Were the moon landings faked?
-
HapHazzard — 16 years ago(September 09, 2009 08:27 AM)
The pertified wood is pretty simple to explain, and it's true it doesn't paint NASA in a good light - but Bearing in mind the world climate and attitudes in the 70's, I'm not surprised that they wanted to keep as much of the moon material they could. While I expect the rocks given to more prestigious universities were genuine, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few they handed out were similar fakes. As to the landing site photos you can see tracks in the dust and pretty obvious man-made items sitting ON THE LANDING SITES. While photoshop is good, it's not good enough to fool all the independant scientists pouring over that data right now..and they were just the first photo's from it's highest orbit. The satellite is due to move closer and get higher resolution photos before the mission is over.
At this point, it really does beggar my mind why some people want to hold onto this idiotic belief that the missions never happened. There is no evidence whatsoever that that is the case - all the usual arguments (Van Allen belt, photo's touched, flags moving, not going back since) have been shot down with actual scientific explanations as opposed to the conjecture of the arguments themselves, and you are now getting photos of the landing sites themselves. The simple fact is a government put the entire resources of it's engineering community into a massive project to beat the Russians at a time when that had a meaning - but the project ended up being for all mankind, and it succeeded.
It was a great moment in history and all the doubters are, frankly, idiots. If the President of the United States couldn't cover up his knowledge of a break-in that downed a Presidency - if another President couldn't cover up the fact a war he started was effectively illegal - how the hell does anyone believe that a project involving hundreds of thousands of workers, billions of tax payers dollars, set on a stage watched by all that countries enemies for any slip up or sign of irregularity they could use as propoganda could be faked without any genuine evidence or confessions coming to light? In this case, it's ludicrous beyond belief. And more proof against it comes in all the time while nothing substantial supports it. Moronic.
It's a tender love song, very beautiful. {Whats it called?} Lick my love pump. -
no_springs — 22 years ago(March 07, 2004 01:23 PM)
I'm going to post a few things from the link I posted a few weeks ago. It tries to debunk the moon landing conspiracy. I'm not a scientist, so I can't debate with anyone on any of it. I'm just posting a few bits of what it says (paraphrasing)
Where are the stars in the photographs?
The stars are too faint to be seen. In the fast exposure, they don't have time to register on the film.
(About a picture of the lander) If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, and there is no air to scatter that light, shouldn't the shadows be utterly black?
The website says that the sunlight is reflected from the moon's surface onto the lander.
Why is there no flame from the rocket when the lander took off?
It says: "The lander used a mix of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer). These two chemicals ignite upon contact and produce a product that is transparent."
Wouldn't the radiation in the Van Allen belt have killed the astronauts?
It says: "the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose"
It also explains: Why the shadows don't appear to be parallel, the identical backgrounds, and why the crosshairs seem to be behind the images. And other stuff. -
wamies — 22 years ago(March 08, 2004 10:08 AM)
Answer to one of your questions: according to the Kaysing videos, van allen himself said that nothing can get through the van allen belt alive. its a video i haven't seen so i can't verify. I know that Kaysing is a very credible researcher himself.
There is a also another book out there from Ralph Rene, a former consultant to NASA and the Rand corporation, called "NASA mooned America". He is quite an eccentrically brilliant mind and has a pragmatically presented case debunking NASA.
