Is the Moon Landing a Hoax?...

Here is a Very interesting story of a firsthand experience with the last astronaut on the moon Eugene Cernan.
Moon Landing a Hoax?... I recently replied to a post that conveyed information about the assortment of television shows condemning the Moon Landings as being fake. As well as the internet sites: science.nasa.gov...
I personally want to make it known I have never been of the opinion the Moon landing was a hoax. However after talking with this gentleman and spending the entire day with him I realized there are definitively things about the landing we don't know.
However, I do have a Very interesting story of a firsthand experience with the last astronaut on the moon Eugene Cernan. I was working as a fishing guide at the time and Mr. Cernan was a client of mine on my boat. A very nice man indeed. However he deflected and or avoided just about every question anyone asked him related to the moon landing. My personal opinion is not that he was hiding information, but rather, that he actually didn't know. Even when he was asked if the landing was a hoax, he giggled, but would not say yes or no. His only response was to show pictures he had of the landing. (I got a signed copy by the way, which is fun to look at from time to time) Here is a link to the exact reproduced pi I recieved, minus the signature: antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov... Kind of a neat picture, although it does look a little manipulated or photoshopped even if it's just to make it maore appealing. Again I have nothing to go on here except my personal opinion.
And, if it counts for anything, if you believe in the "mind-eraser" on the movie Men-In-Black. Well...... Let's just say it seemed to me that if something like that exists, then thids gentlemen was definitely blasted with it one too many times. It seems that such technology is available namely in the form of drugs. cognews.com... ......Again an extremely nice man that I liked very very much, he just wouldn't or more impotantly couldn't discuss any details. I am sure the government has the technology to do moon landings very easily. I guess my largest concern is if they are either just lazy and are using fake landings as disinformation to deflect our attention from what is really happening? Or is it more complicated than that and are there other issues at hand here? Some claim we (humans) have been banned from return trips and landings to the moon, and that there is an alien presence there.... www.ufocasebook.com... ........... Maybe a little far fetched, but is there any truth or possible basis for it ? Anyway I am interested in hearing the opinion of other ATS members who may have knowledge in this area?

[edit on 1-4-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

[edit on 1-4-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

[edit on 1-4-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

I do not believe the moon landings were faked. Many of the photos were. Much of the information passed to the public was. But not the moon landing themselves. They were manned and flown by true American heroes, who took missions to the moon.. Was the Moonlanding they showed you on TV real.. No that was fake.. but man has been to the moon. Russia and USA have...

[edit on 3-4-2007 by zysin5]

Originally posted by zysin5
I do not believe the moon landings were faked. Many of the photos were. Much of the information passed to the public was. But not the moon landing themselves. They were manned and flown by true American heroes.

So basically what you're saying is they faked the evidence but take their word for it anyway?

I don't believe people haven't landed on the moon. DUH? I do however believe we are disinformed as a public. The pictures for example have been "tampered" with as any photo-pro could tell you. Either to make them "look" better, or for other reasons. Therein lies the gray area to this matter. And, why would we all odf the sudden just stop going to the moon? Think about that one? Just food for thought.

I honestly think the whole thing is a farce. There are too many inconsistencies in the story of the "Moon Landing". Now, I do think we've orbited the moon, sent probes to the moon etc... But mankind, I don't think so. If we had, why have we never gone back? Why does the Space Shuttle only fly BENEATH the Van Allen belt? Surely technology is better today than before.

For more info. look into a movie called "Paper Moon". They bring up dozens of valid points that need to be explored and explained - like the door on the lander being SMALLER than the life support packs that the astronauts supposedly wore on the surface. So how did they get out? Did they just hold their breath until they could put it on?

How about that cool dunebuggy rover? Where was that stashed? It's huge! And why does the sand shooting out from the tires look exactly like sand on the desert shooting off of car tires. Wouldn't low gravity and lack of atmosphere shoot that stuff like 100 yards into the air?

The computing power was less than my wristwatch for crying out loud! Nobody is going to convince me that they flew thousands and thousands of miles, through the Van Allen Belt entered into the moon's gravitational field and controlled a landing all using a Texas Instruments calculator

Nope, not buying it. How about the space suits? How were they able to fully pressurize a space suit in the vacuum of space and control the internal temperature when it had a swing of hundreds of degrees depending on sun exposure versus shade!? AND still be able to move around when the thing was fully pressurized - it would've looked like a giant balloon!

