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 6
Death Star III

moon landing

moon landing   231 members have voted

  1. 1. do you believe that people landed on the moon.

    • yes
      157
    • no
      74

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

4,060 posts in this topic

Let us dissesct some S3th logic here shall we? In his first post he tells us that you can't trust what you see on TV:

Did you see it on TV. Because I see alot of things on TV and most of it is smoke and mirrors.

He tells us that he used to believe in the moon landings:

Well, I believed we went to the moon too...

So it must have taken something major to change his mind. What was it?

That was all before a very interesting episode of NOVA which alleviated me immediately of the illusion that we went to the moon. It was an episode dealing with the magnetic field that surrounds our planet keeping us from frying like a bunch of fish on a frying pan.

So he saw it on TV.

But hang on a minute:

Because I see alot of things on TV and most of it is smoke and mirrors.

Am I the only one that can see a huge hole in this logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S3th, I gather you haven't had time to read that website I linked to?

Yes, I made the time! Thank you for asking Lilly.

Let us dissesct some S3th logic here shall we? In his first post he tells us that you can't trust what you see on TV:

He tells us that he used to believe in the moon landings:

So it must have taken something major to change his mind. What was it?

So he saw it on TV.

But hang on a minute:

Am I the only one that can see a huge hole in this logic?

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.

What says volumes are Sibrel's tactics used in his "interviews". He arranges the interviews under false pretenses lieing about who he is and who he represents. When they arrive, instead of asking them questions, he immediately accuses them of being liars and frauds. Aldrin only punched him after repeatedly trying to leave and physically being blocked while having a Bible shoved in his face. Sibrel tries to be antagonistic because he sells more videos when somebody loses their temper. He is only in it for the money. The astronnauts know who he is. He has been arrested for trespassing on private property trying to get his "interviews" before. They know that if they do swear on the Bible he will call them liars, thiefs and frauds and if they don't they are hiding something. Sibrel admitted in court that he was trying to set Aldrin up in a no win situation. He is no better than a tabloid journalist.

Again, not a single one of the hoax proponents arguements stands up to scrutiny. Show us one that you think does.

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 thought said you had done some research.

So evidence for you is hearsay, shoddy research and strawmen? Yeah, Ok. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S3th-

i wasnt aware that .. yet another thread regarding the well wishing moon landing was brought here as well, otherwise i would have submitted info here as well. i admit, your posts regarding this subject S3th are more indepth than mine heheh. For example i noticed is that you stated something in regards to James Oberg. Here is the excerpt i used:

He was approached by NASA to write a rebuttal of Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, but it is not clear that the manuscript was ever started, and NASA promptly announced their intention not to publish the book soon after their announcement that they had commissioned it.--excerpt taken from wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're sounding a little irate, and that's not going to get you too far.

I asked for questions. Not twenty. One at a time. The answers will be lengthy, if you really want them, and , as I said, will require some actual investigation on your part as well. You really can't just believe us. Knowledge requires self-discovery.

If you are seeking the truth, here is where you will find the path.

Your post has far too many issues in it to respond to all at once (although it appears that people are coming through with some answers to many of them!).

Note: You were not lambasted by me. I simply laid out a pattern which would result in the most economical means of answering your questions, and as a result, providing knowledge in these matters. Your links and references are all to places that have thoroughly been debunked. I understand how you could be swayed to believe these places are telling you some inside information, but we will, if you allow us, show you that these places make grave mistakes, based upon a lack of knowledge.

How about we take things one at a time? Despite the fact that you seem to hold to opinions that are deeply imbedded in your psyche, I think you actually do have a curiosity about these things.

You made mention of solar radiation, and seem to think that there was no "shielding" against it.

The function of the van Allen belts is still the matter of some debate. The idea that it may protect us from solar radiation is certainly a possible idea, but that doesn't explain why similar radiation belts exist around all bodies that generate a magnetic field, life or no life. Their origins are relatively well understood...as an interaction between the solar wind and the magnetic field.

Actually, our atmosphere has the lion's share of protection duties against solar radiation. This is why our planet is relatively temperate, and why we don't get sunburned to death (although, depending on the person, that could still happen in some places on Earth!).

Of course, on the Moon, no atmosphere exists, so we compensated for that by producing the Apollo spacecraft, and the Apollo suit, which were specifically designed to protect against the effects of nominal solar radiation.

