Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 9 votes

moon landing


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
4059 replies to this topic

Poll: moon landing (231 member(s) have cast votes)

do you believe that people landed on the moon.

  1. yes (157 votes [67.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 67.97%

  2. no (74 votes [32.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.03%

Vote

#31    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 20 June 2006 - 01:09 AM

Quote



1)Ask and you shall receive.  Below, you'll find a link to "Was it only a Paper Moon".  Check it out for yourself.  And as Mr. Collier claims, no footage of any astronaut actually exiting the door to the LEM.  I too have been unable to find it.  Perhaps you could provide a link to this supposed video footage?[/i]

2)All three crewmembers of the first historic flight also resigned shortly thereafter.

3)"Neil Armstrong, the most famous astronaut because of supposedly being the first man on the Moon, refused to even appear in a single still picture on the Moon! Aside from the initial press conference immediately following the event, in which he seems very disgruntled, he has not given a single interview on the subject, in print or on camera, to anyone ever!"



4)Did you hear an engine stop?  Did you?  Why not?  Explain this oddity, please?


5)This is another unusual and obviously suspect point of contention some have continued to ignore.  It has been said that the moons gravity is one sixth that of the Earths.  These guys should be bouncing up much higher.  As a matter-of-fact, I can bounce that high, right here on good ole Earth.


6)Ignition and then no change in the sound.  Wouldn't we hear something?  


7)[i]Clavius on high quality pictures and anomolies within them.  Two different aspects of suspect photography.  Somehow Clavius decided to use this inane reference to assert his readers not trust Percy and Bennett.  It's odd isn't it?  Don't trust them, they want to tell you something that is peculiar and might shed light on doctored pictures.  Don't trust them!  Trust me, I'm smarter than


But every photograph in the Apollo record still contains numerous anomalies. [Bennett and Percy]



___________
1) No footage exists of egress on the lunar surface because there was no camera recording it.   The TV camera was on the leg of the LM, and only caught the ladder.  The DAC was in the right hand window of the LM, and certainly couldn't see the hatch.  However, there are still photos of egress taken from inside the LM  (of course, they must've been faked, right?).


2) You are referring to Apollo 7.  Apollo 7 was Wally Schirra's final flight (Like Apollo 8 was Frank Borman's, and Apollo 11 was Neil Armstrong's and Mike Collins'), announced long before the flight, and the conduct of the crew during the "7"mission had Apollo management pretty teed off (research what happened on Apollo 7 for the inside skinny).   The other two members of the crew would never fly again, and they knew it (perhaps an injustice, because it was Schirra himself who primarily caused the friction on that flight).  Thus, they resigned.  

...the astronauts are just regular human beings.  They're not some superhuman masters of the universe...

3) Neil didn't "refuse" to appear in any photos on the moon ( blink.gif ).  He did in fact appear in one shot Aldrin took.   Neil took the majority of the pictures with the single EVA Hasselblad Apollo 11 carried.   Buzz never took but a single full-view picture of Neil (and it was a rear view of him working at the base of the LM)...I don't know why, and personally, I am very curious about that.   One would think that he would've made it a point to get some shots of the "first man", as Neil did of the "second man".  

It is completely fallacious to think that Neil has not ever granted an interview since the Apollo 11 post-flight press conference.  He has done many of them.  He speaks rather frequently, has done interviews, and has recently authorized his biography.


4) There is no oddity in not hearing an engine stop in a vacuum.  Engines essentially make no sound in a vacuum.  This is common knowledge amont the educated in these matters.  Oddity?   No.   One felt an engine more than heard one, especially above the atmosphere.  One might also pick up some vibration and perhaps a low grade vibrational sound through the spacecraft structure and internal atmosphere, but it requires external  atmosphere to produce and  transmit the common engine sound most people think of when they envision a rocket engine, and there is no atmosphere in space.

5)  And you are not carrying 183 pounds of mass on your shoulders.   Is it possible that you have no understanding of the relationship between mass and weight?

Yes, it is decidedly possible.


6) No.  You would not necessarily hear anything.   You might not tacity feel anything either, unless the engine was fully throttled up.


7) There are NO anomalies in Apollo lunar surface pictures.  They show typical photographic effects that can be seen on Earth photos as well.     "Anomalies" are merely things these people do not understand.

Want to try me on any of the typical "anomalies" noted by the HBs....Resseau marks disappearing, non-parallel shadows, etc...all normal stuff???


