Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

Originally posted by NOrrTH

Originally posted by patternfinderi see no dust on the feet of the lunar landing along with no crater beneath it..in fact, it doesn't even look like anything was disturbed.....but, the astronots had mud all over their boots and were leaving foot prints which tells me that the substrate was loose enough to have blown all over the place even with a much smaller psi than the rocket was using to land with.....I will add that I have had plenty of experience in my life with which to gauge reality by.....and just because you remember some aspects of the mission fondly doesn't make it so......there are alot of government conspiracies that have happened where the general laymen that were involved had no clue as to what was really going on behind the scenes, then one day they are surprised as we are when the news gets leaked out and is all over the news......

I was alive then and watched the news footage and felt all fuzzy.

Do I believe they went to the moon? Yes.

Do I believe for some reason some of the footage was faked? Yes.

As so well put by Patternfinder above, how does a 10k lb thrust motor not dig a hole into a powdery surface? The motor's exhaust vent is mere inches above the ground and yet its perfectly undisturbed.

To anyone saying they cut the engine off long before they landed, watch the video's. I vaguely recall someone being worried that the engine would blast a crater so big the lander would sink into it. This fact alone, backed up by high resolution pictures, videos, Neil Armstrong testimony coming out of the lander, has me scratching my head.

Any good conspiracies have elements of truth in them.

Oh, I was going back through the entire thread and had forgotten about your question until this morning.

The transcripts include NASA asking Armstrong and Aldrin about that exact subject... how did the descent motor disturb the surface?

I think it was Buzz Aldrin answering just before the sleep cycle there on the moon: He describes the trail leading to landing as being dust cast out on rays (see: www.lpi.usra.edu... ) and looking a bit burnt.

Thread Highlight Recap

Page 1/OP
* Interesting comment about computers of the time
* Other accounts with similar experiences to OP
* Questions/Discussion about:
-feasibility of camera film in Lunar environment;
- passing through Van Allen Belt,
- the “aussie guy”
- Apollo 11 network video coverage (poor quality)

Page 2
* Van Allen Belt
* Aussie guy
* von Braun’s “Conquest of the Moon”

Page 3
* von Braun’s “Conquest of the Moon”
* Van Allen Belt
* (Hasselblad) feasibility of camera film in Lunar environment;

Page 4
* LROC images (new high res images of some Apollo landing sites)
* (Hasselblad) feasibility of camera film in Lunar environment;
* Van Allen Belt
* Computers of the era.

Page 5:
* Anachronistic hoax theories (assumptions of more modern technology)
* Van Allen Belt
* LROC images (hot off the presses)

Page 6:
* Soviet intelligence.
* LROC
* Van Allen Belt

Page 7:
* LROC
* Hasselblad
* Computers
* Mars analogy

Page 8:
* LROC

Page 9:
* LROC
* Laser Reflector
* Lunar Rover (LROC)
* Van Allen Belt

Page 10:
* Van Allen Belt
* More personal experiences like that of OP
* Question about descent motor disturbing the surface.
* Van Allen Belt
* LROC
* Rover and foot tracks (LROC)

Page 11:
* Hasselblad
* Personal experiences similar to OP
* Gravity verses Mass discussion from video of fallen astronaut
* LROC

Page 12:
* Gravity verses Mass discussion from video of fallen astronaut
* LROC

Page 13:
* More personal experiences like that of OP
* LROC
* Mass verses weight (fallen astronaut video)

Page 14:
* Russian Intelligence
* LROC
* Mass verses weight (fallen astronaut video)

Page 15:
* LROC
* Mass verses weight (fallen astronaut video)
* Apollo 11 video images – technical (EXCELLENT!)

Page 16:
* Apollo 11 video images – technical
* More personal experiences like that of OP
* Why not return?

