The Apollo 11 Moon landing

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2003 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

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?


Not especially the NASA. I was speaking about the so many Gov Agencies from the whole world ( not only the USA ).


Originally posted by clive

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.


Do you mean because you woke up early to look the landing, that it was real and not fake ? It's pretty emotional. It's not because you woke up early that it was a real ( or fake ) landing.
.

But after all, if I "believe" aliens are real, I can believe the moon landings were reals too.




posted on May, 19 2003 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Three reasons why I believe the moon landings happened.

1) I've been to some NASA sites and that made a big impact on me.

2) The Soviets would have moved Heaven and Earth to expose a hoax.

3) Tiger Woods. The dude is obviously the result of a cloning experiment from the moon program. Why else would they play golf up there unless they didn't intend to breed a race of topsecret supergolfers?



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 06:13 PM
link   
2) The Soviets would have moved Heaven and Earth to expose a hoax. Posted by Leveller

There is a good bit of information that the Soviets are cooperating in our *hidden* space program as we speak. It would therefore be in their best interest to keep such a hoax as real as possible.



posted on May, 20 2003 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider
2) The Soviets would have moved Heaven and Earth to expose a hoax. Posted by Leveller

There is a good bit of information that the Soviets are cooperating in our *hidden* space program as we speak. It would therefore be in their best interest to keep such a hoax as real as possible.


Yes. And don't forget, it was the Cold War. So, for the Russians, saying it was an hoax was completely useless. If the USSR were saying it was an hoax, it was pretty easy for the USA to say the Russians were just using another propaganda trick against them and the Russians were fooled in the eyes of the whole world.

So, it's not a good argument.



posted on May, 20 2003 @ 05:28 AM
link   
You say it's not a good argument. But it depends on your view on how psychological warfare is used.


The race to the moon was one of national pride for both countries. At the time it was the all consuming US goal. Nothing mattered but to get to the moon before the reds got there. I can accept the fact that the Russians might not have got away with claiming the whole project was a hoax, but they never tried to discredit a single thing. Not one thing.

And that doesn't strike you as strange? Look at the moon program and look at how now, over 30 years later we have seeds of doubt in our minds. Are you telling me there was no way the Soviets could capatilize on those doubts just because a Cold War was going on. At the very time that information about the moon projects was so sketchy and seeds of doubt could so easily have been sewn?

Look at it from the other side with the Sputnik program. When it went up into orbit, no American believed that it was up there at first. And when they did come to believe that Russia had sent the first artificial satellite into space, the general US reaction was one of fear. They feared a new technology that could be used a weapon. I say that very fear was a weapon. The psychological impact of the Sputnik program was almost as severe as a military strike on the civilian population.

When the US went to the moon, the impact was the same on the Soviet people. Yet the Soviets never countered that fear even though they understood it's use as a weapon and were masters of subjugating their people. I believe that even if the Soviets hadn't tried to declare the moon landings as a hoax to the world, they would have tried damn hard to prove that it never happened to it's own people for many reasons. The benefits to morale and national pride would have far outweighed any risk that they might not be taken seriously.

And after all, the Soviets had complete control of their own media. Who says that their own people wouldn't have believed them? Yet we never saw this happen.

Why would the enemy let you get away with the biggest propaganda coup of the century? Wars are fought and won in our minds. Psychology is a major weapon and yet the Russians refused to use it.
I say that they couldn't use it. There was nothing that they could disprove.



posted on May, 21 2003 @ 03:37 AM
link   
This website I am conferring upon the good people, particularly the misinformed and wrong, dragonrider...is by a phisicist, who explains every last point to a Tee why the hoax believers are wrong.

We did go to the moon.

Here is why.

Have fun.

www.badastronomy.com...

Also I'll use my massive brain power to answer the initial questions proposed by the author of this thread.

First, the picture of the "huge shadow" is not a "huge shadow" of an object it IS the actual object. It is one of the control thrusters for pitch and yaw.

The second, the flag one.

This is a common mistake, actually the first mission Apollo 11, the flag arm on top, would not fully extend, and so the flag would not unfurl completely, because it was propped up so that it would be a "square" by a boom that extended from the top of the flag pole.