Obviously our space program is valuable enough to cost us billions upon billions of dollars - so much so that they built the international space station for Christ's sake. Now, if we went to the moon nearly FORTY years ago - wouldn't they have put that thing ON the MOON!?!? Nope - it also floats in orbit BELOW the Van Allen Belt.

The reality is that we barely have the technology to put PEOPLE on the moon today. Sure we can send all types of gizmos and gadgets - robots, probes and such - but there are too many inherent problems with getting people there.

The reality is probably that it was a political stunt to unite the nation against the Communist threat! Just my 1 cent on the matter.

I fully believe that at least the first landing was a hoax but I believe we eventually got there.
The reason for the first one being hoaxed, in my opinion, is that we HAD to beat the Russians there.
It was a matter of National pride and to fulfill President Kennedy's promise to get there before the end of the decade.
Just my opinion, no evidence to speak of

I'll repeat what I said in an earlier thread on this.

All other expeditions, North Pole, South Pole, Everest, and other far reaches of the globe are required to have INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION of the event before it is deemed worthy and right to be entered into the record books.

Despite many 'landings' on the moon by alleged astronauts, and unmanned vehicles from the US and other countries, guess what one event has never been independently verified?

That's right, the Apollo moon landings have NOT been subjected to verification.

I'd say that there is a nearly 100% chance that one or more of the following happened:
1. pictures were faked (see Brian Leary's infamous comments);
2. the actual astronauts were substituted. The US may have landed astronauts on the moon (at least the first landing) but they may not have been Aldrin, Armstrong and Michael Collins;
3. the entire first mission may have been faked (we never left low orbit);
4. all the Apollo missions may have been faked;
5. we have never sent humans through the Van Allen Belt and we never will (until we have better space capsules). We have sent humans to low earth orbit and on one occasion we sent the shuttle higher, but near the beginning of the first Van Allen belt;
6. the Van Allen Belts are far deadlier than we first imagined (One doco has the real newsreport on this comment).

To recap, ONE or more of the above may be true. (it's not clear which, as far as real proof).

I could continue the list but those are the main points alleged by the many documentaries out there.

To explain #2, if you have high profile astronauts and something goes wrong, it could be a -major- PR disaster. So the solution is to "seem" to send Aldrin, Armstrong and Michael Collins, but to use 'no name' guys in the actual ship. That way if there was a catastrophe they could do some spin control and cover up the deaths and say either we didn't make it, here's Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, safe and sound, or we did make it and "they" got back OK.

I'm not alleging this, just offering an explanation for this fairly clever scheme, if in fact, it was true. Remember the whole Moon Landing thing was not about exploration or gathering data (such as taking UV pic of the stars, or using an astronomic telescope and special camera to take star pics), it was only about 'landing a man' and jumping around and planting a flag.

Additional factoids:
Aldrin mentions that the chance of making the blast off and docking with the orbital module after liftoff from the moon was about, or less than 30%. I.e. two in three chances that they'd not dock successfully and thus two of the members would perish.

I heard a documentary back in the 80s that was made in the 70s which said that the chances of missing the docking with the Orbiter was a LOT less than 30% (more like 8%). They said they really got lucky and with some last minute course corrections, Armstrong was able to dock.

Look at the press conference after the mission. Three very strange acting guys who appear to be embarrassed by the whole thing, and not proud guys returning from the greatest expedition of all time.

Another Factoid. Despite being on the 'high ground' for the first time, the Astronauts, present at the HIGHEST OBSERVTORY in the solar system (at the time) did NOT take any pictures of the stars. They did take a UV scope on a later mission, but NO pictures from this scope have been published anywhere (that I'm aware). Though it's hard to take pictures of stars and people and bright landscape AT THE SAME TIME, it is NOT impossible to take pictures of the stars from the Moon, if you use the right exposure and right camera and do it in the shadow of the LEM.

IMO, going to the Moon and not taking a 'Hubble-like' photo or two of the stars, is like going to the Mauna Kea observatory in Hawaii and never looking up at the stars. It's ludicrous.

www.ifa.hawaii.edu...

Again, you can't take a regular camera and take a pic of an Astronaut and get stars in the background, but you can use proper equipment (which was available, or very light and easy to take - like a spotting scope with a time-lapse camera) and get pictures of the specific stars.

