| |
| So who believes that the manned moon landings were fake? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| So who believes that the manned moon landings were fake? |
| [Yes] |
|
22% |
[ 5 ] |
| [No] |
|
77% |
[ 17 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 22 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| leohopkins |
 Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:10 am Post subject: So who believes that the manned moon landings were fake? |
 |
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: Croydon, England
|
So who believes that the manned moon landings were fake?
_________________
The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.
www.leohopkins.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Now come on, what's your view, and what convinces you of it?
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: Re: So who believes that the manned moon landings were fake? |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4414
Location: Scotland
|
| leohopkins wrote: |
| So who believes that the manned moon landings were fake? |
I am educated. I am intelligent. I have studied the data. Therefore I know that the landings were not faked.
Anyone who thinks they were faked will be either uneducated, unintelligent, or will have failed to study the data, or some combination of these three. The only one of these three which is an acceptable excuse for believing such nonsense is being unintelligent, since the other two conditions can be corrected by effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cat1981(England) |
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 887
|
No i do not, why would the USA run the risk of being caught ? That would have given the russians a hug !*! moral boost.
Also, why does nobody question Yuri Gagarin flight and only the moon landings ?
_________________
You may be an idiot, but that doesn't mean you need to act like one. My art teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
| True, the Americans couldn't have taken such a big risk. Imagine the US president in the 1960s admitting on global television that they had in fact just filmed a moon landing in hollywood, that would've been worse than a nuke on New York in those days! It was simply too important to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
No they were not faked, I have recovered the following (which I used as an answer elsewhere on the web)...
For those of you who are undecided about whether or not the lunar landings occured read on. Others may read as well.
The first question I would ask is "Do you trust your doctor?" he/she is a person who is an expert if you trust them it's probable you are likely to trust other experts. 'Experts' rely on data gathererd by scientists as well as the experience of engineers and a lot of input from mathematicians.
On the other hand if you do not trust 'experts' then maybe you might persue a higher level of education in order to better understand their methods of working.
THe second question is "Do you believe man can put anything in space?" If your answer is yes then skip the rest of this paragraph. Still here? ok on a dark clear night have a good look at the sky (let your eyes become accustomed to the light), you must do this as the last rays of the sun dissappear over the horizon (not sunset)now keep watching and every ten minutes or so you will see what appear to be stars moving slowly across the sky - these may be satelites or planes, to tell the difference: Satelites appear to fly in straight lines, they do NOT have flashing lights, they do NOT leave vapor trails, and they are silent. Ok these items have only been seen since the late 1950's when the satelite era began. You have a satelite dish which points to the sky if you go to france or spain look where their dish's are pointed, also to the sky BUT a different (higher)elevation. With a bit of physics in radio engineering you can personally prove what I have said. IF however you do not wish to study the physics of radiocommunications then you should trust the experts just like you trust your doctor. There are web-sites which will tell you when these satelites will appear and roughly in which direction and elevation if you would like to watch them. - Just type 'iridium flares' into your search engine.
OK Hopefully at this point you have decided man is at least capable of putting something into space and that if not then you know which subjects to study to prove it for yourself.
The next thing is to show man can live (sorry survive) in hostile environments, no real proof needed here just a few examples - Submarine (ie under the water), close to the rim of an active volcano. At the top of mount everest.
At this point in my text I suddenly realised that there is an even simpler proof!
James Alfred Van Allen was a brilliant engineer/scientist whom is credited with the discovery of the Van Allen radiation Belts. James was an Employee of Nasa. Now if Nasa were to have faked the moon landings (which were a conceptual possibility BEFORE his discovery) They would presumably have 'silenced'
him and kept the discovery a secret. [since many hoax believers think passing through these belts would kill an astronaut. The russians only embarked upon a programme of verification of existance of these belts AFTER nasa diclosed their existance. If you use as an argument that astronauts would be zapped whilst passing through the radiation zone then you clearly beleive NASA that the belts exist.
In such a case I or anyone else need only say "Prove the existance of the Van Allen belts"
but since you do not believe NASA you may NOT use any material from them. since you believe all scientists and the russians are 'in on it' you may not use their material either. When you come back and can prove the belts exist I will show you how to use your new found knowledge skills, powers of logic and reasoning to prove man landed upon the moon.
