Recent Moon Hoax Ideas

This is about common sense reasons that the manned moon landings seem way faked.
The ability to land and orbit robotic material and cameras to me, as well as most hoaxers seem totally plausible.
One thing I would like all readers to do is train their thoughts and ideas towards a man or men that NASA says walked on or drove around the moon.
This is the only real contention most hoaxers have in my opinion.

My biggest contentions that man never set foot on the moon are---

Why can't an astronaut get a good photo of his partner through his visor with a decent image of the earth in the back ground.
They had the ability.
If you check NASA"S abysmal record since all the supposed Apollo success, there is no way you could believe what they profess.
They would have you believe that they sent 18 or more men to orbit the moon, 240,000 miles away and 12 or so landed there and messed around for awhile. All this before they cooked or froze to death.
This was Outer Space!
Nobody has professed to do that for the last forty years.
They claim to have done this without the loss of a lab rat.
NASA has allowed the incredible loss of at least 14 wonderful, amazing people on shuttles in the atmosphere. Three were lost on the ground during Apollo.
Need I say more?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Why can't an astronaut get a good photo of his partner through his visor with a decent image of the earth in the back ground.
They had the ability.

www.hq.nasa.gov...
The astronauts liked to keep their visors down for protection from UV and other nasty things. Because the Earth was always high in the sky, it was a tricky photo to get, what with the spacesuit and all.

If you check NASA"S abysmal record since all the supposed Apollo success, there is no way you could believe what they profess.
They would have you believe that they sent 18 or more men to orbit the moon, 240,000 miles away and 12 or so landed there and messed around for awhile. All this before they cooked or froze to death.

They were well protected from heat and cold.

This was Outer Space!
Nobody has professed to do that for the last forty years.
They claim to have done this without the loss of a lab rat.
NASA has allowed the incredible loss of at least 14 wonderful, amazing people on shuttles in the atmosphere. Three were lost on the ground during Apollo.

And three more very nearly lost their lives on Apollo 13. The shuttle is far more complex than the Apollo craft. And yes, NASA ain't what it used to be. Nobody says it is.

Need I say more?

Please don't.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Actually my freind, there are a lot of people who believed that , in 1 way or another, Gus Grissom (going by memory on his name) spoke out 2 yrs before the flight of apollo 11 , saying they weren't close and needed at least 10 more yrs. His death is 1 of the first Major conspiracy's concerning NASA. There are a lot of things that don't sit right about the Apollo's.

reply to post by Phage


The gold plated visor also helped keep the bright glare from the surface light from overtaking their vision. It was like a super one lens sunglass.

Some also say that it was specially designed to reduce the red and green portions of the visible spectrum and amplified the blue portion to be able to see things far off in the distance, which that in itself can be proven by examining the specs of those visors.



Cheers!!!!

Just a few snippits from "MAJESTYTWELVE" by William Cooper

NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore on the lunar surface were air conditioned. An air conditioner cannot, and will not work without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply takes heat gathered in a medium such as freon from one place and transfers it to another place. This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water. An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to any other place. The vacuum, remember, is a perfect insulator. A man would roast in his suit in such a circumstance.

NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space. There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.

NASA claims that the space suits worn by the astronauts were pressurized at 5 psi over the ambient pressure (0 psi vacuum) on the moon's surface. We have examined the gloves NASA claims the astronauts wore and find they are made of pliable material containing no mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical devices which would aid the astronauts in the dexterous use of their fingers and hands while wearing the gloves. Experiments prove absolutely that such gloves are impossible to use and that the wearer cannot bend the wrist or fingers to do any dexterous work whatsoever when filled with 5 psi over ambient pressure either in a vacuum or in the earth's atmosphere. NASA actually showed film and television footage of astronauts using their hands and fingers normally during their EVAs on the so-called lunar surface. The films show clearly that there is no pressure whatsoever within the gloves... a condition that would have caused explosive decompression of the astronauts resulting in almost immediate death if they had really been surrounded by the vacuum of space.

reply to post by timewalker


Well isn't that a nice collection of nonsense.

