Notices

View Poll Results: So who believes that the manned moon landings were fake?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • [Yes]

    5 22.73%
  • [No]

    17 77.27%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 212

Thread: So who believes that the manned moon landings were fake?

  1. #1 So who believes that the manned moon landings were fake? 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    Now come on, what's your view, and what convinces you of it?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: So who believes that the manned moon landings were fake? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    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 ?
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 I believe 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: I believe 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    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'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 no....... 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Guest
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Guest
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    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
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    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.
    How come we have never been back ?
    Because there is nothing on the moon that is of any use to anyone.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1
    In case you want deep answers on the subject, I recommend this site:

    http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 I HAVE PROOF !!! 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    I HAVE PROOF that the moon landings were faked !!!!

    Take a look at THIS webstie !

    http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~akapadia/moon.html
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Guest
    Whatever it is, it ain't worth clicking on, it'll be bollocks like all the other 'evidence'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I seriously recommend you go look at the site Megabrain. Once again your commitment to having a closed mind has kept you from a valuable learning experience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: I HAVE PROOF !!! 
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    I HAVE PROOF that the moon landings were faked !!!!

    Take a look at THIS webstie !

    http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~akapadia/moon.html

    Awesome!
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I seriously recommend you go look at the site Megabrain. Once again your commitment to having a closed mind has kept you from a valuable learning experience.
    As I sais a loda blocks, they are all clearly fake photo's - not even mildly amusing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    As I sais a loda blocks, they are all clearly fake photo's - not even mildly amusing.
    Tha amusing thing about the site is that they are such obviously undisguised, blatant fakes. Sorry you don't see the humour there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I didn't look at the site at first either because these "fake moon landing" sites are pretty much all the same with the same nonsense arguments. But of course once Ophi made mention of it, I had to go look - and it's pretty funny. I didn't bust a gut but cmon Mega, there's a few funny ones in there!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    we have been on the moon, it has been proven.
    we got moon rocks, devices left on the moon, mirrors wich we can detect etc.
    all scientists know this. go and watch BULLSHIT! conspiracy theory and you´ll see it better explained in terms wich you normal people understand
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    I didn't look at the site at first either because these "fake moon landing" sites are pretty much all the same with the same nonsense arguments. But of course once Ophi made mention of it, I had to go look - and it's pretty funny. I didn't bust a gut but cmon Mega, there's a few funny ones in there!
    Okay okay, I lied, I did grin a bit......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    house: it was a white lie
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    I recently saw a show on the Science Channel or National Geographic (can't recall which one) about this conspiracy. It was a pretty good show and I thought it did a pretty good job of presenting the anti-moon claims and then debunking them.

    Anyone else see it? If so, what was up with that one conspirator's bottom teeth? It looked like he had one big bottom tooth that took the place of a normal person's bottom front 3 or 4 teeth....

    That's my only question.

    Cheers,
    william
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Guest
    After Buzz Aldrin knocked them out, he could only afford to have 1 put back, so he chose the biggest one in the box.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    66
    At least one Dutch radio amateur, Jan Ottens PA0SSB used his Earth-Moon-Earth dish (for bouncing signals off the moon) to listen to the command module S-band transmissions, but he could only hear the subcarrier which they used, not enough gain / low NF to demodulate, but from the modulation you could clearly tell that an astronaut was talking. And, you could clearly distinguish the Doppler shift and hear the carrier drop out suddenly when it would go on the "flipside" of the moon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    There's lots of evidence that the moon missions were faked.

    Check this out.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

    At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

    There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    yawn ...
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    i faked a trip to paris once. Got a used ticket and wrote my name on it in pencil, photoshopped myself standing near the Eiffel tower, bought a beret.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    i faked a trip to paris once. Got a used ticket and wrote my name on it in pencil, photoshopped myself standing near the Eiffel tower, bought a beret.
    Why'd you do that?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    Come on people--there's lots of evidence that the moon missions were faked.

    There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

    What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

    At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
    http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...26565081757736

    It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

    If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects differently.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

    Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
    Here are some videos.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA&NR=1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc&NR=1
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...89814268946247

    Here are some articles.
    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
    http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
    http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-w...rt-Sibrel.html
    http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/


    The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

    Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...15730495966561

    Some people say the moon rocks prove we went to the moon.
    There are a lot of plausible alternative scenarios for the moon rocks. All we have are documents that say they are real. If we aren't geologists in a laboratory looking at the rocks, we have no way of verifying that what we read is reflects reality.
    There may be a lot of scientists who have sold out and are lying about the rocks and we only read what they say.
    If there is video evidence that some of the footage was faked, it was probably all faked. Video evidence trumps what some documents or journals say as people can write lies.
    Here are some possible scenarios for the rocks.
    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
    Another point here is that the moon rocks were fake. Are the moon rocks real?
    No, they are not real. NASA has a well-developed ceramics laboratory with high-temperature ovens-
    That's another way NASA could prove they went to the moon, 'cause they brought back these rocks. Interestingly enough, at the University of British Columbia here, David Strangway, the President of U.B.C., was the guy in charge of inspecting the moon rocks.
    OK, fine, why don't you call him up and ask him what he thinks about them.
    So what happened, the moon rocks were not real?
    No, they were manufactured on Earth to look like moon rocks, but since nobody has any moon rocks to compare them with, it's very simple to make up a moon rock and say, hey, this came from the moon.
    Well, how would you know it is a moon rock? Like, how do you know it's not a moon rock - how do you know it's a fake?
    I had a Seattle geologist who examined moon rocks and he said, "There's no question, Bill, that these rocks were made in a laboratory on Earth."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------

    http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInf...Challenge.html
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
    9) Moon rocks are in Antarctica?
    Barbara Cohen, a researcher from the University of New Mexico, was picking up rocks in Antarctica. She sent them to Houston, Texas for an analysis.
    The scientists in Houston discovered that one of the Antarctic rocks closely matched the NASA moon rocks.
    The scientists then concluded that one of the rocks from Antarctica was actually from the moon:
    www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370/
    How did rocks from the moon get in Antarctica?
    NASA and Ms. Cohen want us to believe that a big meteor crashed into the moon a while ago, and pieces of the moon were sent flying into space. A few of those pieces landed in Antarctica.
    Take a look at how far away the moon is from the earth. If it were true that rocks were ejected from the moon with such velocity that they could escape the moon's gravity and fly out into space, what are the chances that any of them would survive the fall through the atmosphere and land on tiny Antarctica hundreds of thousands of kilometers away? Furthermore, the rock has to land in a location where humans can find it many years later.
    A more sensible explanation is that the NASA moon rocks were rocks from Antarctica.
    Therefore, when someone travels to Antarctica and sends rock samples to Houston, Texas for analysis, some of the rocks will closely match the Apollo moon rocks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    i faked a trip to paris once. Got a used ticket and wrote my name on it in pencil, photoshopped myself standing near the Eiffel tower, bought a beret.
    Why'd you do that?
    needed an alibi. you know how it goes. you get in an argument, an axe nearby...
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored
    Some people say the moon rocks prove we went to the moon.
    There are a lot of plausible alternative scenarios for the moon rocks. All we have are documents that say they are real.

