Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is the Moon Landing a Hoax?...

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
double post


[edit on 4/11/2010 by Phage]




posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 




Really? You do not know? Funny because when I first joined ATS you were the first person to tell me exactly why they thought they had received a moon rock. Funny, I thought you had all the answers.

Really? I did?
Can you refresh my memory? I don't recall ever doing that.

No, I don't have all the answers. That doesn't mean I don't have any.


[edit on 4/11/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
There is so much information showing problems and inconsistencies with the Apollo program it's not funny. There must be literally hundreds of anomalies. Some astronauts are well known to go into a programmed shutdown response when questioned. Clearly brainwashing has been applied to them. This doesn't mean we have not been to the moon. But not via the technology and as presented to the public. The faces of the astronauts pretty much says it all.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 




Really? You do not know? Funny because when I first joined ATS you were the first person to tell me exactly why they thought they had received a moon rock. Funny, I thought you had all the answers.

Really? I did?
Can you refresh my memory? I don't recall ever doing that.

No, I don't have all the answers. That doesn't mean I don't have any.


[edit on 4/11/2010 by Phage]


Sorry but neither your nor my post history go back that far. Needless to say, I was trying to have an inquisitive conversation about the moon landings and you stomped in to tell us all how stupid and ignorant we were and proceeded to address just about every post "correcting" everyone in the most certain and arrogant attitude that was not really backed up with sources or proof. It was very off putting and certainly gave the impression of someone who thought they knew everything and you know exactly what I am talking about.

I find it really interesting that if I were to simply state that they handed it out and claimed it were a moon rock, you would have been able to "correct" me with all the facts about what happened but instead, suddenly you are at a loss?

This is such a near and dear area for you and yet you have not even done this minimal basic amount of research into this incident? Tsk tsk. Just does not seem like the you that has been so warmly presenting itself for quite some time now.

Oh well, if you do not know then I guess we can just speculate, no? Have a theory as to why they thought they had received a moon rock?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 


If you ask my opinion [few ever do] I first say RADIATION. Radiation is the problem. Such a huge problem that the manned landings are just simply entirely out of the question. The GEMINI astronauts and the MIR and SKYLAB and now the ISS astronauts are in low earth orbit [LEO] and thus relatively shielded. Even thus they suffer burns. Think how much worse it would be further out ? On the moon ? They would in fact be cooked.


Well, there's always this:


Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem
  • set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. Thus, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected.



  • lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...


    The above paper has data, graphs and everything. Of course, if you prefer to think the whole thing is an elaborate hoax, there's no need to do any further research. Just believe what you want. BTW: if it was just a cheap hoax, why stop the Apollo program at all? Why not show daily CGI "broadcasts" from our vibrant, all-American lunar colony?



    posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:59 PM
    link   
    reply to post by K J Gunderson
     

    No.
    I don't know exactly what you are talking about. I would like some indication of me ever calling an ATS member stupid. I may occasionally use the word ignorant but that is not an insult and it is usually in direct reference to the motto of ATS; deny ignorance. When someone displays a lack of knowledge about something, they are displaying ignorance. They are ignorant about the subject. It says nothing about their intelligence or lack thereof.


    ig·no·rance
    –noun
    the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

    dictionary.reference.com...

    I find it interesting that you think that you know what I "would have been able to do" in a hypothetical situation.

    I actually did look for information about how the piece of stone came to be thought to be a Moon rock. I couldn't find any. If you can, I would really appreciate learning more about it. I'm always looking for information to decrease my level of ignorance on a subject.

    I can speculate that it was a misunderstanding on the part of Middendorf or Drees. But since Middendorf doesn't seem to remember much about it and Drees is dead, that it is all it would be, speculation.

    [edit on 4/11/2010 by Phage]


    jra

    posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 12:33 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by CAELENIUM
    If you ask my opinion [few ever do] I first say RADIATION. Radiation is the problem. Such a huge problem that the manned landings are just simply entirely out of the question.


    It's not out of the question if you take the time to learn a bit about the radiation environment. While radiation is a problem, it's not as big of a problem as you're making it out to be. Each of the Apollo missions were relatively short and everything was done to limit there exposure. They flew through weaker parts of the Van Allen belt, there were no major solar flares during any of the missions and cosmic background radiation only becomes more of a concern for long duration missions.

    Also, I've never heard of people getting burns on the ISS either. Could you back up that claim please?


    If we examine the mathematics and the engineering of the Apollo missions, thus I do believe that the fabric of lies will be made so clearly manifest that we will simply have to laugh at the nievity with which everyone were believing that the USA put men on the moon.


    You do realize that many people with engineering backgrounds have looked and studied the Apollo missions and find nothing wrong with them at all. From my observation, the people who believed the Apollo missions were faked have little to no understanding of the science and engineering involved at all. I have never seen some one with an engineering background make the claim that the missions were faked. I wonder why that is?


    If the ISS were to be in a permanent higher orbit, then it would be possible to save a VERY CONSIDERABLE amount of TAX PAYERS MONEY, by not having to continually refuel the ISS. The point we are making is that, to put the ISS into that permanent higher orbit is not possible, because the astronauts would end up being cooked by the lethal RADIATIONS out there.


