Hard Evidence against moon landing

I just have a hard time believing that we landed on the moon over 30 years ago using computers with as much memory as a simple calculator and also doing so on our 1st try. Nasa scientists say part of the reason
we can't go to Mars right now is because of radiation, yet the moon
should have more of it due to it's closer proximity to the sun..Anyone
that believes that we went to the moon for a fact must also believe
that technology in general has not advanced one bit since the early 70's..
We supposedly went there 6 or 7 times in a row without failure
back then and now we are not able to? LOL. If we truely did go there
I guarentee all of you that we would have build some type of outpost
there, just like we've build space stations..

reply to post by William

---

Hello, even though some of the more silly hoax notions have been debunked, there are still a lot that can't be explained. One case in point is the flag waving when an astronaut passes by, the waving is not from the astronaut moving the pole to place it better. The pole/flag has long stabilized and is still untill an Astronaut passes by. Also there are many anomalies in the images that cannot be explained. Just because it sounds good and is from a so called unimpeachable source doesnt make it so.
Anyone that uses a little critical thinking and some serious research into the whole program, including the images, videos, details, etc, will doubt.
Oh one more thing, the russians also left laser reflectors on the moon, but we know they never landed a man, right.
Thanks for your time and good luck researching.

You are going to have to actually show the video, because in my extensive research I've not seen any video that fits that description. The classic example of "flag waving" video is taken when the flag pole is being twisted deeper into the regolith.

I strongly recommend reading www.clavius.org... for explanations of this and many other flawed claims about the Apollo program.

How much computing power do you think is needed to land on the Moon?



The distance from the Sun makes little difference. It's the time one stays out in space is the issue. It takes a lot longer to get to Mars then it does to the Moon. Radiation is also a problem for the upcoming Lunar missions, since they plan to stay for much longer periods then Apollo.



Huh? That doesn't make sense...



Look up "Apollo 13". Plus all the other missions had there glitches and problems. And the reason we can't go back right now is because of a lack of money.



Well that is the plan for the new Lunar missions.

The earth is orbiting the sun at about 400,000 mph. on the way back from the moon, they would have to perfectly align their re-entry into earths orbit. I would believe that would take more computations then a computer with that low of memory could provide.

The comment about technology makes perfect sense. Read it again.
As of right now the US does not posses the techonogly to go to the moon.
Had it costed 50 billion back then it would now cost 5 billion or less. Just
as VCR'S costed $1000+ when they first came out and now they cost $30. get it?

What kind of computer power do you think is required exactly? Surely you must have some solid numbers if you don't think the Apollo Guidance Computer was enough.



But they do posses the techonology. It's the money that's required to put it all together that's lacking. Until recently anyway.



It doesn't work like that, sorry. Maybe if NASA continued to use the Saturn V constantly for the past 40 years, you'd see launch costs going down, but since everything is being built from the ground up the costs are still going to be high.

Reality time...

I used to believe the moon landings were hoaxed...however after growing up and reading about diffrent conspiracies and actually understanding how they did it and what they did i can tell you they did land on the moon.

Computer power doesn't really come into the equation as they calculations had in the main been pre done it was just a case of flicking a switch.

NASA had it's budget significantly reduced by the impending research to the shuttle program and the cost of running each shuttle was astronomical the whole idea behind the shuttle was over a peiod of time costs would reduce as it was a reusable craft. the saturn V was tempremental and little more then a giant firework...NASA invested in the correct space program as they were able to build space stations and conduct valuable experiments that will in turn help us to remain in space.

NASA are not faultless and no doubt they do hide things. NASA's budget has took some huge hits in the past 30 years as they have had no real direction from the state and no real goals.... obviously we have goals we could set but WE don't really make the desicions.

NASA have invested heavily in a the new space program with the ARES and will no doubt return man to the moon and if we are lucky we may even see mars landings....but in our live we will only see sample and return missions and robotic exploration. Our great great great grandchildren will see the big advances in space technology and exploration.

We have probably as a civilisation got one more big war to work through then the clean up then the rebuilding of the society and possibly then countries will work on the greates exploration of stars.. globalisation will happen and only then will a united effort to travel the cosmos take place.

The best and most we can do is put the pressure on in the right places to maintain the exsistant space program and to make the right descions so that our future generations will get off this god foresaken rock.

No matter how much we dream and no matter how much we (we being the awakened few like us here on ats) want this to happen so many things in our world remain on the whole a melting pot. There is so much to do down here on terra ferma before governments will really invest heavily in space exploration.

