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 3
virusdeath0

Moon landing was fake

163 posts in this topic

This should really be in the conspiracy forum.

Ask one of the mods to move it for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say you're post is in the wrong forum, but I know this material. I have the book. Quite a consistant legend, if I do say so.

Thanks for the post. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thx. I kknew I had the wrong forum but I couldn't see the other one. I tried and couldn't be bothered to look that hard. Soz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great find,

only i don't think we will ever know the truth of anything when it comes to being a fake, especially something as big as this, even if something is real and it gets debunked we will still never know unfortunatley. When it comes to conspiracies tho, I wouldn't put anything past them.

I belive that we are all being lied to one way or another, so either way mankind still would never know what was fake and what is real and always accepting what we are told by our governments will keep us in line and for that reason we maybe blinded by what could really be there, right in front of our eyes. Just a thought to ponder. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok thx. I kknew I had the wrong forum but I couldn't see the other one. I tried and couldn't be bothered to look that hard. Soz.

I could make a commentary about how this effort reflects the sort of research effort many have come to expect from conspiracy theorists in general, but I'll just move this to were it belongs instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please not this again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same tired old arguements that have been debunked time and time again. It looks like a badly cobbled together page of both pro and con arguements. Of course they have a lot more of the con material but it is still the exact same stuff you find on other sites. It doesn't make any of it any more valid. Every single thing on there has been debunked over and over again for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same tired old arguements that have been debunked time and time again. It looks like a badly cobbled together page of both pro and con arguements. Of course they have a lot more of the con material but it is still the exact same stuff you find on other sites. It doesn't make any of it any more valid. Every single thing on there has been debunked over and over again for years.

I doubt it's actually a 'con' as you put it but rather genuinely believed material, stating it as con material is an acusation unfounded. A person can genuinely believe something to be fraud and while passing along the material have genuine motives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same tired old arguements that have been debunked time and time again.

I couldn't agree more... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt it's actually a 'con' as you put it but rather genuinely believed material, stating it as con material is an acusation unfounded. A person can genuinely believe something to be fraud and while passing along the material have genuine motives.

I meant "pro and con" as in "for and against". No other meaning was implied or intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I meant "pro and con" as in "for and against". No other meaning was implied or intended.

I went and looked at some of the debating that happened in the past with this topic... got pretty heated eh? good information on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I went and looked at some of the debating that happened in the past with this topic... got pretty heated eh? good information on both sides.

Uh...I guess so. What does that have to do with my comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh...I guess so. What does that have to do with my comment?

I meant to be on topic all of the 'fors' and 'against' both on this thread and the ones in the past relating threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

this will make u believe that the moon landing was fake.

virusdeath .... I already have no doubt that the moon landings were faked .... but thanks for posting this link ... I have been looking for this one everywhere and couldn't find it again ... I was beginning to think that maybe NASA had it pullled and murdered everyone involved with putting it online ... :unsure2:

Just kidding NASA defenders ... I know how most of you have no sence of humor about this subject . :P

Sadly not all of the conspiracy information has been debunked , as our friend freant would like to have us all believe .... And the future missions to moon in the year 2020 ( if they ever happen at all ) will most likely be NASA's undoing and eventually prove once and for all that Apollo was nothing more than a publicity stunt and a scam .... That is unless the military/industrial complex decides to fake it again with new special effects .... Just think what kind of movie production they would be able to produce the next time with all that future computer graphics and photoshop technology at NASA's disposal ! ....It would put all of those phony Apollo videos and photos to shame , for sure. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it didn't make me believe, but it was a pretty interesting link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very qiuckly, re the Nine Space Oddities:-

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

Correst! Mission Control teases him. He hit it his initial shot about two yards.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

A guy in mission control, allowing for the two second delay.

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

That's a photo of Aldrin - Arsmtrong is taking it.

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

The pressure garment was designed with articulated joints to alllow movement.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

Thousands of photos, hours of film, 380 kilos of rocks aren't enough to satisfy HBers - they would claim that this had been doen by a remote lander.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

Picture reference number required please.

