One small step for man.

Hobbes

I know a similar thread was posted before, but I'm in the middle of watching a TV program about asking if the moon landings were faked.

I am convinced now that the US never landed on the moon. Some of the stuff is just incredible and the NASA spokesman can't debunk any of it except saying "What would they know".

C B

When that thread was started last time I was astonished at the evidence against the moon landing but i'd like to hear the real other side of the story. The media is never unbiased as it is merely a propoganda tool (e.g. on a TV doc they can make the NASA guy sound as dumb as they want) so I don't know what to believe.

Hobbes

Two of the intresting bits was.

- There were two film footages of supposed different days about 10 miles or so apart. When they dropped one on top of the other the landscape was exactly the same.

- There was a picture of landscape they came across which is exactly the same as the backdrop where they landed, however the lander base was left behind so they shouldn't of been able to take a picture.

- This picture below you will see the camera markers, one of them actually goes behind the cars antenna. Also if you zoom in you won't find the other marker effecting the film where the car is (there should be a marker slap bang on the engine).



They have tons more evidence and some intresting bits I had never heard before. Like back in the 70's a guy who was bringing proof to congress that the landings were faked was killed in a freak accident in his car with a train (his whole family died too) and the report disappeared.

_CreeD_

Would you believe I was heading over here to bring this up too...Ah the Fox channel in all it's glory, watched it last night (Alternating with Charmed of course....Alyssa Milano...Hhhhhmmmmmmm.....But I digress... ...).

Excellent show, the evidence was VERY clear, the only vaguery came from the NASA spokesman who kept didn't have anything to say really to refute them - beyond that there were so many allegations that it would be pointless to address them all (Duh...)

After watching it I really do believe at least some fakery was afoot (Maybe they only made it once, unmanned or something).


Other evidence presented:


Light Sources:
There was only one light source, the Sun, at such a distance that all shadows would have to be parallel - they very obviously are not when you examine the photos, leading to the assumption that there were many lightsources in use.

Pictures of the lander and astronauts in the shadowside of the lander are too bright. With the sun being so bright (With no atmosphere to defract it) shadows should have been almost pitch black in contrast to the ambient light.

Photo Quality:
The guy who helped design the cameras used said that there is no way they could have been used to take such clear and steady pictures.

Engineering:
Another technician who helped design the rocket system stated that there is no way they could have made the trip successfully.

Effects of landing/takeoff:
The astronauts very clearly mention that the surface is fine and powdery. Yet there is no blast mark from the Lander touching down, not so much as a ripple.

There is no Ambient dust on the feet of the lander, it is immaculately clean and shiney in all the photos (Powdery surface,low gravity and a BIG engine on the bottom should kinda make a mess of these things)

There is no thrust visible from the lander as it breaks off from it's bottom half when they depart. It looks like it was just yanked up.

Landscape:
ONe of the craters seen during the landing extremely close matches (enough to allow for the effects of eroson since then) Russian spy sat photos of patch of desert inside the Area-51 base.


If this program is ever shown in Ireland, watch it. It's the first one of those Conspiracy Theory things that I actually take seriously.

Fidelis

Well they won't/can't examine the moon rocks because they'd disentigrate upon contact with air whatever

And I heard that there's some form of asteroid belt between us and the moon, making it impossible to get there or something.

[bleetAnd NASA are just spying on us all ![/bleet]

---

Nil Desperandum

--Kaiser--

Hmmm, i havent actually seen that program, but i must admit that the case made seems to be stronger than i thought it would be ,but i agree with C B, they can make a NASA guy look as dumb as they want by leaving in stupid stuff like "what would they know?" and cutting out anything where he actually tried to explain. Also:

-How could they mimic low gravity conditions?

-The pictures look so amazingly REAL

-The camera marker thing , why would they add in the lunar rover over the picture instead of just taking a picture of the rover on the 'lunar' landscape?

-The astonishing picture of the earth from the moon, how could they fake that?

the fnj

Also the point of if Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon who was shooting him? The shot is of him walking onto the moon is taken from outside the lander modual. Who was taking this?

Also when Kennedy was in office (lets not start on that consperacy). His goal was simple a man on the moon by the start of 1970 or NASA would get no more funding. 1969 the did it just in time lucky guys.

---

Clan Acid

--Kaiser--

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by The FANJ:
Also the point of if Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon who was shooting him? The shot is of him walking onto the moon is taken from outside the lander modual. Who was taking this?

