Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

They were cutting budgets even before 11 landed, so the money was drying up already and programs had to be altered and cut to cope with it. Many astronauts scheduled for later flights never got off the ground.

The Apollo project cost $25.4 billion, in all, calculated in 1973..

That is a lot of money, being given to them, based (mainly) on their promise to be able to land a man on the moon..


And that's the crucial point, here.

originally posted by: Forensick
I had the pleasure of meeting some Russian cosmonauts, one of which Valeri Polyakov, spent 437 days in space on Mir.

Was able to ask him two questions and my first was did America land on the moon.

He said yes they did and they went back 5 more times.

As pointed out previously, Russia would have blasted the US if they had a sniff it never made it to the moon.

I think its just such a mind blowing journey some people cannot accept it happened.

Just wish we kept going and coming back...sad.

What was the second question!? WHAT!?

originally posted by: Forensick
I had the pleasure of meeting some Russian cosmonauts, one of which Valeri Polyakov, spent 437 days in space on Mir.

Was able to ask him two questions and my first was did America land on the moon.

He said yes they did and they went back 5 more times.

As pointed out previously, Russia would have blasted the US if they had a sniff it never made it to the moon.

I think its just such a mind blowing journey some people cannot accept it happened.

Just wish we kept going and coming back...sad.

Russians were fooled like everyone else was, all around the world.

That's hardly news, though.

The USSR showed that they were not arch-enemies of the US, as I've explained many times to you...

After JFK was assassinated, the US said Oswald alone did it. The Warren Report determined Oswald had a Russian wife, he had first met while visiting Russia. They found nothing more connecting him to Russia. Case closed.

Many Americans saw a cover-up, by their own government, though..and the USSR knew that, of course.

That was an ideal opportunity for Soviet propaganda on the JFK issue, but the Soviets said/did nothing, in fact.

They knew over half of American people didn't trust their own government, but they just looked the other way, instead of jumping on it.

That is not what an enemy would do. It is what an ALLY would do.

No doubt.

Most wars are created out of nothing, much like the Cold War was.

The USSR and US were funded by the same source.

The USSR became the enemy after WW2.

It was played out in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere, as a battle of USSR/Communism, versus US/Capitalism...

Not in reality, even though most people still believe it.

Enemies that are in a 'Space Race', is won by 'the first side to land a man on the moon'. As if space is limited to the moon, the 'Race' is over, and America won it. The enemies become fast friends, in a joint space mission.

Imagine US troops in Germany, after WW2. They become friends, and design V3 rockets, in a joint venture, which interlock in orbit. Hitler and Truman shake hands, and Germans become 'the newest, and closest, of all our friends'.

So it goes, on and on..

originally posted by: turbonium1
and design V3 rockets, in a joint venture, which interlock in orbit.

What are you babbling about now? The V3 was not a rocket, it was a cannon. Your ignorance is showing yet again!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
But why do you think they would have faked it?

(Please exclude some kind of international/Russian competition as a reason because there is an untransparent global government that has been in power for longer than the late 1960s.)

Only they would know the specific reason(s) would have been, obviously.

So, we can only speculate on this matter....

Something I personally enjoy doing. Thanks for speculating!

originally posted by: CB328

Why would one or two pics be messed up out off all the pics if they were all transported back in the same manner?

Maybe you're not old enough to have experience with film, but just about every roll has some messed up pictures in it. If nothing else because the film usually doesn't fit exactly into a discrete number of pictures, so you get pictures cut in half or two thirds.

Well I developed my own colour film and prints in the days of chemicals and darkrooms. Every reel of film does indeed have duds and each dud has a frame number. Why on earth would NASA publish the duds ? Surely they are just discarded ? The only way to tell if there are discarded dud photos is if the image numbers match the frame numbers on the film reels. Unfortunately this would mean hundred of images with the same number ie 1-24 or 1-36!!

If you look at the magazines, which have all been published in full, there are quite a few 'half frames', blanks and other bad shots that were developed nonetheless and published in NASA photography reports. I own original copies of Apollo 8 and 10's Photograph reports and there are many poorly exposed and composed shots in there.

People might also want to explore this resource:

www.flickr.com...

which are raw scans of original NASA images, completely unprocessed, warts and all. You'll find plenty of half frames and poorly exposed and composed shots in there.

As for this from CB328 (in the post replied to by Yorkshirelad)

How could you take a picture of a foot or two wide tire track 500,000 miles away through our atmosphere? I'm pretty sure that's impossible. Just to shoot a laser through the atmosphere requires very high tech adaptive optics because of atmospheric distortion, so I don't buy it that an expensive camera could do that.

The answer is you couldn't. No telescope exists that could do that, even with the moon at 250000 miles away. Photographs of tracks and trails have been taken form lunar orbit, not Earth, by US and Indian probes.

originally posted by: CB328
So, apparently the capsule was going about 2100 miles per hour when they got to the moon (3800 feet per second).

history.nasa.gov...

How can you slow the lander down from two thousand miles an hour with no atmosphere so that you don't crash, and then get it back up to 2100 mph after take off for docking? If you don't reach 2100 mph again then you'll be obliterated when redocking. Even at 1/6 gravity that would still take a hell of a lot of fuel which I seriously doubt they could fit in that lander.

I agree that there is no proof, other than various person's testimony.