#32    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 20 June 2006 - 01:12 AM

Quote


Ultimately it doesn't really matter which side of this issue you believe is the Truth.  The truth stands alone, oblivious to belief.[/i][/b]



I think that's what I said before.



#33    boggle

boggle

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2006

Posted 20 June 2006 - 03:42 AM

Quote


Yes, I made the time!  Thank you for asking Lilly.
The NOVA programmed only served as the final straw in a mountain of evidence that was supplied before I saw the FOX or NOVA programs.  BTW, NOVA producers could care less about debunking NASA or hoaxers.  They show what they know.  So, there is the hole.  I believe the information supplied by a NOVA program.  Wow, what is my problem.  I must be crazy.
Ask and you shall receive.  Below, you'll find a link to "Was it only a Paper Moon".  Check it out for yourself.  And as Mr. Collier claims, no footage of any astronaut actually exiting the door to the LEM.  I too have been unable to find it.  Perhaps you could provide a link to this supposed video footage?

How much research have you done?  And don't just quote me a bunch of Clavius clap trap either.  You have to research both sides to come up with a rounded view.

Perhaps some proof is on the horizon.  I await it with bated breath.  I do not wish to be right in this matter.  I can only hope that I am wrong, that Sibrel is wrong.  And all the other people in the world, who after looking at the oddities, thinking is wrong as well.  Why you ask?

Because, if NASA really did pull a fast one on us, then the repurcussions will hurt our chances at 'real' manned missions to the moon in the future.  Shielding being the main subject on which the entire success of future missions depend.


"On his website (moonmovie.com), Sibrel lists the grounds on which he has taken issue with what has generally been regarded as established fact, and claims to have found a credible source who worked for the space program during the 1960s to back these up.

"He asserted, most confidently, that the Apollo moon landings were, first, impossible and, second, falsified as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into thinking the United States had greater capability than it really did," states Sibrel.

"I discovered that the highest ranking official at NASA resigned, without explanation, just days before the first Apollo mission. All three crewmembers of the first historic flight also resigned shortly thereafter.

"Neil Armstrong, the most famous astronaut because of supposedly being the first man on the Moon, refused to even appear in a single still picture on the Moon! Aside from the initial press conference immediately following the event, in which he seems very disgruntled, he has not given a single interview on the subject, in print or on camera, to anyone ever!"

History notes that Sibrel is indeed correct in these claims. However, is it rational to argue, with absolute certainty, that a solitary testimony from a retired NASA employee and a handful of resignations are anything other than coincidence?

Well, Sibrel asserts that there is more evidence to back up his allegations and on his website he lists his ‘Top Ten’ reasons why the landings were a hoax and why Man has never set foot on the Moon."

You asked me to go to Clavius and so I did.  

After reading Clavius, I find both his assertations on dangers of the Van Allen Belt to be void of consequences.  Such as, how did the astronauts have no damage what-so-ever, after two trips through the belt and days being exposed to Solar Radiation?  Surely some sort of damage.  We find skin cancer from the deadly rays of the sun here on Earth.  For God's sake, we put on UV protection on EARTH and still find ourselves screwed.  So, what's up with all that.  No layers of protection from the Earth and they are all fine.  Whatever?


In a book he released last year, amateur French astronomer and photographer Philippe Lheureux made international headlines when he made similar claims about NASA faking photographic footage.

But Lheureux puts a different spin on the hoax theory. In ‘Lumieres sur la Lune’ (Lights on the Moon) he suggests astronauts did get to the Moon but in order to prevent competitors from using sensitive scientific information in the genuine photos, NASA released bogus images.

The BBC quoted Lheuruex from French television: "In order not to give out scientific information they released photos taken during the training stages.

"That satisfied the American taxpayer and that left no real possibility for other countries to make scientific use of them."

Lheureux presents evidence from a photo of a lunar landing craft’s ‘foot’ because it is totally dust-free. The problem here, he says, is that according to Neil Armstrong large clouds of dust were displaced on landing.

Need more proof? How about props in space? According to the BBC report, Lheureux says that when one of the photos purportedly taken on the Moon is enlarged a letter ‘C’ can clearly be seen scribed on a rock "exactly like some cinema props".
Sibrel alleges that NASA continues to doctor their film footage to clean up obvious errors like those that Lheureux claims to have exposed.

"Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating 30-year-old pictures if they really went to the Moon?" asks Sibrel.

In the face of this barrage, NASA’s persisting silence does not seem to have helped quell any of the doubts either.

In response to Lheureux’s claims, the agency was reported to acknowledge that about 20 pictures of the thousands that were taken do take some explaining but on close examination they have a scientific explanation. NASA left its response at that.

In the past NASA has either relied on information sheets originally issued in 1977, or private citizens, concerned enough to mount their own campaigns to address some of the concerns in circulation.

But in late 2002 it seemed that the US space agency had finally got fed up with all the dissent. They commissioned James Oberg, a 22-year Mission Control veteran and prominent space-travel author, to work on a 30,000-word book to debunk the faked landing hypothesis and also examine how such theories become popular and spread.

The former chief historian at NASA, Roger Launius, conceived the idea to give schoolteachers a tool to help answer classroom queries because half the world’s population was not yet born the last time an astronaut reached the Moon.

"As time progresses, this gets less and less real to everybody. At some level, I think that may be what’s happening here," Launius told Washington’s Daily News.

However, days after they announced the funding for the book, NASA added fuel to the fire by pulling its financial backing. According to the worldwide news service, AFP, a NASA spokesman said the project had lost its focus because it was "being portrayed by the media as a PR campaign to debunk the hoaxers and that was never the intent".

Oberg has lost his promised US$15,000 contract for the work, but despite this setback he informs Investigate that he is forging ahead with the book, writing it "commercially".

Compelling evidence in support of hoaxers provided by NASA itself...

No engine noise

Did you hear an engine stop?  Did you?  Why not?  Explain this oddity, please?

Not much bounce in their steps

This is another unusual and obviously suspect point of contention some have continued to ignore.  It has been said that the moons gravity is one sixth that of the Earths.  These guys should be bouncing up much higher.  As a matter-of-fact, I can bounce that high, right here on good ole Earth.

Walking on the moon?

Again, appearing to walk along just as if on Earth.
Walking on the moon?

I don't know if someone speeded this up a bit to show the standard earth walk look to their movement or what, but it does make a point.  You see, if you slow it down, it seems more convincing that they are on the moon!  

About a year before the FOX program aired a friend of mine handed me a tape and said watch it.  It was called, Was It Only a Paper Moon, by James Collier.


Check it out

Fun with the Rover

If they would have done this in a larger format, you could see, that the 'rooster tails' are not rising any higher than they would on Earth.  And, when slowed down and watched closely, as Mr. Collier did, you would see that the rooster tails meet with a resistance we like to call on Earth, ATMOSPHERE.  On the moon, the 'rooster tails' would have been a perfect arc.  Not so, as you can see on the slowed down version on Was It Only a Paper Moon.
Can you tell me the many oddities, both audio and video?

ODD

More lack of some sort of thruster/engine noise

Ignition and then no change in the sound.  Wouldn't we hear something?  

This is from the Clavius site...And in contradiction to the claim of no solar flares during any Apollo mission.


"Only one mission, Apollo 16, suffered a solar flare, and it was a mild one. Solar weather is not a big secret; most observatories around the world record solar flares."

After spending hours of my Sunday, reading through Clavius, I am not impressed.  Especially since all arguments seem pointed at the FOX program assertions and none deal with arguments made early on by Collier.  These were the arguments that began to convince me of the hoax.  NASA never answered any of his questions to a reasonable conclusion.  I guess it didn't matter that much since his program never aired on Network television.

If you would like to see it click on the link below.  It takes some time to download.  If you are on a land line you may want to go play while you wait.  It's the entire two hour program.
  

Was it Only a Paper Moon

Clavius on high quality pictures and anomolies within them.  Two different aspects of suspect photography.  Somehow Clavius decided to use this inane reference to assert his readers not trust Percy and Bennett.  It's odd isn't it?  Don't trust them, they want to tell you something that is peculiar and might shed light on doctored pictures.  Don't trust them!  Trust me, I'm smarter than

But every photograph in the Apollo record still contains numerous anomalies. [Bennett and Percy]

But that's changing horses. The original argument was that they were all (or in large part) of suspiciously high quality. Anyone who examines the full extent of the record for himself finds that not to be the case. The authors have made an assertion and supported it with selective evidence. Now confronted with the true character of that evidence, the authors change the direction of their argument without closure on the original issue..

