Every claim the hoaxbelivers have about a fake moonlanding is proven wrong.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425571/

i bet it doesnt include the video from this website where buzz was caught faking earth images
***********************************************************************
The Apollo Moon Landings Are Science Fiction

The Space Shuttle, so far, has killed fourteen people, merely trying to attain an orbit about two hundred fifty miles above the Earth. How is it then, that a third of a century ago, with less computing power in the entire rocket than in a present day twenty dollar Wal-Mart watch, NASA claims to have gone 100,000% farther, six different times between 1969 and 1972, landing on another celestial body and then returning, without ever killing anyone? How could they have powered air conditioning in two hundred fifty degree heat for three days with batteries? Why is the "second round" of "returning" to the moon estimated to be no earlier than half a century after the first? (Would there be a fifty-year span between the first and second trips across the Atlantic in an airplane?)

If the moon landings were, as we believe, a government deception, then George Orwell's comment, "whoever controls the past, controls the future" is a scary wakeup call to insist that our government reform to the truthfulness of our founding father "who could not tell a lie." Otherwise, the powers that be will continue their addiction to deception and we all will be worse off for it.

WE GUARANTEE THAT OUR VIDEOS WILL PROVE
THAT THE MOON LANDINGS WERE FRAUDULENT
OR YOUR MONEY BACK.
http://www.moonmovie.com/
*********************************************************
http://216.26.168.193/moonmovie/images/clues/1.jpg
1)All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in Apollo 11 Monkey Business and explained in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, proves they did not leave low-earth orbit.
Clues

Lets be honest here back in those days the USA didnt have the complete knowledge on how to build a spacecraft that had the stability to travel in space, let alone traveling and landing on the moon. Before the USA had his first astronaut in space, about a dozen of other astronauts died trying.
The CCCP on the other hand did have this and werent in a hurry because they werent expecting the USA to land on the moon at all. How could the USA have jumped so far ahead? And after that landing on the moon the other next spacecrafts again all failed and exploded. Which means there spacecraft didnt have the stability. Was this just very very much luck or is there something else behind this?

Im not saying that the moonlanding is fake, but its kinda unlikely with that kinda knowlegde and the fact that the other launches failed isnt really helping.
About two days ago I was reading the newspaper and in the frontpage was a story about the moonlading being real. And I was thinking who cares, why not put up some real news. Then I realised that goverments mostly dont react to any conspiracies, but now all of a sudden there is a 'proof video', new goverment articels, new interviews even a newspaper trying to back up the moolanding and all thanks to the goverment. Why would the goverment suddenly interfere with this conspiracy and not with the others?

And ow yeah nice site Sunofone, the intro alone is more then enough of info!

There is already a massive thread on this, and now the question has been answered anyway.

Put it this way. If we went to the moon fifty years ago...why haven't we done it again recently?

they are making these massive rokets and they keep blowing up, just use the apollo they 'used to go to the moon'. And i rekon the photos were soo crap they had to shoot them again in a studio

if their was an actual moon landing,we shouldnt we be able to see that flag or footprints from our telescopes?what about the scientists and astronomers from those giant hubble telescopes,wouldnt they knowor have looked for those famous landmarks.are their pictures?its the moon maybe the flashes are different and cast different shadows?was anyone here alive in 69?its all speculation.but if their are pics of these footprints or the flag id like too see them.and their cant be any excuses because ne have pics of faces on mars and our satelitescan read licence plates from space.

We can't see the Apollo hardware on the moon because it is simply too small. No telescope here can view it. The Hubble can't see it either. It's resolution at the distance of the moon is around 300 feet at best.

As far as the video from Sibrel. There is a complete rebuttal starting here
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny1.html
with a description of the supposed smoking gun footage here
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html
and it is also mentioned at the bottom of the page here
http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

Put simply, Sibrel deliberately misleads you. The footage has always been available to the public, it was part of a live broadcast. If you watch the whole thing, his entire argument falls apart. But Sibrel knows most people won't do that so he can make money off those people.

try to find a film called Afunnuy Thing Happened on the Way to the moon, its easy to understand and very clear.

Personaly I don't know what to think. Part of me wants to believe we went to the moon, and the other part of me who is more familiar with government corruption and deception thinks maybe we did fake the moon landing. It seems hard to believe that no other country has gone to the moon.

Maybe the motive for faking it, would be to trick the russians into thinking we had superior technology, and that could be translated into weapons also. I haven't seen any of the movies that are posted here.

An interesting thing from the disclosure project video, mentioned that the astronauts saw and pictured buildings on the other side of the moon, and of course they are sworn to secrecy.

I don't take anything for granted any more after researching 9/11 for myself.

You don't think the Russians would have seen through a fake? They tracked the Apollo missions to the Moon. They compared the many hundreds of pounds of rocks that we brought back with the few grams they were able to get with their unmanned probes. They know the US did it. As far as no other country having gone, only the Russians have really had a program capable of doing it. They had problems with their large booster and gave in when it became apparent they wouldn't beat the US. China has announced intentions to go. They believe the US did it. Don't you think they'd speak up if they didn't think it happened?

Cwacky, that is the very video that is completely rebutted in the links given in the post above you.

Wrong. The VLT can - it has a resolution of about 2m (6 ft.) at the distance of the Moon. The lunar rover (11m length x 7.5m width) and the lower half of the lem (9m landing gear span - 4.27m was the module diameter), could indeed be imaged at that length. The rover tracks (over 100m lengths) would be even easier to see.

But, even though they conducted a project dedicated to finding and imaging the Apollo sites, they never did. And they have not explained why they did not get any images, nor why they ended the project, failing to succeed in their goal.