    Another point here is that the moon rocks were fake. Are the moon rocks real?
    No, they are not real.
    I think it's staring you right in the face and I'm surprised you can't see it.......NASA has fooled us all into thinking the astronauts were on Earth when they were really on the moon. What they discovered up there is absolutely top secret. I know more but if I even mention anything close to the truth they will find me and then they will.....WHO's THAT? Gotta go.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Never mind the overwhelming evidence that the landings in fact took place, the most convincing evidence for me is that the russians NEVER EVER claimed the contrary. I mean this was in the heydays of cold friggin' war. I mean......Chrushchev(?) or at this time Breshnyev(?) would have used every litle chance to show the "Russian" science was superior to the "Capitalist" science (whatever this is....anyways). And what better example would there be than showing the moon landings were BS?????

    Hey, the Russians would have stroked their dicks so hard that they would have fallen off when they would have been able to show that the Americans never have been to the moon. Imagine the embarassment!!!!!!

    So to all the HBs (hoax believers) out there. If you are bored out of your minds that you really find it more interesting to stir up ye ole shit than dealing with the real implications of space travel and exploration........go ahead and keep on dickin' around about the "fact" that the photos of the landings do not show stars yadayadayda. I still wait for the moment that one of the HBs complains that the spaceships do not "bank" like they use to in the Star Trek movies or so. Same thing, no understanding of physics.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    Never mind the overwhelming evidence that the landings in fact took place, the most convincing evidence for me is that the russians NEVER EVER claimed the contrary. I mean this was in the heydays of cold friggin' war. I mean......Chrushchev(?) or at this time Breshnyev(?) would have used every litle chance to show the "Russian" science was superior to the "Capitalist" science (whatever this is....anyways). And what better example would there be than showing the moon landings were BS?????
    You are assuming the official version of what was happening reflects reality. Have you read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?

    http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-3-1.html
    http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/dd/dd-c01-s01.html

    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
    Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    If they were faked, then why go to all the trouble of spending millions to build a massive Saturn V rocket, which thousands saw lift off, live. Where did that rocket go, if not to the moon?
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored
    Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments.
    so that's what it boils down to ? another conspiracy theory ?

    what many conspiracy theory mongers seem to forget is the amount of effort that would go into maintaining such a conspiracy + there is never such a thing as the foolproof conspiracy, things will out in time (especially something as big as this)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored
    Come on people--there's lots of evidence that the moon missions were faked.
    It always ceases to amaze me that those who don't have a clue insult those who have. What's worse is that they insult the memory of all astronauts who died while on a mission.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    One recent discovery that is starting to "fuel" interest in returning to the Moon is that the moon rocks had a high content of Helium 3, which can be used in hot fusion to generate electricity. (Hydrogen can be used too, but it tends to destroy its reactor, which makes it a bit impractical.) On Earth, Helium 3 is only found in de-commissioned nuclear weapons.

    So, a question: Do you think Nasa deliberately injected trace amounts of Helium 3 into it's "fake" moon rock samples in order to renew interest in Moon exploration? Or do you think the people who found the Helium 3 just faked finding it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i suppose the standard conspiracy reply to this should be that He-3 doesn't exist and that the scientific establishment has maintained this charade of pretending that it does for nearly a century, because otherwise they were stuck for an explanation of how stars burn their fuel
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    If they were faked, then why go to all the trouble of spending millions to build a massive Saturn V rocket, which thousands saw lift off, live. Where did that rocket go, if not to the moon?
    There are lots of plausible explanations.
    Here's one.
    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So what happened, then, if they saw it take off? The rocket took off - if we didn't go to the moon, what actually happened when Apollo 11 took off?
    The Apollo 11 vehicle, or Saturn 5, was sent out of people's sight, and then it was jettisoned into the South Atlantic, where all of the six that were launched now reside. There were no astronauts, of course, on board. They were hidden away carefully, to be returned, allegedly in their command capsule, by being dumped out of a C5A transport plane. It was easy to do all of this, because they had total control of everything.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I've also heard that they were in orbit while the pre-recorded missions were shown to the world as "Live". I guess we can't be sure which theory is the correct one. It doesn't really matter though as the video evidence shows the missions were faked.

    what many conspiracy theory mongers seem to forget is the amount of effort that would go into maintaining such a conspiracy + there is never such a thing as the foolproof conspiracy, things will out in time (especially something as big as this)
    It's possible that most people were in their compartments and didn't have enough information about the whole project to know if it would really work. It's possible that most of the NASA employees were taken in too. If anyone in on the secret ever decided to go public, the press would never print anything about it. It would be pretty dangerous for the whistle-blower's whole family to go public. There probably have been some people who started talking but if it's not in the newpapers, it didn't happen.

    One recent discovery that is starting to "fuel" interest in returning to the Moon is that the moon rocks had a high content of Helium 3, which can be used in hot fusion to generate electricity. (Hydrogen can be used too, but it tends to destroy its reactor, which makes it a bit impractical.) On Earth, Helium 3 is only found in de-commissioned nuclear weapons.
    All we have is what we read. That whole story might be bogus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored
    If they were faked, then why go to all the trouble of spending millions to build a massive Saturn V rocket, which thousands saw lift off, live. Where did that rocket go, if not to the moon?
    There are lots of plausible explanations.
    Here's one.
    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
    (excerpt)
    Here I have to agree with you. There is a lot of money to be made in government contracts. If the cost of building the rocket were, say, 70% of what the contractor is getting paid (and we know the cost was in the billions), then the contractor is getting pretty rich.

    The people who gave out the contract don't care if it's money well spent, so long as the public will never know it isn't. It's not like it's their money going to waste. They can just raise taxes, or take out more debt.

    I'm sure a lot of government contracts have gone down this very slippery slide, but probably not the moon landing. There's no way to be sure, though, of course. And, besides, there is a line most of them won't cross, which is that most gov't contractors have the sense to at least deliver a working product. (In fact, usually a superior product)

    One recent discovery that is starting to "fuel" interest in returning to the Moon is that the moon rocks had a high content of Helium 3, which can be used in hot fusion to generate electricity. (Hydrogen can be used too, but it tends to destroy its reactor, which makes it a bit impractical.) On Earth, Helium 3 is only found in de-commissioned nuclear weapons.
    All we have is what we read. That whole story might be bogus.
    Here the issue is that, if they lied about this, and they ever make it to the Moon and manage to start getting Moon rocks back in bulk, they'll have to explain why we aren't getting a whole bunch of cheap power.

    Helium 3 fusion is tested and known to work pretty well as a means of generating power, so lying about this would put them in the position of having made a bluff that can (eventually) be called.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    Helium 3 fusion is tested and known to work pretty well as a means of generating power, so lying about this would put them in the position of having made a bluff that can (eventually) be called.
    They can find excuses to put it off. This is probably just short term damage control.
    The video evidence that Apollo was a hoax is pretty clear. They are doing all kinds of things to try to control the damage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Well, the Bush Admin *did* manage to get around the WMD in Iraq claim, so I guess it wouldn't be anything new. That, and the Helium 3 could be logically predicted to be plentiful in the Moon's crust, because of the solar wind being able to hit it for billions of years. (So they could claim to "find" it in the Moon rocks pretty safely)

    The guy making the claim seems to be trying to make an actual business venture out of going up there to get it. So, whether the first Apollo Mission (s) are/were fake or not, I'm betting the missions we do in the next 20 years won't be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored
    There are lots of plausible explanations.
    Here's one.
    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
    (excerpt)
    Bill Kaysing is one of most despicable liars and deceivers in history, responsible for one of the most wasteful use of resources, time and effort the US taxpayers had to endure.

