, the pictures and videos just don't have the feel of authenticity, there's so many reasons why!

The horizon in all pictures and vids look false like a low budget film!

Honestly, in 1969 the technology just was'nt available to us, I'm not saying we'll never go there in the future! NASA are planning a "return" to the moon, in something like 2020, oh yeah and the reason that date is so far away is because they've forgotten how they went there in previous apollo missions? All I know is if I was responsible for such an important and significant acomplishment I would not forget how I did it!

NASA if your reading this, YOUR LYING and we know you are!

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in