I don't know where I stand with the moon mission, but I am certainly aware of NASA's lack of credibility. Case in point, airbrushed photos (michael collins spacewalk, adding in stars etc.) If they can lie once, how many more lies are they pulling on the unsuspecting public? -
a1265lombardi — 22 years ago(March 08, 2004 12:05 PM)
First: To the best of my knowledge, Bill Kaysing has not put out a video, only a book. Second, his research and credentials are just as questionable as Bennett and Percy. Kaysing worked at Rocketdyne in the early 60's, at a job which required no technical knowledge whatsoever. The same goes for Ralph Rene, who claims to be a self-taught engineer; instead he simply proves the worth of a good college education. His claims are just as faulty as anyone else's. As for the Van Allen radiation belts, living things can and did pass through them. Besides the Apollo astronauts, the Soviet Union sent a cargo of turtles around the moon, and returned them unharmed to Earth. Dr. Van Allen's statement about the severity of the belts dates back to the 50's, very recently after the belts were discovered, and he revised his findings as more data became available, and concluded that travel through the belts was entirely possible. The astronauts aboard Apollo 17 each recieved about .6 rad of radiation during the flight, well below the threshold of detectable medical effects. The severity of radiation in the Van Allen Belts is well known, not only due to the Apollo project, but since many satellites operate within the belts for long periods of time, and the radiation intensity is a very important design consideration. If the data was wrong, satellites would not perform as expected. Finally, I don't know what you are referencing when you talk about adding in stars or Collins' EVA, so unless you are more specific, I can't explain what you are thinking of.
-
NukeyShay — 22 years ago(March 21, 2004 04:57 PM)
The biggest strike against this "conspiracy" (not including the thousands of actual people involved) is that the Soviets would have wasted no time in blowing the lid off of such a coverup. The space race at that time was THE most single important PR campaign, and such a story would have fueled the pages of Pravda very well.
As far as the Van Allen belts are concerned, has it occured to you that people also work in nuclear reactors (my sister is one)apparently safe from the lethal doses of radiation there? Just how many civilians have gone into space aboard the space shuttles now? And the shuttle is just a tad more complex than the Saturn V, isn't it?
Ohbut the government just wants an excuse for all the money put into the space program
Ahemthat's just chicken feed compared to what's put into defense. -
g-illo — 20 years ago(February 11, 2006 01:35 AM)
According to the Moon Cospiracy videos that I've seen, they state that all shuttle missions are well bellow the Van Allen radiation belt. They in fact that they mention a particilar shuttle mission where they went the farthest away from the earth in a shuttle, the astronauts experianced high radiation effects such as seeing flashes when one closes his eyes. NASA made an official statement that the levels of radiation in the Van Allen belt were much higher than they orrigionally asumed.
-
Blueghost — 21 years ago(July 27, 2004 02:01 AM)
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.
"Scientifically" it does. If you could be more specific on what part of the science you think is misleading, then I'm sure the rest of us would love to hear about it, and challange it with opposing thoughts. That's what SCIENCE is all about.
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.
The idea being that you want to believe that you've come across something few other people realize just to show how clever you are, and to get a laugh. Neat.
Like I said before, I don't know where I stand on the issue. I haven't researched it enough.
Apparently.
I know that the whole moon mission is very hoaxable.
No you don't. You're just being a jerk, and are insulting the plethora of test pilots who tested technology platforms by putting their lives on the line by flying rockets with wings. Then again, maybe their funerals were faked.
Odds are you have (or were the recipient of) poor grades in school, and want to show just how smart you are by pointing the finger at people who, quite frankly, know their field a lot better than you. Either that or your just some 12 year old punk, and I'm wasting my time.
Regardless, rather than rely on someone else trying to make a buck off your ignorance (because that's all this amounts to; and specifically the books and programs you've exposed your to), why don't you enroll yourself in the local JC, take some engineering courses, then decide for yourself?
Or are you incapable of doing that?
Just out of curiosity, what is
YOUR
field of expertise? I'll bet I could find a few hundred people willing to tell you that your birth was faked, and that your parents (who really aren't your parents) lied to you about where you came from.
I mean, you realize that storks deliver babies right? Forget that nonsense about child birth, it's actually a magic fairy living up in the clouds with a flock of white birds. She waves her magic wand, and POOF a kid appears; with a parachute all packed up and ready to go.
There've been some legal issues recently because she and Santa Claus have been competeing for air-space during Christmas-Eve for deliveries. It's in all the papers didn't you know?
In all seriousnous if you can't balance a chemical equation, solve a simple acceleration problem, or understand some of the other basic frundamental laws of nature, then maybe you ought to shut up.