    He actually claimed NASA killed their own people to further the alleged hoaxes.

    YOU, sir Cosmored, are a cad for providing this colossal idiot's rants as evidence.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    Bill Kaysing is one of most despicable liars and deceivers in history, responsible for one of the most wasteful use of resources, time and effort the US taxpayers had to endure.

    He actually claimed NASA killed their own people to further the alleged hoaxes.

    YOU, sir Cosmored, are a cad for providing this colossal idiot's rants as evidence.
    This tactic you're using is classic and it proves nothing.
    http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums...pic.php?t=1222
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take a look at some of the stuff I posted here to see what the US government is capable of doing.
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Ameri...lism-9545t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored
    This tactic you're using is classic and it proves nothing.
    There are fewer deplorable anti-science tactics than those used by conspiracy theorist nutters like Kaysing whose ridiculous assertions don't deserve the time of day.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" is back online.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idDzsC9xMRQ

    Watch it soon as it will probably go offline quickly as it always does.

    Here's some more stuff.
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored
    This tactic you're using is classic and it proves nothing.
    There are fewer deplorable anti-science tactics than those used by conspiracy theorist nutters like Kaysing whose ridiculous assertions don't deserve the time of day.
    He's right that it's argument to the man instead of to the issue. If he's using Kaysing's name in an attempt to add credibility to his argument, then attacking Kaysing is a good way to remove that credibility. But, if he's only referring to him in order to avoid plagiarism, then you should discuss the point itself as well.

    Even the worst liars in history have occasionally told the truth, and sometimes even contributed great insights. Most conspiracy nutters are not compelled to only lie or misrepresent the issues. If they can find valid evidence for their view, they present that too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    Has anybody seen this?
    http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%2...-145-22169.jpg

    Here's close-up of the circled object.
    http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%2...moonsquare.jpg

    It's obviously some kind of plate. It's close to the footprints so the possibility that it fell off of the astronaut's backpack has to be considered. If it can be shown that the object is not part of the astronaut's equipment, we have some pretty good evidence of a hoax here.

    It has been argued that it's not an object, but a partial boot print.
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-145-22158HR.jpg

    It's obviously not a boot print because it's elevated off of the ground. The bottom left hand corner of the object is resting on a rock and the shadow is visible under it.

    Here's some more stuff.
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    look, cosmo, your'e only going to convince the converted with this sort of "evidence"
    to me, it reminds me of a saying we have in belgium : he who wants to beat a dog will find a stick
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    It looks like I was wrong about the object. This was shown to me on another forum.

    http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...post&p=2072455

    The highlighting is what threw me off.
    http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%2...moonsquare.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Perhaps you could explain two things Cosmored,
    1) How was the unique character of the moon rocks 'faked'? In case you are unaware - though I am sure someone who has studied this matter as thoroughly as you have will be very knowledgable on the point - these specific chemical and mineralogical peculiarities distinguish them utterly from Earth rocks; do so in an unpredicted way; and thereby shed great light on the orgin of the solar system in general and the Earth-Moon system in particular.
    2) How were two amateur radio enthusiasts in England able to monitor the descent and landing of the LM by scrutinising the doppler signature of its broadcast?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    2) How were two amateur radio enthusiasts in England able to monitor the descent and landing of the LM by scrutinising the doppler signature of its broadcast?
    We read stuff like this happens but how do we know it really happened?

    When I see articles saying the craft were tracked to the moon and the landings were tracked, etc and then I see evidence like this clip of the flag moving...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

    ... I think what we are reading is probably a lie. How can we confirm that really happened? What are your sources and how can we know if they are credible?

    I was talking about this at the Clavius forum.
    http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ead=1172922252

    http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ead=1180875941

    1) How was the unique character of the moon rocks 'faked'? In case you are unaware - though I am sure someone who has studied this matter as thoroughly as you have will be very knowledgable on the point - these specific chemical and mineralogical peculiarities distinguish them utterly from Earth rocks; do so in an unpredicted way; and thereby shed great light on the orgin of the solar system in general and the Earth-Moon system in particular.
    On page three in the fourth post from the top I posted some info about the rocks.

    I don't have any background in geology. I don't see any reason to believe the official version of the rocks though. There are lots of scientists who can be bought. Maybe there are scientists who dispute the authenticity of the rocks and no publications will print what they say. There are several possible explanations.

    We have the official story and we have what I posted onpage three. How do we know which version reflects reality?

    When I see evidence like this clip of the flag moving...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

    ... and then I read that scientists all over the world say the moon rocks are real, my tendency is to think we are not reading the truth.

    So much of what we read is controlled these days that I wouldn't take anything seriously including scientific journals.

    I was discussing misinformation here at this thread.
    http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ead=1170100055
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Cosmored, do you then disregard the explanations given for the "waving" flag and such by NASA and other scientists? Is it really easier for you to believe a world wide conspiracy among scientists, NASA and the US government than the perfectly reasonable explanations given? Can you highlight any specific explanations that you consider made-up?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Guest
    I had a look at that piece of video carefully and I hope, objectively.

    There are two occasions when the flag appears to 'flutter' at the begining of the clip and again towards the end of the clip.

    At the begining I suggest that the motion is consistent with simple lightly damped harmonic motion as the flag settles. the period of the motion seems regular rather than an random atmospheric disturbance. a little while into the film one of the astronaut's 'glides' past the flag fairly close to it which does not disturb the flag which, at this time is clearly motionless.

    close to the end however the flag does appear to flutter but it coincides with the astronaut again passing by yet it does not appear that any physical contact is made. THis second flutter I would ask people to look at very closely to see if I have missed something.

    THis short video in my humble opinion is not enough evidence to prove either case, either way.


    Posts or information on other forums is hearsay which I will not investigate.

    As I have long career in long range communications (including work at Jodrell bank) and was a casual listener to apollo 14 transmissions (at the PLessey radio research labs) Nothing but nothing will convince me that what I heard (which I remember as load of telemetry data and occasional short voice comms) together with the very detectable dopplar shift of the command module orbiting the moon was anything less than genuine. Those signals came from the direction of the moon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    close to the end however the flag does appear to flutter but it coincides with the astronaut again passing by yet it does not appear that any physical contact is made. THis second flutter I would ask people to look at very closely to see if I have missed something.
    I think the astronaut must have touched it when he went by. The type of lense they used was a wide angle lens I think, so it might have looked as though the astronaut was much farther away from the flag than he actually was. Kind of like the reverse of looking through a peephole.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    The question about the whole M(oon) H(oax) is this: who would benefit from such a deception?

    NASA? Why?
    CIA? Why?
    KGB? Why?
    The Illuminati? Who's that?
    The H(oax)B(elievers)? Yes, because it helps them sell their books and promote their websites.


    ANd above all this question: HOW????????????????????????????????????