First he says that NASA insists the suits were air conditioned. Then he says they were water cooled. I guess he means there were two separate systems. There weren't. He is lying about what NASA claims. The astronauts wore "long johns" which had tubing distributed through them. This tubing was connected to the PLSS sublimator (the heat exhanger). The heat from the inside of the suit was what caused the ice on the outside of the exchanger to sublimate (melt, sort of). That is the whole point. That's how the system worked. The guy doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

NASA claims that the space suits worn by the astronauts were pressurized at 5 psi over the ambient pressure (0 psi vacuum) on the moon's surface. We have examined the gloves NASA claims the astronauts wore and find they are made of pliable material containing no mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical devices which would aid the astronauts in the dexterous use of their fingers and hands while wearing the gloves.

For starters, the suits were pressurized to 3.75psi. Just the fact he lies about it (or doesn't know about it) kind of blows his whole story away. I doubt he ever experimented with the gloves.

If you really want to know about the suits and the PLSS you can learn quite a bit in these two places:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 3/10/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
The guy doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

Actually, You appear to not have a clue what he is talking about.

One does not require any sort of in-depth technical knowledge in order to claim that the moon landings were conducted on a sound-stage using prop-suits that were nothing more than a facsimile of the their functional counterparts.

Glad to be of help!

*Now that I've pointed that out, I'll leave you alone so that you can destroy this poor fellow and his wonderful theories. ;-P




[edit on 11-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Phage


What I am saying about a good photo of the man and the earth came to me because of the" Why are there no stars in the background" question. So far and with some excellent help from other ATS members I have only found three photos of this type. There may be more but I haven't found them yet.
One from Apollo 13, two from Apollo 17. The three show the unrecognizable earth that looks only moon size to me and no human faces. I understand the reflective nature of the visors and the awkwardly nature of the suit and the declination of the earth.
But! Take this into consideration----- How did they collect the moon rocks from off the surface.
AND It seems to me that the two shots from 17 were staged more to attempt to end some controversy than show the world what the earth looks like from the moon. Star and earth photos can be taken by robots from the moon.
You would think with the thousands of earthbound photos of those jock Astronauts one of the twelve would have, snapped his buddies mug with the earth in the rear.
Can anyone say for certain that a photo like that is impossible.
I would like to think we are all here to learn.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Phage

 

But! Take this into consideration----- How did they collect the moon rocks from off the surface.

Tools.



Also notice where the camera is mounted on the suit.

[edit on 3/11/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


lol that's not a nice thing to say about the lunar landing disbelievers

To those people, I spose the lunar laser ranging retroreflector array placed itself there huh?

science.nasa.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...

The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment measures the distance between the Earth and the Moon using laser ranging. Lasers on Earth are aimed at retroreflectors previously planted on the Moon and the time delay for the reflected light to return is determined. Since the speed of light is known with very high accuracy, the distance to the moon can be calculated. This distance has been measured with increasing accuracy for more than 35 years.

The distance continually changes for a number of reasons, but averages about 384,467 kilometers (238,897 miles).
The experiment was first made possible by a retroreflector array installed on July 21, 1969, by the crew of the Apollo 11. Two more retroreflector arrays left by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions have contributed to the experiment.

Originally posted by Chadwickus

To those people, I spose the lunar laser ranging retroreflector array placed itself there huh?

Incorrect.

Such a mission could have been accomplished using an unmanned spacecraft.

You should know this.

reply to post by Exuberant1


True, even though they have no way of positioning themselves into the best position to reflect, I guess it could have been placed unmanned.

Hopefully THIS will put this debate to bed for good this year.

Even then I'm sure there will be people crying fake, honestly can't win...