The authors have been caught with their homework undone, and raising different suspicions does not excuse that. Either they have not extensively examined the record, as they claimed, or they have deliberately mischaracterized the record to their readers. Either way, we cannot trust these authors.

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strings me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.

At this point Ralph Rene the self-taught engineer becomes Ralph Rene the self-taught psychologist. We can postulate any number of reasons why Aldrin may have been upset at that particular time, many of which have nothing to do with his occupation as an astronaut. Rene, predisposed to interpret everything in the context of his conspiracy theory, simply makes up a reason and assumes that was Aldrin's reason.
As long as we're postulating reasons, try this one. Aldrin was very sensitive to the fact that he would be the second man on the moon. He had made a very strong case to his superiors that he should be the first. He was persistent enough to have been told bluntly that Armstrong would be the first on the moon and that he should stop lobbying for the historical honor. It's often very difficult to be forever relegated to second place. (How many U.S. vice presidents can you name?) Aldrin had deep feelings on having not been first, and we might explain this outburst in that light instead.

He was asked what it was like to step on the lunar surface, not what it felt like to be the second man to step on the lunar surface.  You would think a huge smile and it felt great would be the response, not uncontrollable crying.  What Clavius refuses to mention is that the banquet at an Air Force base with pilots.  It's just difficult for me to believe any pilot/astronaut would break down and cry in front of his peers.  Unless something very serious upset him.  Like, perhaps, lying to his peers.

BTW, this is my last post on this.  If after watching 'Was it Only a Paper Moon, you are not convinced of the hoax, then perhaps you should join the Clavius fansite and bow before his Lordship Clavius.  It's so much easier than thinking for yourself.

I'm not here to claim superior knowledge to anyone of you.  I can tell you, however, that I have spent many hours researching this.  I just made some statements I felt would add life and comments from the opposite view.  It seems life isn't all it invoked.  LOL

Ultimately it doesn't really matter which side of this issue you believe is the Truth.  The truth stands alone, oblivious to belief.



That is accurate information. The evidence speaks for itself and puts NASA guilty.

Edited by boggle, 20 June 2006 - 03:46 AM.


#34    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,169 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 20 June 2006 - 03:49 AM

boggle, is it really necessary to quote a very long post in it's entirety just so that you can add a 1 line opinion?

Some moderators may consider a post such as this spam and delete it. If you agree with the post by all means say so, but you don't have to quote it all.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 20 June 2006 - 03:49 AM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#35    boggle

boggle

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2006

Posted 20 June 2006 - 04:25 AM

Quote


boggle, is it really necessary to quote a very long post in it's entirety just so that you can add a 1 line opinion?

Some moderators may consider a post such as this spam and delete it. If you agree with the post by all means say so, but you don't have to quote it all.


i quoted it in its entirety, so what? if you dont like it then dont read it.  I responded to what he wrote and if its deleted oh well.

Edited by boggle, 20 June 2006 - 04:26 AM.


#36    rohnds

rohnds

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 183 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2005

Posted 20 June 2006 - 05:31 AM

Quote

)...I don't know why, and personally, I am very curious about that. One would think that he would've made it a point to get some shots of the "first man", as Neil did of the "second man".


Could it be due to the friction between Armstrong and Buzz as to who should land first on the moon?

Rohn

The Truth Shall Set You Free

#37    boggle

boggle

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2006

Posted 20 June 2006 - 05:36 AM

Quote


Could it be due to the friction between Armstrong and Buzz as to who should land first on the moon?

Rohn


or a lack of a professional working envirenment?  perhaps it was there, just like an earth like atmosphere on the moon lol

Edited by boggle, 20 June 2006 - 05:38 AM.


#38    rohnds

rohnds

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 183 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2005

Posted 20 June 2006 - 05:50 AM

But you could say that about just every company, organization or group of people anywhere in the world. It is in human nature to be better than your peers. But that doesn’t compromise professional work ethic when the “chips are down”. Their (Neil and Buzz) goal (primary object) was to photograph the moon (and it’s anomalies).

Rohn


The Truth Shall Set You Free

#39    rohnds

rohnds

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 183 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2005

Posted 20 June 2006 - 05:55 AM

I am going to play devils advocate here. It is announced that NASA is going to send an unmanned probe to the moon to monitor the radiation levels so that we can better understand their effect on the astronauts before sending the men to the moon in 2012. Now, if we had already sent men to the moon, why are we no studying the effects of radiation on these astronauts? Shouldn’t this have being one of their priorities back in the 60s before sending these men to the moon. And why didn’t we set up instruments on the moon to measure it’s radiation levels during the Apollo missions to the moon.