    A lot of the orbital boosting of the ISS is done by the Shuttle or Russian Progress spacecrafts. The ISS has it's own thrusters, but to my knowledge, they are not always used for boosting the station. A lot of the resupply missions to the ISS are mostly for food, water, oxygen and equipment. Some times there's fuel, but not always.

    If the ISS were in a higher orbit, the Space Shuttle would not be able to reach it.


    Originally posted by K J Gunderson
    Everyone knows that US diplomats and politicos used to hand out petrified wood in celebration of the moon landing. That is just common knowledge right? Doesn't every country have an official US MOON LANDING COMMEMORATIVE HUNK OF WOOD?


    This only happened once and no one was purposely trying to pass off this petrified wood as a Lunar rock. It was just a misunderstanding on somebodies part. Either by the former PM or the Museum that acquired it after his death.

    Firstly, it was a private gift from the US Ambassador to the former PM of the Netherlands in 1969. No Lunar samples were given out yet at that time. Especially not as private gifts to former heads of state!

    Secondly, Lunar samples weren't handed out to other Countries until after all the Apollo missions were done in 1972.

    Thirdly, Lunar samples were encased in a clear acrylic disc and contained about .05 to 1.1 grams. They look something like this. The petrified wood was 98grams and not encased in acrylic. That alone should be a dead give away that it's not one of the Lunar rocks given away to other Countries.


    Originally posted by ReelView
    There is so much information showing problems and inconsistencies with the Apollo program it's not funny. There must be literally hundreds of anomalies.


    What sorts of problems and inconsistencies? Could you present some?

    [edit on 12-4-2010 by jra]

    [edit on 12-4-2010 by jra]



    posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:18 AM
    link   
    Of course Moon Landing has never been a hoax !

    How can people wave this "flag" at 2010 ?



    posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 01:35 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Gustavo Souza Rabello
    Of course Moon Landing has never been a hoax !

    How can people wave this "flag" at 2010 ?


    There was an Apollo 13 anniversary on TV over the weekend.
    How could the unofficial story tellers work with that one.
    The first two were studio but this one was for real but on their
    way to the Moon had to abort the mission among life endangering
    conditions.
    Which would mean on the third try they were actually rocketing
    to the Moon for the first time but failed.
    Then back to studio landings.

    Well there was a huge lack of TV time and public interest in the
    third mission and I suspect the conspiracy theorists will take the stand
    that ratings had to be increased.

    After all their lives are at risk even on the ground for the first
    three astronauts.



    posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:14 PM
    link   


    No doubt, so as to inform the public who are capable of thinking outside of the box, it would appear from the above two inserted video, regarding Apollo 16, that the "US Government" [ex-employee of NASA] is releasing material to assist in the process of thinking outside of the box. I presume that this video is authentic. I think so, since as I stated before, the RADIATION PROBLEM would require that our space vehicles would need several feet of solid metal as shield-hull, inside of which would then be the pressure-hull for habitation. Depending on the size of the ship, therefore inside of that pressure-hull would then be several compartmentalizations in case of any possible breach in the hull structures. Not only is radiation lethal, but also space is not as empty as some believe. There is no end of crud flying around at velocity capable of ripping into any space ship hull. This was illustrated by the Apollo 13 fiasco. Apollo 13 was high drama. Pure theatrics. Entertainment ? As far as I can see all the Apollo missions were faked. One huge scam.


    [edit on 30/4/2010 by CAELENIUM]



    posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:20 PM
    link   
    reply to post by CAELENIUM
     


    Perhaps a bit of study would help.
    The Apollo 13 incident was the result of a technical problem inside the spacecraft.

    Perhaps it would help if you read the comments that go with that video:

    In this video, original footage of the Apollo 16 lunar mission has been intermixed with digital editing effects to present a third person in the far right portion of the frame. Anyone familiar with the Apollo missions knows that there were never more than two people on the lunar surface at any given time, and certainly never without the protective spacesuit. As one can imagine, imagery showing a person on the moon's surface who did not belong there, would likely cause some controversy and evoke interesting responses from hoax proponents and opponents alike. And it did.




    [edit on 4/30/2010 by Phage]



    posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:34 PM
    link   
    Please read the following website. Moon Rocks. Basically they are saying that the samples brought back to Earth by the Apollo missions show that the Lunar soil is identical to that of the Earth soil. But, ofcourse their logic pre-supposes that astronauts actually went to the Moon. If, as is the contention of the author of this thread, the Apollo missions were in all their entirety a hoax and a fraud, then it comes to me as no wonder that the "moon samples" are being found to be indentical to the soil of the Earth. If we ever really do go to the moon, which I suspect is very unlikely, then it will be discovered that the moon is actually very different in its geological composition compared to the Earth.



    posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:58 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Badge01

    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)


    Where were you when we need you in this thread? We are holding our ground but man they still continue their boring repeat questions garbage.

