Hard Evidence against moon landing

Originally posted by Nightwalker
the Ozone Layer of our atmosphere protects us from harmful UV rays from the Sun. What protects the astronout in the space station with no Ozone in between the Earth and the Moon??? Didn't read the whole forum so dont kno if this has come up yet orn ot reply with your thoughts please.

Eehh... suits? Don't recall any footage of astronauts walking naked.

Inside the command module they didn't have suits. But then they had a command module to protect them.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
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 Earth orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at about 220 kilometers per seconds, yet I'm able to steer my car into a parking lot (that is, hence, also travelling at 220 km/s) and hit the spot I want to hit without ANY calculations.

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?

Spacecraft are not VCR's. Rocket engines and materials and fuels technologies do not follow the same "double every 3 years" rule that computers do.


In 1969, the supersonic passenger aircraft Concorde flew for the first time. For 3 decades it transported paying passengers at twice the speed of sound over the Atlantic. Then it was retired.

Today, this capability does not exist. No matter how rich you are, you can't travel across the Atlantic at Mach 2. There are no plans to build a Mach 2 airliner. Does this mean that the Concorde was faked and a hoax, or does it all come down to money? What about sending people to the Moon? Could that be the same case as with Concorde?

Okay, I'll stop for now. Conclusion: man DID land on the Moon.

see photo in this post


Wait.
The moon can still be explored.
By Photo Shop and perhaps a dozed cable channels
all over again.

The moon is just too smooth, not that I wanted the
moon walkers to have a hard time I just didn't see
that many moon scapes from robot landings to chech
or were those faked as well.

That "evidence" is uncompelling.

Of course they were acting it out, you dont go shooting blind into the dark, the needed to practice the porcedures.

The "light poles", i dont know, maybe lighting for them to see in the shadows? Im sure NASA would edit that out if they were pulling off a hoax.

The footprints do not need water in an airless environment.

Lastly, if NASA was trying to pull off a hoaz, they wouldve paid attention to the "flapping" of the flag. Did you not see the astronaut touching the flag pole? He was shaking it, thats why it flapped.

double post

[edit on 21-8-2010 by 8fl0z]

reply to post by 5POF
Ok, but that really still can't explain how they got there in the first place. The only thing protecting us from the Deadly radiation of the sun is the ozone layer. Go outside of the layer, and wham, about a day later you'll be feeling the effects of the severe radiation exposure by throwing up, getting all sort of nasty headaches and general complaints, and eventually loose your hair. Once they had retuned to earth, it would be impossible that out of all the men that went there, not one of them developed a cancer related to the radiation exposure.
I know that cancer's can be triggered by large amounts of radiation, mainly because my family has had a lot of cancer patients, and several deaths. I know as fact that you would need several feet of lead to stop radiation like that getting to a human, and I believe that one of the appolo astronauts (Mike Collins I believe) Said that you could puncture through the craft with a screwdriver if you really wanted to. Well, no gamma rays are going to get through that...

And for the thing about kicking the dust and coming up in a certain arc shape, that's called editing...

Originally posted by William R.C Fennder
The only thing protecting us from the Deadly radiation of the sun is the ozone layer. Go outside of the layer, and wham, about a day later you'll be feeling the effects of the severe radiation exposure by throwing up, getting all sort of nasty headaches and general complaints, and eventually loose your hair.

you seem to think that the astronauts floated to the moon naked.... they had spaceships, wore clothes and spacesuits that protected them!

Yes, we landed on the moon. no, we weren't told the whole truth about what's up there. Yes, we installed a mirror. No, we don't plan to build a base up there. Why not? Why the hey-ho not? It would be an awesome monument for any politician to say they achieved on their watch.

Perhaps it's because there's other monuments / installations up there already that belong to other political powers. Non-terrestrial political powers even. Perhaps.

The 'truthers' are (on the whole) decent people. The sceptics are (on the whole) decent people. The perpetrators of cover-up and ongoing disinfo campaigns are scandalous liars and manipulators, and are most definitely NOT decent people. The charlatans who misrepresent the evidence to make the conspiracists think we never even went to the moon are NOT decent people.