    Do you really think that it is possible to cover up a MASSIVE deception like the MH? And for about 40+ years? If you really believe this, you never have worked in a company larger than 100 people. At a certain size and planning stage you have to involve more and more people and there is always at least one who can't keep his mouth shut. No matter what penalties. And I mean, organisations above a certain size will screw up sooner or later. Did you hear about the laptop with sensitive data about personel of the MI6 got "missplaced" by someone in this organisation?

    So now you are telling me that not only someone came up with a really moronic plan to decieve the whole world about the moon landings to (let's say for argument's sake) funnel all the money that was presumably used to build the Saturn V into some other super-mega-hyper-ultra secret project. You are also telling me also that the roughly 50.000 people that were directly involved in building components for the Apollo program did not have a clue that all the parts they have been designing and manufacturing were used to fool the world for whatever reason. All these costs for the cover-up would exceed any amount of money the BAAAD BOOOYZZZ want to divert for their evil purposes. And above all this you are really telling me that not only the US was responsible for this but also the USSR???????????????????????????
    You have not a single clue of how the worl really works and I assume you were born after 1990. Because before this date the threat from the face-off between the two super powers was REAL. You never heard of the Cuba missle crisis, did you? Ohhhhh, you have but this was also part of the fiendish plan to fool the world (for whatever reason). You recognize that I come back to this li'l "WHO the hell benefits from all this"-tidbit. Give me a reason what this whole nonsense was supposed to achieve. Hey, Bush has no problem to not only blow a surplus of 1.5 Trillion US-$ that Clinton has accumulated over a period of 8 years, noooooooo, he also does not flinch to waste another 1.7 Trillion US-$ to bomb the shit out of a couple of retarded diaper-heads and camel-jockeys. And let's not forget, during the time the MH supposedly took place L.B. Johnson and Dick "never was a nickname for a US-Prez more becomming than this one" Nixon were in power. And Nixon did not have second thoughts about lying, cheating, killing and stealing to acchieve his goals. I mean, he was a crook that by chance got elected President of the US. This guy did not ask questions, he fired first and let god sort them out. Does the word "Watergate" ring a bell with you? Although it was supposed to be a covert operation it finally was uncovered. And this stunt did not involve 50.000+ people, just around 20-50. So the chance that someone was in fact blowing the whistle about the MH is around 1000x higher than the Watergate operation and the people involved in Watergate also had to face grave consequences if it were discovered who the whistleblower was.

    Oh, and about this so called expert.....he really does not know piddle-di-shit about physics. Or he tends to ignore his knowledge. I read an interview where he made some comments about the impossibility to take a film to the moon and back without frying it in daylight on the moon. Well, he forgot to mention that on the moon surface we have a close to perfect vacuum. So you only have to care about heat transfer by radiation, not convection or conduction (or at least only to extremely small extent). This is a little bit different from a stove here on earth with your 1016 hPa atmosphere. It is really easy to shield the film inside the astronaut's Hasselblad with very little aluminum and a thin layer of insulating foam. You remember the Thermos?? Same thing, vacuum is an impressive insulator. And this goes onandonandonandon. Either he ignores his knowledge of science in general so he's essentially a moron or he gives a flatulence about the facts, then he is a fucking fraud who just wants to make money from pother's people stupidity.
    So let's see...there's a guy that want's to promote his book about..... basically...utter nonsense as opposed to a bargeload of facts. Mhmmmm....I'll go with the facts.

    BTW....Cosmored, you're an engineer? I am and I am working in this profession for some years now. And I was leading some projects during this time. If the project involves more than 3 parties and/or 15 to 20 employees it IS impossible to keep seccrects longer than a couple of weeks.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Guest
    Twang,

    I do hope you have not snapped, I have never been able to believe that these hoaxers are actually serious. Since the options are (IMHO) they are either mischevious (wind up merchants) or plain scientifically iliterate.

    My favourite argument is the one they use about the Van Allen belts hehehe It was NASA engineers who bothepredicted and discovered these belts. Why would announce them if they really are lethal to astronauts at a time when man spaced flight was already on the drawing board!

    Secondly these 'hoax believers' are prepeared to believe NASA that these belts exist, they are prepared to believe NASA when it says there is no atmosphere on the moon and many other facts that come directly from NASA get the Idea?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored
    I don't have any background in geology. I don't see any reason to believe the official version of the rocks though. There are lots of scientists who can be bought. Maybe there are scientists who dispute the authenticity of the rocks and no publications will print what they say.
    I do have a background in geology. I was an undergraduate at the time of the moon landings. The unique character of the moon rocks simply was not imaginable and was not imagined by anyone prior to aquiring the rocks. If the moon landings were faked then the composition (gross chemical and mineralogical) of the faked samples would have been made to match one of the current conventional theories of what was expected, not some bizarre unpredictable mix. A composition that it took a decade to work into a viable scheme for planetary origin and that then was found to match conclusions being derived from other sources. Are you seriously trying to tell me that an imagined composition (or rather suites of compositions) could by pure chance fit independently derived theories for planetary origin? Nonsense.

    Cosmored, you have my genuine pity. Your warped perception of reality may be a great comfort to you, but it merely demonstrates to the rest of us that intelligence and rational thinking are not characteristics available to all humanity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Twang,

    I do hope you have not snapped, I have never been able to believe that these hoaxers are actually serious. Since the options are (IMHO) they are either mischevious (wind up merchants) or plain scientifically iliterate.
    Hey Mega,

    no I haven't snapped. But this waste of energy proving that man did not go to the mooon really get's on my nerves and when I actually see people spreading obvious hogwash to make a living from it I am going to tell them what I think about it. And some people do not like that I am compassionate about what I am convinced of and can back it up with facts instead of bollocks.

    Quote Originally Posted by ophiolite
    I was an undergraduate at the time of the moon landings

    Man......and I thought I got the role as "Old Fart" here
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It's the border between fiction and reality. I often read that sort of stuff because I find it entertaining. It's rather like reading stories of Camelot and wondering how close they are to the real King Arthur. It's ok if you do it in fun, just don't take it too seriously.

    Also, I find that the best fiction parallels reality, so conspiracy theories are a good place to go find good ideas for a convincing fictional story.


    Quote Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
    The question about the whole M(oon) H(oax) is this: who would benefit from such a deception?

    NASA? Why?
    CIA? Why?
    KGB? Why?
    The Illuminati? Who's that?
    The H(oax)B(elievers)? Yes, because it helps them sell their books and promote their websites.


    ANd above all this question: HOW????????????????????????????????????

    Do you really think that it is possible to cover up a MASSIVE deception like the MH? And for about 40+ years? If you really believe this, you never have worked in a company larger than 100 people. At a certain size and planning stage you have to involve more and more people and there is always at least one who can't keep his mouth shut. No matter what penalties. And I mean, organisations above a certain size will screw up sooner or later. Did you hear about the laptop with sensitive data about personel of the MI6 got "missplaced" by someone in this organisation?
    The problem with large organizations is that often their right hand doesn't know what their left hand is doing. There may be only a few people who understand the bigger picture, and fewer still who understand the biggest picture. Sometimes the number of people who truly qualify for the second group is zero.

    However, in order to fool people in such a situation, the truth has to be fairly close to the lie.