Also when Kennedy was in office (lets not start on that consperacy). His goal was simple a man on the moon by the start of 1970 or NASA would get no more funding. 1969 the did it just in time lucky guys.

</font>

Yeah they did do it strangely last minute.

But the footage of Neil Armstrong stepping off the craft is actually taken from a camera mounted at the side of the craft as you can work out if you watch it again.

C B

also
all good research scientsits work best with a tight dealine

Cake Fiend

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by --Kaiser--:
-The astonishing picture of the earth from the moon, how could they fake that?</font>

LOL, give me 10 minutes with 3DS MAX or lightwave...

--Kaiser--

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sico:
LOL, give me 10 minutes with 3DS MAX or lightwave...</font>

Yeah, i am thinking maybe they didnt have 3DS or lightwave back in 1969 sico

Was the flag fluttering?I think it just had a wire through it to make it rigid.

Panda

It was faked and its sooo blatently obvious too.
A friend of mine has all the pictures they released and some are ridiculous. Just like the one u showed.
The one of the actual lander and the one below is very poor, notice the fact that there are no stars to be seen.
On the lander and the other pics the NASA emblem is always clearly visible and illuminated even when in shadow.
Poor display by the yanks.

Lenny

All intresting points yeas all got there
intrestioning to read

the fnj

It would want to be some camera to survive on the outside of a lunar craft. Also it's amazingly free of dirt etc. Despite the fact that the lander would have kicked up a fair bit of dirt.

I don't think anyone mentioned that the flag was fluttering. Despite the fact that there is no wind on the moon?? Very odd indeed.

---

Clan Acid

--Kaiser--

Does anyone have a good link for some of the moon landing pictures?

Hobbes

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/SIC/

Should be what your looking for.

--Kaiser--

Everyone should check out this site, it has links to two sites, one for and one against the fake moon landing theorys.

http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~akapadia/moon.html

Hobbes

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by --Kaiser--:
-How could they mimic low gravity conditions?
</font>

Actually they explained that as well. If you run the film footage at x2 it's speed it looks like the people are walking normally, and even the moon buggy looks like a normal buggy.

El_Presidente

Yes, I admit it.

I was part of the crack team who faked the landings AND I have proof!

If any of you happen to be investigative reporters I'll meet you tonight at Sunset under the Big Clock. I'll give you everything you need to blow the lid on this thing.

Remember now, I'll meet you at the Big Clock....

azezil

its far easier prove something is fake than fact...the quote about the camera, well ya ever stop to think that, that wasn't the first take! for such a momentus occasion u'd want it to be perfect!

---

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

Clintons Cat

well it beggers the question, if they did it 30 years ago why hasnt it been done again?
The answer that it has already been done doesnt seem to hold up to scrutiny,i mean the fact its already been done and the expense doesnt stop the americans and russians sending astronaughts into high orbit.

Hobbes

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by azezil:
its far easier prove something is fake than fact...the quote about the camera, well ya ever stop to think that, that wasn't the first take! for such a momentus occasion u'd want it to be perfect!

</font>

According to the TV program, the guy that actually made the camera said that it should of never been able to take such a good picture at all.

--Kaiser--

I really don't think thats a very convincing argument.He'd hardly remember everythinh from 30 years ago, would he?
The reason the pictures are so clear is that there is practicly no atmosphere on the moon to disrupt the image.

I'm still convinced that we did land on the moon, maybe they didn't go back up there again because they couldn't see any reason to continue the moon landings prohibitive costs.

Almost everything mentioned to 'prove' the moon landings false has been convincingly argued against in this http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

---

Bart:How would i go about creating a half-monkey, half-man creature?

Ms. Krabapel:I'm sorry that would be playing god.

Bart:(Smacks fist on table)God schmod, i want my monkey-man!

Clintons Cat

yeah but the russians would have gone just to kick sand over the americans flag,maybe bring it back as a moonsample

Clintons Cat

also the radiation thing on http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/has me puzzled,

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Q.About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

A.In fact, the Van Allen radiation belts extend from about 600 miles up to more than 40,000 miles from Earth with the region of highest radiation intensity being between around 2,000 miles and 12,000 miles above Earth. The astronauts exposure to those radiation belts is brief (less than 4 hours total - they begin their time in this region while traveling at 25,000 MPH! And they pass through it twice, once outbound, and again on their return. They spend less than an hour in the densest part of the belt.) and they are well protected in their spacecraft
</font>

since the crew would have been exposed to solar radiation which is conveyed at the speed of light, the velocity of their travel would be immaterial to the ammount of exposure they would receive(4 hours seems a long time when you consider what is considered harmful exposure to x rays,i know they are technically not the same but i use it to illustrate my point)
also the moon has no atmosphere so they would be exposed for the entire duration of their stay not just travel time.
Anyone got any thoughts on this?

