Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Obviousman

Moon Hoax with a twist

74 posts in this topic

There are a number of people on this board who are staunch in their belief that the Apollo lunar landings were faked. A common credo is that it must have been faked because it is impossible for people to travel through the VABs or Van Allen Belts (or in some cases, not without many inches of lead shielding).

To those people I would ask some questions:

1. The planned new lunar landings by the US, perhaps about 2015-2020; is your position that it is still impossible to travel through the VABs and any claimed lunar landings by the US about 2015-2020 must also be faked?

2. If other nations (such as the PRC) achieve lunar landings around that same time frame, will you also claim that they are faked?

3. If you believe that Apollo was faked but when the new Constellation / Orion missions land and you are happy that they are (will be) real... what will you say to anyone who claims that it is still impossible to conduct lunar missions because radiation is a killer / we still don't have the technology / they don't report alien civilisations on the Moon / another reason with which you disagree?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The planned new lunar landings by the US, perhaps about 2015-2020;

the scene doesn't really interest me, all i know for sure is there's a bunch of lunatics running the asylum.. what they actually 'get up to' could well be beyond my wildest imaginations..

that projected date provides a long time to have developed something.. a friend claims they 'had help' getting thru the VAB's. /shrugs

to me, there is a whole slew of inconsistancies with the moon landings and space exploration.. lack of information in one area easily allows the conversation to drift to other areas, i suppose that is why we get a forum topic here with some 300+ pages of text..

i posted in there once or twice about comments found in clintons personal memoirs/autobiography/whatever..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the fact that it's taking them 60 years to do something they've supposedly already done before enough to make you at least question the story? How about the fact that they had massive incentive to fake the landings? Believe it if you want but at least don't act like it's completely impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting - two replies and not one answered any of the questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting - two replies and not one answered any of the questions.

Interesting...? :yes:

Surprising...? :no:

:whistle:

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. The nearest thing to an answer was

...that projected date provides a long time to have developed something.. a friend claims they 'had help' getting thru the VAB's. /shrugs...

That "statement" seems to cover every bet: couldn't before but can now; they DID go through but had "help" (UFOs?), etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No moon hoax people want to answer the questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about the fact that they had massive incentive to fake the landings?

Actually, there was a massive incentive to SUCCEED...which was exactly what happened.

Believe it if you want but at least don't act like it's completely impossible.

We don't need to believe it happened. Many of us know it did. Belief is for the HB, and has nothing to do with the facts of the matter.

That being said...did you note the thread's purpose, and the questions Obviousman asked?

1. The planned new lunar landings by the US, perhaps about 2015-2020; is your position that it is still impossible to travel through the VABs and any claimed lunar landings by the US about 2015-2020 must also be faked?

2. If other nations (such as the PRC) achieve lunar landings around that same time frame, will you also claim that they are faked?

3. If you believe that Apollo was faked but when the new Constellation / Orion missions land and you are happy that they are (will be) real... what will you say to anyone who claims that it is still impossible to conduct lunar missions because radiation is a killer / we still don't have the technology / they don't report alien civilisations on the Moon / another reason with which you disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah. The nearest thing to an answer was

That "statement" seems to cover every bet: couldn't before but can now; they DID go through but had "help" (UFOs?), etc.

Actually, the DID have help:

A well shielded CM, and an SIV-B stage that propelled them through the thinnest portions of the VABs in a matter of minutes!

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This thing about the van-allen belts and radiation is based on people's lack of knolwedge reguarding how radiation works and affects the human body, nuclear disasters and media rubbish, and people who claim to be experts but arn't because they havn't a clue what they are on about, but they have some form of 'education' and so people like sheep, take them at every word...

Learn how radiation fraking works and affects the body people...then you may realise that the time spent in the VA belts won't kill them, or affect them in any serious way...

Edited by beale947

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a number of people on this board who are staunch in their belief that the Apollo lunar landings were faked. A common credo is that it must have been faked because it is impossible for people to travel through the VABs or Van Allen Belts (or in some cases, not without many inches of lead shielding).

To those people I would ask some questions:

1. The planned new lunar landings by the US, perhaps about 2015-2020; is your position that it is still impossible to travel through the VABs and any claimed lunar landings by the US about 2015-2020 must also be faked?

2. If other nations (such as the PRC) achieve lunar landings around that same time frame, will you also claim that they are faked?

3. If you believe that Apollo was faked but when the new Constellation / Orion missions land and you are happy that they are (will be) real... what will you say to anyone who claims that it is still impossible to conduct lunar missions because radiation is a killer / we still don't have the technology / they don't report alien civilisations on the Moon / another reason with which you disagree?

