Were the moon landings faked?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Capricorn One
Gimpli — 22 years ago(February 05, 2004 07:51 PM)
Check out www.moonconspiracy.com. I'm not saying I think this, but if you investigate further then it seems strange. However I think that the American Space program (if true, as it most likely is) is very good and I feel sorry for the Astronauts that pioneered space travel (Russia) and those that first took man to the moon, and all those who lost there livesin search of the stars, when these ideas are suggested.
What are your opinions on these matters?
One cannot be betrayed if one has no people. -
a1265lombardi — 22 years ago(February 05, 2004 09:24 PM)
First off, your link is dead.
Second, any and every hoax 'theory' (even that gives it too much merit) I have seen presents a flimsy argument with virtually no real evidence, and often (even worse) made up or just plain wrong statements. I personally think that anyone who believes said hoax theory either has not looked into it deep enough to make an educated decision, or is an idiot. If you don't want to take my word for it, visit www.clavius.org, it is a great site debunking every hoax argument I have heard, and presenting irrefutable evidence that the Apollo program in fact occured as we know it. -
MerovingianGoddess — 9 years ago(June 14, 2016 10:55 PM)
You know the part of JFK was played by one of his older brothers or distant cousins, very much like with the Baldwins and I think Jackie O did a nice job of mourning all over that blood filled cantaloupe too!
Merovingian Goddess
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! -
blitzkrieg1701 — 22 years ago(February 15, 2004 06:20 PM)
You left out the third (and most likely correct) option: they just want to be suspicious of "them".
The Nitpicker's Brash Reflection Bulletin Board (http://www.nitcentral.com/discus/) -
no_springs — 22 years ago(February 19, 2004 07:43 PM)
I found an interesting page on it
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Actually it's about the special aired on Fox a few years ago."It's Coily's army of darkness, look!" - mst3k -
megasepp — 22 years ago(February 25, 2004 07:35 AM)
it's interesting to see, that since last year this theory got a growing number of supporters. seems to me being related to the people's trusting into the bush administration after the faked secret weapons of iraq. for example, they showed 'capricorn one' on german television shortly after bush said "we are going to mars"
-
wamies — 22 years ago(March 03, 2004 02:58 AM)
loltoo bad capricorn one scenes weren't appearing during the mainstream news here in the states!! Or everytime NASA speaks for that matter!!
One of the best books out there on the subject of the moon landing is titled "dark moon - apollo and the whistleblowers" by David S Percy and Mary D Bennett. Scientifically, the official story from the corporate media and NASA does not hold water. -
a1265lombardi — 22 years ago(March 07, 2004 06:41 PM)
First off, the Percy-Bennett book is complete crap. The authors simply use speculation and conjecture for their arguments, they fail to research even the most basic facts correctly, they have a poor understanding of basic science, and they fail to address the heaps of evidence contrary to their position. And I don't know exactly what you mean when you say the scientific side does not hold water; I have looked through it quite thoroughly and everything makes perfect sense.
-
wamies — 22 years ago(March 08, 2004 11:57 AM)
sorry a12, I have to disagree with you. Did you read the 568 page book or did you use your site clavius.org to let it debunk it for you? In that case, whoever runs the site (i skimmed through it, and i couldn't find a name of the web owner) uses the oldest trick in the book. Varied sentences used out of context from the dark moon. Whoever runs the site put alot of vested interest in the Dark Moon, I would like to have some info on the researchers there. I read some sort of a "trust me I have a phd" info about this person. But no names, I find that rather suspicious.
Also, you made this very telling statement earlier about "people that believe in the hoax theory either don't look into it deep enough or is an idiot" Well, that really shows your character and it reminds me of the time FOX had the special program discussing the NASA inconsistencies. The program was called, "Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" and the NASA director for the media Brian Welch had no response to leading researcher's questions except for: "We went to the moon and anyone who doesn't believe it is nuts." Sorry but that would have been the perfect time for NASA to state its case once and for all and the director's defensive mode reminded me of your statement.
Like I said before, I don't know where I stand on the issue. I haven't researched it enough. I know where the credible authors are if I was interested. I know that the whole moon mission is very hoaxable. And NASA does have a credibility problem on many issues of the past and present.
Here is an interesting site:
http://www.aulis.com -
a1265lombardi — 22 years ago(March 08, 2004 04:07 PM)
That's the thing. The Apollo project is NOT hoaxable. There were hundreds of thousands of people involved. So either every one of them is in on the hoax, and not a single one has said a word about it, or they are also all in the dark. If they are in the dark, they spent many years of their lives building equipment designed to go to the moon, so why wouldn't they simply use it to go to the moon? There still remains a massive paper trail of blueprints, mission reports, flight plans, and other data from the project. Outside of the paper trail, the 6 flights brought back over 800 pounds of moon rock, and any geologist in the world will tell you that the samples come from the moon, and there is no possible way for them to be manufactured on Earth. Thousands of people watched the launch live, hundreds saw the TLI burns with their own eyes, anyone with a telescope and a knowledge of where the spacecraft was could see the urine dumps, and hundreds watched the capsules parachute into the ocean. These people weren't just in the United States, the Soviets were watching with great interest also, and would surely have blown the secret if they found out. There are thousands of photographs, thousands of hours of audio, and hundreds of hours of video which document the program. Theres the testimony of 24 men who went to the moon, the 12 who walked on it, the hundreds of flight controllers who were watching live telemetry from the spacecraft, the engineers who confirmed the data was or was not correct, etc. The clavius website is run by an aerospace engineer, and each point he writes is debated and approved on the bulletin board there, as well as on the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board, by other engineers, and many people who know a whole lot about the program. I stand by my statement of earlier, and I decline to say which category you fall in, frankly I'm not sure yet. As for aulis, I have thoroughly read the site, and they spew the same arguments as everyone else, which make no sense logically nor scientifically.