---

<TIMED OUT>

Steven

Andy's gone. Gone! They got him but not before he told me everything. I have undeniable proof! Omg, they're coming for me. I can hear them on the stairs. I'll post again later, don't let them get to you too!

Clintons Cat

ok i looked it up, http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970228a.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/13333.html
well i did say it was puzzling me,
its not the same as solar radiation after all,
i want a cool spacesuit preferably with lapels

Steven

I apologise for my earlier post as it was a complete fabrication. The aforementioned meeting never took place and I was just joking. I stand behind this post 100% and deny that there is any truth to my previous meaningless ramblings. I have made this post completely of my own free will and with no coersion from any American governmental institution. Excuse me now, I think i'll go for a drive with El_pres near the cliffs even though we've had a few drinks.

D-Generate

What no camera reflecting in his visor.

<IMG SRC="http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~akapadia/moonpics/nasa.gif"&gt;

But anywho we probably did land on the moon. I went to the space museum in Tralee a few years ago and i asked that same question about how did they get the photo of Neil Armstrong coming out of Apollo 11 and the guide ignored me.

[This message has been edited by D-Generate (edited 11-03-2001).]

Hobbes

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Clintons Cat:
ok i looked it up, </font>

If you look at the site it says the Inner band gives off about per year 2500 rem (300 rem is about enough to permantly hurt someone). Now the outer band (which they would have to pass through) the radiation is so intense it can't be measured. Probes sent through the band have to shut down or it fries the electronics.

Catch_22

i read the sort of suff getting posted here a while back, and it changed my view very much, i had always believed the landings ere true, & i had no real comeback against a lot of the things being said against it, however upon reading a similar discussion on /. many of these arguments are quickly torn to ribbons.

Recommend a read: http://slashdot.org/articles/01/02/18/1619247_F.shtml

c22

Hobbes

you know I read that thread and all it did was give out about Fox.

Standard method of stopping people investigating your wrongdoing is to belittle the person asking rather then answer the question.

So if I say "How did the astronaughts survive the trip though the outer belt when NASA website says there is enough radiation to kill?", what answer do I get? That my question is wrong?

Clintons Cat

no i meant i looked up the answer to my question about velocity and exposure times,hobbes.
I am undecieded on the whole concept of space travel,it would be nice to beleive we are not permenantly trapped upon this planet
To find out the truth maybe we all ought to build our own Rocket and Launch Me Into Space,I am sure some of you are already thinking that would be the best place for me.

Catch_22

ok ill try and answer some of the arguments for the sake of discussion, fraid i dont have an answer right now wrt the van Allen belt but we will leave that ofr later:

>It would want to be some camera to survive on the outside of a lunar craft. Also it's amazingly free of dirt etc. Despite the fact that the lander would have kicked up a fair bit of dirt.

there is no atmosphere on the moon, so dirt will not act like dust on earth which gets blown around by the air, but will follow true projectile path no matter how small the object in question, therefore all dirt / rocks will get thrown away from the craft.

>I don't think anyone mentioned that the flag was fluttering. Despite the fact that there is no wind on the moon

again no atmosphere, the initial planting of the flag (which was meade stick out woith springs) applied a force to the flag pushing it in one direction, there is no atmosphere to stop this force, so the springs on the flag allow it to bounce back and forth, not quite indefinately bu for a hell of a lot longer than it would somwhere with an atmosphere.

>Now the outer band (which they would have to pass through) the radiation is so intense it can't be measured. Probes sent through the band have to shut down or it fries the electronics

And we have managed to get satilites beyond earth how then ??

thats as much as i have for now, i know theres still holes in these arguments so pick em out and ill have another look l8r

c22

--Kaiser--

Hee Hee, i like that bad astronemy site, just proves how wrong all the weak arguments for a faked moon landing have been.

You should realise that the moon is a VERY different place than earth, low gravity, no atmosphere etc.

Hobbes

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Catch_22:
And we have managed to get satilites beyond earth how then ??</font>

From reading the NASA site. Satilites do not pass through the outer band. In fact nothing except deep space probes and the moon landings have passed through the outer band. To answer your next answer, probes when passing through the outer band, all thier electrical systems are shut down during the section to stop them being damaged (in much the same way an EMP will effect electronics). The radiation actually penetrates straight through the craft.