The fact is, we did have shielding against the unprotected rays of the sun.

The Apollo suit, for instance, was a 1.5 million dollar piece of engineeering which made an astronaut almost impervious to the harsh environment of space. Over the cooling garment and pressure suit itself was a garment consisting of 14 layers of silver-mylar and kapton, covered with completely fire-proof beta cloth which was specifically designed and tested to provide protection against solar radiation and heat, and micrometeorioids as well. It was mighty heavy, and mighty uncomfortable over time (it looked alot softer than it was, owing to the appearance of the external beta-cloth covering). The helmets had double visors on them to protect against glare, and of course, the PLSS and OPS provided a complete environmental regulation system which kept the men cool, and provided something for them to breathe, as well as removed the toxins they exhaled.

This suit, and the spacecraft, provided all the protection necessary to protect them from the nominal solar radiation, and the nominal amount of van Allen radiation they would encounter. Missions were also planned outside of solar max cycles, and of course, no STE ever occurred during an Apollo mission. This of course, could be construed as luck. It was, to a degree. The missions were planned precisely to avoid any such event, but the possibility existed, of course. That was deemed acceptible by crews and planners.

Additionally, van Allen transit was planned for as well, utilizing specific transfer orbits to transit the smallest or thinnest parts of the van Allen belts on the outbound and inbound parts of the missions. The planners did a really good job at this, as the multiple source dosimeter readings indicated for all of the Apollo flights.

___________________________________________________________________________

If you are in fact a seeker of truth, then I'd suggest using integrity to do so, rather than buying into the prattlings of the less-than informed. The JFK matter has absoluetly no relation to Apollo. All you need to know regarding Apollo exists in depth. All you need to know about Kennedy's death will likely never be revealed. There is a massive difference. Just because one thing seems to point to conspiracy does not mean all things that one doesn't understand do.

___________________________________________________________________________

You make statements of fact that simply aren't true.

You say that the LM hatch opened inward and that there wasn't enough room to get out because of that.

This is ridiculous. There was room to get out, and the procedure was practiced and mastered many times before crews actually landed on the moon. We had a large group of engineeers who spent a long time planning the vehicle to allow it to execute this purpose, and there are in fact film records available in the NASA archives that show this being done many times. There were several feet of space available aft of an astronauts flight station that would allow one to move back and away from the egress/ingress hatch while the other exited the spacecraft. Plenty of room to do this thing. That's the way it was planned. I know that may sound ridiculous, but that's the way the project worked. We planned for things, and designed for them to happen.

You see, spitting out alot of common HB stuff, in volume, isn't going to help you. One, because it's all been answered before, and two because it helps to limit your questions to one at a time, so a more clear understanding can be had.

Your posts sound very un-discussion like, and illustrate a profound acceptance of silliness. You do however, seem intelligent enough to ask a question, and learn.

But it's not looking too promising when you make a statement like , "And ask yourself this. How would an unmanned, still mounted (?) camera pan around after no one is left to do so?"

...and then go on illustrating what many of us already know about Apollo 17's liftoff, and the subsequent video that was made....for a couple days.

"There was no one there. Nothing, only the rover, the lander, and some equipment scattered around the dusty floor of the Taurus-Littrow valley."

Well, this is silly...because, we know this. Further, if one payed attention to the missions, one would've noticed that there was no one panning that LRV camera ever. It was done by a flight controller in Houston. He controlled that camera the entire time it was active. It didn't require anyone to move it around.

Unbeknownst to most people, we sat around watching later, after the LM ascent stage was jettisoned, hoping to see the LM impact on the surface in the distant mountains...long after the crew left. A crazy thing to have documented, since no one in the public cared about such things. They'd never see this stuff live, nor care about it. Kind of a dumb thing to bother doing in support of a hoax, don't you think?

But the bottom line is, if you intend to lay out a bunch of stuff like this (which was not rocket science, mind you), and think that it points to a hoax, you're painting yourself into a corner .

A hundred different hoax theories or pieces of "evidence" doesn't lend itself to serious consideration, especially when suffixed by statements like, "...there isn't enough evidence to prove the hoax theory. There is TOO MUCH!"