    Moon Landing debate thread



    posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:42 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
    Dear coastlinekid:

    I like your pictures. I really do. There is only one small problem. What type of film did our space cowboys use to make those charming snapshots. Fuji or Kodak?

    I guess it doesn’t matter. Because solar radiation would have rendered any conventional film outside the Van Allen Belts useless anyways. Chemical film material is way more light/radiation sensitive than we are. We can handle a few ‘rays’, film cannot. So the only pictures we do get from outer-outer space are digital ones. I. e. I’m not talking about footage from the Astronauts closely orbiting the Earth. Which means those (rare) blob-like tini Earth in the background photos are probably phony too.

    Greetings,
    The Wizard In The Woods

    [edit on 4/8/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]


    LOL This is great! I never really thought of that as well!! Yeah if radiation was bad they would of been detected via the cameras. Back in the 50's cameras were garbage.



    posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:48 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Atlantix
    Don't you guys think it's a little odd that Kennedy just decided that we'd go on the moon and 8 years later it happened? I don't think it is humanly possible that we could have developped that technology so quickly. I think the government has plenty of technology to go on the moon whenever they want, they staged the moon landing for a purpose.


    Can you also believe that Kennedy also stated in his last speech that secret societies are controlling the USA? He called out the scientific community and then was killed for it. He called out others as well. I bet he knew what they were planning and didn't like it.



    posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:58 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by weedwhacker
    reply to post by Revel
     



    As of this day I have not heard of any other nation making it to the moon, although the Chinese were supposed to make a fly by a few years back taking images of the surface which would have shown if the US did land or not. I have seen no images from this voyage if it even happened.


    Well, you have your opinions...unfortunately, you seem to have not done enough research yet.

    China already orbited the Moon, so did the Japanese. Was in all the papers!!

    AND, no, neither satellite had the resolution necessary to image things as small as the LM descent stage...which is the biggest piece.

    Stay tuned for the LRO images. They will image down to just under one meter, if all goes well.

    Really....I see you're new here, so you haven't had time to look into all the corners. You'll see how mistaken you are, soon enough.


    LOL only NASA seems to be the one where satellites are allowed to take the close up "photo" of the landing sites. Yet, the japanese spent at no cost on their Kaguya satellite. It even took diagnostics of the moons gravity. I can say they had the technology even to take the pictures on the ground.



    posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:04 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Phage
    reply to post by CAELENIUM
     

    I tried to find such a link. I could not. That is why I asked you for it.

    What does the need to boost the ISS periodically have to do with radiation? You said yourself that it is to prevent the station from falling into the atmosphere.


    I found it. dude, you a slacking as of late.

    www.nasa.gov...



    posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:06 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by ReelView
    There is so much information showing problems and inconsistencies with the Apollo program it's not funny. There must be literally hundreds of anomalies. Some astronauts are well known to go into a programmed shutdown response when questioned. Clearly brainwashing has been applied to them. This doesn't mean we have not been to the moon. But not via the technology and as presented to the public. The faces of the astronauts pretty much says it all.


    Weren't the government experimenting heavily with '___' back in the 50's? Maybe they gave huge doses to the crews to actually believe they did land? Just my speculation.



    posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:27 AM
    link   
    reply to post by theutahbigfoothunter
     


    You know, I never really gave the moon landing much thought.

    On the face of it, a lift off from a planet with 1/6 the Earth's gravity, given the skeletal framework of the mission, does seem very unlikely. That is still a lot of gravity to overcome.

    If I had to bet, I'd say it was staged.

    If 911 taught us anything...mass media propaganda is everything. Even if it's rotten to the core, which it is.


    jra

    posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:37 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by dragnet53
    LOL This is great! I never really thought of that as well!! Yeah if radiation was bad they would of been detected via the cameras.


    IF radiation was bad, but it wasn't bad. Not for the amount of time that they spent out in space anyway. The camera's also had shielding to help protect the film as well.


    Back in the 50's cameras were garbage.


    In what way were 50's cameras garbage? You're going to have to explain that one to me.


    LOL only NASA seems to be the one where satellites are allowed to take the close up "photo" of the landing sites. Yet, the japanese spent at no cost on their Kaguya satellite. It even took diagnostics of the moons gravity. I can say they had the technology even to take the pictures on the ground.


    "Allowed"? What are you talking about? If you want higher resolution images of the Lunar surface or of any planet, it requires a larger telescope to mounted on the spacecraft. It has nothing to do with being "allowed". Clearly taking such high resolution images wasn't a priority for JAXA, where as for NASA it was. At the time of the LRO's conception, they were planing to go back to the Moon. So acquiring high resolution images of various locations for possible future landings was one of there mission goals.


    I found it. dude, you a slacking as of late.
    www.nasa.gov...


    That has absolutely nothing to do with the claim raised by CAELENIUM. Your link is to a study about Radiation Doses Experienced by Astronauts during an EVA. CAELENIUM made the claim that the astronauts on the ISS have received radiation burns. I can find no such information about any astronauts getting radiation burns on the ISS or on the Shuttle or any where.





    new topics

    top topics



     
    8
    << 6  7  8    10  11 >>

    log in

    join