We actually left mirrors on the moon and people still deny we ever got there. If the mirrors don't prove it to you nothing will.

Also, if the shuttle was just in low Earth orbit people would notice. People seem to have a strange habbit of noticing large objects in the atmosphere (such as shuttles or sattelites or what have you) that cross the sky in less than 5 minutes. THE SHUTTLE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE LARGEST OBJECT IN THE SKY, SECOND ONLY TO THE MOON. Not one person reported seeing anything remotely similar to a shuttle. People tracked the transmissions FROM THE MOON. People watched the shuttle on its entire way TO THE MOON. Scientists analyzed the moon rocks and concluded they really did come FROM THE MOON. Don't give me that trash about antarctic moon rocks because there are very very few of them. The shuttle brought back about 100 lbs. of them. AND the scientists tested them to see if they were moon rocks that had simply fallen to earth and concluded THEY WERE NOT. The Russian governments' entire goal was to beat us to the moon, but they did not exploit this "hoax." Not that that will be any proof to someone like Turbo or sunofone but...

I expect sunofone will use his old fashioned copy and paste propaganda b.s. from some random theorists websight any minute now.

No, mirrors don't prove anything about men landing on the Moon. They could be placed there without humans. I think that the ESO found no landing sites, and quietly shut down the project to avoid publicizing the definitive proof that Apollo was a hoax. This is my conclusion based on these facts:

1.They can image the sites
2.They had a project dedicated to imaging the sites.
3.They never even provided any lunar surface close-up images.
4.They quietly shut the project down, without a word, and not a word on why they failed to succeed in their goal.

They COULD be put there by an unmanned craft, but think of how many people at NASA would have to be part of that mission to make it work. GOOD people who work at NASA that would just simply keep their mouths shut. Think of all the people who would be needed to go to Antartica to retrieve 100 lbs. of rocks. Even with a huge crew It would take YEARS to find that amount of moon rocks, and even if they could conjure this up they would still have to skim through the entire continent to find that many, that is, assuming that many fallen rocks even exist. Think of the coincidence that not one person even noticed/said anything about this huge crew it would require. What a load...

There are things in orbit all the time that people don't notice: satallites, the space-station. I believe the Hoax theory is proposing that the shuttle stayed in orbit of a distance up to 400 miles; at that distance, you think you could see it? Not saying I agree or not, just clarifying.

"There are things in orbit all the time that people don't notice: satallites, the space-station. I believe the Hoax theory is proposing that the shuttle stayed in orbit of a distance up to 400 miles; at that distance, you think you could see it? Not saying I agree or not, just clarifying."

Yes and alot people notice those satellites. The space station is alot further out than they are proposing the shuttle to have been. And yes, even at 400 miles you could see it when its image is plastered against the black of space.

I would like to show everyone another conspiracy theorists idea on the very existance of the moon to show exactly how outrageous some of their claims are.

Moderator: Gentlemen, welcome to the debate. Today's topic: Lunar Composition. For years, schoolchildren have been taught only one theory about the composition of our orbiting sister, the Moon, popularly known as the "Moon Is Made Of Rock" Theory. But this theory has come under fire recently by a group of religious and political activists, demanding equal time for their own views, dubbed the "Celestial Foodstuffs" Theory. Educators and scientists say that CF Theory is no more than a barely disguised reworking of the ancient "Moon Is Made Of Cheese" Theory. Our debate today will focus on differences between these two intriguing fields of research, in the hopes that the public will gain greater understanding of each. We'll begin with Rico.

Rico Dodton: Thank you. Folks, I'm here tonight to tell you something groundbreaking. It's something most scientists do not want you to hear. They're afraid that if you discover the truths I'm about to tell you, you'll stop funding their research. You won't allow them a monopoly in what gets taught in our school science classes. But luckily, after tonight you'll be armed with the latest in cutting-edge research and proven facts that will allow you to refute the bogus theory that has a stranglehold on our educational system. I'm talking, of course, about the "Moon Is Made Of Rock" theory. What's that you say? You thought scientists had proof that the Moon is made of rock? Well, folks, I'm here tonight to tell you they don't. "Moon Is Made Of Rock," or as I like to call it, MIMOR, is just a theory. It hasn't been proven. And until it is proven, conclusively, all we ask is that our Celestial Foodstuffs theory be given equal time.

Moderator: Thank you Rico. Dr. Marcia…

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: First of all, I can't believe we're even having a debate about this. But since we're all here, I'll try to make this short. The Moon is definitely made of rock. That's a fact. We have loads and loads of evidence. We have rocks from the Moon. We've run thousands of chemical tests on Moon materials - they've all come up as, well, rock. We've sent astronauts to the Moon - they saw that it was, in fact, made of rock. Now, it's true we don't know exactly how the Moon was formed. We have some good ideas and there is ongoing research. But as far as the Moon being made of cheese, I don't understand how anybody could still believe that.

Moderator: Thanks, Marcia. Rico...

Rico Dodton: Folks, Ms. Noll would like you to think that all scientists agree on MIMOR. But this is absolutely not the case. I, for example, have PhD's in Nutrition and Statistics, and I do not agree. Furthermore, I many of my colleagues find grave problems with MIMOR theory. Even leading astronomers have trouble accepting the theory. Why, just last April NASA scientists admitted, "Many questions remain about the chemical composition of the Moon."

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: That quote is totally out of context. You know as well as I do that NASA was talking about the exact chemical composition of Moon rock. They certainly do not doubt that the Moon is made of rock, and there's no way that they are saying it might be cheese!