Thanks.

1. They had 60 years to come up with vehicle that could withstand the VAB (radiation)

2. Yes people will claim they are faked just as the Chinese space walk was claimed to have been filmed underwater.

3. I will tell them to come to UM and speak with you and Mid :D

I once doubted NASA claims to the moon landing but not anymore ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks!

I do find it very curious - and possibly revealing - that none of the people who staunchly profess such beliefs as described in my opening post are willing to answer what are quite simple questions.

What have they got to hide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks!

I do find it very curious - and possibly revealing - that none of the people who staunchly profess such beliefs as described in my opening post are willing to answer what are quite simple questions.

What have they got to hide?

Interesting how the other thread generates 440+ pages, and there is nary a peep in this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks!

I do find it very curious - and possibly revealing - that none of the people who staunchly profess such beliefs as described in my opening post are willing to answer what are quite simple questions.

What have they got to hide?

Don't know, OM...

I know Turb said he was going to respond...but he appears to have flown the coop...at least for the time being.

I could surmise the answers might be as follows:

1. The planned new lunar landings by the US, perhaps about 2015-2020; is your position that it is still impossible to travel through the VABs and any claimed lunar landings by the US about 2015-2020 must also be faked?

Yes.

2. If other nations (such as the PRC) achieve lunar landings around that same time frame, will you also claim that they are faked?

Yes.

3. If you believe that Apollo was faked but when the new Constellation / Orion missions land and you are happy that they are (will be) real... what will you say to anyone who claims that it is still impossible to conduct lunar missions because radiation is a killer / we still don't have the technology / they don't report alien civilisations on the Moon / another reason with which you disagree?

I won't ever believe they're real...unless they send an independent observer to verify what they do and where they went.

What else can they possibly say, I wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What else can they possibly say, I wonder?

I don't know what more "they" might say but I can clearly imagine Turbs looking at a single, blurry frame of video from the First Orion / Altair Moon landing and claiming in all seriousness:

"Look.. between the "lander's" legs you can see the beard and shirt collar of a stagehand as he refills the superfluid helium tanks they had on the Moon set..."

:ph34r:

:rofl:

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds creepily familiar, Czero. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if there WAS a moon hoax, somebody would have cracked by now. and, wouldn't it be even MORE difficult to pull off a hoax of such proportions than to just land on the moon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if there WAS a moon hoax, somebody would have cracked by now. and, wouldn't it be even MORE difficult to pull off a hoax of such proportions than to just land on the moon?

I don't think it'll be more difficult to pull off a hoax than to land on the moon, i hear people say that a lot...I saw a video a while back showing how badly they couldn't control the crafts that were actually land on the moon, i'll try to look up the video for it, but this was a long time ago.

I'm not saying that we CAN'T make it to the moon and land there, but i don't really believe it, but thats just me.....and the thing i see everyone says about the radiation belt we have to pass through to get there, i don't think its as harmless as they make it seem, cause if something landed here, they would warn the hell out of us to stay away cause of radiation...i think they just tell everyone that its not harmful so they can say that we can pass through it with ease so the landing was real :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first time I am seeing this thread so I will reply.

Yes they have had 60 years to figure out how to do correctly and appearantly thats not enough time. They are planning to delay it further or scrap the whole project and focus on Mars.

Now answer my questions.

1. No other country has landed on the moon since we did? Why? We went so thats good enough for them?

2. Why did the russians not end of going when we were neck and neck? They just figured "oh the americans did it so lets just flush the millions we have spent down the toilet"?

3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it. We have 100 times better technology now and we are still planning a moon trip for 12 years in advance.

4. We had 100% success on 11 different missions (supposadly) and yet we still have flights like the discovery blow up mid air 30 years later? The odds are extremly low that we did what we say we did. No other country in the WORLD can do ONCE what we did ELEVEN times! Does that not make you question it? Japans technology is far superior than ours and they still have not been. China had a space walk recently and that was huge for them!

5. Why can we not see any pictures from a high powered telescope of the flag waiving or the rover that suppose to still be up there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it'll be more difficult to pull off a hoax than to land on the moon, i hear people say that a lot...

People say that a lot because its true.

Consider this:

In order to fake the Moon landings convincingly enough to fool the world's scientific, engineering and aeronautical communities for 40+ years, the level of detail would have to be astoundingly high. In essence, everything made would have to be authentic, fully functional and fully capable of carrying out their intended missions. Any inconsistencies would be immediately noticed by those qualified scientists and engineers who have studied the subject. Why go to the expense and trouble of creating spacecraft, procedures and technologies that MUST work as designed, JUST to fake what those things are fully capable of doing in reality?