Why not do this? One reason. Because these stellar photographs would NOT have been able to be faked. The precise alignments and orientation of the various stars could be checked subsequently by Earth astronomers, including Amateurs and any attempt at faking would be instantly detected. Thus they claimed they did not take the pics. (in fact Collins says he doesn't recall SEEING any stars).

(This is a different issue. The eye is much more adaptive than a camera lens. I think it's likely that real astronauts on the Moon would be able to get in the shadow of the LEM and actually see stars with their eyes - just like you can see them in the city full of lights if you shield your eyes and get in the shadow of a building.)

Note that Collins says (though he seems uncertain) in that infamous post Apollo interview that he thinks he didn't see any stars.

Yet in his Collins' book, first published 10 years later, he says he remembers seeing stars. (memory better 10 years later than a few days post flight???)

www.amazon.com...

So, there you have some of the high points and none of those rely on dodgy photo-interpretation of shadows or anything which is what the apologists frequently like to debunk.

HTH. (sorry to be long)


[edit on 4-4-2007 by Badge01]

They were independently verified by both British and Russian (Soviet) radar stations.

You say it was "verified". However I talked to the actual guy and he "verified" absolutely nothing. Anyway Who in the those two governments was doing the verifying? I honestly believe we go to the moon much more often than has been stated in the history books. However why is everything about space travel either clandestine like the Lockheed Martin skunk works "Venture Star" space plane, or heavily strewn across the media and t.v. like the silly shuttle? Common, there should be some middle ground. Right?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
They were independently verified by both British and Russian (Soviet) radar stations.

Imprecise. Data was allegedly verified. A craft was allegedly verified. Presence on the Moon was not.

I presume you have cites for this 'verification'? Didn't think so.

Also, explain to me, how a radar station can verify that men landed on the Moon's surface?

Bringing back 'rocks' allegedly from the Moon is not verification.

Bouncing a laser beam off of 'something' on the Moon is not verification.

Saying 'Oh how did they do this or that' is not verification.

(Antarctic explorers got 'close' to the South Pole (Ernest Shackleton), but never actually made it. I guess if we had radar pointed at the ship they used to get to the Antarctic, by your 'proof', then maybe they got close enough and should be awarded the title, eh?)

Oh poo, foolish Earthlings, of course they went to the moon. And what's with this urgency to eviscerate our heroes? If all the iconoclasts actually produced something with their energy and brainpower, we might actually be on Mars by now.

So there. Once again, 2 cents (cdn)

Originally posted by theutahbigfoothunter
You say it was "verified". However I talked to the actual guy and he "verified" absolutely nothing. Anyway Who in the those two governments was doing the verifying? I honestly believe we go to the moon much more often than has been stated in the history books. However why is everything about space travel either clandestine like the Lockheed Martin skunk works "Venture Star" space plane, or heavily strewn across the media and t.v. like the silly shuttle? Common, there should be some middle ground. Right?

UBH, don't worry, some day all these 'smug' guys will have to eat their words when the extent of the Hoax is admitted.

I urge you to go to Google Video and look at the various documentaries that are up there, free to use. Just search on 'longer than 20 min' and 'moon hoax' or similar terms. They are MUCH better than the FOX documentary.

Something Funny Happened
Paper Moon
and others are there for the viewing if you have DSL or cable modem, or other high speed. (the paper moon one is long, two hours, but you can more or less start watching immediately)

Badge01, so what you are saying is there is no proof. Well that would explain a lot of things. I honestly believe that with intelligence comes a certain degree of responsibility. Responsibility to self, and to others. This same responsibility is why I believe sources in higher government are "required" to divulge information ONLY when neccessary. And unfortuneately, with our average American being so loyal and gullible, that is not all that often. I too consider myself one of those gullible Americans. I am just beginning to open my eyes.

Well I saw a video supposedly taken onboard apollo 11 faking a halfway to the moon shot of earth while being in orbit. When the lights come back on you can recognize the familiar astronauts.
It was on the TV, haven't seen it on youtube yet but haven't really looked for it either.
And the photo's on the moon itself, well, I see problems in them so I'm completely open to the idea they are fake.

Now fake photo's don't prove they weren't there. They might have seen something that they couldn't show us, they might have made a simple misjudgement and the film in the camera's got ruined (e.g. overexposed by radiation) forcing them to "recreate" the evidence.