Rico Dodton: I'll leave that up to the audience to decide. My point is that many questions about Moon composition remain unsolved, yet Dr. Marcia A. Noll would have you believe they've got it all sewn up. That simply isn't true.

Moderator: Well let's look into your Celestial Foodstuffs theory, Rico. Tell us how your research points to the Moon having a dairy-based composition.

Rico Dodton: I'd be happy to. For hundreds of years, humans have known intuitively that the Moon is made of cheese. It's really quite obvious if you don't hide behind a bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo. Let me give you a little thought experiment. If you opened up your refrigerator at home, and saw something greenish white, with little holes in it, you would assume it was cheese. Any rational person would do the same. Why then, should the case of an object in the sky be any different? Logically, we should assume the same thing - the Moon is white, the Moon has holes, and therefore it is cheese. But don't take my word for it -- I have statistical facts to back up that statement.

Moderator: Well let's get into those statistics. As you know, for a long time Moon Is Made Of Cheese theory was based largely on doctrine. Poems, literature, and the like insisted that the Moon was cheese-based. But you say your Celestial Foodstuffs theory incorporates new evidence.

Rico Dodton: That's right. Let's first look at the so-called "scientific" theory that is taught in our schools today. Scientists tell us that the Moon is a huge ball of rock, circling - in astronomical terms - right next to the Earth, another huge ball of rock. Now I ask you, does this make sense? Does it seem likely that two balls of rock would be found right next to each other in space? Let's look at the math. According to scientists, the ratio of empty space to rock in the universe is enormous. Jump anywhere in space and you are likely to find yourself in a totally rock-free zone. Considering this, what are the chances that two balls of rock would appear right next to each other in the vast enormity of space? I've performed the calculations, and the answer is: nil. Of all the places for a ball of rock to appear, right next to the Earth is so unlikely as to be statistically impossible. So we're left with the question - if a ball of rock could not appear next to the Earth, what might the Moon in fact be? And of course, the only other possibility is a ball of cheese.

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: That's totally ridiculous. You're assuming that the Moon just appeared randomly out of nowhere. No scientist would argue that. You've ignored everything we know about the development of solar systems, planets, and moons. What's more, even if you could prove that our Moon was not made of rock, there's no reason to assume that cheese is the only other alternative. What are the chances of a ball of cheese appearing next to the earth?

Rico Dodton: I would love to give you that calculation, and believe me, I am working on it. The problem is, because science has totally ignored the possibility of Celestial Foodstuffs, we have no data about the ratio of cheese to empty space in the universe! Until science takes our theory seriously, we will have to gather that data on our own, and that takes time.

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: Science has no reason to study cheese ratios in the universe. We've never found cheese anywhere except here on Earth. On the other hand, we have found loads and loads of rock on the Moon. How do you explain that?

Rico Dodton: Marcia is referring here to so-called "rock evidence," gathered on the Moon by astronauts, that scientists claim proves their case. I don't have to tell you that this evidence is spotty at best. Astronauts have only set foot on a very small fraction of the Moon. The Moon rocks they've gathered show us only tiny pieces of what the total composition of the Moon might be. Here's a little thought experiment: imagine you are a tiny astronaut on the Moon. You come to Earth and land in Wisconsin, a region rich in cheese. In fact, your spaceship lands on a large cheese wheel. You get out of your ship, take some samples, and bring them back to the Moon. There, your Moon scientists analyze the samples, and determine that the Earth must be made of cheese! I think we can all see how NASA has made this very mistake. They've sent their astronauts to a couple isolated locations on the Moon that contain some rock. But we've seen no samples from the vast regions between those scattered Moon landings. They bring us back tiny pieces of the puzzle and expect us to jump to conclusions along with them. But there is no reason to make that jump! The Moon is no more made of rock than the Earth is made of cheese.

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: Rico is right. We don't have samples from every inch of the Moon. Trying to collect them would be a logistical nightmare. We don't have the resources to send millions of missions to the Moon to take samples in every direction. Luckily, we don't need to do so. The samples we have from the Moon paint the larger picture, and every one of them is consistent with the moon being made of rock. We can't prove that every inch of the Moon is rock, but we have shown that possibility to be far and away the most likely. I'd like to ask Rico, are you saying it's a coincidence that every time we landed on the Moon, we just happened to be on a huge platform of rock?

Rico Dodton: I don't know, Marcia. That's not for me to prove. You're the one saying the whole Moon is rock. You're the one saying that's the only theory our children should hear.

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: We may not have rock from every corner of the Moon, but one thing we've never found is cheese!

Rico Dodton: That's what science would like us to believe. But I suspect that scientists may be hiding cheese evidence, for fear that it would demolish their case. It wouldn't be the first time science perpetrated a fraud. Let me call your attention to the Buzz Aldrin fiasco. As you know, in 1982 Mister Aldrin was caught telling a girl in a bar that some rocks in his pocket were authentic Moon rocks. But subsequent chemical tests proved that those rocks were from a ranch in Montana! Do you deny that this was a case of clear-cut lies?

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: Yes, we've all heard about the Buzz incident. But let me point out that it was scientists who discovered that fraud, and publicly debunked it! The beauty of science is that every claim is rigorously tested by a large number of individuals.

Rico Dodton: Nevertheless, we can see how scientists are perfectly capable of misleading the public. What's more, I am not convinced that the samples brought back from the Moon are rock at all. A careful look at those samples shows that they are indistinguishable from old, hardened cheese! Anyone who has let cheese sit out for a couple days in a cold, dry climate - such as that on the Moon - knows that cheese can harden to a remarkably rock-like consistency. Imagine how hard cheese could get after a couple billion years spent orbiting the Earth! Thus, science has not proven that their samples are non-cheese.