I generally consider myself a decent person. In general.

reply to post by NoahTheSumerian


Could we make two 'sticky' threads, for both the truthers and the sceptics point of view re: the moon landings OS...? That would be awesome Mods...

the truth is you'll never get the truth not in the lifetime of the people that lied about it anyway thats why most of the people that whisstle blow are on ther death beds
if we did go to the moon why havent we been back in over 30 years
america went to the moon 3 times in a year but its now to much money
if every super powered nation put ther rescourses together we could hav a fleet of ships on the way to mars by now
but thers silly amounts of money to be made of us hear they dont care about the moon and other planetary systems they hav the tecnology allready
how do u think we progressed so quickly
say we go by the ancient sumarians over thousands of years on this earth we hav never evolved so fast then how we hav in the last 150 years
it wasnt that long ago we didnt hav t.v's or phones NOW we got plasma flatscreens ,projesters,3d tv's,phones u can control ur house with
think about it over the millions of years this planets been spinning even back to the dinosaurs ur telling me not one even by accident has a et space craft crashed on this planet and knowing the cia they found it
even the ancient art all over the world hav seen them
if its plausible its possible


[edit on 6-9-2010 by satnav_c-1]

[edit on 6-9-2010 by satnav_c-1]

[edit on 6-9-2010 by satnav_c-1]

In the archives of Stewart Swerdlow's Q & A is this:

Posted: November 19, 2002

The United States and Russia have had bases on the moon since 1957. The radiation belt around the earth is not a problem when you have the proper insulation and technology. There's a lot of disinformation, even in conspiracy theories. We have a craft called The Aurora, which has been able to travel anywhere in this solar system without a problem. Since the 1970's "Stargate" technology facilitates travel for individuals. But vehicles are still used.

I also recall reading in his archives that the moon landing was filmed in studios and outside at Area 51, but I can't find it again in the archives.

This video is interesting www.youtube.com...
Need to find the exact timeline to prove they where suppose to be near or on the moon during the filming of the earth.

Originally posted by rfoshaug

Originally posted by Savonarola
NASA is insisting that a manned mission to Mars may be futile due to the intense solar radiation the astronauts would be exposed to. I can't imagine that Mars, having an atmosphere and being farther away from the Sun, can be any less dangerous (due to radiation) than going to the moon.

The problem is not that Mars is a more harsh environment than the Moon. The problem is total exposure due to the longer duration of a Mars mission. An Apollo mission lasted a week. A Mars mission might last for more than a year. That is the problem.

Have you ever had X-rays of your teeth at the dentist? You sit there and get exposed to the rays while the dentist and assistants leave the room and close a lead-plated door. Same thing. You can take it because it's only a short exposure. Dentists and assistants don't want this type of exposure several times a day, each day, year after year. Total amount of exposure.

William, if you have a video of the moon landings try speeding them up. You might notice that the astronauts and the space jeep seem a lot less bouncy - and a whole lot more earthy.

Watch this:

Speed it up, slow it down, do whatever you like. Can you get up like that in 1G, even without a bulky suit? That would require some MAJOR push-ups skills!

Besides, have you seen the way those 'moon jeeps' move? Without gasoline? Considering the sucky nature of present-day battery-powered vehicles, I highly doubt they were electric...

According to Wikipedia the rover on Apollo 17 was the one that travelled farthest. It went 22.30 miles (35.89 km). Max speed was about 8 mph (13 km/h).

If this had been a battery-powered car of today, it would indeed be classed as "sucky". But for excursions on the moon it was enough.

Man has not been to the moon.