Consider this as well:

Including all NASA employees, contractors, subcontractors, designers and engineers, there were over 400,000 people involved in putting men on the Moon. How do you keep all those people silent for over 40 years without even ONE person coming forward with irrefutable evidence (note I said evidence, not opinion) that the landings were faked? There are many theories put forward by the hoax believers (massive payoffs, death threats, etc.), but none of them have been shown to be "easier" than actually GOING to the Moon.

Next, consider this:

How do you keep the Soviet Union quiet? They had the ability to track the Apollo spacecraft and confirm that those spacecraft were where NASA reported them to be. This is during the height of the Cold War and the Space Race and the Soviets - renown for their practice of boasting about their successes and showing up the West for their failures - would NOT keep quiet if they had proof that the landings were being faked. Those who suggest that the Soviet Union was "bought off" are naive and are just showing their ignorance of the climate of the times.

There are many other specific examples (not the least of which is the over 800 pounds of samples returned from the Moon ) that provide substantiating evidence and proof of the fact of the Moon landings, but these should suffice as a good starting point to show that it was in fact easier to go to the Moon rather than faking it.

I saw a video a while back showing how badly they couldn't control the crafts that were actually land on the moon, i'll try to look up the video for it, but this was a long time ago.

It would be interesting to see that video. It wouldn't prove anything beyond the fact that the person who produced it (I'm assuming it was a YouTube video) has little to no clue of what they're talking about, but it would still be interesting none the less.

I'm not saying that we CAN'T make it to the moon and land there, but i don't really believe it, but thats just me.....

You are of course entitled to believe what you want, but the difference here is that the fact of the Moon landings is not based on "belief". It is based on ingenious engineering, cutting edge (for the time) technology and the courage of a select few who put their lives on the line in the name of exploration, discovery and knowledge. The proof of the Moon landings is out there for all to see. It does not require belief, but rather knowledge, understanding and a willingness to learn.

and the thing i see everyone says about the radiation belt we have to pass through to get there, i don't think its as harmless as they make it seem, cause if something landed here, they would warn the hell out of us to stay away cause of radiation...i think they just tell everyone that its not harmful so they can say that we can pass through it with ease so the landing was real :lol:

Please show us where anyone has said that passing through the Van Allen belts was a "harmless" endeavour. It was very risky, potentially lethal, but the spacecraft and the trajectory that it flew through the weakest areas of the Belts were designed and implemented to mitigate as much of that risk as possible. No one has ever claim, as far as I know, that the astronauts were "perfectly completely safe", and the radiation doses they received are evidence of the fact that it was dangerous. But the astronauts knew the risks, knew that the spacecraft designers had done as much as they could do to provide them with sufficient protection to make those risks manageable and acceptable given the importance of the missions they were undertaking.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. No other country has landed on the moon since we did? Why? We went so thats good enough for them?

Lack of funding and public interest. The Space Race was pretty much between the US and the USSR, and the US beat the Russians to the Moon. It's not easy and cheap to go there.

2. Why did the russians not end of going when we were neck and neck? They just figured "oh the americans did it so lets just flush the millions we have spent down the toilet"?

Interesting point. Apparently so. :) But here's another one for you... Why didn't the Russians cry wolf about the whole thing being fake? They just figured

3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it. We have 100 times better technology now and we are still planning a moon trip for 12 years in advance.

Yes, computers were quite primitive in those days. Rockets, however, have changed little in the last 50 years. And in the end it's the rockets that you need to go there. Also, remember that there is a huge difference between the Apollo moon landings and the current plans. The Apollo moon landings were two people going there for a short while (like, a couple of days). The current plans are for a much larger crew staying on the Moon for a much longer time (in a semi-permanent base). That's a whole different (and more difficult) goal.

4. We had 100% success on 11 different missions (supposadly) and yet we still have flights like the discovery blow up mid air 30 years later? The odds are extremly low that we did what we say we did. No other country in the WORLD can do ONCE what we did ELEVEN times! Does that not make you question it? Japans technology is far superior than ours and they still have not been. China had a space walk recently and that was huge for them!

Hmm, first of all we only tried landing on the Moon seven times. One of them went wrong, the others had some small mishaps. It's not a question of technology, it's a question of motivation. There's no Space Race going on like there was in the 50s and 60s. There was huge motivation and huge pressure on both the US and the Soviets to get there. On top of that, the space programmes got a lot more funding back then than they do now.