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: Just because you say it could be cheese, doesn't make it true! Are you a geologist? Have you ever taken a chemistry class?

Rico Dodton: Ah, again, we see the appeals to scientific elitism. As if regular people aren't smart enough to understand the complexities of lunar study.

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: You're the one who is treating this audience like idiots.

Rico Dodton: Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Science has tried again and again to beat down CF theory, and failed every time. Scientists said the Moon could not be cheese, because cheese has little holes and the Moon has big ones. We replied that a piece of cheese as big as the Moon would naturally have bigger holes. They said a piece of cheese that large would require an enormous cow to provide the milk. We replied that enormous cows might very well live right outside our solar system. They said a piece of cheese that large would emit an odor so strong -

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: Scientists never said any of those things! You're making up arguments just to knock them down!

Rico Dodton: Be that as it may, your research has never looked into any of these possibilities! Have you constructed a giant cheese smell-o-meter and sent it into orbit, as CF supporters have demanded? Why not? Are you afraid of what such a smell-o-meter might find?

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: You're talking nonsense. Scientists don't have time to chase down every half-baked theory that gets thrown at them. We work based on what we know. We know that the only materials ever brought back from the moon were rock. Nobody has ever shown evidence of cheese composition. You can't expect us to take twelve steps backwards just to satisfy your idiotic demands.

Rico Dodton: But you don't know that the whole moon is rock. You can't be positive. You've only studied a tiny fraction of the moon.

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: A countless number of separate experiments have all arrived at the same result.

Rico Dodton: But you don't know for sure. It's possible that the moon is made of cheese.

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: It is extremely unlikely. It is so unlikely it doesn't even warrant consideration.

Rico Dodton: But it's possible?

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: Fine, yes, I suppose it's possible, in the sense that any incredibly unlikely thing is still possible.

Rico Dodton: Exactly. And that is precisely why Celestial Foodstuffs Theory should be taught alongside MIMOR theory in school science classes. We just don't know which is true. Millions of Americans believe firmly that the Moon is cheese, and their views should be addressed.

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: You're talking about teaching something in a science class that no reputable scientist believes.

Rico Dodton: Well why should scientists have a monopoly on science? I say, let the public in. Anybody with an idea they feel passionately about deserves to have that idea taught to children in the public schools.

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: That's absurd. Why even have science classes if you're not going to teach established science?

Rico Dodton: All we ask is for our children to learn the truth.

Dr. Marcia A. Noll: Whose truth?

Rico Dodton: Well mine, of course. The Moon is made of cheese, Marcia. It's about time you stopped arguing and just accepted that fact.

That was a really interesting aside. I've read that before, yet it really does not nothing to credit nor discredit the lunar landing. And I really don't believe that at 400 miles one could see anything of the size of a shuttle with the naked eye. However, I must sleep. Take care

Yah, I posted that just out of humor and I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my attempt to lighten the mood. As for being able to see the shuttle in orbit:

"Orbiting spacecraft and satellites are easily visible to the naked eye; in fact, there are many people who enjoy tracking satellites as a hobby (I have personally seen many satellites, including Mir and the Space Shuttle). The Apollo spacecraft were large vehicles, thus bright and easy to see. Had the Apollos not left orbit, they would have been observed by many people worldwide, yet there where no such sightings. Also, there are documented cases of observers following the Apollos as they left Earth orbit on their translunar trajectories - exactly when and where the spacecraft were predicted to be. Furthermore, the Soviets closely tracked the Apollos all the way to the Moon and back."

LINK: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Here are the writers qualifications listed further down the page.

"My name is Robert A. Braeunig and I earned a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 1981. My formal university education includes such subjects as Astronomy, Physics, Statics, Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Soil Mechanics, Geology, Chemistry, Calculus, Structural Analysis, and Electrical Networks. I have received training in the basics of Photography with emphasis on exposure control. I have been an avid amateur astronomer since 1989, having served as both president and vice-president of the Birmingham (Alabama) Astronomical Society. In additional to my formal training, I am self-taught in the basic principles of Orbital Mechanics and Rocket Propulsion. I am in no way affiliated with NASA or any of its subcontractors."

"And I really don't believe that at 400 miles one could see anything of the size of a shuttle with the naked eye. However, I must sleep. Take care"

Well, you are simply wrong my friend. It is clear (to the professionals at least) that it WOULD be very possible and easy to see the shuttle if it was infact in orbit around the Earth. I would recommend checking out the rest of that page as well, for all your debunking needs.

I really don't see how people can STILL claim they never went to the moon. Where the hell did they go then??? They DID leave Earth's atmosphere, this is fact. And obviously, they were not simply in orbit. As it says on that sight, it would be cheaper, and easier, to just go to the moon than fake it.

I would like to apologize for something I said earlier that was incorrect.

"Think of all the people who would be needed to go to Antartica to retrieve 100 lbs. of rocks."

I just found out that they actually retrieved 841 lbs. over time! An amount that would be IMPOSSIBLE to find in Antarctica! Unless maybe, you searched through EVERY SINGLE ROCK IN THE Antarctic! And even if that was possible, I am very skeptical that amount of moon rocks even fell to Earth.

Just thought I would provide more proof of our landing on the moon.

I lived in the CCCP and everyone did say the moonlanding was fake, it was even written in the newspapers and they showed shows on tv about it. But thats it, it didnt go world wide, the goverment didnt accuse the US anything.

