Moon Hoax? - NASA built huge hard vacuum chamber just before Apollo 11 and decommissioned it 1975

Originally posted by wolf359
However, let's say for a moment that NASA did not put a man on the moon in 1969, do you think it's safe to assume that it has since been done? That they have indeed landed on the moon, but at a later date than in 1969?

Apology for not reading the whole thread accepted... but had you you might have caught my post saying we were there BEFORE 1969 (62-64... not pinpointed it yet) and I am still not sure if only the images were faked, only some of the images were faked, or if the whole trip was faked.

But we were and are there now

Originally posted by zorgon



But we were and are there now

agreed, yet the exact year and date of the moon landing is in question

Originally posted by Yandros
Consider yourself in NASA's shoes:
Here’s a government that’s publicly committed itself to getting to the moon before the end of the decade. You've already blown most of your huge budget on Apollo 1 - 10 which were all complete disasters. With less than a year to go why wouldn't NASA simply film it on earth?

Umm.. Apollo 1 - 10 weren't all complete disasters nor was most of the budget spent on them. Apollo 1 was a disaster yes, Apollo 4, 5 and 6 were all unmanned tests and they were all successful. Apollo 7 and 9 were tests in Earth orbit. Apollo 8 was the first manned spacecraft to orbit the Moon and Apollo 10 tested the LM in Lunar orbit and did everything, but land on the surface.

Send up your rocket for a few days orbit around the earth, earlier having sent up a video reflector/relayer to the 'landing site' and relay the prerecorded video off the moon. Who would be the wiser? Its certainly much easier than sending people there – something I suspect they would have trouble doing even with today’s technology.

On the contrary, I think it's a lot harder to fake something like a Moon landing then to actually go and do it. You got to either hide it from the 400,000 people working on the program (which would be impossible really), or get them all in on it and some how make sure all those people stay quite, good luck. Heck, Nixon couldn't keep his own stuff secret, how are they going to keep something as big as the Moon landings a secret? There were also lots of people independently tracking missions themselves with telescopes and HAM radios. How do you fool those people too? Lunar samples would be extremely hard to fake as well. The list goes on...

Certainly all the evidence of artificial lighting cannot be ignored. The number of anomalies NASA refuse to explain is just amazing. Right angle shadows, no blast crater, spotlight reflections in visors simply too large... the list goes on.

Shadows will appear to go at different angles due to perspective, this also gets exaggerated when looking at the panoramic shots. And you also have uneven terrain on top of that.

As for the Van Allen belts. Well apparently Van Allen himself states on the record that the astronauts could have survived the trip. But perhaps he forgets all those rainbow bomb tests the US government did; exploding nuclear bombs in the high upper atmosphere. It is said they made the belts many times more deadly than they naturally were by trapping a lot more radiation in them.

It's very highly unlikely that Mr. Van Allen would forget about such things. Like I always say, if satellites can operate for years in the belts, then humans can easily spend a few hours passing through them. And remember, electronics are a lot more susceptible to damage from radiation then humans. Since human cells can repair themselves and electronic components can not.

It begs the question: why not simply blast off from the south pole where the belts are basically negligible?

The Apollo astronauts did fly through the thinnest parts of the belts. And it's better to launch closer to the equator. You get a bit of a speed boost from the rotation of the Earth, that you wouldn't get at the poles. This is why the French launch there rockets from French Guiana in South America and not in France, for example.

Originally posted by Yandros

Originally posted by Skunky

Obvious artificial lighting is used

In what way is it obvious?

I refer you to the following clips:
youtube.com...
youtube.com...

I also direct your attention in particular to this photo from Apollo 12:
history.nasa.gov...

Yes, amazingly, that is supposed to be the sun. Haha.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by Yandros]

LOL! Considering you (nor I) have never been to the moon to see what the sun looks like from there, I would not advise mocking or criticizing what MAY be the sun.

Originally posted by wolf359
agreed, yet the exact year and date of the moon landing is in question

We can discuss this over coffee

Originally posted by zorgon
But we were and are there now

I did a double-take here. Personally I don't know whether that statement is true or not, but it was interesting in what it showed me about my own thought processes. You see, for years I've wondered why, for what possible good reason, would NASA/the Pentagon invest all that money, science, effort, risk, potential, etc.--and then simply abandon completely and utterly the lunar program. Despite my distrust of NASA, it never occurred to me that the answer might lie in the possibility that, well, they didn't!