5. Why can we not see any pictures from a high powered telescope of the flag waiving or the rover that suppose to still be up there?

Because there is no Earth-based telescope with a high enough resolution to view such small objects. That's simple math. This, however, is on the Moon.

Sorry for the really short response, I'm a bit short on time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. No other country has landed on the moon since we did? Why? We went so thats good enough for them?

It an expensive endeavour. No other country had the resources available to commit to such a project.

2. Why did the russians not end of going when we were neck and neck? They just figured "oh the americans did it so lets just flush the millions we have spent down the toilet"?

By the time project Gemini was half way through its missions, they US and the Soviets were no longer "neck and neck". The US had taken the lead in the Space Race and never once looked back, despite the tragic failure of Apollo 1. For all their early successes, the Soviets could not perfect their heavy lift launch system. Look up the N-1 rocket, that only ever flew four times between 1969 and 1972 and for a maximum of about 107 seconds (final test launch in 1972) before catastrophic failure. The Soviets were still trying to perfect it through 1974 when the project was finally scrapped.

3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it. We have 100 times better technology now and we are still planning a moon trip for 12 years in advance.

And yet with that "caveman" technology, aircraft like the U2, the SR-71 Black Bird and the Concorde were developed. The U2 is still flying and the Black Bird and Concorde were only recently retired. Yet even with out "100 times better technology" we are still today unable to take a commercial supersonic flight anywhere.

Conspiracy theorists seem unwilling to concede the point that technology must start somewhere, that someone has to be the first to design something that we take for granted to day. And because of all that we take for granted today, most are unwilling to believe that things were able to be accomplished without our modern technology.

4. We had 100% success on 11 different missions (supposadly) and yet we still have flights like the discovery blow up mid air 30 years later? The odds are extremly low that we did what we say we did. No other country in the WORLD can do ONCE what we did ELEVEN times! Does that not make you question it? Japans technology is far superior than ours and they still have not been. China had a space walk recently and that was huge for them!

Are you forgetting Apollo 13? You must be... Plus, of the 11 manned Apollo missions, nine went to the Moon and only six of those landed. None of the Apollo missions were without problems. Some were small, some were large enough to at least consider aborting the mission. One only has to read the Mission reports - which are freely available - to see that none of the missions were "perfect". And going by your "logic", does the fact that airliners still crash mean that commercial aviation is a hoax?

5. Why can we not see any pictures from a high powered telescope of the flag waiving or the rover that suppose to still be up there?

For a telescope to have sufficient resolving power to enable it to see something as small as the flag from roughly 250,000 miles, it would require a mirror somewhere around 200 meters in diameter. If you are aware of a way to make such an item and have it constrain to the exacting specifications and tolerances required to function, please, let the world's scientific community know.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it'll be more difficult to pull off a hoax than to land on the moon, i hear people say that a lot...I saw a video a while back showing how badly they couldn't control the crafts that were actually land on the moon, i'll try to look up the video for it, but this was a long time ago.

I'm not saying that we CAN'T make it to the moon and land there, but i don't really believe it, but thats just me.....and the thing i see everyone says about the radiation belt we have to pass through to get there, i don't think its as harmless as they make it seem, cause if something landed here, they would warn the hell out of us to stay away cause of radiation...i think they just tell everyone that its not harmful so they can say that we can pass through it with ease so the landing was real :lol:

The video I suspect you saw was NOT the LM (Lunar Module), it was an Earth based trainer used to simulate, as nearly as possible, the landing characteristics of the LM. It was a training vehicle, with a jet engine, not a LM.

As for radiation, there are different types, and the radiation in the Van Allen belts is not terribly difficult to shield against. That, and the trajectory which took them through the thinner parts, very rapidly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it. We have 100 times better technology now and we are still planning a moon trip for 12 years in advance.

You're showing your age here...It was the same technology that developed the Concorde, the 747, the C-5A...and the Apollo Saturn. Do NOT make me come over there for calling me a caveman!! :)

Though I do think that folks back then were probably better at using their minds and "limited technology" to do amazing things...without PCs and workstations and the like. Heck...you kids can't survive without cellphones and GPS. ...darn, ya see what you did, got me started on an "old fart" rant!!!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

first time I am seeing this thread so I will reply.

Thank you, enigma - I appreciate it.

Yes they have had 60 years to figure out how to do correctly and appearantly thats not enough time. They are planning to delay it further or scrap the whole project and focus on Mars.

Sorry, but I'm a little unclear as to the answers you are providing. I refered in my opening posts with the questions about radiation but you haven't mentioned that.