Because it would not fully extend, it made the flag look as if it was "waving" however it is completely motionless, just has a few wrinkles.

And so all the following crews afterwards, liked that, and they never extended the boom fully, so all the flags looked "wavy".

Also after take off on Apollo 11, they flag was too close and was blown over by the explosion that started the lander on its acent.

[Edited on 21-5-2003 by TheMaster]



posted on May, 28 2003 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I'm actually disturbed that 10 out of 25 people who have taken this poll (so far) think the moon landing was a hoax...

At the risk of insulting some people, my guess is that those who think it was a hoax have never read a book thicker than 100 or so pages about space travel. If you look far enough at your local college library, you can find 500+ page books that detail EVERY part that went into the apollo capsule. That is, you can find engineering books and plans about the Apollo components, for free, if you are not absolutely lazy. Of course, the fact that Apollo is heavily documented does not, alone, mean that it was real... but one wonders why hoaxers would publish schematics of craft that couldn't work?

The bottom line, here, is that a lot of people do not want to believe that the USA has the technological and economic capability to send people to another celestial body... while, at the same time, no other nation can even dream of doing as much (though China will be trying to do within 10 years). Frankly, Buzz Aldrin had every right to smack that dude who was following him.

Jim
PS I've seen four Apollo command modules, at various museums, including the Columbia (Apollo 11) at the Smithsonian. They are VERY real.


jra

posted on May, 29 2003 @ 02:07 AM
link   
china is attempting to do a manned flight at the end of this year and shooting for a moon landing in 2005. i hope they can do it and not face too many issues. could start another space race.



posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 05:40 AM
link   
You brought up a very good question onlyinmydreams, why would someone go to all that trouble to perpetuate a hoax?
Yet, if one were to claim that he had "The Perpetual Motion Machine", (we know this not possible, yet). Submitted a drawing with labels, and a summary of what it is, and paid the patent fee for a U.S. patent, he would in fact initially have the patent pending and after a negative database search for the same patent would be issued the United States patent for the perpetual motion machine. In theory, he would never have to produce a working model or prototype or for that matter a non-functioning one.
Mental state notwithstanding, he met the requirements. Now, If this person was sincere and not crazy or a hoaxter it wouldn't matter. I read the mission of the U.S. Patent Office and they never require an actual working model.
Now case in point, the Air Force back in 1972 or '73 had engineers working for them at Los Alamos Nat. Lab and applied for the patent for a thing they called the 'Subterrene' I think. Here is a link to a story about it:

www.geocities.com...

There is also a picture if you look in the archives, a search would probably turn it up. I will try to find the patent or patent number for you guys. They didn't have a working model at first if I remember. Now that I think about it, when was NORAD finished? It is the most famous underground facility we have and that was probably hat it was used for. Anyway I found this in another patent, "For example, U.S. Pat. No. 3,357,505, issued to Armstrong et al., 1967, discloses an electrically heated earth drill, while U.S. Pat. No. 3,693,731, issued to Armstrong et al., 1972, describes a nuclear reactor heated earth boring machine."Well Yes it would be hard to hoax the moon landing but other aspects of the government would not be so hard to hoax. IMHO. -Troy



posted on Jun, 8 2003 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Since you are looking for opinions, I think it is fake. If we really could go there in 1969, then by now 2003, we would have colonized it, enough so as to profit from its minerals, and no telling what else would have been discovered. In my way of thinking, knowing how greedy the powerful are, we would definately be there full time by now. It is just too far to go to with humans.

Im sure plenty of smart people will argue like hell differently, but money talks, and if we could be there , the powerful would have backed it, so they could control it.



posted on Jun, 9 2003 @ 05:36 AM
link   
In the late 80's the long-term plan had been as follows: build a space station to be used as the docking point and manufacturing facility for vehicles for the terraforming and colonization of Mars by 2020. The point being, larger vehicles with lower propulsion requirements can be made and launched from orbit for travel to Mars.