You guys . . . . yes we went to the moon. All of the information one could ever need is available to prove this, if one is serious about finding the answer and not simply enjoying the excitement of a possible conspiracy.

i saw a program about this once and they summed it up at the end quite nicely by saying that it would have probly been less trouble and cost less to actually go to the moon and land there then to actually fake the whole thing.

Wasn't it just 10-15 years earlier that we were launching rockets into space? With animals? Having enough safety, planning, and lets not forget a space craft that will work all in 10-15 years is highly, and I mean HIGHLY unlikely unless they had technology 30 years previously that we didn't know about. I mean come on, Its taking us 20 years to go to the moon again, If not longer. If we could construct that in 10 years, why can't we do it in 5 now? Its still a conspiracy, and will remain one.

They can't go back again in 10 years or 5 years now because of money and public interest. There was a lot more of both then and little of both now.

Exactly. Not as much interest, been there done that. Not as many people willing to put up the money either. We have enough problems here to spend money on.

Pretty obvious really Walken.

There is no point and it costs billions of dollars...

If we went 35 years ago then why is it going to take till 2018 for us to be able to return?

It's going to take 10 years to develope the technology to go back? Yeah Right.

NEWSFLASH................. WE NEVER WENT

But, as the bold text from the link shows, only a very small percentage will ever even be analyzed - about 42 lbs. And, the amount independently analyzed to date is much less than the 42 lbs. allocated for all future study.

A total of 5.1 percent or 19.3 kilograms have been allocated for scientific study, the rest is archived untouched for posterity.
Rocks

I always wondered about that. Do you know anything else about what was said, who said it, etc.? Do you know if any of these newspapers or TV shows can be found in any way, through archives or libraries in Russia or elsewhere?

Yes actually it will. We do not have any of the ships like we had 35 years ago. We have the shuttle now, and all of the development has gone into it; the shuttle was only meant to orbit the earth, no further.

Now we would have to go back and redesign and rebuild a rocket system that will allow us to get to the moon much safer than before(People did die trying).

To go from concept-design-modeling-prototype-testing-production to a launch can take 10 years; think of how much time and effort it takes to get a new aircraft off the drawing board...

Hell it took 10 years to develop the boeing 777, and it is a plane similar to many others and it doesn't even need to leave the earth.

10 years is more than a reasonable period to get to the moon, considering what we have to work with.

I personally don't see a reason to go back, but I am just reading this thread about folks that do not think we ever made it to the moon and giggling. No matter what event that has occured in history, there are always a group of people that want to dismiss it. Heck, there are still people that believe that the earth is still flat...

We did have the technology to get to the moon and back(although not safely), and we did do it. Most people here are not even old enough to know what the space race was, let alone to have witnessed it. The US wanted to reach the moon before the USSR did, and we were throwing gobs of money and resources at doing so; and taking risks along the way.

We did have many jumps in our technological understanding during that period, and we had more money and resources to apply to our program than russia did. They were first to orbit, we were first to the moon.

After that, there really wasn't much of a reason for anyone else to do it, or for us to go back; it is like coming in second in an auto race-no one is going to remember your name.
No one really tried, and I can't say I blamed them.

No amount of discussion is going to convince a believer that we never made it to the moon to see otherwise; it is the typical conspiricy believer system. Conspiricies are great in that you can make one out of any situation that you do not have full knowledge of. The absence of facts(real or imagined) gives enough of a framework to build the conspiricy on, and somehow groups of thousands of people have the uncanny ability to keep huge earth shattering secrets for the rest of their lives...Everything is based on a lack of knowledge, and supplemented with creative ideas that are impossible to prove true or false...

So America lied,and America didn't go to the Moon,...
SO WHAT ..
Who cares ?

Move on, get over it. get a life.

The risks taken....this reminded me of another oddity about the Apollo missions. Before humans went into near space, sub-orbit, or orbit, the US and USSR both sent animals up to find out how safe it was for advanced living species, and do a battery of tests on the animals upon return, whether they lived or died.

Soviet Program
At least thirteen Russian dogs were launched toward orbit between November 1957 and March 1961. Five of them died in flight. But in April 1958, Laika the dog became the first animal to orbit the Earth. Several more dogs also orbited Earth by March 1961.

Then in April 1962, the USSR's Gagarin became the first man to orbit the Earth.

US Program

Enos the chimp, launched November 29, 1961, was America's first animal to orbit the Earth. After just this single animal test flight, John Glenn was launched on February 20, 1962, to become the first American to orbit Earth.

Then, not even one animal was sent up to test for what the completely unkown effects would be past Earth orbit!! Apollo 11 was "sent to the Moon" in 1969, with three astronauts on board!!


Think about it for a minute. Both countries send animals into flight tests of near space, sub-orbit and orbit, before ever sending humans out to repeat the event. The Soviets conduct multiple test flights with animals in orbit, before being confident enough to send a man in orbit. The US does only one animal test in orbit before putting a man in orbit.

But, the kicker is that the US never even does animal test flights past orbit, let alone into deeper space toward the Moon, or of course not ever to the Moon!!

You can look at it at least two ways - the US took enormous risks with the lives of humans, who were also highly valued astronauts. That they were so sure, without any animal tests, that nothing past Earth orbit would be deadly or risky to the health of humans.

Or, as I see it, they had absolutely no way of knowing how high the risks were, but that they were sure the risks were high enough that any living organisms would die if they were exposed to the environmental conditions. Sending a chimp into space past orbit would be lethal, and be a disaster to the space program, so it was decided that no tests were ever to be done.

Near Space: Send up animals first
Sub-orbit: Send up animals first
Orbit: Send up animals first
Land on the Moon: Forget the chimps, just send humans right away, we have it all figured out!!