Originally posted by yuefo
Despite my distrust of NASA, it never occurred to me that the answer might lie in the possibility that, well, they didn't!

Ahhh Enlightenment... such a marvelous thing

We will discuss this further... and I have time now for that other post

okay, my question is what would the government gain from covering up the fact that we supposedly didn't land on the moon?

Originally posted by Badge01
Besides the 'rocket gap', going from mostly unsuccessful launches to completely reliable launches in 8-9 years, there is, as you might call it, the 'suit gap'. NASA just didn't have enough time in space to be able to field test and modify and come up with a better suit.

Look at planes. In 1902 we had nothing that could fly, and by 1910 there was this:



And by 1912 we had this:



And 2 years later we had planes capable of dogfighting, which were MUCH more advanced than those two pictures.

When people have a reason, and get behind something advancements can come fast and furious. All it takes is someone to say "I need this" and give t to the right people, and let them run with it. The rocket program in the 1950s and 60s also benefited from the military cruise missile and ICBM programs. They were launching Atlas rockets, in the mid 1950s with fairly good reliability. The problem was getting that up to 100%, and modifying military rockets to carry a space capsule. The Mercury program used US Army Redstone rockets to launch the capsules.

Originally posted by peyo670
i seen a this video back 2 years ago on tv
www.youtube.com...

you see rumsfeld , kessinger and others thel all how they fake the moon landing and so on, and at the end its sea all was fake and scripted.....

rumseld and all others are really great lier and actor as wee see in the video so how can i trust them anymore when they talk about other things lol


ps. sorry for my english

This is a known mockumentary called Dark Side Of The Moon, by Stanley Kubrick and William Karel. They used all kinds of tricks to make things appear to be what they weren't. They took interviews and cut them and took things out of context. The point was to show how easily fooled people can be by journalists, and to make people think about the stories that they were being told on the news.

Originally posted by shyataroo
okay, my question is what would the government gain from covering up the fact that we supposedly didn't land on the moon?

We DID land on the moon... thats what they are covering up. No I won't clarify that... its in a few posts back

And by 1962 we had these cool little critters...



And who is that in the front... Secret astronaut corps?

[edit on 21-6-2007 by zorgon]

Watch how they fall! These guys are acrobats or astronauts?




And here is one on the flag.. that old atmosphere routine...

But one thing I never noticed before... look at the rinkles on the flag when he sets it up!! Despite the fact that he waves it around a lot the wrinkles DO NOT CHANGE Even bear the end when he walks bt causing a breeze... the flag moves but the wrikles don't

The darn thing is STARCHED

Originally posted by zorgon

And here is one on the flag.. that old atmosphere routine...

But one thing I never noticed before... look at the rinkles on the flag when he sets it up!! Despite the fact that he waves it around a lot the wrinkles DO NOT CHANGE Even bear the end when he walks bt causing a breeze... the flag moves but the wrikles don't

The darn thing is STARCHED

Whoa... I never noticed that either. Even from NASA sources, the moon has 'some' gravity, that would, perhaps pull down on a flag.. just a bit. Maybe this was an intentional 'feature' (starch) to keep the flag in full focus for TV audiences, and NASA just forgot to tell us about it. Benefit of the doubt, ya know

Originally posted by zorgon

And here is one on the flag.. that old atmosphere routine...

But one thing I never noticed before... look at the rinkles on the flag when he sets it up!! Despite the fact that he waves it around a lot the wrinkles DO NOT CHANGE Even bear the end when he walks bt causing a breeze... the flag moves but the wrikles don't

The darn thing is STARCHED

No it wasn't -

The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

- www.badastronomy.com...

You can Google for crap or you can Google for useful stuff. It's also worth reading 'A Man on the Moon' by Andrew Chaikin (www.amazon.com...) and 'Full Moon' by Michael Light (www.amazon.com...)




[edit on 22-6-2007 by Skunky]

[edit on 22-6-2007 by Skunky]

Flag waves slightly (as if there were a breeze) at the end of zorgon's video.

And to the guy commenting on the flood light sun: Get real.

We know the moon is a vacuum. And we know what the sun looks like in a vacuum. We also know what a flood or spotlight looks like. You are trying to spin it to make cheese into wine. They are different things, end of story.