Because in reality, and as some of your statements show, there isn't any.

I am not here to shatter your illusions. I am here to guide you to an understanding of that which you do not understand.

Open your mind, and allow something in.

One thing at a time. It's much easier that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, calling Sibrel and upstart doesn't do anything for your side of this except show additional tainting of your opinion. Upstart...LOL. Do you realize how much time and effort he put into this 'investigation'? He's had astronots hit him, run away from him, etc. These are the acts of cowards, not heros! To call him an upstart is an attempt to discredit him and his research. Shame on you.

You can run, but you can't hide!

No, the fact that a person who purported to go to the moon, not only wouldn't lay his hand on a Bible and swear to it, but became angry enough to punch a man who is desperately seeking the truth in this matter, or as the one above did, run away.

I am well aware of how much time and effort he put into his "documentary". But you make a mistake in thinking that he is passionate about uncovering a truth.

He is passionate about playing upon people's ignorance in order to make a dollar...which he's apparently done in your case.

He had an astronaut hit him because he mercilessly harassed the man. You might also note that no charges were ever brought against Mr. Aldrin, because the documented evidence would've proved Sibrel's childish harrassment of an American hero, and any self-respecting jurist would've thrown the case out due to lack of merit, as they did in the case of the idiotic Bill Kaysing suing Jim Lovell for slander when Jim called Mr. Kaysing

"kookie" after reading a copy of Kaysing's book (sent to him by the genius Kaysing himself!).

Did you know that Sibrel forcibly entered the home of Neil Armstrong, scaring the hell out of his wife a few years ago, and was arrested for tresspassing and illegal entry? Did you know that this jerk is facing multiple law suits regarding his harrasment and behavior in his stupid investigation?

No, I didn't think so.

Sibrel is a child, and a fool, and a sorry excuse for a human being.

Asking people who did this thing to lay their hand on a Bible and swear that they went to the moon? Pressing them like some pubescent 7th grader?

His tactics, although certainly not rising to quite the same heinous level of contempt, come from the same lunatic mindset that makes groups of crazed religious lunatics parade outside of the funerals of young men killed in the middle east, holding up signs supporting their deaths, in full view of the agrieved families.

...only in America

You accept his behavior as a reasonable and intellectually sound thing to do?

If that's the case, then you're likely not worth talking to about this either. That's an elementary and childish stupididity on the part of someone who claims to be an adult.

Let's get real, and get back to questions here, OK?

Forget Sibrel. I will show you, as I have him, that he's all wet (he of course, doesn't respond, which is typical of a guy who really has no vested interest in supporting his position. His interest is, as I said, playing on the ignorance of a large majority of an entire generation...in order to make a buck).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)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: ). 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???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
)...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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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: 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually the ones who werent taken in by the well wishers are having a good laugh :w00t: 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... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually the ones who werent taken in by the well wishers are having a good laugh :w00t: 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.

Yes, the conpiracy theories does "mooning" , while the pioneers explores the moon.

There were those who laugh when the pioneers dreamed of going to the moon, and same people are laughing still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted that we landed on the moon. Course I think we not only landed on the moon, but have been making regular trips there ever since... then again I think the military has that anti-gravity or some advanced propulsion that make it about as easy as flying to another city and this rocket stuff is just for public consumption. imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted that we landed on the moon. Course I think we not only landed on the moon, but have been making regular trips there ever since... then again I think the military has that anti-gravity or some advanced propulsion that make it about as easy as flying to another city and this rocket stuff is just for public consumption. imo

I like it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it..

I like it too! :)

But, I'm not convinced that it's reality, mind you. However, I do like the concept that we might be able to zip here and there at will. This may someday come to pass. After all, humans are pretty clever when they put their minds to something...they can build pyramids, write symphonies, create beautiful art, and even go to the moon!

Share this post


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

You are absolutely right. Both Russians and Americans conducted research into the radiation hazards in the outer space and on the moon prior to sending men for the short EVA time on the moon. Russians did prove during the Zond 5 mission that it was possible to travel through the radiation belt. What puzzles me is why the NASA never conducted research into the long term effect of radiation on astronauts while on the moon or why they never setup instruments to monitor these radiation levels over long period of time. Since the NASA was eventually planning to built a base on the moon even back then.

Rohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.