SO here is to the next moon landing and I raise my glass to the future and hopefully for my future generations will benefit from the descions i make so they may one day enjoy what we are so longing for.

regards and best wishes to you all

Hard evidence perhaps not.
The softest of reasoning seems better.

The expectation to drift to the Moon and back is a darn nail bitter.
I don't see anyone surviving that drama.

Going orbit to orbit or de orbit can't compare with getting the
right path for capture on the Moon let alone the Moon de orbit
to landing and then launch from the Moon surface to orbit and
then blasting back to a drift to Earth orbit and then reentry
to splashdown.

All for the first time for everything.
Look to the beginning of the air age and the rocket age and the
satellite launch age.
Littered with numerable complete failures.
The human propensity to failure just makes the Moon scenario impossible.

And we don't hear much from the Moon walkers.
Mums the word.
With possible unforeseen consequences for not going according to plan.

What do we hear after all these years.
There are alien UFOs, we saw them, you betcha.

reply to post by Lakini

---

There is no telling how violently a flag on the Moon should react.
The motion would be from momentum.
Not the wind.
Even on Earth.

On the Moon with less gravity and no atmosphere what should be
the reaction.
It might be exactly what we saw.

Please tell me your kidding, right? Your just playing rain man here. I'm waiting for the "Judge Wopner".

The US and every other country has the technology to land a human on the moon. The moon is the easy part. Try landing on a moving astaroid. Oh, and yes, we've done that to. Read here.

There have been several landings of non-man landers from Venus to the moon of Titan.

I also saw you or someone else made a comment about the radition exposure a person would be subjected to on Mars, that had an atmosphere. First, Mars atmosphere is 1/3 that of Earths. Second, it's not much of an issue for people pn the moon because of the amount of exposure. Any person traveling to Mars would be exposed to gamma radiation for a minimum of 12 months versus days on the moon.

Not only gravity, but there is nothing to stop the motion i.e friction. No air or gasses of any sort to prevent the motion.

That's not even possible, all Apollo missions landed on the dark side of the moon.


IMO, the biggest arguments to disprove the moon landings:

- Array of photographic and video evidence, showing shadow vectors going in different directions indicating a close light source
- Cropped & merged photos
- Flag waving (seriously, come on)
- It's not possible to go from the Earth to the moon and back in one go, with the normal rocket/fuel technology used - as said famously by von Braun.
- Van Allen radiation belts, also the fact that the Apollo craft had no lead to protect them from radiation.
- Apollo craft didn't even have any kind of a climate control system
- Faked shot of the Earth as though it's taken from moon's orbit, as seen in this video: www.youtube.com...

There's probably other stuff I'm forgetting, but that's the most obvious. I recommend the doco, "What happened on the way to the moon".

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Manincloak]

There is no "dark side" to the Moon. Only a near and far side. And all Apollo missions landed on the near side. Otherwise there would have been no radio contact.



Take some time and look at photos taken on Earth. You'll notice shadows appearing to veer off at different angles. Here are some examples:

photo1
photo2
photo3
photo4
photo5

For more examples, google: "long shadows". That should get you a lot of results.



Like the panoramic photos you mean? Or photos that have been published in magazines? I fail to see how that's evidence of anything. The originals are freely available.



Now you can't be seriously arguing this. This has been debunked so many times for so many years, it's ridiculous. Here's a video I recommend you watch. Moon Flaggin'



Those calculations were for a direct trip from the surface of the Earth to the Moon in a single stage rocket. The Saturn V was a multi stage rocket and it did not go directly to the Moon. They went into Earth orbit first. Once in Earth orbit, getting to the Moon is relatively easy.



With the kind of radiation that's in the Van Allen belts. Lead would have made it worse. When high energy beta particles hit large, heavy atoms like those found in Lead. It creates X-rays. This effect is know as "Bremsstrahlung".

And to quote Dr. Van Allen himself...

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."

It's getting late, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by jra]

The lion's share of the computing was done on earth.



vcr's cost less because they were (are) massed produced

i really didn't read any reply, just the OP... but can you people STOP talking about this moon landing hoax... there are billion threads about that.... have one thread and talk there.... it's enough isn't it??

and about that "hard" evidence...
i really don't think you have much experience with no atmosphere, moon dust and 1/6 gravity... how can you say than the dust wouldn't stand like that???

furthermore... i suppose you were born after 1969.... cause if you weren't you would know at what stage the computers were at that time... it is as simple as that: it was easier to actually LAND on the moon, than to FAKE it... because computer power was totally insufficent to correct all those pictures, to simulate 1/6 gravity(!!!)....

just think about it... write in that one frea*ing thread!

cheers