As a foot note you might also like to know that the early russian moon probes were exclusively tracked by Jodrell bank (UK) as the Russians at that time did not have a sufficiently powerful satellite reciever for such distant objects. By the time of the 1969 Moon landing this had been corrected - had the landings been faked the Russians would have known instantly. THeir Qudos in exposing this would have been enormous (they were days away from a manned mission themselves but cancelled it upon information from Jodrell bank! Also radio Amatuers tracked Apollo whilst in and for a short while after the mission left Earth's orbit. The 'Burn' was seen from the ground and witnessed by many, (I think from somewhere in Hawaii) . where the tracking antennae followed a course consistent with the planned mission. On one occasion when a Russian probe landed on Venus and took a picture, Jodrell Bank released it to the media in the UK and US as well as sending it to the USSR - the picture was published worldwide, days ahead of the Russian Media - as a result there was an uproar in the USSR with people crying that "Britain has stolen our space probe" !! - fortunately the diplomats kept their heads...
I'll not get into the Photo evidence debate, an elementary 3rd grade knowledge of photography (which even I have) shoots all those down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| leohopkins |
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:58 pm Post subject: I believe |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: Croydon, England
|
I believe that we can put people in space - no problem.
But man on the moon ?
Okay, I believe that the intent was there but my reasons against are:
Computing power. (about as much as a casio calculator in thosedays)
2) After Kennedy's first proposal, it was just eight years later, that man finally left Earth and set foot on the Moon... Or so we have been led to believe.
3) Evidence suggests that Man could not travel to the Moon's surface, but instead they had to stay in near Earth orbit within the safety of the Earth's magnetic field that would have protected them from the radiation.
4) The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots. Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?
5) On all Apollo footage there should be cross hairs or reticules present on the film. These crosshairs were,
according to NASA, placed on the film to help calculate distances on the Moon. The crosshairs were actually built into the camera and therefore should be visible on every single picture taken by the astronauts on the surface of the Moon. Incidentally, Jan Lundberg has stated that the only way that you could calculate the distance in the shot using the crosshairs would be if you had two cameras set up to take a stereo picture!
5) why does a rock in a photo have a letter 'C' on it? There is also a 'C' on the ground in front of the rock. The use of the letter C on film props is well known by the people in Hollywood and is used to show where the centre of the scene should be.
6) Why does the american flag wave on film footage ?
7) During the Apollo missions, the movie cameras were fitted with special night lenses to compensate for the lack of light. Due to the atmospheric conditions on the Moon's surface, only 7% of light is reflected from the ground (that's the same reflectivity as asphalt). So, taking this into consideration, how did the Hasselblad stills camera manage to pick up more detail than the movie cameras? NASA have confirmed that no artificial lighting was used on the Moon's surface, so how can the stills camera take pictures that were brighter and sharper than the movie cameras that were fitted with special lenses to compensate for the dark conditions?
_________________
The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.
www.leohopkins.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: Re: I believe |
|
|
|
| leohopkins wrote: |
I believe that we can put people in space - no problem.
But man on the moon ?
Okay, I believe that the intent was there but my reasons against are:
Computing power. (about as much as a casio calculator in thosedays)
|
The russians used mechanical computers to send probes to venus.
THere were also three highly trained astronauts all ex-test pilots all had flown in 3D situations in aircraft, the computing power of the apollo's was mostly the best kind there is - the human brain - and as well as this countless scientists on the ground. If you can send an unmanned craft into space then a manned craft is a doddle.
| leohopkins wrote: |
2) After Kennedy's first proposal, it was just eight years later, that man finally left Earth and set foot on the Moon... Or so we have been led to believe.
|
8 years to work out how to get from a stable earth orbit to the moon - piece of piss.
| leohopkins wrote: |
3) Evidence suggests that Man could not travel to the Moon's surface, but instead they had to stay in near Earth orbit within the safety of the Earth's magnetic field that would have protected them from the radiation.
|
You have not read my previous post - I suggest you do.
| leohopkins wrote: |
4) The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots. Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?
|
THink of space suits, then go and read up on the laws of thermodynamics, Radiation, convection & conduction, have a look at how a thermos flask works.
| leohopkins wrote: |
5) On all Apollo footage there should be cross hairs or reticules present on the film. These crosshairs were,
according to NASA, placed on the film to help calculate distances on the Moon. The crosshairs were actually built into the camera and therefore should be visible on every single picture taken by the astronauts on the surface of the Moon. Incidentally, Jan Lundberg has stated that the only way that you could calculate the distance in the shot using the crosshairs would be if you had two cameras set up to take a stereo picture!
|
GO and study 3rd grade photography.
| leohopkins wrote: |
5) why does a rock in a photo have a letter 'C' on it? There is also a 'C' on the ground in front of the rock. The use of the letter C on film props is well known by the people in Hollywood and is used to show where the centre of the scene should be.
