Idiots saying we never landed on the moon

Originally posted by mwm1331
Some are idiots, some are paranoid, some are ignorant, some have bad information, some are being mislead, but all are wrong.

You're missing the point. If you did get the point you would add an "IMO" to the above sentence.

I'm not saying that I believe the USA didn't go to the moon, but:

Okay Ill bite, which Apollo figures have died under mysterious circumstances? Now if you want to talk about the mysterious deaths of all the SDI scientists I would agree with you, but Apollo?

I believe you can find what you want here, and elsewhere I'm sure.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.newsmax.com.../2/11/00539

The tabloid exclusive by Steve Herz reports that Scott Grissom, 48, has gone public with the family�s long-held belief that their father was purposefully killed during Apollo I.

www.apollo1.info...

www.enterprisemission.com...

Grissom was slated to be the first man on the Moon. As commander of Apollo 1, he was tragically killed in the infamous fire that also took the lives of fellow astronauts Roger Chaffee and Ed White. This event took on a more dramatic turn earlier this year when the Grissom family charged that Gus and the other astronauts had in fact been murdered. Even a year prior to that, Enterprise principal investigator Richard Hoagland had asserted the same thing on the Art Bell radio program.

Jack

Durden by the standards set forth I could also honestly say I have no proof china exists as I have never been there personally. I have never seen my own heart so I can't prove its not a water pump made by kohler, and since I never met my great grandfather I cannot prove that my grandfather was born as opposed to being grown in a farmers cabbage patch. In point of fact since I cant prove your'e not a figment of my imagnation I can tell you by the logcal apllication of your own argument that you do not exist.

After all I could be sitting in an insane asylum in 12 th century england and the whole world is just one of my demented ravings.

Originally posted by thematrix
There is one thing about the moon landings that has bugged me from the day I got interested in it, without ever being given an explination about it and that were the crosshairs on the pictures taken on the moon, that in several photo's had part of the crosshairs BEHIND obstacles.

this one is easy: because on the area of the photo where the crosshaire is,
its always a very bright section. And because of the brightness it 'pushes' or
'saturates' that part of the picture and then it 'looks' like the crosshaire is
behind the object...

Originally posted by d1k

Originally posted by thematrix
There is one thing about the moon landings that has bugged me from the day I got interested in it, without ever being given an explination about it and that were the crosshairs on the pictures taken on the moon, that in several photo's had part of the crosshairs BEHIND obstacles.

Thats what I was talking about when I mentioned the faked pics. Absolutely obviously 100% faked pictures. Big time cutt and paste.

[edit on 29-7-2004 by d1k]

WOW and they were able to do that in 1969, before photoshop!!!!


Seriously. How do you do a cut and paste, (or a photo montage) so that the crosshairs are behind an object? The whole cross hairs argument is stupid because:

1. The light reflected from the object fades, or washes out the cross hairs, because the crosshairs are etched into a lens element. Due to the nearness of this element to the film, it is easy for the cross hairs to get washed out. That is why dust specks on the lens don't really show up on a photograph (it will degrade the image quality, but the you can not see the specks themselves.) Go look at how dusty your camera lens is sometime.
   
   
2. The resolution of the pictures reproduced in print for books and magazines or scanned into computer images is not that great. I would be willing to bet that the crosshairs are perfectly visible on prints made from the original negatives.
   
   
3. If I wanted to superimpose crosshairs on another image, I would just make a transparency with the cross hairs and sandwich the negative with the transparency before making a print.
   
   
4. If your argument is that they had pictures of the lunar surface with the crosshairs on it and that they superimposed the lander on it, then I have to ask you this: Where did the original lunar background photo come from?
   
   
   Where did the lunar rock samples come from that scientists have been studying for the last 30 years?
   
   If there multiple light sources were used, causing the non-parallel shadows, how come there are not multiple shadows?
   
   
   Although I would not be as blunt as mwm1331 in characterizing everyone who believes the moonhoax theory as a "idiot," I do think they are seriously misguided in thier beliefs.