I think it's called "owning up." I read about that somewhere by someone very credible. ahem -
ta_naemhni — 16 years ago(June 09, 2009 11:19 AM)
"insulting the plethora of test pilots who tested technology platforms by putting their lives on the line by flying rockets with wings."
That's for sure. By way of comparison: I'm an IT professional myself, and I have a few industry certifications (A+, Microsoft Certified Professional, and a few others) that I naturally list on my rsum. To get those certificates, I had to spend dozens and dozens of hours studying, plus thousands of dollars in exam fees and study materials. It was a lot of time, effort, and money.
I once met someone who asked me whether I really had those certificates, or whether I was just saying that I did. I am not a violent person, but even so, the minute those words left his lips, literally the first thing that went thru my head was an image of me punching his lights out. And that's just over some certifications. I can't imagine how furious I'd be if I were an Apollo astronaut hearing about moon landing conspiracy theories. It's a hell of a lot harder (and more dangerous) to be an astronaut than it is to be an IT professional. -
hueydoc — 21 years ago(February 01, 2005 07:10 PM)
Attn: wamies; According to clavius.org, Ralph Rene "often claims to be an engineer, although he admits he has no credentials and is self-taught." (everyone should trust an expert that's "self-taught", right?) And checkout http://www.clavius.org/kaysing.html for more detailed info on "Mr." Kaysing. Look at the sky in a picture of any night-time sporting event in a brightly lit open air sports arena. If you don't see stars, the game MUST have been played at area 51, no matter what the caption says. CALL BILL KAYSING, IT'S A SPORTS CONSPIRACY!!
The conspiracy theorists are conspiring against me! -
lseybold-2 — 16 years ago(September 06, 2009 09:43 AM)
Of course the moon landings are fake. If we landed on the moon 40 years ago, then why can't we do it again in 2009? Because NASA still hasn't figured out how to safely land on the moon.
Do you think that NASA has the same budget they had in the 1960s? Well, they don't.
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
-
HapHazzard — 16 years ago(September 08, 2009 05:32 PM)
Of course the moon landings are fake. If we landed on the moon 40 years ago, then why can't we do it again in 2009? Because NASA still hasn't figured out how to safely land on the moon.
Stupidity on this level truly amazes me. Here's the thing - the satellite in orbit around the moon right now has imaged the landing sites just a couple of months ago. It's even picked up the tracks the astronauts made in the dust. These photos are being examined by scientists all over the world and are also in the public domain - and none have been shown to be anything other than genuine photos. Kind of kills the moronic argument once and for all.
It's a tender love song, very beautiful. {Whats it called?} Lick my love pump. -
NebLWeffah — 16 years ago(September 18, 2009 10:07 PM)
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC)!! HALLEH-FREAKIN'-LOOYAH!!!!!
Now maybe all the nut cases will shut up for awhile. The latest image of Apollo 12 landing site shows the LM decent stage clearly with shadow, the Surveyor 3 in the crater right where it was supposed to be and Pete Conrad's and Al Bean's tracks. Very cool pictures actually.
Look here:
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/ -
videojohn — 16 years ago(October 09, 2009 02:20 PM)
Dear Hap;
Very good point there, Sir.
Here's what (I believe) got
this all started to begin with,
as I used to live in La Canada
where many of the JPL folks do
and had 'first hand' knowledge.
Were the Moon "landings" faked??
In a word NO. Our spacecraft and
Astronauhts walked on it as well.
Various "Ham Radio" stations heard
it & recorded (world wide) the audio
at the time. This could NOT ever
be "faked".Were the Moon "landings" faked in
photographic image?? I'm sure
some were, for a variety of reasons.- Actual photos distorted, damaged,
lost, or destroyed by accident. - Photos were inhanced/altered for
the creation of foreign propaganda. - Photos were altered for the purpose
of "national security" etc. - Photos were altered/created for a
variety of presentations to Congress
to gain funding for the program.
The two topics are different.
The film titled; Capricorn One (1977),
was for entertainment only and was a
story to make money for the Producers.
"That's all folks"; Buggs Bunny.
Happy trails to all - Actual photos distorted, damaged,