    So now you are telling me that not only someone came up with a really moronic plan to decieve the whole world about the moon landings to (let's say for argument's sake) funnel all the money that was presumably used to build the Saturn V into some other super-mega-hyper-ultra secret project.
    Oh no. They would still build the whole Saturn V. Give any private company a government contract with large enough margins, and they'll be glad to build whatever you want, even if it doesn't actually do anything when it's done. The more it costs, the gladder they'll be.



    You are also telling me also that the roughly 50.000 people that were directly involved in building components for the Apollo program did not have a clue that all the parts they have been designing and manufacturing were used to fool the world for whatever reason. All these costs for the cover-up would exceed any amount of money the BAAAD BOOOYZZZ want to divert for their evil purposes.

    Diverted into a few key investor's private pocket books, mind you. But still, only a portion goes to them. The rest is really spent on the Saturn V, which will fly into the upper atmosphere, maybe even into space, but not have any astronauts on board.

    And above all this you are really telling me that not only the US was responsible for this but also the USSR???????????????????????????
    If it's convincing enough, the USSR would have a hard time really convincing the world to believe it was a lie. Besides, they get a break if we make it there first, because now there will be no clamoring among their own people to get them to try a moon landing. They can spend the resources on other things.

    Unlike the USA, the Soviet government had no sub contractors willing to kick back campaign contributions when a gigantic government contract is steered their way.

    You have not a single clue of how the worl really works and I assume you were born after 1990. Because before this date the threat from the face-off between the two super powers was REAL. You never heard of the Cuba missle crisis, did you? Ohhhhh, you have but this was also part of the fiendish plan to fool the world (for whatever reason). You recognize that I come back to this li'l "WHO the hell benefits from all this"-tidbit. Give me a reason what this whole nonsense was supposed to achieve.
    The same as it always achieves. Make a few private investors very rich on the tax-payers' dime.


    Hey, Bush has no problem to not only blow a surplus of 1.5 Trillion US-$ that Clinton has accumulated over a period of 8 years, noooooooo, he also does not flinch to waste another 1.7 Trillion US-$ to bomb the shit out of a couple of retarded diaper-heads and camel-jockeys. And let's not forget, during the time the MH supposedly took place L.B. Johnson and Dick "never was a nickname for a US-Prez more becomming than this one" Nixon were in power. And Nixon did not have second thoughts about lying, cheating, killing and stealing to acchieve his goals. I mean, he was a crook that by chance got elected President of the US. This guy did not ask questions, he fired first and let god sort them out. Does the word "Watergate" ring a bell with you? Although it was supposed to be a covert operation it finally was uncovered. And this stunt did not involve 50.000+ people, just around 20-50. So the chance that someone was in fact blowing the whistle about the MH is around 1000x higher than the Watergate operation and the people involved in Watergate also had to face grave consequences if it were discovered who the whistleblower was.
    Nixon angered a lot of investors when he ended the Vietnam conflict. A thing like Watergate could never have come to light without the ok of certain people. If anything, it would have been an end note on like the third page of some of the smaller newspapers.

    Things much worse than Watergate get overlooked everyday, or cut by the editor because he knows better than to try and print it.

    Oh, and about this so called expert.....he really does not know piddle-di-shit about physics. Or he tends to ignore his knowledge. I read an interview where he made some comments about the impossibility to take a film to the moon and back without frying it in daylight on the moon. Well, he forgot to mention that on the moon surface we have a close to perfect vacuum. So you only have to care about heat transfer by radiation, not convection or conduction (or at least only to extremely small extent). This is a little bit different from a stove here on earth with your 1016 hPa atmosphere. It is really easy to shield the film inside the astronaut's Hasselblad with very little aluminum and a thin layer of insulating foam. You remember the Thermos?? Same thing, vacuum is an impressive insulator. And this goes onandonandonandon. Either he ignores his knowledge of science in general so he's essentially a moron or he gives a flatulence about the facts, then he is a fucking fraud who just wants to make money from pother's people stupidity.
    So let's see...there's a guy that want's to promote his book about..... basically...utter nonsense as opposed to a bargeload of facts. Mhmmmm....I'll go with the facts.
    And this is the reason I really don't believe in the fake moon landing theory. I can't see any reason, in principle, that it really shouldn't have worked for us to go there.

    I'm not really trying to argue that the moon landings were fake in my comments above, just arguing against your reasons.

    BTW....Cosmored, you're an engineer? I am and I am working in this profession for some years now. And I was leading some projects during this time. If the project involves more than 3 parties and/or 15 to 20 employees it IS impossible to keep seccrects longer than a couple of weeks.
    It depends on what kind of secret we're talking here. What if they faked the first landing merely because they didn't want to take a chance on the astronauts dying? So, absolutely everything is still being built as though they'll be on it, but they don't go on it.

    Who would have to be in on it?

    1) - The astronauts

    2) - Whoever was filming them on the desert (or somewhere)

    3) - Whoever was taking their broadcasts (they would know they weren't coming from space, unless a signal was being first sent to the lander, then broadcast back)

    4) - Whoever handled getting a fake lander to fall in the ocean, and recover the astronauts from it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    I see a moral here. can anyone guess?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Guest
    Yeah, If an american president can't keep a blowjob quiet, a bay of pigs invasion secret or breaking into watergate, what 'ucking chance has he got of faking a moon landing and successfully hoodwinking millions of independant scientists and engineers around the world?

    Or was it something else?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    once conspiracy theorists have their minds made up... there's no chance in changing them.
    I've got a friend that thinks all of the senators in the surrounding 3 states are funding illegal child porn websites.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Guest
    If they are politicians it's probably true....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    It depends on what kind of secret we're talking here. What if they faked the first landing merely because they didn't want to take a chance on the astronauts dying? So, absolutely everything is still being built as though they'll be on it, but they don't go on it.

    Who would have to be in on it?

    1) - The astronauts

    2) - Whoever was filming them on the desert (or somewhere)

    3) - Whoever was taking their broadcasts (they would know they weren't coming from space, unless a signal was being first sent to the lander, then broadcast back)

    4) - Whoever handled getting a fake lander to fall in the ocean, and recover the astronauts from it.
    Plus the hundreds it takes to set up the motion picture set, the truck drivers, all the support-people (you have to eat and drink, even in the desert) andsoonandsoforth.

    And yes, they also kept the Manhattan Project secrect for four years, but this was during a different time and all of the people were basically locked away in the desert. And even so there were reports and people were wondering.


    And what problem should the Soviets have proving that the Saturn 5 was dumped into the ocean. Hey, radio detection and rangeing was invented in the 40ies. By then tracking of the whole trajectory of the "Hoax" was a breezer.

    Oh, and the US took a gamble during the Apollo 11 mission, the chance of all the astronauts coming back safely was estimated to be just 50% and the astronauts knew it.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Guest
    THese conspiracy theorists who say we did not go to the moon seem to be the same group who tell us there is a wide range of operational alien spacecraft stored at area 51, (some from as far back as 1947 so they say, Roswell etc). Now If you look very carefully at the lunar lander you can see it is merely a collection of junk stuck on top of a fully functional alien spacecraft, flag flutters on the moon because, as everyone knows alien space engines need purging every few minutes this allows active ionic displacement of the fuel inversion system. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    Cosmored, do you then disregard the explanations given for the "waving" flag and such by NASA and other scientists?
    I've heard that the flag moved because of static electricity.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

    At the thirty eight second mark the astronaut is standing right next to the flag and it isn't attracted to him at all. At the two minute thirty seven second mark when the flag moves toward the astronaut, it doesn't move until the astronaut has walked past him, If it had been static electricity, it would have been attracted to him when he was at the closest point to the flag.