Originally posted by JAK
I'm not saying that I believe the USA didn't go to the moon, but:

The Apollo 1 fire was tragic and could have been prevented. However, to claim that NASA was so dead set aginst Grissom being the first on the moon that they would kill him and take out 2 others to make it look good is a bit much.

NASA had total controll over who was selected for missions and who would have landed on the moon first. Why kill him when they could just say "Sorry" Gus, but Neil Gets the first shot? Further to the point, Grissom flew in space 2 more times after the Mercury flight, why wait untill Apollo before they clipped his wings?

Spaceflight was not without risks. Grissom himself was all to away of it when he stated:

�If we die, we want people to accept it. We�re in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens, it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life�

Well I have realy Bed news for all you people who say the moon landing was fake .
Ever watch star trak? how space 1999 or Buck rogers ? or lost in space the old show? Or the thousand other space movies up untill the late 1990des?
Well you tell me have you ever AND i mean EVER seen a scean in wich the people in the movie were on another planet and They had the realy strange BOUNCE neil had wile walking on the moon? The bounce was because of the lesser gravity .
NO MOVIE not ONE I ever watched in my entire life ever faked a walk like that and UMM there was wells man on the moon movie . NO funny walk there .
But lets go on have you ever in all thous movies seen a GOOD faked SPACE WALK even once?? Think now ever? noo? O come on surly if it could have been faked the movie people WOULD have faked it in thous movies.
But they dident use good fake space walks they did TRY though but it LOOKed fake even down to the strings holding the fake ships in thous old movies.
ILL only say this once and if you realy want to belive that we dident lend on the moon then so be it .
WE DID NOT have the Movie tecknolgie to FAKE it .
It would have been harder at the time (for goodness sake it was 1969 color tv was just invented . to make a beliveble fake then just going ahead and landing on the moon.
What would it take to land on the moon? humm lets think A rocket we had thous rember thats all it would take is a good enough rocket .
One more thing spending billions of dollors for a fake? WHY I ask WHY would the goverment want to fake it that badly?MOTIVE whats the motive for such a HUGE undertaking? everyone yelling fake give me a BILLION dollor motive .

Originally posted by mwm1331
Durden by the standards set forth I could also honestly say I have no proof china exists as I have never been there personally.

You're absolutly right. However, if you really doubted the existence of China, you could go there, couldn't you?

Clavius Moon Base - Debunking the moon hoax
BadAstronomy: Fox and the moon hoax

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by mwm1331
Durden by the standards set forth I could also honestly say I have no proof china exists as I have never been there personally.

You're absolutly right. However, if you really doubted the existence of China, you could go there, couldn't you?

You could go to the bottom of the Marianas Trench or to the top of Everest, also, but can you?

Yes it is possible to go to the moon. Is it feasable? no not really unless Maybe you had Oprah's money.

Fred T,

I read have read the Grissom quote included in you post. And I personally am not inclined to believe the story myself. I was just posting in response to the question asked. Obviously [if the reports of legal action are/were true] his son feels strongly about this, who knows what his motives are. They might be as stated, they might not, I wouldn't like to suggest anything or be involved in any way.

It has been reported that after numerous setbacks Grissom had expressed major concerns about NASA'a ability to put a man on the moon and was becoming increasingly disheartened regarding any such prospect. These are only things I have heard off of certain TV programs so cannot be stated with any definable credability, but as would be expected by such an ambitious man his apparent wording wasn't as polite as I may have made out.

As stated previously, I don't believe that the landings were a hoax. Pride of place on my wall in a huge glass frame is a genuine Daily Express dated Monday July 21 1969.

Jack

I know all of you may have seen/heard these before but they just make me giggle:

The Onion

Unedited NASA film from the triumphant Apollo 11 mission.

Jack

[edit on 29/7/04 by JAK]

[edit on 29/7/04 by JAK]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You could go to the bottom of the Marianas Trench or to the top of Everest, also, but can you?

Yes it is possible to go to the moon. Is it feasable? no not really unless Maybe you had Oprah's money.

Last time I checked, Oprah's money could buy you a trip around earth's orbit. That's about it. Where did you hear about the feasibility of buying a trip to the moon? That would really be interesting...