But when I look at how we are doing in space currently (public knowledge anyhow), and my serious doubt about the van Allen belt being "not so bad", as the shuttle won't go near it and has better protection then the capsules back then.
Recently astronauts reported they could see streaks of light, novalike effects etc. with their eyes closed only 350 km out (radiation effect). The inner belt starts at 400km. The inner one shouldn't have been a problem because it's pretty thin. Passing through would be like getting a couple of xrays according to nasa.. But I doubt the vast outer belt is that easy. It's quite an expanse and you'd linger in it for quite a while travelling through it.
And last but not least the politics at the time.

I think regardless, if we did it or not it, the mindset would have been something like "we are either going to do it, or we going to fake it. But we have to be the first".
So yep I'm open minded to the possibility either way. I haven't "made up my mind" yet

PS. Looking to confirm what I thought the height was in the shuttle story I found an article on nasa that tries to prove that the reasons why it's a hoax (photo's etc) aren't correct, looks like some of the posts here where someone tries desperately to prove his point while the challengers clearly have the upper hand. (I'm not finding the words I want.. beh. not my day, but I hope you know what kind of threads I mean)

E.g. they ask "why could the angles of the shadows be different with only one light source?" In the answer they talk about different lengths which you can easily prove for yourself yadda yadda but neglect to actually answer the angles question
Or talk about the van Allen belt but neglect to mention how thick the outer belt actually is. And to boot they provide a story that makes the idea of having gone to the moon sound farfetched themselves.
Anyway I thought it was funny:
Hoaxed Moon Landings? - Nasa

[edit on 4-4-2007 by David2012]

[edit on 4-4-2007 by David2012]

In researching the validity of the whole moon hoax thing, I came across these facts:

Despite several science based web sites intent on countering the conspiracy theorists, it is still possible to find what seem to be significant unanswered questions on the web. A reasonable person may conclude that 1. There are too few scientists willing to answer questions from the public about this historic experience, 2. It is disappointing and curious that NASA does not have an official open question and answer forum as a means of teaching science and generating interest in the US space program, 3. Some unanswered questions cast reasonable doubt on the official story.

- Why do you think these facts remain? I got most of them from Xenophilia.
www.xenophilia.com

[edit on 4-4-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

can somebody enlighten me once again as to why there's doubt regarding the veracity of the moon landings? aren't you people proud of what your country has achieved (which no other country has ever surpassed)?

Originally posted by toreishi
can somebody enlighten me once again as to why there's doubt regarding the veracity of the moon landings? aren't you people proud of what your country has achieved (which no other country has ever surpassed)?

What's there to be proud of if it's a lie?

but see my previous comment for hints to why many people doubt it nowadays.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by David2012]

Originally posted by toreishi
can somebody enlighten me once again as to why there's doubt regarding the veracity of the moon landings? aren't you people proud of what your country has achieved (which no other country has ever surpassed)?

Having read a great deal of articles regarding the possibility of a hoax, I find it very hard NOT to have a doubt.

[edit on 4/4/2007 by Jibbs]

Ok, mea culpa. The iconoclast crack was a little on the glib side. Frankly, I don't over-analyze the science. I've done a little ranting on this site about the nature of belief versus knowledge. Having lived through the glory days of the space programme...having seen Echo 1 as it made its solitary American way through the skies...I don't take this stuff on faith. I know it happened, cuz the good guys told me so.

And when the landing occurred, it didn't matter what your nationality, the little plaque on the lander said "We came in peace for all mankind." For a little while we all believed that.

I find it harder to 'believe' in ufos and other fringe matters because they're outside of my realm of experience...see the difference? So, if I'm proven wrong and the whole thing was a fake...well, that'll be a sad day for America and the rest of the world.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Ok, mea culpa. The iconoclast crack was a little on the glib side. Frankly, I don't over-analyze the science. I've done a little ranting on this site about the nature of belief versus knowledge. Having lived through the glory days of the space programme...having seen Echo 1 as it made its solitary American way through the skies...I don't take this stuff on faith. I know it happened, cuz the good guys told me so.

And when the landing occurred, it didn't matter what your nationality, the little plaque on the lander said "We came in peace for all mankind." For a little while we all believed that.

I find it harder to 'believe' in ufos and other fringe matters because they're outside of my realm of experience...see the difference? So, if I'm proven wrong and the whole thing was a fake...well, that'll be a sad day for America and the rest of the world.

So it's true because the good guys told you? And who would they be then?