    I've heard that the astronaut kicked some dirt and it hit the pole. The horizontal rod that supports the flag doesn't move when the flag moves. I see no movement in the rod at all.

    a little while into the film one of the astronaut's 'glides' past the flag fairly close to it which does not disturb the flag which, at this time is clearly motionless.

    close to the end however the flag does appear to flutter but it coincides with the astronaut again passing by yet it does not appear that any physical contact is made. THis second flutter I would ask people to look at very closely to see if I have missed something.

    THis short video in my humble opinion is not enough evidence to prove either case, either way.
    I think it's pretty clear that air move the flag.

    Look at the analysis at the four minute thirty five second mark of this video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

    Those signals came from the direction of the moon.
    There are several plausible explanations for this. It might have come from a sattellite. They might have soft-landed an unmanned craft on the moon with capacity to send the signals.

    I think the astronaut must have touched it when he went by. The type of lense they used was a wide angle lens I think, so it might have looked as though the astronaut was much farther away from the flag than he actually was. Kind of like the reverse of looking through a peephole.
    At the beginning of the clip when the astronaut is standing next to the flag, his arm is a lot smaller. When he walks past the flag at the two minute 38 second mark, his arm is quite a bit bigger so he's a lot closer to the camera and a lot farther from the flag.

    I don't have any background in geology. I don't see any reason to believe the official version of the rocks though. There are lots of scientists who can be bought. Maybe there are scientists who dispute the authenticity of the rocks and no publications will print what they say.
    I do have a background in geology. I was an undergraduate at the time of the moon landings. The unique character of the moon rocks simply was not imaginable and was not imagined by anyone prior to aquiring the rocks. If the moon landings were faked then the composition (gross chemical and mineralogical) of the faked samples would have been made to match one of the current conventional theories of what was expected, not some bizarre unpredictable mix. A composition that it took a decade to work into a viable scheme for planetary origin and that then was found to match conclusions being derived from other sources. Are you seriously trying to tell me that an imagined composition (or rather suites of compositions) could by pure chance fit independently derived theories for planetary origin? Nonsense
    You're just assuming that what you read about the rocks reflects reality. If there's video evidence that the footage was taken on earth, one of the other possible explanations for the rocks must be the one that reflects reality. Here's the stuff about the rocks I posted on page three.

    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
    Another point here is that the moon rocks were fake. Are the moon rocks real?
    No, they are not real. NASA has a well-developed ceramics laboratory with high-temperature ovens-
    That's another way NASA could prove they went to the moon, 'cause they brought back these rocks. Interestingly enough, at the University of British Columbia here, David Strangway, the President of U.B.C., was the guy in charge of inspecting the moon rocks.
    OK, fine, why don't you call him up and ask him what he thinks about them.
    So what happened, the moon rocks were not real?
    No, they were manufactured on Earth to look like moon rocks, but since nobody has any moon rocks to compare them with, it's very simple to make up a moon rock and say, hey, this came from the moon.
    Well, how would you know it is a moon rock? Like, how do you know it's not a moon rock - how do you know it's a fake?
    I had a Seattle geologist who examined moon rocks and he said, "There's no question, Bill, that these rocks were made in a laboratory on Earth."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------

    http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInf...Challenge.html
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
    9) Moon rocks are in Antarctica?
    Barbara Cohen, a researcher from the University of New Mexico, was picking up rocks in Antarctica. She sent them to Houston, Texas for an analysis.
    The scientists in Houston discovered that one of the Antarctic rocks closely matched the NASA moon rocks.
    The scientists then concluded that one of the rocks from Antarctica was actually from the moon:
    www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370/
    How did rocks from the moon get in Antarctica?
    NASA and Ms. Cohen want us to believe that a big meteor crashed into the moon a while ago, and pieces of the moon were sent flying into space. A few of those pieces landed in Antarctica.
    Take a look at how far away the moon is from the earth. If it were true that rocks were ejected from the moon with such velocity that they could escape the moon's gravity and fly out into space, what are the chances that any of them would survive the fall through the atmosphere and land on tiny Antarctica hundreds of thousands of kilometers away? Furthermore, the rock has to land in a location where humans can find it many years later.
    A more sensible explanation is that the NASA moon rocks were rocks from Antarctica.
    Therefore, when someone travels to Antarctica and sends rock samples to Houston, Texas for analysis, some of the rocks will closely match the Apollo moon rocks.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The video evidence clearly shows they faked it. Space radiation might be one of the reasons they had to do it.

    http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.


    Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ65d30kYME

    two sets of radiation data
    http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldogleb...oooo/id82.html
    (excerpt)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
    OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
    to
    disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
    unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
    really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

    Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
    one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
    likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
    http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInf...Challenge.html
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...9659&hl=apollo
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Here are some possible motives for their having to fake it.
    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:
    Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
    Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
    Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
    Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
    The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).

    Proponents of the Apollo hoax suggest that the Soviet Union, and latterly Russia, and the United States were allied in the exploration of space, during the Cold war and after. The United States and the former Soviet Union today routinely engage in cooperative space ventures, as do many other nations that are popularly believed to be enemies. However, this suggestion is challenged by the impression of intense international competition that was under way during the Cold War and is not supported by the accounts of participants on either side of the Iron Curtain. Many argue that the fact that the Soviet Union and other Communist bloc countries, eager to discredit the United States, have not produced any contrary evidence to be the single most significant argument against such a hoax. Soviet involvement might also implausibly multiply the scale of the conspiracy, to include hundreds of thousands of conspirators of uncertain loyalty. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki...ax_accusations

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Guest
    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.

    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 ave 'silenced'
    him and kept the discovery a secret. 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    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.
    Here's what I said about space radiation.
    The video evidence clearly shows they faked it. Space radiation might be one of the reasons they had to do it.
    I used the word "Might". I'm not in a position to verify which version of space radiation reflects reality.

    Take another look at this.

    http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldogleb...oooo/id82.html
    (excerpt)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
    OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
    to
    disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
    unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
    really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

    Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
    one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
    likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hoax believers hypothesise that NASA only gives the real data on radiation to scientists with high security clearances and gives the public bogus data that are consistent with Apollo.

    I can't say which version reflects reality. Only scientists with high security clearances know the truth.

    If the official version of space radiation turns out to be true, they must have had other reasons for having to fake it. The video evidence shows they faked it.

    I posted some other evidence that they faked it on page three in the fourth post from the top.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Guest
    Ok let's just step back a bit and go through things a little bit at a time,

    Just exactly what will it take to prove to you beyond all doubt that man landed on the moon back in 1969?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    Ok let's just step back a bit and go through things a little bit at a time,

    Just exactly what will it take to prove to you beyond all doubt that man landed on the moon back in 1969?
    I'll know it when I see it. So far I've seen nothing that conclusively proves they went and I've seen lots of stuff that conclusively proves that al least some of the footage was faked (See page three fourth post from top). If they really went, why did they fake any of it?

    Why don't you say what you think of some of the other evidence I posted? What do you think of this?