Page 17:
* Hasselblad
* International proof verses hoax theories
* Mass verses weight (fallen astronaut video)

Page 18:
* “Dark Side of the Moon” video offered as evidence (sigh)

Page 19:
* MESA verses Rover
* Drama Prairie Dog (hey—it made me laugh!)
* “Dark Side of the Moon” video offered as evidence (sigh)

Page 20:
* Hasselblads
* Rover verses MESA
* Reflector
* Math of propulsion
* Apollo 11 video images – technical
* Soviets

Page 21:
* Russians
* Luna 15 (Russian probe) and Apollo 11
* Geology and Moon Rocks (from unmanned and manned sources)
* Mass verses Gravity (Fallen Astronaut)

Page 22:
* Reflectors
* Luna 15 (Russian probe) and Apollo 11
* LROC

reply to post by Frira


You forgot my offer of 50 bucks for 100% positive proof we never landed on the moon on page 22

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
reply to post by Frira

 

You forgot my offer of 50 bucks for 100% positive proof we never landed on the moon on page 22

Ha! I thought about including that!

Honestly, I tried to stay with the themes of the thread as I saw it winding down, leaving out the personal, the repeats (my goodness, how many people thought they were they first to tell us about the new LROC! I only included discussion about LROC images-- not the publication on Tuesday), and minor "two-cents worth" posts.

I think I got the major themes; but there were great logical perspective-giving posts throughout but hard to categorize or even really identify in any consistent way (which is why everyone wants the thread summary, and they are rarely done-- you know you are excluding some really good stuff).

Also, I excluded the unsupported "I think we landed, but faked some photos" and the UFO type posts-- as irrelevant to the discussion-- which I know will offend some; but those really were off-topic, or when close enough to the topic, added nothing because they lacked support to discuss reasonably.

Phage's "Dramatic Prairie Dog" is the one exception to my list-- simply because it amuses me so. I think I'll go look at that again, right now.

Oh, go buy a hamburger with that $50.00-- you know you'll have no takers!

P.S. I imagine there will be some more posts, I'm not trying to close the thread-- I just never imagined it going to 20 pages. But this is good time to say that I am so glad I created the OP-- I have learned so much and been sent digging for facts and data to consider anew. This has been fun-- so... Thanks everyone! (except the trolls!)

reply to post by Frira


No worries

I'm particularly glad that you created the OP. It gives another perspective on the verifiable landing on the moon of Apollo 11. Thanks for the personal story and a good thread.

reply to post by Frira


I would have to say watch topdocumentaryfilms.com... and also topdocumentaryfilms.com... Then when you are done with that check out www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... and www.youtube.com...

I would have to say that while we most likely lied to beat the Russians at the time, we later went there, and most likely it wasnt in a shuttle, or any of our own ships, rockets etc.

Originally posted by Magickisreal
reply to post by Frira

 

I would have to say watch topdocumentaryfilms.com... and also topdocumentaryfilms.com... Then when you are done with that check out www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... and www.youtube.com...

I would have to say that while we most likely lied to beat the Russians at the time, we later went there, and most likely it wasnt in a shuttle, or any of our own ships, rockets etc.

You should really read a book and get out a slide rule instead. Try to verify the calculations yourself and learn something instead. There's more wonder in the reality of things than the fantasy.

reply to post by Frira


The Apollo moon landing is very controversial. I do believe that it was a hoax. I recently saw the movie Apollo 18. It is about this websit lunartruth.com and how it recieved video labeled Apollo 18. Now the video was re-made with actors but it is very similar to the vide given to the website. It revolved around three men whoms names I can't remember and a secret mission to place secret technology on the moon that would spy on the Soviets, it was very top secret. They were given many technological equipment to document this secret mission most of it being video cameras. Two of the men would be on the moon and the other above whos job is to make sure the mission goes smoothly and to get both of the men back to earth. Later on the end up discovering a unknown soviet ship on the moon and find only one cozmonaut DEAD. One of the astronauts who is on the ground discovers that an extra terrestrial being has entered his body. Thir ships system fails soon after they tell them about the soviet ship. The one astronaut becomes very ill. The other is forced to leave in the Russian ship. The other astronaut died and the extra terrestrial being soon break through his suit. The astronaut in the Russian aircraft finds away to contact the Russians who direct him to the Secretary of Defense who says he will not come back to Earth because he is exposed. As for the other astronaut he also never made it back to earth. At the end of the movie it describes three actual astronauts whoo supposedley died in training exercises and all 3 of their bodies were not found. Is the video on the website real? I dont know but it is very interesting.