Yes, 12 men have walked on the lunar surface.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by rfoshaug]

Agreed, Apollo 17 according to Richard Hoagland and his book Dark mission(with photographic evidence(suppressed)) show many non natural accuring artifacts, one photo in particular is known as data's head, with looks like the remains of some kind of cyborg, indeed the moon seems to be covered with artificial structures, the astronaut transcript from Apollo 17 and other Apollo missions do make great reading with conversions to capcom of utter astoundment by what they were witnessing,another poster mentioned how uneasy or uncomfortable those who returned were when interviewed. No surprise really if Nasa and the government were trying to cover up what they really found on the lunar surface

Originally posted by regfenster

Agreed, Apollo 17 according to Richard Hoagland and his book Dark mission(with photographic evidence(suppressed)) show many non natural accuring artifacts

Actually it does not. Hoaxland is a well known liar and hoaxer, and nothing he says or publishes should be believed

Originally posted by William
These concepts have been debunked before. There's even a "bad science" website easily refuting all these points. (Can anyone remember the URL?)

One thing to remember about Apollo 11 (first landing)... they installed a laser reflection experiment (forget the actual name of the project) that involved the installation of a special mirror on the moon's surface. The experiment wasn't accomplished previously with automated landers because it required on-the-spot human intervention with final adjustments of the reflector.

Universities around the world are still using the reflector today.



[Edited on 1-4-2003 by William]

en.wikipedia.org...

You can buy a cheap laser range finder from Cabelas and find the distance from you...to the tree down the street. That tree is non-reflective. It's ok, a tiny amount will be reflected back and tell you the difference.

You don't need mirrors on the moon to use a laser range finder to see how far away it is. It will work without a mirror. Imagine trying to hit a 12 inch by 12 inch mirror on the moon from 239,000 miles away which you can't see and have no idea where it is.

I doubt it's up there. If it was you could hit it with a laser when the moon is dark...and see it from Earth. They could use such a mirror to PROVE we have junk on the moon. To date..no mirror has been illuminated with a laser on the moon. It would stand out very well when the moon is dark. A cheapo Kmart Telescope would see the lighted up mirror....too bad it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Pervius
You don't need mirrors on the moon to use a laser range finder to see how far away it is. It will work without a mirror.

This is true, but it all depends on how powerful the laser you're using is.

Imagine trying to hit a 12 inch by 12 inch mirror on the moon from 239,000 miles away which you can't see and have no idea where it is.

Firstly, they do know where they are. Every landing sites location is well known. Secondly, when the laser beam reaches the Moon, it covers an area of about 6km or so. So it doesn't matter if the reflector is 30cm's or 5m in size, as long as you're aiming at one of the landing sites with a mirror, you'll get a return.

I doubt it's up there. If it was you could hit it with a laser when the moon is dark...and see it from Earth. They could use such a mirror to PROVE we have junk on the moon. To date..no mirror has been illuminated with a laser on the moon. It would stand out very well when the moon is dark. A cheapo Kmart Telescope would see the lighted up mirror....too bad it doesn't exist.

I don't think it would be possible to visually see the reflector illuminated by a laser from Earth, even with a telescope.

reply to post by William R.C Fennder

Go outside of the layer, and wham, about a day later you'll be feeling the effects of the severe radiation exposure by throwing up, getting all sort of nasty headaches and general complaints, and eventually loose your hair.

So ISS, the Shuttles, Soyuzes and all the manned spaceflights in history are a hoax? Because they all go outside the ozone layer..

Astronauts dont go into space naked, and even quite thin walls of a spaceship or suit can block almost all radiation.

There are two kinds of dangerous space radiation that cannot be easily blocked - solar flares and cosmic rays:

Solar flares occur only sometimes, and there were no solar flares during Apollo missions.
Because cosmic rays have low intensity, they are a problem only for long (months, years) flights outside Earths magnetosphere, like a mission to Mars would be. Not for Moon flights.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In the archives of Stewart Swerdlow's Q & A is this:
SNIP

I also recall reading in his archives that the moon landing was filmed in studios and outside at Area 51, but I can't find it again in the archives.

Now, if I WOULD believe in a conspiracy, then I would think that it was filmed on Stage H at Shepperton Studios, Shepperton, England. The ingenious cover was to shoot a SciFi movie with major parts of the action taking place in space and on the lunar surface. Check out the two photos at the end of the linked PDF file.

didnt the mythbusters prove the shadows and the flag moving was truthful?