    There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
    (first six seconds)

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

    What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

    At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
    http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...26565081757736

    It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Guest
    I do not need to watch your video, I asked you a question I tried to keep it simple a bit at a time, if the goal is to show you the the truth then you would have answered even if it was just "Transport me back in time as an observer".

    My brother (Robert, 1927-2003) was a member of the team that tracked both American and Soviet spacecraft under the direction of Sir bernard Lovell at Jodrell bank, Information he passed to me enabled myself and others working for Plessey Radio research to track Apollo 14.

    My earnest contention is that those who promote this crap are either mischevious, down right (scientifically) ignorant or are looking to sell something.

    Now I laid out a method by where you could begin to prove to yourself whether the landings were fake, (in my second previous post) so in the nicest possible way 'put up or pipe down!' :wink:

    You might try reading the history of the hoax and a point by point rebuttle of the original program.

    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    Ok let's just step back a bit and go through things a little bit at a time,

    Just exactly what will it take to prove to you beyond all doubt that man landed on the moon back in 1969?
    It would take footage and still pictures with no anomalies. The Apollo footage and still pictures are full of anomalies.

    Here's an example.
    There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
    (first six seconds)

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

    What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

    At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
    http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...26565081757736
    If all the footage were consistent, nobody would get suspicious because of the inconsistencies.

    If all the reflections of the sun in the visors were consistent, I wouldn't get suspicious.
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA&NR=1
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw

    This reflection looks like the reflection of the sun in the shutle astronaut's visor but some of the reflections in the above videos look like the reflection of a big artificial light source.
    http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/...entenary_4.jpg

    Evidently, some of the footage was taken in the desert with a special lens and some was taken in a studio.

    If all the falling objects in all the footage fell with the same acceleration, I wouldn't be suspicious.
    If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects differently.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

    Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
    You might try reading the history of the hoax and a point by point rebuttle of the original program.

    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
    I read this stuff a while back.

    What they do is put forth alternative explanations for the anomalies. That is not debunking.
    Here's a classic example.
    http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html

    They have the attitude that they've debunked what the hoax-believers say about the cross hairs but all they've done is put forward another possible explanation. They haven't come anywhere near debunking this.

    My brother (Robert, 1927-2003) was a member of the team that tracked both American and Soviet spacecraft under the direction of Sir bernard Lovell at Jodrell bank, Information he passed to me enabled myself and others working for Plessey Radio research to track Apollo 14.
    When I see those anomalies in the footage, what do you think I'm going to think when I read this about your brother?

    I want to see how objective you are.
    Take a look at this issue.
    http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ead=1194111920

    Those same people regularly post at both the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums.
    Do you think they were right when they said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?

    You know who Jay Windley is.
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html

    Look what he said about this issue.
    http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...e=8#1180474047
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sand can be sifted and then rinsed as many times as necessary until there are no dust-sized particles.

    Until you try to move it, whereupon more dust is created.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...e=1#1194116657
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rocky never got the picture. He didn't realize that he was talking to people who actually are qualified in these fields and actually know what they're talking about. Faced with his inability to bluff his way through the science, having taken no training and having performed no experiments, he resorted to trying to dismiss everyone as the antagonists in his paranoid fantasy on no stronger grounds than their disagreement with his beliefs.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Do you still think Jay Windley is someone we can trust?

    Here's the official Bad Astronomy explanation for it.
    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/f...tml#doubletime

    They ignore the possibility of sifting and washing sand to make it dust-free. Both Bad Astronomy and Clavius are government damage-control sites and the regular posters on their forums know that Apollo was a hoax.

    I discussed that here.
    http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ead=1187029994

    Look at Jay Windley's reply to this question I asked him (third from top).
    http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ead=1187016551

    Does he seem like an objective truth-seeking scientist? An objective truth-seeking scientist wouldn't have any qualms about answering any question put to him. He couldn't answer because his job is to back the official government version of everything and when the issue is too clear to obfuscate, people who do what he does take a non-committal position.

    Why don't you present one thing that you consider to be proof that they really went to the moon and we can discuss whether it's really proof or not. I've presented what I consider to be proof that they didn't go.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Guest
    Tell me something have you ever been to Korea?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    Tell me something have you ever been to Korea?
    No, I haven't. What's your point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored
    If all the footage were consistent, nobody would get suspicious because of the inconsistencies.

    Why don't you present one thing that you consider to be proof that they really went to the moon and we can discuss whether it's really proof or not. I've presented what I consider to be proof that they didn't go.
    The fact that simple laws such as Newtons first would refute the ridiculous accusations of the conspiracy theorist, would also preclude their considerations as to what constitutes proof.

    And yet, the consistency of the rock, whether it be found on Earth or the Moon would subject itself to the scrutiny of the conspiracy theorist, lest it be somewhat more consistent than the gray matter propounding it's non-existence.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    The fact that simple laws such as Newtons first would refute the ridiculous accusations of the conspiracy theorist, would also preclude their considerations as to what constitutes proof.
    Go into some detail. I see a difference in the body movements in these two clips. You haven't said anything that convinces me that they aren't two different methods of faking lunar gravity.

    There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
    (first six seconds)

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

    What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

    At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
    http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...26565081757736
    And yet, the consistency of the rock, whether it be found on Earth or the Moon would subject itself to the scrutiny of the conspiracy theorist, lest it be somewhat more consistent than the gray matter propounding it's non-existence.
    You're being vague here. Please go into more detail.

    How do we know that what we read about the rocks reflects reality? The government lies about science all the time.
    http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ead=1172922252
    http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ead=1180875941
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored
    Tell me something have you ever been to Korea?
    No, I haven't. What's your point?
    Korea does not exist, it is a fictional country designed by successive American presidents to enable the military to justify the arms race.

    The earth is hollow and the sun is really a great big light bilb, now can you prove me wrong on any of these?

    EDIT:

    Cosmored, THE Cosmored? the one on all the other forums? making the same arguments? no matter what anyone says you still do not believe it?

    http://forums.hypography.com/strange...tml#post203238

    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/fo...9;sa=showPosts

    http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...&user=cosmored

    (Just the first three I came across!


    Hahahahahah! your'e just a bot, not a real person at all are you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    Korea does not exist, it is a fictional country designed by successive American presidents to enable the military to justify the arms race.

    The earth is hollow and the sun is really a great big light bilb, now can you prove me wrong on any of these?
    Why don't you get serious and address some of the issues I raised? Say why the astronauts' movements in the Apollo 11 clip are different from the astronaut's movements in the clip from the later mission.

    Say why the reflections of the sun in the visors are different from the reflections of the sun in the visors of the shuttle astronauts.

    Say if you think we can trust Jay Windley when he explains the anomalies in the Apollo footage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Guest
    Hang on, is your point "Did we land on the moon" or is it "Are the apollo 11 and later video tapes true or false" ?

    Evertime I or anyone else tries to discuss a single point, you respond with great gobbits of shit from youtube, now even I know that this is inadmissable as video evidence it has been through so many computers any one of which could have enhanced it with modern technology available to all, but you can't see that can you?

    2nd point I only read the first 12 lines of a post so keep it short or waste your time.

    Now the object is to remove the clutter and expose the truth, and preferably to find trhat on your own so go back to my note about how to prove it for yourself and start from there.