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

The astronaut is in mid-jump, so his shadow isn't immediately below him. The flag isn't fluttering, it's made of nylon which is easily creased. The next picture in the sequence shows the exact same crease pattern - the video taken at the same time shows no fluttering

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

Direct and reflected sunlight (from lunar surface and LM). The stars are in the sky - can't see them as it's impossible to have the lunar surface and the stars correctly exposed. Ask any amatuer astrophotographer.

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

Pressure = Force/Area. The descent stage rocket DOES show evidence of having scoured the surface regolith away from underneath the rocket.

All debunked in the space of a few minutes. I'll flesh it out when I have some more time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

Alternatively if they mean the video of Armstrong stepping onto the surface, there was a video camera attached to an arm that was lowered as he exited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like a family reunion :D Hey guys!

An interesting speech reversal can be found on Neil Armstrong's legendary 'One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind' statement. When played backwards Neil seems to say 'Man never space walk.' Listen to it for yourself.

This however is new to me LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, even after that I still don't think the moon landing was a hoax. Nice try though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is like a family reunion :D Hey guys!

linked-image

QUOTE

An interesting speech reversal can be found on Neil Armstrong's legendary 'One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind' statement. When played backwards Neil seems to say 'Man never space walk.' Listen to it for yourself.

This however is new to me LOL

Kinda like playing one of the songs (I forget which one) from the Beatle's Abby Road album, supposedly said, "Paul is dead". Wow, that was accurate (sarcasm mode).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, a wonderful little family reunion...

Hi guys (and gal!).

And Posty, again, you make quick work of the situation!

Allow me to embellish a little (I promise!):

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

A guy in mission control, allowing for the two second delay.

Correct. His name was Ed Fendell, affectionately known as "Captain Video". He controlled all of the LRV camera movement during the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions.

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

The pressure garment was designed with articulated joints to alllow movement.

The pressure inside the suits is just like it is today, between 3.5 and 4 PSI, pure oxygen. This oxygen pressure is adequate to support life (in fact, it is equivalent to the partial pressure of oxygen in our atmosphere at 14.7 PSI). Not only was the suit designed with special joints, it has a special bellows construction to prevent any balooning. A football bladder has absolutely no relation to an Apollo EMU pressure garment. There was a BIG difference between the pressure garment in a one million dollar Apollo EMU and the bladder inside of a typical $50.00 (good quality) football.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

Thousands of photos, hours of film, 380 kilos of rocks aren't enough to satisfy HBers - they would claim that this had been doen by a remote lander.

I thought that seeing it all happen live on TV was more than enough PR. I'm supposing we should've made a big bonfire? Then again, that couldn't have been seen in cloudy areas, or on the other side of the planet, where it was daytime and Moon wasn't visible... :D

...oh yea, there's that little lack of oxygen thing as well...I forgot. :w00t:

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

Picture reference number required please.

OH YES...HB rule...Identify all material, especially photos, since there were about 6000 of them taken on the lunar surface.

I cannot wait to see the picture where the photographer doesn't have a Hasselblad...

But I will concede that the text from the article was correct. Only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 EVAs. In fact, only two men walked on the Moon in all of the Apollo EVAs.

...I'm still trying to figure out how we got to see both of them on TV during all of those many EVAs... ;)

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

Direct and reflected sunlight (from lunar surface and LM). The stars are in the sky - can't see them as it's impossible to have the lunar surface and the stars correctly exposed. Ask any amatuer astrophotographer.

I think this person meant to imply that the flag was edge-on, or perfectly parallel to the suns rays, and thus, it should've been in the shadow of the post...?

I would want to ask how a flag, which never hung perfectly flattened, and always had surfaces in the sunlight, could be expected not to be lit up...?

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

Pressure = Force/Area. The descent stage rocket DOES show evidence of having scoured the surface regolith away from underneath the rocket.

The astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust?

How can one tell, since the LM pads settled into the dust and never moved? You cannot see the impression they made in the dust (indeed, we never have seen this).