reply to post by Frira


I remember sitting out on my porch in December of 1972 late in the evening and watching Apollo 17 lift off, a hundred miles to the east. If they faked the moon flights, that was an awfully big fake rocket. It lit the sky up literally like the sun was coming up. I will never forget it and it makes me angry when anyone implies that they somehow faked the moon missions. Those guys risked their lives and I can only imagine what their families went through until they were safely back. They DID go to the moon, and I actually had the pleasure of working with a few people who were involved in making the laser reflector that was left there. Trust me, it happened.

reply to post by Ex_CT2


At 19 your still a child I wouldnt say your an adult.

reply to post by openminded2011


Cool story bro! Anecdotal 'evidence' and a rocket lifting off and disappearing in the sky does not equal a moon landing but good on you for flying the flag of national pride. Does my comment make you angry too? Opinions differ, get over it. Sure they could afford a nice big firework for you all to watch, you ended up paying for it.

Originally posted by beatlesman
reply to post by Frira

 

The Apollo moon landing is very controversial. I do believe that it was a hoax. I recently saw the movie Apollo 18. It is about this websit lunartruth.com and how it recieved video labeled Apollo 18. Now the video was re-made with actors but it is very similar to the vide given to the website. It revolved around three men whoms names I can't remember and a secret mission to place secret technology on the moon that would spy on the Soviets, it was very top secret.

If I tried to put something on the moon to spy on the Soviets, I'd keep it top secret, too. Because it's a dumb idea and I'd get laughed out of the NRO for suggesting it. The moon is 380,000 km from Russia. The Clarke Belt is 36,000 km from Russia. An inclined orbit can get even closer. Why would you install your spy gear on the moon?

And, really ... this is a conspiracy web site. Everyone here thinks everyone else is a shill or a paid disinfo agent. And your first post is plugging a movie that just came out? Exactly how much are they paying you to astroturf the web with fake reviews for their movie?

reply to post by beatlesman

The Apollo moon landing is very controversial.

Says who? 12 year olds?

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


One needs an intellectual debate to first pose an argument, not age.

reply to post by Illustronic


And there was me being silly and thinking 'one liners' were not tolerated on ATS. Instead of defending, how about a little thing called incontrovertible and independently verified truth? Good luck with that! Its easy to spot the shills, they have no humour and offer little to the discussion. People who say trust me are invariably not to be trusted.

PS Don't add the old "Russians were checking us" factoid either. The Russians had their own Operation Paperclip, or do I need to Google that for you? They had free and unfettered communication with their colleagues on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Debunk that if you will.

Originally posted by Magickisreal
reply to post by Frira

 

I would have to say watch topdocumentaryfilms.com... and also topdocumentaryfilms.com... Then when you are done with that check out www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... and www.youtube.com...

I would have to say that while we most likely lied to beat the Russians at the time, we later went there, and most likely it wasnt in a shuttle, or any of our own ships, rockets etc.

First link: "Dark Side of the Moon!"

See: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Frira


I don't have time to read through the entire thread. Compared to other conspiracy theories about the moon and the fact I believe the military has more advanced technology than they let on, I suspect that the claim of the moon landing was a hoax is disinformation to throw us off of track as to what is and has gone on.

One of these has to be true. I don't really see how they could all be true, or just a couple.

1) We went to the moon, and Apollo 13 - I believe - was the last manned mission to the moon.

2) The moon landing was a hoax.

3) Apollo 13 was not the last manned mission, and there are now bases on the moon. If I remember correctly, I first read about this on the Mr. Marrs forum awhile back.

4) The new movie Apollo 18, which is supposedly the real reason we have not been back.

So people, what is disinformation, and what is real? Personally, I'm inclined to believe point 3.