[edit on 11-3-2009 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Exuberant1


This is good common sense. We need to prove a man was there.
No one seems to reject robotic presense.

reply to post by timewalker


Good post.
It takes nads to get technical.
Remember you are playing against the house (NASA) that holds all the cards and cameras. Much like a Vegas casino.

reply to post by Phage


The real question is ----" Would it have been possible to take a picture of an astronaut's face with his back to the sun or in the shade of the LEM with his visor up and the camera hand held? "
I don't know but you would think that the camera could be unhooked from it's carrying harness.
There are poor photos of the earth with astronauts in them so we know NASA believes they are doable.
I think these photos are rare and poor because it would be easy to prove their location if you could prove that it is really the earth in the background and a real human in the suit.
I don't want to ride this horse to death.

Let's try to agree--- possible or impossible---- on the photo. Beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Thanks for the photo! Does it imply that they used a pooper scooper type tool to pick up the rocks and not their hands?

BTW thanks again for explaining the ISS and Heaven Above to me. It really was a cool sighting.

reply to post by Chadwickus


It is mostly accepted that the US went to the moon just to beat the Russians.
Do you know the answer as to why the US went back five more times and attempted one more. Thats a lot of reflectors.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Because there was a lot to learn, and a lot of scientific value from being on the moon. NASA would have probably had permanent presence up there already if it hadn't been for all the "This is boring, why should we keep going" attitude back here on Earth. A lot of technological fields made big jumps due to the space program.

reply to post by Zaphod58


To me this is a very weak argument.

NASA did not stop its space ventures as per the will of the American public as you contend.
Instead they continued spending billions on Sky Lab, the Space Station, the Shuttle, Star Wars and what-not,
All this in what I would consider high earth atmosphere and certainly not outer space.
Forget about the money ---Address the loss of life alone. If what you say is true, the American public should storm the castle walls and put a stop to the carnage.
This is not to mention all the billions spent on Saturn 5, the unmanned exploration of Mars, probes to various planets and asteroids ( this last batch I approve of BTW.)
It is at least, in space.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Where did I say that they stopped going to space? I said they stopped going to the MOON because the American public became bored by how routine they made it look, and started asking why we were still going when we had problems here to deal with.

The first mission canceled was Apollo 20, because the budget had been cut and the Saturn V was needed for Skylab. They were only going to get the original 15 planned for, and no more. They were originally going to fly at least two more missions after 3 Skylab missions, but ended up canceling Apollo 18-20 completely.

Originally three additional lunar landing missions had been planned, as Apollo 18 through Apollo 20 In light of the drastically shrinking NASA budget and the decision not to produce a second batch of Saturn Vs, these missions were canceled to make funds available for the development of the Space Shuttle, and to make their Apollo spacecraft and Saturn V launch vehicles available to the Skylab program. Only one of the remaining Saturn Vs was actually used to launch the Skylab orbital laboratory in 1973; the others became museum exhibits at the John F. Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, George C. Marshall Space Center in Huntsville, Alabama, Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

wapedia.mobi...

You better talk to NASA, the ESA and other organizations if you don't consider Low Earth Orbit outer space then. They'll have to change their definition of what constitutes space.

[edit on 3/12/2009 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by Zaphod58


"Where did I say that they stopped going to space? "
I didn't say you did.
"I said they stopped going to the MOON"
This is correct unless they (we) never went to begin with.

"because the American public became bored by how routine they made it look and started asking why we were still going when we had problems here to deal with. "

Gosh what were those problems ? The Lab, The Station, The Shuttle etc.etc.?
Again----Is the USA using the Shuttle like the Romans used the Colosseum?

"The first mission canceled was Apollo 20, because the budget had been cut "
Did you mean transferred or switched to orbital missions?
NASA'S budget has been huge since it's inception.

As far as the nomenclature of space places in distance.
in relationship to Earth orbit and Moon orbit or moon surface.
Most folks would understand Earth orbit as close, very close. Moon orbit way, way far.