All you have to do to enhance it is just ramp up contrast and lower the brightness and look at the intensity pattern observed. On my photo editor this is that same photo with the settings at -100% brightness and +100% contrast.

Unfortunately finding photographs taken of stadium floodlights is a difficult thing. If anyone has a nice high res one to compare against, please post it.

Originally posted by Skunky

Originally posted by zorgon

And here is one on the flag.. that old atmosphere routine...

But one thing I never noticed before... look at the rinkles on the flag when he sets it up!! Despite the fact that he waves it around a lot the wrinkles DO NOT CHANGE Even bear the end when he walks bt causing a breeze... the flag moves but the wrikles don't

The darn thing is STARCHED

No it wasn't -

The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

- www.badastronomy.com...

You can Google for crap or you can Google for useful stuff. It's also worth reading 'A Man on the Moon' by Andrew Chaikin (www.amazon.com...) and 'Full Moon' by Michael Light (www.amazon.com...)

I could be wrong here, but I think you missed the point. We're not focused on the flag waving, but rather that it looks like it is made of paper mache as it spins round it's axis.



[edit on 22-6-2007 by Zarniwoop]

Yandros - I'm not exactly sure if you're for or against the spotlight suggestion but either way, all that your distorted image shows is a bright center and a bright outer edge (based on the pixel/contrast values being pushed to extreme). The center could equally be the Sun or a lightbulb, the outer rim could be lens flare/reflection/glare. Or, the image could just be naturally distorted based on the pixel values when the image was scanned and the effect of the over-ramped contrast/brightness, which shows nothing.

I could be wrong here, but I think you missed the point. We're not focused on the flag waving, but rather that it looks like it is made of paper mache as it spins round it's axis.

OK - so the flag's been stored folded up for the journey and who knows for how long before. My shirt looks like that if I wear it un-ironed!

[edit on 22-6-2007 by Skunky]


[edit on 22-6-2007 by Skunky]

[edit on 22-6-2007 by Skunky]

If that sun picture was really a spot light why would they take a picture of it and publish it? Seems it would be the last thing you would do.

Going back to the original post, why would you think it sinister that NASA was operationg a huge vacuum chamber during the Apollo project? They used that vacuum chamber to test the equipment for the rigors of spaceflight. In fact I would have been more suprised if you told me NASA DIDN'T operate a large vacuum chamber duing the Apollo years. There's nothing strange about a vacuum chamber at a facilty that does spaceflight research.

NASA is using another giant vacuum chamber in Ohio right now to test the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, which is the vehicle that will take us back to the Moon in the next decade. Link:
www.nasa.gov...


...And about the flag on the Moon: The flag had a rod across the top of it to make sure it stuck straight out on the Moon. This rod would be required in the zero gravity of deep space or the low gravity of the Moon. If the rod wasn't there then the flag would just flop around aimlessly due to any motion that might be imparted on it (such as an astronaut planting its pole in soil) and that motion will continue to oscillate back and forth even more than on Earth because the is little gravity to dampen those oscillations. On Earth, gravity takes over and helps to dampen any vibrations in an oscillating system. Plus, the Moon's gravity would eventually pull the flag down toward the ground and leave it limp. I'm sure NASA wanted the flag to be proudly displayed and not be drooping, hence the rod.

As for the starched look -- I don't know if the flag was also starched or not, but I would not be surprised to hear that it was starched -- for those same reasons as mentioned above.

Also, about the Van Allen radiation belt, I found a couple of links which may be useful for people who want to know more about it and are willing to actually do some reading and draw their own conclusions.


How Much Radiation In the Val Allen belt, and what kinds of radiation?
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

How long were the astronauts exposed, and would it be survivable?
www.wwheaton.com...

RE: Nuclear Tests Magnified Radiation
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006JA011827.shtml

These are only a few links related to the Van Allen Radiation belt, but I think the more reading you do the more clear it becomes that it is really a non-issue. The effects would be negligible, not to mention the fact that NASA hardens their space shuttles and satellites anyway because their electronics are so much more sensitive to electromagnetic fluctuations (flux) than organic beings. Combined with the small amount of time actually spent in the belts; I think it's reasonable to believe that humans could have passed through the belt in 1969 and could survive. I'm not saying anything about the hoax debate, but please don't invoke the name of science unless you've actually done the research necessary. At that point you're repeating something you saw on a 5 minute flash animation about THA MEWN HOXE.