Is it your contention that it was not the VABs that were the problem, but the whole technology? That we could not develop the hardware, the spacecraft, the computers, etc, that we are still trying to do that, and that we may scrap plans for a return to the moon in favour of Mars, presumably to allow more time more the technology problem to be solved?

Now answer my questions.

Certainly.

1. No other country has landed on the moon since we did? Why? We went so thats good enough for them?

As others have pointed out, the whole programme was massively expensive. At the time, the only two countries that could have footed the bill without bankrupting the country would have been the US and the USSR. Also, with the successful landings a great deal of knowledge was gained. Lunar geology was better understood, and samples returned went a long way to resolving the arguement about the origin of the moon. The first wave of manned lunar exploration was driven by politics with a dash of science. The next wave will be commercial; there are a number of proposals to mine the moon for certain elements (He3, for example). If the profit will justify the investment, then a corporation will make the effort.

2. Why did the russians not end of going when we were neck and neck? They just figured "oh the americans did it so lets just flush the millions we have spent down the toilet"?

Short answer: money. The N-1 programme was sucking up large amounts of money and just as in the US, sections of the Soviet scientific community were asking loudly why such expenditures were being made when the no successes had been shown. Even just after the last US astronauts had walked on the moon, the USSR was still trying to do it. With the failure of the fourth N-1 to launch, the programme was cancelled and more emphasis placed on the successful manned stations (Salyut / Mir) and the Buran / Energia project - the Soviet version of the Shuttle. Note that like the the lunar programme, the Soviet shuttle was built but never conducted a manned flight (there were unmanned flights).

3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it. We have 100 times better technology now and we are still planning a moon trip for 12 years in advance.

There are a number of reasons for this. Although technology as a whole has advanced, expertise in certain areas has remained static... or regressed. Why? Because they are not being used. Do we have better rocket engines? Yes! Do we have better electronics? Yes! Do we have a better lunar rover? No - and why? Because there was a call for one. Governments weren't buying them, so industry wasn't going all out to improve them. At most there were a pittance of funds going towards some future studies... studies that only now are starting to be used. Also, these are new rockets, new spacecraft. Where is the Orion spacecraft shop? Where do I buy one? They have to have their design decided, they have to be tested, and they have to be built. They are not available now. Let's have a look at something compariable: the F-22 Raptor.

1981 - Advanced Tactical Fighter programme established.

1986 - Request for Proposals (RFP) sent out to industry. YF-22 and YF-23 chosen for a fly-off.

1990 - First flight of YF-22.

2003 - First production F-22 delivered to USAF for operational test & evaluation (OT&E).

2005 - Introduced into USAF service

Now, that's 24 years from the establishment of the programme (the 'need') until entering squadron service! Thirteen years from from first flight to first production aircraft delivered!

4. We had 100% success on 11 different missions (supposadly) and yet we still have flights like the discovery blow up mid air 30 years later? The odds are extremly low that we did what we say we did. No other country in the WORLD can do ONCE what we did ELEVEN times! Does that not make you question it? Japans technology is far superior than ours and they still have not been. China had a space walk recently and that was huge for them!

No, I'm afraid you just don't understand the technology or the flights. Firstly, we had 11 successful flights but only after the Apollo 1 pad fire. The hard lessons learnt from that tragedy went a long way to improving the spacecraft. Then there is Apollo 13, one of the 'successes'; that was nearly another tragedy. Then on almost all the flights, there were items which could have seriously affected the missions but were averted. The lightning strike on Apollo 12. The spurious ABORT signal in the Apollo 14 LM. Lots of examples. Also, of those 11 flights, two were Earth orbital only... something that the USSR had also been doing.

What about the space shuttle? For the first 24 flights we had a 100% success rate.

How do you say Japan's technology is superior? In what way? TVs? CPUs? Stealth technology? Aerospace design? "Technology" is a very wide-ranging term and no one country has the monopoly on it.

5. Why can we not see any pictures from a high powered telescope of the flag waiving or the rover that suppose to still be up there?

Resolution. The Japanese SELENE did take images which showed the exhaust plume from the Apollo 15 ascent stage launch. When cameras are sent there that have sufficient resolution, you'll see the evidence... but even then most of the hoax crowd will claim the photos have been faked, so there is little point in it. You'll only see the hardware, BTW - the nylon of the flags has disintegrated under solar radiation.

Anyway - these aspects should be in the main moon hoax thread. I want people to answer the questions I posed at the beginning, which are about radiation and future flights.

Edited by Obviousman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.