|
THis is nothing more than myth and bollocks - the original neg does NOT have this defect.
| leohopkins wrote: |
6) Why does the american flag wave on film footage ?
|
Because some great hairy arsed astronaut has just screwed it into the ground and since there's no air on the moon there is nothing to dampen the oscilliatory motion.
| leohopkins wrote: |
7) During the Apollo missions, the movie cameras were fitted with special night lenses to compensate for the lack of light. Due to the atmospheric conditions on the Moon's surface, only 7% of light is reflected from the ground (that's the same reflectivity as asphalt). So, taking this into consideration, how did the Hasselblad stills camera manage to pick up more detail than the movie cameras? NASA have confirmed that no artificial lighting was used on the Moon's surface, so how can the stills camera take pictures that were brighter and sharper than the movie cameras that were fitted with special lenses to compensate for the dark conditions? |
Do you even know what a hasselblad is?
Your post shows a complete and utter lack of any knowledge of physics, maths, photography and a dozen other subjects. You have completely failed to understand my previous post - and worse still, a total inability to learn.
All you have done is trawl the internet 'moon hoaxers' sites and dump it here - 'same shit, different poster'
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| leohopkins |
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:07 am Post subject: no....... |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: Croydon, England
|
I am pretty damn sure that possibly man might have been round the moon; although i think its unlikely. What would have been the point of landing on the moon ? In 1969 ?????? COME ON !!
Yes i know what a hasselblad is, i dont care if the camera had a "protected" environment. A thermos flask will keep my drink cool or warm for a few hours by reducing conduction and convection. It WONT protect against radiation !!
_________________
The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.
www.leohopkins.com
Last edited by leohopkins on Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| If they had just circled the moon then the ground would have lost comms everytime the ship went behind the moon - Communication was continuous - only the command module [which remained in orbit] suffered this regular Commloss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| leohopkins |
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: Croydon, England
|
Yes - at least thats what nasa told you. In reality do we really know where that video / audio stream was coming from. Also......racing cars seldom use the number 13 for obvious reasons. Did nasa plan something to "go wrong" on number 13 just to make their story even more believable? If not and man HAS been on the moon. Why did they call it "Apollo 13" Surely they knew this was classed as being an "unlucky" number and would have avoided it out of pure superstition ?
If the russians were only days away from a manned mission, thats all the more reason why NASA would fake it. Im not saying they have faked anything since.
But........How come they stoppped going when the cold was was over ?
How come we have never been back ?
If NASA wants to go back with the Orion project (thats what ive heard) ten why not until 2018 ??? Thats 11 possibly 12 years on the drawing board !! (especially with todays technology) -- but in 1969 it only took 8 years did it ?
_________________
The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.
www.leohopkins.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Well it seems to me that since you have no knowledge of the subject, and, admit that your maths stop at 3X = 21, that any physics you have learned comes from a travel writer - it's pretty pointless trying to put up any kind of rational argument - you'll always believe it's hollywood fiction, others accept it as historical fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cat1981(England) |
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 887
|
| leohopkins wrote: |
| If NASA wants to go back with the Orion project (thats what ive heard) ten why not until 2018 ??? Thats 11 possibly 12 years on the drawing board !! (especially with todays technology) -- but in 1969 it only took 8 years did it ? |
Because they had to. In the buildup to the moon landings the russians had won everything, first satellite, first human, first dual manned flights, the first spacewalk and the first probe to reach the moon. It was a case of, winner takes all, heightened by the idealogical war. After all, whos name do you remember ?
Heres a link about the history of the space race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race
_________________
You may be an idiot, but that doesn't mean you need to act like one. My art teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Scifor Refugee |
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1058
|
| leohopkins wrote: |
But........How come they stoppped going when the cold was was over ? |
Because Nixon saw slashing the NASA budget as an easy way to save money.
| Quote: |
How come we have never been back ? |
Because there is nothing on the moon that is of any use to anyone.
| Quote: |
If NASA wants to go back with the Orion project (thats what ive heard) ten why not until 2018 ??? Thats 11 possibly 12 years on the drawing board !! (especially with todays technology) -- but in 1969 it only took 8 years did it ? |
Because the government is no longer willing to give NASA a blank check. Come on, use some critical thinking skills here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4414
Location: Scotland
|
leo,
all the points you raised have been debunked more times than I have hot dinners. You really need to start thinking and not following the fatal attractor of that which is different.
I strongly urge you to find another way to rebel that doesn't involve relinquishing the faculties of critical thought that are what truly distinguish us from most of our animal cousins.
Rgds
Ophiolite |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