Colonizing the moon would be a dubious decision. I think we ought to claim and use it as a big garbage dump. Why limit our trash to our own planet...let's start stinkin' up other things in the solar system.



posted on Jun, 9 2003 @ 05:52 AM
link   
To me the question is why does this topic even come up.

Every one of the questions raised by those who do not have a clear understanding has been explained away by those with a better scientific background. Some questions merely tell on our woefully lacking public education system, such as why the flag appears to "flutter" in space.

Move along.



posted on Jun, 9 2003 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Its just so pathetic that NASA will still not admit it was an elaborate plot, aimed at winning the hearts and minds of a naive American public only too happy to accept that their nation was more advanced than the evil Communist Russians.

Why in over 30 years has no one landed again?

Mountain Everest has been conquered but damn near everyday people go up it.

Surely there must be a great demand for people to walk on the moon.

Why were spacecraft so advanced in 1969, even driving a buggy around the moon. Nothing even near that in 30 years.
Sounds like a big swizz to me.



posted on Jun, 9 2003 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lexus Panther
.

Why in over 30 years has no one landed again?

Mountain Everest has been conquered but damn near everyday people go up it.

Surely there must be a great demand for people to walk on the moon.

Why were spacecraft so advanced in 1969, even driving a buggy around the moon. Nothing even near that in 30 years.
Sounds like a big swizz to me.




You gonna pay for it?
The moon programme told NASA nearly everything that they wanted to know about our satellite. They don't need to go there again. The place is dead. They've mapped it, scanned it and explored it.

As for your suggestion that maybe a tourist would pay? Bill Gates would be about the only guy that could afford a ticket. Getting to the moon costs a helluva site more than just going into space.
If you've got a couple of thousand you can get to Everest. You're going to need a few billion for a tourist trip to the moon - especially as NASA don't need to go there again. You'd basically have to pay for the whole mission.

I would suggest that any money spent on a trip to the moon is wasted. We've gone past that stage. We're now have the ISS, Hubble and the 4 Mars landers on their way.

Sounds like a swizz? Sounds more like common sense to me.


jra

posted on Jun, 11 2003 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Saying that since we haven't gone back must mean it's a hoax is the lamest reason. sorry but it is. you see.. NASA doesn't exactly have the budget to do it right now. but i guess you don't pay attention to such things. also the shuttle isn't designed to fly out to the moon. it can't go further then a low orbit. it doesn't have to do with lack of technology, just affordability.

using Mt. Everest is also not a good example... cause see.. Mt Everest is on Earth! you don't need billions of dollars and state of the art equipment and a rocket and all the other fine details to get to it.

flying to the moon isn't like taking driving to the next town. it takes a lot of time and a lot of planning and as stated before, a lot of money.

The US gov't did what they wanted. get to the moon first. do some science on it too and then got back again. so then it was on to focusing on other projects. like mars now. NASA doesn't have an unlimited budget. it's incredibly small today compaired to what it was durring the apollo missions.

but like i said earlier in this thread. China is going to the moon. perhaps they will check out the old US landing sites. who knows. then again i'm sure you'll all think China is faking it too.



posted on Sep, 1 2003 @ 11:01 PM
link   
HOW COME THE HUBBLE CANT TAKE PICS OF WHERE THEY LANDED AND THE FLAG???? I THINK IT HAS THE POWER TO DO THAT,WOULDNT YOU SAY??


jra

posted on Sep, 2 2003 @ 03:51 AM
link   
The hubble isn't designed to focus on near Earth objects. It would be like trying to read a book right infront of your face.

p.s. I think your caps lock button is stuck DALLASNIGHT



posted on Sep, 2 2003 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Could they even fake the anti-gravity effect back in '69? Somehow I don't think they had the special effects to make that look very real. Here's a decent website I just found when I did a quick google search.

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...

[Edited on 2-9-2003 by Satyr]


jra

posted on Sep, 2 2003 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Good site there Satyr. And no i dont think they would have had the special effects back in the 60's. For example. take a look at 2001: a space odyssey. that was made in 1968 and it had the best special effects of the time. they are good, but not that good. i really can't see how they could have faked it on earth.





new topics




 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join