The lander weighed about 2.8 tons. It's mass was 17 tons. It's 4 roughly 3 foot diameter footpads would disperse that weight to about 1.4 pounds per square inch of area. An astronaut weighed about 60 pounds. His foot print was somewhere around 60 square inches, which equates to around 1/2 pound per square inch of sole area. Now the photos, and astronaut descriptions, show that feet went in anywhere from 1/8 to 1/2 inch, depending on what the surface was like where they were stepping. Alternately, the crews all described LM footpad impressions in the 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 inch range.

Sort of makes sense to me...

Posty is of course correct...there is plenty of evidence of the LM DPS blasting away the surface dust in all Apollo mission photo sets.

I should ask the poster:

How should the engine of the DPS look after it's been fired?

Please indicate why the DPS engine should've made a crater in the lunar surface, when it has been clearly established that it couldn't have done so, given it's exhaust gas pressure at touchdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A family reunion and right after Christmas too ... Isn't that sweet ! :)

Hi MID ... Hey everybody ... Yep , Posty is pretty quick on the draw with those famous clavius 'debunks' isn't he ? :rofl:

We now have twenty three posts so far and this thread hasn't even turned into a brawl or been locked yet ? :unsure2: .... Will wonders never cease ! :o

But we all know that if the black sheep of this little family ( that mangy straydog ) had posted this topic link here it would have already been locked ... Like right after the first post . :hmm:

Edited by straydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tired of this topic. It seems to be everywhere.

Top 10 Apollo Hoax Theories

By Robert Myers and Robert Pearlman

SPACE.com

In the early days of the Cold War, three men claim they were chosen by a powerful new government agency to undertake a historically perilous journey. They claim this well-funded operation was staffed with the best scientists and engineers using technology pioneered by the Nazis, and they created the most powerful machine ever built.

In July of 1969, they claim, they climbed aboard an enormous rocket assembled in a Florida swamp, and were sent hurtling at incredible speeds into the sky … all the way to the Moon! Two of them even claim they landed on the Moon, got out, and walked around!

Below:

The 10 Wildest Theories Against the Moon Landings

And what prize did they bring back from this momentous journey? Well … they have a bunch of black and white photos of unidentifiable persons in bulky white spacemen costumes in a field of gravel (but curiously without any stars in the black sky) -- and several bags of gray, dusty rocks.

Put that way, the story of the Apollo program can sound pretty far-fetched.

But why should we believe the stories? What evidence is there, really, that the Apollo program landed men on the Moon and brought them back?

Phil Plait, an astronomer at Sonoma University in California, and the Web master of BadAstronomy.com, has his reasons.

"If I were trying to fake this, I would put stars in the image," he said referring to the complaint made by hoax proponents that the Apollo photos lack stars. If this had been an oversight, he said, it's an amazingly stupid thing to have forgotten, considering the scope of the "hoax."

Not to mention that with the way cameras work, photographing stars under those conditions would have been nearly impossible.

"If you do know about physics and photographs, you can see these arguments are all ridiculous," Plait said.

So why do people even give an idea like this a second thought?

"I'm not exactly sure," said Plait, "Michael Shermer is a renowned skeptic… and he has a list of reasons (such as) we have an innate thing inside of our brain, we have a need to believe."

"But one thing he leaves off, is that some of these things are just believable. If you don't know much physics, these arguments might sound convincing."

Besides, Plait says the political realities of the time would have made a fraud of that scale almost impossible to pull off.

"We went to the moon to beat the Soviets. If the Soviets had suspected that we faked these missions in any way, they would have been screaming at the top of their lungs."

The Ten Wildest Theories Against the Moon Landings:

10. Fluttering Flag

The Claim: The American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.

The Science: If you look closely, you will notice the flag's edges are pulled taught. This effect, which was done purposely as to not allow the flag to just hang flat, it was created by inserting a stiff wire into the fabric. The "flutter" was created as the astronauts worked to erect the flag. As the wire was adjusted, "Old Glory" appeared to wave.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Glow-in-the-Dark Astronauts

The Claim: If the astronauts had left the safety of the Van Allen Belt the radiation would have killed them.