EDIT: spelling

[edit on 29-7-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by JAK
As stated previously, I don't believe that the landings were a hoax. Pride of place on my wall in a huge glass frame is a genuine Daily Express dated Monday July12 1969.

My dad took a picture of me (I was all of 4 months) in front of the black and white TV with his camera as they showed Armstrong stepping onto the surface. I have a San Fran Chronicle of the same event as well.

I don't see why it really matters at all. I am inclined to believe the US went to the moon, however there is a lot of evidence stacked in the other direction, like why have we never been back?

However looking at the bigger picture, it means nothing either way. It is just a statistic in a history book

Whether the moon landing was a elaborate psy-op or an actual trip to our sattelite it accomplished the same goal that was intended for it. America believed in itself and got motivated.

People who watched the moon landing in person on TV when it happened hold the moment as an almost magical thing and many are very insulted when you suggest it may be false because it meant so much to that generation. But for our generation what does it mean? Nothing really.

1. Yes, we did go to the moon.
2. Although the Fox special was convincing, anyone who bothers to check into the claims will see the special for what it was, a slick production that skipped over the facts.
3. There are some actual telescope pictures showing the blastmark on the moon from the lander taking off, as well as the shadow of the rover, a simple google search should yield this (I posted them on a thread a few days ago also...)
4. The claims made on these specials are "bad astronomy"...simple as that (btw, an excellent site for the debunking of the debunkers as well)....

for those who were talking about the fact that little or no dust was pictured ON the lander, remember this, since there is no atmosphere, and no wind, dust particles kicked up by the force of the landing, would not react the same way once becoming airbourne...

the dust particles would only move away from the source, affected only by the push of the other particles behind it, and the weak gravitational pull of the moon.

Basicly, thedust would move away from the lander in a perfect parabolic shape, the same way the dust coming up from the back of a luner rover would be a small parabola, while on earth it would be a huge cloud.

Originally posted by Gazrok
1. Yes, we did go to the moon.

Hey Gazrok. No offence, and btw I too believe the moonlanding did take place, however I think you being so matter of fact about it is interesting. Unless you know something most of us don't, you're only going by the official information presented as fact. The reason I find this interesting is your usual distrust in the official information given about ETs.

Again, no offence as I find your posts very insightful and interesting to read .

EDIT: clarification

[edit on 29-7-2004 by Durden]

Well, according to what i have seen so far from both sides, i think and of course this is my personal opinion, that this particular landing might have occured, but, there is a big BUT here.

Not all the truth has never been revealed, simply because it was a 'cover operation' in scientific terms. We never going to spend so much money to go and get back from a dead planet or not???

Is moon dead?? There is always something to discover and always something we know in advance. And of course we knew in advance that possibly moon is not at all a dead planet.

And now let your imagination free.........

A weak physicist................

Yes, it is the propaganda apparatus "Stupid!"

The problem why many people do not believe in the moon landing is due to the mouthpiece, the vessel corrupt for years. Since the propaganda apparatus tells so many lies, it has cried "wolf!"

Due to continued attempts convincing ourselves about things not standing scutiny, who can blame thougtful people for doubting our government when it actually tells the "truth." The point is that the lies hover in context and in attitude around the now made clumsy attempts to tell the story.

We do not accept things at face value anymore, move on, then subject things to scutiny. We have given ourselves the luxury of doubting first, then looking for evidence. But by golly, that healthy skepticism is what science is all about! Almost every advance in science has arrived because someone dug deep and expressed doubt about something that our governments and religions have made painfully dogmatic. Advanding our social structure requires doubt about many things that just "don't feel right," at the onset.

To the skeptics, please doubt all you want, be unconventional if you must, but continue amidst all this to "deny ignorance!"

[edit on 29-7-2004 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Almost every advance in science has arrived because someone dug deep and expressed doubt about something that our governments and religions have made painfully dogmatic.

Am I the only one who ses how pitifully wrong that statement is?

Skip. I'm afraid you simply do not understand how science works.