We did go there. We got there, found very interesting stuff, we knew we were gonna find interesting stuff there and so it was preplanned to show only a portion of the ground with the majority of the background blacked out. There is most definitely things there, as shown in "Moon Rising" from the Clemetine Mission in 1994.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by beatlesman
reply to post by Frira

 

The Apollo moon landing is very controversial. I do believe that it was a hoax. I recently saw the movie Apollo 18. It is about this websit lunartruth.com and how it recieved video labeled Apollo 18. Now the video was re-made with actors but it is very similar to the vide given to the website. It revolved around three men whoms names I can't remember and a secret mission to place secret technology on the moon that would spy on the Soviets, it was very top secret. They were given many technological equipment to document this secret mission most of it being video cameras. Two of the men would be on the moon and the other above whos job is to make sure the mission goes smoothly and to get both of the men back to earth. Later on the end up discovering a unknown soviet ship on the moon and find only one cozmonaut DEAD. One of the astronauts who is on the ground discovers that an extra terrestrial being has entered his body. Thir ships system fails soon after they tell them about the soviet ship. The one astronaut becomes very ill. The other is forced to leave in the Russian ship. The other astronaut died and the extra terrestrial being soon break through his suit. The astronaut in the Russian aircraft finds away to contact the Russians who direct him to the Secretary of Defense who says he will not come back to Earth because he is exposed. As for the other astronaut he also never made it back to earth. At the end of the movie it describes three actual astronauts whoo supposedley died in training exercises and all 3 of their bodies were not found. Is the video on the website real? I dont know but it is very interesting.

Well, you could have warned us with "Spoiler Alert!"

I was looking forward to seeing that movie. Dang.

Ever hear of "suspension of disbelief?" It refers to what persons do when engaging in a story someone else is telling. You allow the story teller to create fantasy, because you are willing, to a point, to accept fantasy for a good story.

Really bad fiction will offend a person's suspension of disbelief. They person will take it back, not buy the value of the story and so cease to attempt to engage it. With good fiction, the reward is a good story-- almost always with a very human component-- hidden just out of sight in an analogy.

That is what I would have done going to see Apollo 18. But when I left the theater, I would also have left knowing it was a story of fiction. People see Capricorn One or some HC show featuring "Ancient Alien Theorists" or virtually anything narrated by Jonathan Frakes ("Make it so, Numba' One"), or even the one really under my skin just now, the comedy, Dark Side of the Moon, and not realize they are watching entertainment.

James Michener, by the way, used the Apollo 18 scenario in his novel, Space. It was a wonderful novel (the mini-series had nothing to do with the novel), but like Spielberg-- it was to tell human truths-- not to convince someone a fantasy is reality-- except for the duration of the story telling.

I honestly do not know what to say. I know I read a lot more than most persons, but goodness, I read Close Encounters before I got to see the movie and I was seventeen. I loved the story, but never believed it. I liked the truths it told about people encountering something which awes them and changes them (Moses and Abram), but it did not make me believe in aliens-- it was a work of fiction.

Kubrick's (not Clarke's) 2001: A Space Odyssey, was about the transcendence of man.
So was Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.
Dan Simmons's Hyperion uses alien and futuristic worlds to make comment on the meaning and purpose of man in light of society, government, belief, and even art.

People miss the greatness of a story when they are lost in, "He is probably a retired CIA spy, and is just trying to tell us of worlds he has visited but is not allowed to tell!" Human stories are to tell us about ourselves.

I grew up in the 60s and never doubted the actual mission, but wondered if some information might have been "doctored" or vetted. I recently read "The Awesome Life Force" by Joseph H. Cater (available as a download in PDF), which is a VERY different explanation of physics and science.

Cater says that the moon has gravity almost the same strength as the earth, not 1/5, and it also has an atmosphere. These facts are explained and how the truth was adjusted by NASA to agree with orthodox science. Also the moon, like the earth, is hollow. (Nearly all planets are hollow, they form from congealed dust). Cater also said that the amount of fuel the lunar lander would need to blast off would not have been possible to carry, so there were ion propulsion or other types of engines used, perhaps technology from alien sources. (We got fiber optic technology from the Roswell '47 crash and other UFO crashes; see YouTube interviews and book by the late Lt Phillip Corso on the amount of technology he passed to industry from UFO recovery operations.) Cater is not very kind to Einstein's theories of Relativity but explains many paradoxes of orthodox science. He explains what gravitation is (an electromagnetic phenomenon) and the hollow earth and why there is a "sun" in the middle of the earth (hard electrons that get through the shell).

For the amount of money poured into Apollo to make it all work, it was a great achievement with a lot of spin-offs for everyone (and the military).