I seriously doubt it.

Well, you may not care, but if your country spent billions of your taxes on this, you might. And even if you believe they landed, you might not like the fact they are spending billions more to start another moon program!!

would they have had the technology to land an animal on the moon?
iirc the LEM was piloted, not remote controlled >.>

regardless, why do the same old people come to repeat posts with the same old arguements that get debunked a millions times in other threads, and then pretend as though they are offering brand new information that will seal the deal and prove that the landing was hoaxed?

What you are saying here is what the Sovjets said back then aswell and they are using these arguments till this day. They also said CCCP was doing alot more research then the USA. The US send one chimp and 2 years later they send a human. The Sovjets send alot more animals and 4 years later they send a human. Just think what if the US chimp died? Would the US send another animal or skip to the human part? The US just benefitted from CCCP research. And besides that, the Russian scientist said that the US didnt have the technology to actually accomplish sucha thing.
But the Sovjets never said the shadows, light, etc on the picture's of the moonlanding are fake.

I think you can find some of the newspapers of that time, not that you will be able to read it though

That is a perfect point. The technology of the day REQUIRED pilots, not just cargo.

They could not have just sent a chimp/dog/armadillo to the moon, we needed to have someone who could control each of the phases that required actual piloting of the craft.

Doesn't that make sense?

Turbonium, if you would take a litte time of out your busy day and read my posts, it is proof! SOLID PROOF! How could the Soviets have tracked the shuttle to the moon and back if they did not go? Why didn't the soviets notice the unmanned spacecraft that was taking the mirrors to the moon and ask wtf, where is that shuttle going? Not to mention THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA. How could they bring back 841 lbs of moon rocks from the moon, over time, if they didn't go? How was it faked if NORMAL CITIZENS tracked the shuttle on lunar trajectories??? The shuttle DID leave our atmoshpere, so if the space shuttle was simply in orbit, we COULD see it! So why didn't a SINGLE PERSON report seeing any shuttles in their sky? How were the astronauts communications tracked FROM THE MOON if they didn't go??? You cannot disrpove the scientists or astronomers trubo, try as you might. I'm sure if you use a little common sense, and actually READ MY POSTS, you will find PROOF they landed. Not just some random frames that coicidentally look like a hand or a telephone, or a moniter, or a tucan, or an ostrich to a certain person.

Not to be too much of a geek, but it was not the shuttle, it was the rocket/space module / LEM thingy that went...

But yes, you are correct in your statement.

Intersting that this thread has developed.
Someone stated that there was another thread here about the Apollo hoax business. However, that's not exactly correct. That thread is primarily discussing a very tiny aspect of one persons vision regarding a small snippet of Apollo video, and how, if true, would seem to support a fake.

That, at least, is an original position.

Nonetheless, it's amazing that the same statements, the same comments surface everywhere one looks. It's almost as if everyone addressing Apollo hoax issues is fed a "party line" regarding what to say.

But I've got to tell you, anyone who presents Bart Sibrel's "work" as their position statement on the moon landing hoax business has done themselves a disservice right from the start. This is beacause Bart Sibrel is a tabloid journalist, a producer of second rate pieces of whatever you can call that stuff without being really rude, utilizes adolescent and idiotic techniques, and has utterly no knowledge about that which he speaks. The man is no more knowledgable about Apollo than is Bill Kaysing, the so-called "father" of the lunar landing hoax.

Sibrel and Kaysing are out to make a dollar on the ignorance of a generation who can be easily swayed, and who were not present during Apollo. They have, additionally, succeeded in making a handsome profit.

It's not like their arguements haven't been completely disassembled by those of us who actually know what happened, and these rebuttals, if you will, are available on several sites for all to see.


But you actually provide a link to Sibrel's "Top 10 reasons why no man has ever set foot on the moon..." This deserves a comment.

First of all, most of these things aren't "reasons", they are unknowledgeable comments. Let's look at them one by one:

Just refer to the link...

10.
There is no mathematical factor that describes the Soviet superiority over the U.S. in early manned space flight. "Five-to-one" is unquantifiable, and is merely gas being spewed from the mouth of a fool.

The fact is, the Soviets were technically far les superior to the U.S. as of 1965, when we eclipsed their accomplishments. They were always less sophisticated safety-wise.

The first orbital rendezvous was accomplished by Gemini 6A and Gemini 7, not by the Soviets. The mission Sibrel refers to was the Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 flight, which did not accomplish rendezvous. The craft were 5 miles apart in different plane orbits at their closest encounter.

The Americans were the first to make orbital plane changes...the first to execute pinpoint landings, the first to rendezvous, the first to dock two spacecraft, the first to sucessfully flight test a lunar landing vehicle, the first to perfect orbital EVA, the first to orbit the moon, and of course, the first, and only country to land on the moon and return to the earth.

American superiority in space flight was obvious, and as of 1968, we had beaten the Soviets to the moon.

The Americans of course lost three Astronauts in the AS-204 pad fire in January 1967, but another not-generally-known fact is that the Russians were also the first to lose a man on the ground in 1961 (a fire in a test with a 100% oxygen atmosphere), and the first to lose a man in flight (Soyuz 1 in 1967). The Russians also destroyed multiple boosters in failures (including their entire lunar capability in July of 1969), and killed hundreds of people on the ground in multiple catastrophic failures of their systems.

The Americans, by the mid 1960s were clearly well ahead of the Soviets in the space effort.

9.

There was no "C" on that rock in the original 1973 prints. That "C" was artifact generated by multiple copies of copies. No one cleaned anything up. The original photo never had a "C" on it.