-
lancer190 — 17 years ago(April 13, 2008 11:26 AM)
well its simple, aint it ?
Turn one of those strong telescopes to the moon and show me the waving flag (no atmosphere there, but who cares).
We cant see galaxies heck knows how far away, but no way to catch the moonbuggie or the US flag on a 300,000km planetar body ?? come on -
SteverinoAlaReno — 16 years ago(July 06, 2009 08:41 AM)
You need to know a little bit about physics and optics and resolution to realize that it would be impossible to resolve an object as small as the moonbuggie from earth.
The lunar rover was 3.1 meters long, and the moon's mean distance from the earth is 384,403,000 meters. That means the lunar rover would subtend an arc of 0.00000046205 degrees when viewed from earth. Even today, we can't build a telescope that can resolve an image that small.
We can see galaxies from millions of light years away because they are so huge. But there's plenty in those images we can't resolve. -
SteverinoAlaReno — 16 years ago(July 21, 2009 02:02 PM)
I'm sure by now you've seen this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31966131/ns/technology_and_science-space/
These are pictures taken by a lunar orbiter. Pictures showing the Apollo landing sites. Heck, there's even one picture that shows the footpaths taken by the astronauts.
So, how did those things get up there? -
hueydoc — 21 years ago(January 31, 2005 07:02 PM)
You would have been able to find the webmaster's name if you had clicked on the link titled "ABOUT THE AUTHOR" (Big clue to where to find his name). It contains his bio and his qualifications. I guess the reason "some people" can't grasp the fact that we went to the moon "skimmed through" all the evedence. If you TAKE THE TIME TO READ all the evedence you will be able to understand it.
The conspiracy theorists are conspiring against me. -
heresjay — 21 years ago(March 25, 2005 09:36 AM)
Wamies writes:
"In that case, whoever runs the site (i skimmed through it, and i couldn't find a name of the web owner) uses the oldest trick in the book."
I am the author of Clavius.org, and I have read Bennett and Percy's book. Please show which quotes I have taken out of context.
"I would like to have some info on the researchers there."
Send your real name and address to webmaster@clavius.o rg and I will send you my resume and those of our contributors. The site now has my name on it. At the time you read it, I was getting threats. That has been resolved.
"I read some sort of a "trust me I have a phd" info about this person."
No. What you read was specifically the opposite that you shouldn't trust me just because I say I have degrees and experience, but because you can test these things out yourself.
"Whoever runs the site put alot of vested interest in the Dark Moon"
I discuss all the authors.
The site is a bit heavy on Bennett and Percy because they abruptly stopped responding to my questions and deleted all my discussion from their web site. I created the site to reproduce the debates I had with them. They were invited to defend their arguments in "Conspiracy Moon Landing" but declined the invitation.
What I find suspicious are authors who publish serious accusations, decline to respond to their critics (even suppressing criticism), and answer all questions with, "You must buy all of our materials first."
"you made this very telling statement earlier about 'people that believe in the hoax theory either don't look into it deep enough"
But then you yourself say, "Like I said before, I don't know where I stand on the issue. I haven't researched it enough." This is exactly what was said. You haven't researched it enough, therefore you are one of the people who hasn't looked into it deeply. I have. I have spent more than five years investigating these various conspiracy theories, and I can tell you with full confidence that they are riddled with inaccuracy, deception, and very poor reasoning.
The real hoax is that these authors are just trying to get your money.
"FOX had the special program discussing the NASA inconsistencies. The program was called, 'Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon'"
No. Fox's program was entitled "Conspiracy: Did We Land on the Moon?" The other film, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" is by Bart Sibrel, and was never broadcast on Fox, although Sibrel contributed to the Fox program.
Heads seriously rolled at Fox over what was largely an unchallenged advertisement for the conspiracy theories. Fox News (which is actually a separate company) even had experts on refuting it. Part of Fox Entertainment's "penance" for having broadcast that piece of rubbish is that they now distribute Mark Gray's excellent series of unedited Apollo footage.
"NASA director for the media Brian Welch had no response to leading researcher's questions"
Gee, a program produced by people favoring one particular theory doesn't paint a flattering picture of their opponents. What a shocker! Did it occur to you that Welch came across as dismissive because that's what the program's producer wanted to have happen?
I spoke to Brian O'Leary, the pre-Apollo astronaut interviewed for the program, about his contribution. He said that he gave the producers a half-hour interview in which he affirmed several times he believed the moon landings were real. But the producers used only the few seconds that sounded like he might have doubts. The LM expert (his name eludes me momentarily) threatened legal action against the producers for misrepresenting his comments.
Does this sound like a trustworthy film?
"I know that the whole moon mission is very hoaxable."
Irrelevant. Arguing that it's not impossible is not anywhere close to showing it was actually done that way. It was also very achievable, and there is a ton of evidence to show it was achieved. That's all the evidence your authors are struggling to explain away.
"And NASA does have a credibility problem on many issues of the past and present."
Not nearly as many as your authors, who are blatantly lying about who they are and what they know. And they run and hide from critics.
Why won't Bennett and Percy debate me? Why won't Ralph Rene debate me? Why do they confine their remarks to lay audiences who don't have the knowledge to see through their crap?