Rohn


The Truth Shall Set You Free

#40    boggle

boggle

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2006

Posted 20 June 2006 - 06:13 AM

Quote


I am going to play devils advocate here. It is announced that NASA is going to send an unmanned probe to the moon to monitor the radiation levels so that we can better understand their effect on the astronauts before sending the men to the moon in 2012. Now, if we had already sent men to the moon, why are we no studying the effects of radiation on these astronauts? Shouldn’t this have being one of their priorities back in the 60s before sending these men to the moon. And why didn’t we set up instruments on the moon to measure it’s radiation levels during the Apollo missions to the moon.

Rohn


why would they do that? wasnt 6 alleged successful trips onto to the moon itself be enough to justify an abort to that particular mission?  It would be apparent to NASA that levels would be insignifigant especially if at least one astronaut mades the trip twice, just ask Eugene Cernan, he knows how supposedly insignifigant solar radiation is in space, radiation while on the moon, and the radiation in the van allen belts both to and from the moon.  LOL

Edited by boggle, 20 June 2006 - 06:20 AM.


#41    AROCES

AROCES

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 16,312 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2006

Posted 20 June 2006 - 07:06 AM

To those who believe we landed on the moon, good you enjoyed and experiece with millions one of mankinds gratest achievement and was on the ride with our pioneers.
    To those who thinks we never went to the moon, too bad you are left and stuck in the world of conspiracies.


To those who believe we landed on the moon, good you enjoyed and experiece with millions one of mankinds gratest achievement and was on the ride with our pioneers.
    To those who thinks we never went to the moon, too bad you are left and stuck in the world of conspiracies.



#42    boggle

boggle

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2006

Posted 20 June 2006 - 07:28 AM

Quote


To those who believe we landed on the moon, good you enjoyed and experiece with millions one of mankinds gratest achievement and was on the ride with our pioneers.
    To those who thinks we never went to the moon, too bad you are left and stuck in the world of conspiracies.
To those who believe we landed on the moon, good you enjoyed and experiece with millions one of mankinds gratest achievement and was on the ride with our pioneers.
    To those who thinks we never went to the moon, too bad you are left and stuck in the world of conspiracies.


actually the ones who werent taken in by the well wishers are having a good laugh   w00t.gif what is also funny is that professors showing the real truth in colleges are getting a good laugh at NASA as well. Quite like 'mooning' NASA and their dubious antics.

Edited by boggle, 20 June 2006 - 07:41 AM.


#43    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,042 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005

Posted 20 June 2006 - 08:44 AM

Quote


I am going to play devils advocate here. It is announced that NASA is going to send an unmanned probe to the moon to monitor the radiation levels so that we can better understand their effect on the astronauts before sending the men to the moon in 2012. Now, if we had already sent men to the moon, why are we no studying the effects of radiation on these astronauts? Shouldn’t this have being one of their priorities back in the 60s before sending these men to the moon. And why didn’t we set up instruments on the moon to measure it’s radiation levels during the Apollo missions to the moon.

Rohn

They are planning on staying much longer this time so they need data for long term exposures.  Every trip before was relatively short.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#44    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,062 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001

Posted 20 June 2006 - 09:16 AM

Quote


i quoted it in its entirety, so what? if you dont like it then dont read it.  I responded to what he wrote and if its deleted oh well.

Please only quote the part of the post you are responding to. Quoting an entire post of that size just to add a one-line response is completely unnecessary.


#45    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 16,401 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004

Posted 20 June 2006 - 10:59 AM

Quote


actually the ones who werent taken in by the well wishers are having a good laugh   w00t.gif what is also funny is that professors showing the real truth in colleges are getting a good laugh at NASA as well. Quite like 'mooning' NASA and their dubious antics.


What I find really funny is that Engineering Professor was showing *the real truth* as an exercise in critical thinking. The students were supposed to analyze the situation and see that the conspiracy mumbo jumbo wasn't based on sound principles of engineering, or rational thinking of any type for that matter.

I also really enjoyed that "mockumentary" you linked to...lots of humor there. I've decided that all of this is really pretty funny. They say laughing is good for people... grin2.gif

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

Posted Image