8.
Enlarged photographs of the lunar surface underneath the LM on the moon all show very clearly that the surface dust has been blown away, but not by a 10,000 pound thrust engine, by an engine that was pumping about 2500-3000 pounds of thrust from it's bell (a net 1.5-2 PSI pressure), and which was cut off generally some 6-8 feet above the surface. The soil is completely disturbed, not "completely undisturbed", as our "expert" Mr. Sibrel would have you believe.
Additionally, there was no concern whatsoever regarding the LM falling into a hole in the ground that the DPS engine would create, because we knew that the engine would not create a hole. If you bother to investigate, we had a very clear picture of the nature of the lunar surface based on the fact that we had already landed on the surface of the moon with a soft-lander several times (research Surveyor...). There was absolutely no concern about the lunar surface.

7.
Non-parallel shadows have been addressed ad-nauseam. There is absolutely nothing in any lunar photograph taken on Apollo that shows anything but normal photographic effects that are readily observable in earth photographs. This is essentially a moot point anymore, as it's just too worn out, and has been explained to death.

6.

Neil Armstroing does not refuse to give interviews. He's given several. He does refuse to be a hero, and to accept any accolades or profit for his roll in Apollo, because he realizes that the program was an effort of several hundred thousand people who all made significant contributions. He is a humble, intelligent man with a great deal of character which is befitting someone of his status. He is an example...one not followed by many. Collins refuses to be interviewed by SIBREL. He has given many interviews otherwise, and has of course written two very good books on the topic of space flight. Aldrin made the mistake of actually speaking to this idiot, and taking him seriously. People are different...they handle foolishness in different ways...but all three of the APollo 11 astronauts have given interviews.

5.

The space shuttle has actually never ventured higher than about 350 miles, and never once touched the Van Allen Belts lower edge. This is completely false, and has no bearing on Apollo flights to the moon, which passed through the belts in a matter of a couple hours and never received a dosage of radiation remotely close to a level which would cause any medical effects.

4.

Perhaps one of Sibrel's most ludicrously stupid statements:

A vehicle specifically designed to operate in vacuum, tested-to-death, modified, and tweked for years, flight tested with manned crews in rigorous fashion on Apollo 9 and 10,designed to land on the moon and re-enter lunar orbit...

To think that one could accept an idiot saying:

"To look at it's design and think such could actually have occurred is absolutely ludicrous"

...is ludicrous in itself. Now, I suppose, Sibrel is an astronautical engineer? This is the statement of a moronic man, a child at best.

3.
Ditto. He wasn't too good in space science in school either.
We landed during lunar morning on all APollo missions. The surface temperature never got above about 125 degrees F. Duh....
No Apollo mission ever experienced anything close to maximum or minimum lunar surface temperatures.

Know what the lunar surface temperature was when Apollo 11 landed? About 50 degrees F.
Lord...how did we "reject" all that heat?


2.
In 1967, three astronauts were NOT BURNED TO DEATH on the launch pad. They died of carbon monoxide poisoning (and rapidly). Their burns were not fatal in nature. This drama is one of those things that has permeated the American mindset for decades. I am not sure where it comes from, but the facts are a bit different.


At any rate, yes, problems were fixed, and within 19 months, Apollo 7 sucessfully tested the Block 2 CSM.

However, technology is not the cure to all ills. What is required is drive, dedication, and the sort of can-do attitude that was present when we were attempting to land men on the moon.
No such compelling goal was at the heart oif the shuttle program, and it still is not. The shuttle is a compromise. The Apollo CSM/LM was not. The shuttle was flawed from the start, and it continues to be flawed, primarily because the original design was not approved because of costs...which means, money going to other priorities because of a jaded society that has, in many respects, deteriorated in its attitudes and drive from that which existed when America was the best at what it did scientifically...back in the 1960s and early 70s.

When we lost Kennedy, we lost Apollo. We got Nixon, who scrapped Apollo and every advanced application on the boards. He even required a compromise on the shuttle design, which no future administration would support either. Thus, eventually NASA developed a paradigm of success over safety (despite the fact that "success" was unquantifiable for a vehicle that had no real mission), and we saw the results in 1986, and in 2003, and even to this day we still cannot make this thing work the way it should.

This is a societal issue, not a tecnological issue. But Sibrel does not understand that. In fact, he is a product of that very societal paradigm that has spawned such idiocy as the Apollo hoax.

1.

Please...don't start me on these fabricated pieces of film...


Look,
If you want to support a lunar landing hoax, you really need to develop your own positions, your own questions. Putting an fool like Sibrel out there is just plain silly.

Ask your own questions. Investigate for yourself. Apollo is the most fully document accomplishment in man's history of documenting things.

No offense, but you've got to start from a position with at least a modicum of substance in order to be taken seriously at all..

Regards.

What are you talking about?

The "stability" to travel in space? What does that mean?
Before Al Sheperd (i.e. the first American in space) flew in space in 1961, no other astronaut had died trying...not even a Soviet cosmonaut was dead yet (although it wouldn't be long in coming...). No other astronaut HAD TRIED YET!

The Americans "jumped ahead" because of sound science, a systematic approach, and a careful attention to crew safety in a very risky buisiness. The Soviets pressed because they KNEW THE AMERICANS WERE GOOD. They often sacrificed safety to press on with rudimentary firsts in spaceflight, but that had no von Braun, they had no Saturn, and they were behind us as of the mid 1960s...by a ways.

"..the other next spececrafts all failed and exploded. Which means there spaceraft didn't have the stability. "

What does that mean, exactly?
What launches failed after Apollo 11?