Simulated Van Allen Belts.

The Science: The Van Allen Belts are created by Earth's magnetic field, and protect the planet from dangerous solar radiation. The belts collects this radiation, and traps it in a layer surrounding the Earth. But unless you deliberately caused your spaceship to hover within this layer, for many hours or days, the radiation exposure is well below dangerous levels. The Apollo astronauts passed through the Belts in less than four hours total for the trip. "It's not much more serious than getting a chest x-ray," said Plait.

Outside the belt, the radiation drops to low levels that are only dangerous over extremely long periods of time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. The Shadow Knows

The Claim: Multiple-angle shadows in the Moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp.

The Science: The astronauts were taking their photos on a hilly, brightly-lit landscape while the Sun was close to the horizon. Imagine taking a photograph of someone on a rolling, uneven field of snow during a full, low-hanging Moon. The contours of the ground would produce shadows of many different lengths.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Fried Film

The Claim: In the Sun, the Moon's temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted.

Alan Bean's Hasselblad camera is strapped to the middle of his chest.

The Science: No one was leaving bare film out on the hot lunar surface. All material was contained in protective canisters. In addition, at the time the Apollo missions landed, they were either at lunar dawn or dusk. As a result, the temperature was more easily manageable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Liquid Water on the Moon

The Claim: To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil, doesn't it?

The Science: Not always. If you take some dry fine-grained dust such as talcum powder and dump it out, it's easy to make tracks in it that hold their shape. The particles hold their positions due to the friction between them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Death by Meteor

The Claim: Space is filled with super-fast micro meteors that would punch through the ship and kill the astronauts.

The Leonid meteors burning up in Earth's atmosphere, as seen from space. Forced perspective make them appear much closer together.

The Science: Space is really amazingly big. While there are indeed an uncountable number of tiny pieces of debris travelling through the Solar System at speeds in the neighborhood of 120,000MPH, the volume of space keeps the density low. The chance of any given cubic yard of space having a micro-meteor passing through it is incredibly close to zero. Additionally, the astronauts suits included a layer of kevlar to protect them from any tiny fragment they might encounter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. No Crater at Landing Site

The Claim: When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the "dusty surface."

The Science: Beneath the layer of dust, the Moon is made of fairly densely-packed rock. What dust and loose dirt there was though, was "kicked up" as referenced by the astronauts and captured in their landing films.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Phantom Cameraman

The Claim: How come in that one video of the LEM leaving the surface, the camera follows it up into the sky? Who was running that camera?

Apollo 17 lifts off from the Moon.

The Science: Though we are sure the photographer, Ed Fendell, would have loved to have been on the lunar surface instead of at his seat in Mission Control, he indeed was in Houston remotely controlling a television camera on the lunar rover (which was left on the surface).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Big Rover

The Claim: There's no way that big moon buggy they were driving could have fit into that little landing module!

The Science: The rover was very cleverly constructed to be made out of very light materials, and designed to fold up to about the size of a large suitcase.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Its Full of Stars!

The Claim: Space is littered with little points of lights (stars). Why then are they missing from the photographs?

The Science: If you've ever taken a photograph outside at night, you'll notice that faint distant objects don't show up. That's not because the air blocks them -- it's because the brightness of the nearby objects washes out the film. In fact if you were standing on the day side of the Moon, you'd have to somehow block the landscape out in order for your eyes to adapt enough to pick out the stars.

Source

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
cut and pastead inadvertantly lead to an advertisment being included

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='straydog' date='Dec 26 2006, 01:08 PM' post='1474157'

But we all know that if the black sheep of this little family ( that mangy straydog ) had posted this topic link here it would have already been locked ... Like right after the first post . :hmm:

Well,

That may be, since straydog has already posted such stuff and has had things explained to him and has a tendency to persist beyond any ability to argue to the contrary. For him to post such a thing again might result in a lockdown, since it would be redundant, and ridiculous.

But we don't have to find out, since someone else posted the link.

He or she may be interested in learning something, so we'll see how that pans out.

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 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.