I watched some the space missions. I think the spacecraft was coasting and decelerating from its escape of the Earth's gravity all the way to the moon.

On the way back, after the moon surface was cleared, the gravity of Earth and the Sun made the return trip "downhill".
The Earth and the Sun had to be inline to shield the spacecraft from solar radiation. I agree that the moon blast off was hard to believe.

Proofs that aren't proofs

Moon rocks could be got on Earth by meteors striking the moon with enough force to project fragments to the Earth. Also, a simple robot could land on the moon, grab what is underneath it, and rocket back. Robot missions are more durable and smaller than manned missions, and therefore much more likely.

The reflector on the moon could have been put there by a small rocket. A reflector shaped like a polyhedron would always rest with one side facing up. The reflector is the only proof that anything from Earth has been to the moon.

Track and trails could be made by automated vehicles, which would have the advantages of robots, i.e. smaller transportation requirements and more durability. Or the alleged lunar landing sites could be stage craft. One of the pictures of tracks looks like a "silly string" ejection, perhaps a cable or rope played out during a lunar landing. The tracks and trails could also be like the face on Mars, rocks roll down hill.

The Gulf of Tonkin and Pearl Harbor were well kept secrets. The Katyn Forest Massacre killed the entire Polish political establishment. The number and effects of communists in the federal Government and the UN from the 30's to the 60's and beyond is still a secret.

Moon shots are good socialist propaganda.

All real as there is far to much proof to support otherwise.

a reply to: hellobruce

No, incorrect actually; I said "on" the Moon, not "at" the Moon. The CM on Apollo 11 always had S-Band, but the LM did not...not until Apollo 12, later that year in 1969.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
The CM on Apollo 11 always had S-Band, but the LM did not...not until Apollo 12, later that year in 1969.

Still wrong...

The Ascent stage contained the crew cabin; environmental control (life support) system; instrument panels; overhead hatch/docking port; forward EVA hatch; sixteen Reaction Control System (RCS) thrusters (identical to those used on the Service Module) mounted in four quads; rendezvous radar; VHF and S-band communications equipment and antennas

and

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

. Also mounted along the top were a parabolic rendezvous radar antenna, a steerable parabolic S-band antenna,

originally posted by: WeowWix

originally posted by: Forensick
I had the pleasure of meeting some Russian cosmonauts, one of which Valeri Polyakov, spent 437 days in space on Mir.

Was able to ask him two questions and my first was did America land on the moon.

He said yes they did and they went back 5 more times.

As pointed out previously, Russia would have blasted the US if they had a sniff it never made it to the moon.

I think its just such a mind blowing journey some people cannot accept it happened.

Just wish we kept going and coming back...sad.

What was the second question!? WHAT!?

Haha, it wasn't that good, more of a musing how far we could have gone if we worked together. I can't remember his answer, vodka! Probably not as far, competition has a good way of attracting money and focus if you must win!

It's a great conspiracy and it's fun to see people still go for it...However it's been debunked by NASA as they took satellite images of the flag, landing site, and the footprints. People should debunk those photos now if they want to still claim the moon landing was fake.

a reply to: CB328

They DID go; however, they were "greeted" by others already there...lined up on the other side of the crater.

a reply to: hellobruce

nope, sorry...you are incorrect.

a reply to: cfnyaami

i agree....also why did we not go back...........

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: turbonium1
and design V3 rockets, in a joint venture, which interlock in orbit.

What are you babbling about now? The V3 was not a rocket, it was a cannon. Your ignorance is showing yet again!

I was making a point about 'enemies' who become 'friends' out of the blue. I simply referred to the V3 rocket being a fictional 'joint' project between Germany and the US, after WW2, to compare it to the US-USSR joint venture after the 'Cold War'.

I don't know why I even need to repeat myself, because you're obviously not interested in the subject.

Babbling ignorance is cherry-picking something out of a post, instead of addressing the material...

If you want to address the actual issue, next time, it would be much more helpful...

originally posted by: Funcaldunkal
I am not sure what to believe when it comes to the Moon landing. It definitely seems suspect, but I don't know. What I do find irritating, is that so many people refuse the possibility of it having been faked. They act like it's totally impossible for such a thing to have been faked and become infuriated by the idea, which to me screams emotional bias.

You are right about that.

That's one of the most obvious things noticed by people (like you, and my brother, for example) who are undecided/uninterested in the moon hoax subject.

I've seen extreme anger from the pro=Apollo side, over and over again. Imo, it is because of an internal conflict, between what they have always believed (that we landed on the moon), and what they can't accept, can't resolve (that it was a hoax). They see the Apollo astronauts as their heroes, and it's impossible for them to consider that they were involved in a hoax.

It's like someone tells you that your father was a serial killer, and when he shows you absolute proof of it, you cannot accept it. You become incensed with the guy who showed you the proof. You have chosen to live in denial, because you cannot deal, emotionally, inherently, with the horrible reality of your dad being a monster. That is quite understandable to me. We are all human, after all.

So I can understand the anger from the pro-Apollo side. It is a natural, human reaction, to be angry at those who make them insecure about their long-held, intrinsic beliefs.

If you realize what their anger/denial stems from, perhaps it won't be so irritating to you anymore....

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: cfnyaami

i agree....also why did we not go back...........

We did. Five (and a half) more times.