There really isn't much substance here....


Regards

We didn't go to the moon fifty years ago.
We last went 33 years ago.


The reason we haven't gone back is rather lengthy, yet rather simple...
If you really want it, I'd be glad to respond, but as for now, I'll just wait you out on that.

What massive rockets are they making that keep blowing up?

The Apollo hardware doesn't exist anymore (which is why we don't use it).

And as to the photos...well, I suppose if you reckon...

The response from frenat was correct.
Of course, there was the idea that the VLA might be able to tax itself to the limits and perhaps image Apollo artifacts on the moon. I always thought that from a scientific and financial standpoint, such an experiment would be a terrific waste of a massive array of astronomical equipment that could be better utilized for research purposes. Of course, the project's been scrapped, and I could bet that it was due to just what I said.

To answer your question regarding the pictures: yes, there are pictures. Approximately 6000 of them were taken. They are now all available on the web for public consumption...which is most certainly the primary reason that no one would bother to waste time trying to see the "artifacts" with a multi-multi-million dollar array of super-powerful telescopes.

And yes, someone is here who was alive in 1969...

i resisted as long as i could

lets see... you begin your rebuttal with HYPOCRACY and slander as a list of "first"s by russia is clearly demonstrated and easily quantifyable--but worse...
how can you eclipse something that is less superior?--

then you end it with AVOIDANCE and an implication of the evidence being faked without offering any details yet i am sure that when you do you will fail to subsantiate any such claim with adequate evidence or explanation to the contrary

you claim we were the bastions of safety then you talk of all the deaths we experienced--too much hypocracy in your post--also you blame a intellectually challenged society in diverting funds away from nasa as if this is somehow supposed to account for their fallacies--when in actuality the entire mission would be better off as a private enterprise where sucking the taxpayer dry isnt the only option nor excuse in failure

Sunofone, I challenge you personally, as the god of all the conspiracy theorists, whos infinate will cannot be surpassed, to answer just these five questions I asked turbonium earlier. (Which he convieniently avoided answering by the way.) Here goes:

1: How could the Soviets have tracked the shuttle to the moon and back if they did not go?

2: Why didn't the soviets notice the unmanned spacecraft that was taking the mirrors to the moon if the mirrors were indeed planted by an unmanned spacecraft, and ask wtf, where is that shuttle going??? Not to mention, THE ENTIRE AMERICAN POPULATION.

3: How could they bring back 841 lbs of moon rocks from the moon over time if they didn't go? Unless they scoured the ENTIRE ANTARCTIC CONTINENT for moon rocks, there is no way they could get that amount. (They did NOT search the entire antarctic continent sun, a search of that scale would require thousands upon thousands of people and practically unlimited funds, and the chances of no one noticing something, or coming forward about something like that are 0) The SCIENTIST tested them, and conluded, they were, infact FROM THE MOON, not just fallen moon rocks. I repeat, that is what the SCIENTISTS, whos profession revolves around knowing these things, concluded. You and you conspiracy theorist ridden friends are just wrong sun, sorry. You are NOT smarter than the scientists when it comes to this, no matter how hard you shut your eyes and plug your ears and try to ignore it.

4: How was it faked if NORMAL CITIZENS tracked the shuttle on lunar trajectories??? The shuttle DID leave our atmoshpere, so if the space shuttle was simply in orbit, we COULD see it! So why didn't a SINGLE PERSON report seeing any shuttles in their sky?

"Orbiting spacecraft and satellites are easily visible to the naked eye; in fact, there are many people who enjoy tracking satellites as a hobby (I have personally seen many satellites, including Mir and the Space Shuttle). The Apollo spacecraft were large vehicles, thus bright and easy to see. Had the Apollos not left orbit, they would have been observed by many people worldwide, yet there where no such sightings. Also, there are documented cases of observers following the Apollos as they left Earth orbit on their translunar trajectories - exactly when and where the spacecraft were predicted to be. Furthermore, the Soviets closely tracked the Apollos all the way to the Moon and back."

LINK: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Of course, what does Braeunig know, he only has a Bachelors degree in Science in Civil Engineering. And his formal university education only includes such subjects as Astronomy, Physics, Statics, Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Soil Mechanics, Geology, Chemistry, Calculus, Structural Analysis, and Electrical Networks. He's not as smart as you though huh sun, you read up on a conspiracy theorists personal sight!

5: How were the astronauts communications tracked FROM THE MOON if they didn't go to the moon???

There are countless other questions as well. And I would not be the least bit surprised if you just ignored this post altogether.

Just a question about the claim that american scientist searched the entire continent of Antarctica looking for moonrocks. The thing with antartica is that it is today, just as it was in the 1960s divided into section that countries claim for their scientific research, the US has one, so did the USSR and now Russia.
So if american scientist did search Antartica for moonrocks to claim as rocks retrieved from the moon then how come the soviet scientists on Antartica didnt notice them and asked what the heck they were doing interrupting soviet experiments?

I'd like to know why NASA hoaxed not just one, but several manned lunar missions - and even an unsuccessful one! Just what was the point of Apollo 13?

Actually, what was the point of hoaxing them at all? Given that if it was hoaxed, the Russians must have known all along.

Spend millions of dollars to show someone you can do something which you know they know you can't.....

Even the NWO and the Illuminati aren't that dumb!

The 841 pounds of rocks arenot just basic rocks either. Included are dust, core samples, rocks specifically picked out by a geologist and rocks collected while on tv. Furthermore, rocks collected at Antarctica would show signs of atmospheric reentry. None of the Apollo rocks do.