    :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored
    Go into some detail. I see a difference in the body movements in these two clips. You haven't said anything that convinces me that they aren't two different methods of faking lunar gravity.
    Unfortunately, convincing the ill-informed conspiracy theorist with facts is pointless as they have a clear agenda of deception and lies. Why anyone should kowtow to these like minded individuals and groups who have no intention of understanding is beyond me.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    Now the object is to remove the clutter and expose the truth, and preferably to find trhat on your own so go back to my note about how to prove it for yourself and start from there.
    Ok let's just step back a bit and go through things a little bit at a time,

    Just exactly what will it take to prove to you beyond all doubt that man landed on the moon back in 1969?
    Video footage and still pictures with no anomalies would help persuade me that they went to the moon.

    We can go one step at a time. You can choose one of the anomalies I posted and say why you think it's not an anomaly, or we can start with your posting something you consider to be conclusive proof that they went to the moon and we can talk about whether it's really proof.

    You pick the topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Guest
    OK now we are getting somewhere.

    And to be very generous I will concede that all of the video and photographic evidence is fake, we all know how easy it is to fake photos, and we all have seen real photos made to look fake, and fake photos made to look real, same for videos.

    SO throw all that out, we can't discuss the video because it is fake, it could be real footage doctored by the hoax originators to look fake, or it could be fake footage made to look real by NASA.

    Truth is (If you are honest) neither you nor I know. Agreed?

    So what evidence do you have that the moonlandings were faked (ignoring all photographic and video evidence) ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    And to be very generous I will concede that all of the video and photographic evidence is fake, we all know how easy it is to fake photos, and we all have seen real photos made to look fake, and fake photos made to look real, same for videos.

    SO throw all that out, we can't discuss the video because it is fake, it could be real footage doctored by the hoax originators to look fake, or it could be fake footage made to look real by NASA.

    Truth is (If you are honest) neither you nor I know. Agreed?

    So what evidence do you have that the moonlandings were faked (ignoring all photographic and video evidence) ?
    The video and still pictures in question were released by the government.

    or it could be fake footage made to look real by NASA.
    Why would NASA make fake footage look real if they really went to the moon and it wants everyone to think they went to the moon. If they really went, why fake anything at all?

    If you look at some of the later missions in this footage released by the government, you'll see the reflections in the visors that are different from the reflections in the visors of the space shuttle astronauts.

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/
    (Click on "Video and Movie Clips " in these links.)

    The video and still pictures are the proof that they didn't go so you want to avoid this issue.

    A lot of the non-video evidence is circumstantial.

    The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

    Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...15730495966561

    This isn't conclusive proof but it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

    Then there's the question of Jay Windley and those regular posters at Clavius and Bad Astronomy.
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html

    Why are they lying about science?
    http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ead=1194111920

    Just the fact that Jay Windley and those two websites are there is circumstantial evidence that the moon missions were faked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Guest
    Look you have to be fair on this, you have convinced me that video can be faked, so it's fake, it does not matter who or why, if there is a suspicion it is fake then we cannot use it, now, again apart from video and photographic evidence what other evidence is there that the landings did not take place.

    Please just offer me ONE none photographic/video fact that proves the landings did not take place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    Look you have to be fair on this, you have convinced me that video can be faked, so it's fake, it does not matter who or why, if there is a suspicion it is fake then we cannot use it, now, again apart from video and photographic evidence what other evidence is there that the landings did not take place.

    Please just offer me ONE none photographic/video fact that proves the landings did not take place.
    All the non-video evidence I can think of isn't conclusive. Only people with high security clearances know the truth about space radiation.

    Why don't you post something you think is conclusive proof that they went.

    Also, please say why the government would release video made to look fake.

    Please comment on the astronauts' behavior at the press conference and please comment on why Jay Windley and those other people at Clavius lied about science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Guest
    CHECKMATE!

    You lose, apart from video evidence we both agree is 'suspect' no other evidence you have is conclusive.


    Now why would NASA release fake video?, well they went to the moon but for some reason the video cameras would not work, and the ordinary photgraphic plate was damaged through gamma radiation. TO avoid embarrassment NASA recreated it all in a sound studio.

    Why would conspiriacy theorists fake the real video/photos? to make money out of people who have little or no understanding of the facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    You've been saying some pretty silly things about the official NASA footage. If we can find anomalies in that, we can safely say that the moon missions were faked.

    You ignored my request that you give your opinion on the astronauts' behavior at the press conferencel and you ignored my request for an opinion on why Jay Windley and those people who post on the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums lied about science.

    Do you realize that if this were a debating hall, the audience would be roaring with laughter at you right now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Guest
    You proved to me that video is unreliable, I then agree and say what else is there, and you say "nothing"

    Now either you accept video can be faked and is therefore inadmissable or you accept the video and therefore that the landings took place.

    All I have done is attempt to strip it back to find the truth to break it down into small pieces and discuss each one, that is the way problems are solved in science they are eaten away at bit by bit.

    Having lost the argument you then attempt to mock me.

    In science the majority belief prevails, and the minorty has to convince otherwise. I do not have to prove the landings took place I am in the majority, I am as convinced they did as you should be that Korea exists.

    You have failed to prove they did not occur now accept that. You have not proven them as fake. Go yourself and look for the real proof of their validity, that is tha mark of a good scientist, one who tries to prove the other case as well as his own, when he can only prove ONE case he deems that to be the truth.

    I would as happily prove the moonlandings fake as I would prove them real but for now and to me, the balance of probability is firmly that they did indeed take place, I have yet to see any credible scrap of evidence that they were faked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    I'll ask you again--

    Post something that you consider to be proof that the missions were real and we can talk about whether it's really proof.

    I've posted what I consider to be proof that they were faked.

    Here it is again.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

    At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

    There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs
    ------------------
    There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

    What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

    At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
    http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...26565081757736

    It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

    If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects differently.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

    Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
    Here are some videos.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA&NR=1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc&NR=1
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...89814268946247

    Here are some articles.
    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
    http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
    http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-w...rt-Sibrel.html
    http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/


    The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

    Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...15730495966561
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The viewers can decide for themselves. I think people come to their own conclusions; they aren't very influenced by what people tell them that they see. All I do is collect stuff for people who may not have time to do the research themselves and post it.

    I personally think the whole case is closed based on the above evidence--they didn't go to the moon.

    I've said what I think and you've said what you think. People who read this thread are going to decide for themselves anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Guest
    Again having proven that video can be faked, you now offer it as evidence that something else was fake...

    Post what you like, that's my last word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Cosmored, don't you think that NASA would have done a better job of it? I mean, they are supposed to want to fool everyone for an indefinite time. Do you think that with a huge budget, topnotch scientists and enough time, they could not have done a better job? That is assuming that all the things that you have pointed out actually constitutes proof. The only reasonable conclusion can be that they did go to the moon and that those things pointed out by conspiracy theorists like you are things that actually happened and are explainable. Some of them might even not be so easily explained, but a possible reason can found in each case.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Guest
    Look kalster, watch this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0

    No really watch this.....

    It is the ultimate proof that something is faked!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    is there a way of figuring out when these videos were actually made ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Guest
    Do you mean the one I just pointed to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •