The Apollo 11 Moon landing

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2003 @ 02:54 PM
link   
4.00am (GMT) on the morning of 21st July, 1969, an estimated two million Britons joined a billion other viewers from all around the world who were glued to their television screens as Neil Armstrong created history by becoming the first man to set foot on the Moon. But did Armstrong and his partner 'BUZZ' Aldrin really set foot on the Moon or was it an elaborate hoax?

What I would like to know is how many of you that visit the Above Top Secret message board believe that the landing was real? And how many of you believe it was an elaborate hoax?

The conspiracy theorists have a good argument they say that.




    It is impossible for a man to safely overcome the deadly cosmic radiation that lies within and beyond the Earth's Van Allen Belts.

    Standard Kodak film carried by the Apollo Astronauts could not possibly have withstood the extreme heat and cold and x-rays to take such clear pictures of the lunar surface.

    Although artificial lighting is apparent in some Apollo photographs, none was taken to the Moon.

    Cross-hairs on several Apollo photographs clearly go behind astronauts and other objects in the foreground.


It is these and other anomalies found in the Apollo photos, which has convinced many that they were not taken on the Lunar surface. And not all comes from the conspiracy camp. In a magazine article a Mr David Groves, Ph.D. who is a top photographic expert, was invited to take a look at the Apollo photographs he said "As a professional in image processing I was surprised to find that these Apollo photographs are full of contradictions and inconsistencies".

The Lunar surface camera had no viewfinder, but you wouldn't suspect that when studying the photographs. The light source of shadows cast in some of the Apollo photographs is another bone of contentment. On further study of these a Hasselblad spokesman conceded: "Yes, it does appear that Aldrin is standing in a spot light. I can't explain why...you will have to find Armstrong and ask him.






posted on May, 16 2003 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Here are a few of the photos so that you can see for yourself.

Picture 1


100 Miles above the Lunar surface, yet the shadow of the rocket nozzle appears enormous.

Picture 2


The Flag of the USA appears to flutter; though there is no wind on the Moon.

Picture 3



Picture 4



DID THESE MEN GO TO THE MOON






posted on May, 16 2003 @ 05:48 PM
link   
It is my "informed opinion" that we currently have a VERY active space program (much more active than anything that has been publicly released, involving human built X Craft). Also, we have, and currently do, go to the moon, but not in 1969: the technology to keep astronauts alive was not sufficient then.



posted on May, 16 2003 @ 05:53 PM
link   
How do you explain this:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment was deployed on Apollo 11, 14, and 15. It consists of a series of corner-cube reflectors, which are a special type of mirror with the property of always reflecting an incoming light beam back in the direction it came from...


The experiment require live, real-time adjustments of the equipment on the lunar surface to get the proper set-up arranged for long-term experiments.



posted on May, 16 2003 @ 05:57 PM
link   
The experiment require live, real-time adjustments of the equipment on the lunar surface to get the proper set-up arranged for long-term experiments. Posted by William

And certainly not outside the realm of computer controlled automation. Delivery by unmanned spacecraft also not outside the realm of possibility.



posted on May, 16 2003 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Absurd.

How far will you go to prove such technology remotely controled this precision device in 1969?



posted on May, 16 2003 @ 06:17 PM
link   
look at how cheesey old star wars looked (not that it doesnt rock) and oh say battlestar galactica... you know how portions of space owuld be a lighter black around the ships than the rest... and take a look at 2001: A space Odyssey.

No wind for the flag... well there was less gravity so couldn't it just be floating? or do they starch flags into carboard in space?



posted on May, 16 2003 @ 06:20 PM
link   
How precise does it need to be? A laser fired from the earth will be several meters in diameter when it reaches the moon. All you need is the reflector array (which may well be several times larger than what is publicly depicted) on a motorized base, with photoelectrodes on each corner. A very simple computer would be needed to figure out the amount of laser energy detected in each corner, and to move the mount until all four detectors registered equal amounts (at which point it is oriented directly into the beam).

I would daresay that my old Timex Sinclair computer with 1K memory could handle that task, as well as whatever computer technology was available at the time.



posted on May, 16 2003 @ 07:01 PM
link   
They wouldn't have had to have had men put the corner-cube reflectors on the Moons surface. Whos to say that they didn't deploy them by lauching Lunar probes at the moon to deploy the corner-cube reflectors? The Russians managed to get a probe on the Moons surface before the Apollo missions got there.

[Edited on 17-5-2003 by clive]



posted on May, 16 2003 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Go to a this website www.lunaranomalies.com...
it tells you what you need to know about if we went to the moon or not



posted on May, 17 2003 @ 12:15 AM
link   
One argument against the moon landing hoax theory is Neil Armstrong. Yours truly never had the honor of meeting the man but knew some people who had worked with him. They were always impressed with the man's honesty and the fact that he did not "cash in" on being the first man to land on the moon. (I live in a state where ex-astronauts use their tenure with NASA as a launching board to go into politics.) The idea that a man such as Neil Armstrong (who represented what a true hero should be) would be part of an elaborate hoax is a slander to his good name. These guys who are promoting the moon landing hoax allegations should feel lucky that the Apollo astronauts are not suing their a**es for libel and slander.



posted on May, 17 2003 @ 12:27 AM
link   
People are strange dont u think, i mean spending Hundreds of years working just to destroy every ideal the slaves and indentured servants dreamed about like honesty or respect maybe even care for others but now this. Wether the goverment staged it or not doesnt matter it did something for the country itself. What if russia would have done it or just faked it. Their economy, moral, even goverment may have had alot more luck everything the goverment does it has Three reasons for. The Third level of concern is the Peoples Opinon Second How they can lie to us And make us follw a wrong tangent (HENCE THE CONTROVERSY) The first is NOne of my buisnness



posted on May, 17 2003 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Wether the goverment staged it or not doesnt matter it did something for the country itself. What if russia would have done it or just faked it. Their economy, moral, even goverment may have had alot more luck Posted by Emyrs

I think you just came up with the perfect reasoning for faking it if there was a reason why it could not be done.



posted on May, 17 2003 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Perfection and Distortion are in the same when dealing with a limitless goverment
or an empire


jra

posted on May, 17 2003 @ 02:31 PM
link   
ugh... not another one of these threads...

to comment on the images

picture 1: who says that's the rocket nozzle? it doesn't look like it to me. it could be an object inside the lander against the glass, hence it being blured

picture 2: how absured to assume the flag is "blowing in the wind" just because its wrinkled. besides, IF the moon landing were fake, don't you think they would have been careful not to have the flag blowing in the wind? also it would have been filmed inside a studio. not outside, so there would have been no wind anyway. cloth doesn't stay stright and flat just because it's in a low gravity environment.

picture 3: why should there be "blast holes"? it's not like flames come shooting out of the thruster on the lander. some of the dust does get displaced, but being in an environment with no atmosphere it's not as noticable.

picture 4: ever watch a show called sesame street? they tell you about concepts such as "near" and "far". just incase you haven't seen this show i'll explain this concept to you. when objects are farther from the viewer they appear smaller. when they are closer they appear bigger. it's really hard to grasp i know, but it's true.

picture 5: yes


i suggest you educate yourself and go read these links.

www.badastronomy.com...

www.clavius.org...

[Edited on 17-5-2003 by jra]


jra

posted on May, 17 2003 @ 03:22 PM
link   
i'd also like to say some more things here.

"It is impossible for a man to safely overcome the deadly cosmic radiation that lies within and beyond the Earth's Van Allen Belts."

there are many differnt types of radiation. some more harmful then others. the van allen belts consisted of high-energy proton radiation. that is easier to shield against. the apollo crew also went through the thinnest area of the belts, so that limited there exposure. sure the radiation is still bad, but it's not the same kind of radiation you get from an atomic blast.

i'd also like to add this quote.

"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." -- Dr. James Van Allen

who better to hear it from then the man himself.


"Cross-hairs on several Apollo photographs clearly go behind astronauts and other objects in the foreground.

and what does this prove? nothing at all. i dont even get why some people use this as a reason to disprove the moon landings.

those crosshairs did not disappear behind the objects. the bright areas in film tend to bleed over surrounding areas when exposed. so when those crosshairs were over top of a bright spot the white areas bled over the thin black line. making it look as though it disappeared behind the object. any photographer can confirm this if you don't believe it.

i have no idea what kind of film they used or how the camera was shielded, so i cannot answer those.



[Edited on 17-5-2003 by jra]



posted on May, 18 2003 @ 11:29 AM
link   
This line of reasoning has been debunked many, many times -- and while it all sounds good to folks who didn't have the good fortune to see the landings live on tv, it's really a tired old bogus argument started by a few folks who know nothing about science.

...back in the good old days...

Our science education was much better than you're getting in high school today -- and at the college level, much better than most folks get today. In addition, television programming did revolve around a lot of live science.

Here's a factoid: You can't fake the way people move on the moon; the awkwardness of the new environment, the peculiar effects of low gravity. Watch ALL the footage. If those were actors in an environment they'd been in before, there wouldn't be the slips, the awkward balancing, the difficulty moving, and so forth.

For good debates on the other points, try the Bad Astronomy board. There's a lot of science experts there who can thoroughly explain the points.

Reading these tired old "it's a hoax!" arguments is kind of like reading over the "Planet X is coming on May 15!" It's sad that no matter how many times it's been debunked, we have to go back and explain things again.



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

It's sad that no matter how many times it's been debunked, we have to go back and explain things again.


Then, it show us 1 thing. Peoples don't trust anything anymore, especially when it's comming from an official agency, the NASA or another one.

OTH, these so-called arguments used by those who don't believe in the moon landing are not so stupids and I really would like to see what the debunkers have to say about it. I'm sure the NASA went to the moon, but I'm also sure many of their pics are fakes. Debunkers or not, they lyed about it and, unfortunately, they're still lying.


When you lie, don't be surprised if the peoples don't believe you anymore.


jra

posted on May, 19 2003 @ 02:04 AM
link   


...they lyed about it and, unfortunately, they're still lying


assuming you're talking about NASA here. What have they lied about exactly? and which pics do you think are fake and for what reason?



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Well going by the results of the poll the Apollo 11 moon landing was not a hoax. The pictures are from UFO magzine. jra has put across some good points. I like to think that the Apollo 11 mission was real because being woken up in the early hours of the morning to watch the landing live was not all for a hoax.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join