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 2
Guest Guest

Was the moon landing fake?

168 posts in this topic

Did man ever go to the moon or was it the biggest hoax ever created.

evidence:

1.As the Lunar Module Antares, from Apollo 14, rests on the moon's surface there is no crater beneath its feet, despite the considerable amount of dust that would have been thrown up during its descent.

2.These shots of John Young and James Irwin - like many Apollo photos - show a lunar sky without stars. Yet with no atmosphere on the moon, stars should be visible - a fact confirmed by Maria Blyzinsky, Curator of Astronomy at the Greenwich Observatory, London.

3.what looks like the letter 'C' on a boulder. Is this perhaps an identification letter left on a studio prop?

4.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 will space walk.' Maybe this is to say that man has not spaced walked as yet, but will eventually. Who knows????

check out more of the evidence at:

http://www.mohammedi.freeserve.co.uk/moonshots.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that this subject is getting quite a bit of 'press' lately. For the life of me, I don't know why. Am I gulible? NO. I have personally spoken to an Astronaut that WALKED on the moon. I was still very naive and young in 1969, but the event is embedded in my Blonde brain. It makes NO sense to me for this to have been an expensive HOAX. Eventually NASA would have to 'come clean' and if that were indeed the case, there would be NO credibility or confidence in anything NASA attempted from that date on.Can anyone enlighten me?

::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm open to the possibility that NASA faked the moon landings - it is a fact that they had an obvious motive, and may have resorted to faking the landings so as to beat the Russians to the moon.

One thing that has puzzled me about the moon landings, is why there are no photographs taken of the landing sites from orbit. I may be wrong about this, but I've never seen a single picture of any of the landing sites taken from a satelite. Given that Mars Global Surveyor can photograph individual boulders on the surface of the planet, it would be a relatively easy task mapping the moon in the same way.

Is this because NASA know that there are no landing sites on the moon to photograph ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has created significant stir in my mind as well.  After the recent t.v. "it's a hoax" film there was quite a bit of discussion on UFOTruth, an e-mail list I am on and it seemed from the many professionals and scientists and folks in the know, that there was indeed a moon landing in the late 60s.  

However, againg, there is a kind of gnawing about it all!

Like one that won't let me rest....why hasn't anyone returned lately?  Why not build a station on the moon INSTEAD of a space station that can deteriorate eventually as did Muir?

Why not build a station on the moon instead...more secure, more permanent and more easily occupied and self-contained operation, don't you think?

It it was soooo easy to go to the moon so many times, why hasn't a base been built there????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dowdy,

  This subject was discussed on one of the older boards some months ago, suffice to say that the claim is pretty sensational, but fails to hold up under expert examination. Here's a link to a web site for you that addresses each claim made by the Fox program and exposes the flaws to them;

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

  It's no wonder so many people have a problem with the mind numbing junk television puts out as 'entertainment'. The emphasis is on the sensational aspect of the subject(see also the 'Alien Autopsy' special), and no time or effort is given to scientific or expert disemination of the subject. They tend to play on a person's ignorance, and far too many people automatically assume anything they see on television is based on the truth(even with the disclaimer at the beginning of the program).

  As to your question, Gareth, most of the mapping of the Moon was done by satelites prior to the manned missions, & this information was used to help determine the landing sites for the manned missions. Truthfully, after the manned missions, I don't think there was anything anymore interesting about the Moon that hadn't been covered. Its been so long ago now, I don't remember myself whether there where any attempts by later missions to photograph previous landing sites(maybe because they were in different locations far off the orbital path?).

  To answer your question Lori, there was such an uproar amoung Americans about the cost involved in sending astronauts to the Moon and the perception by the majority that it was just a lifeless pile of

rocks, that NASA finally ended the program. Back then (and even now) the concern was that too much money was being wasted on projects where the benefits were suspect, and not enough on our childrens education and health care. Economics is a harsh reality. This would also be the answer to your second question. It is far too costly to send the materials needed to the Moon for a space station(1/2 million miles round trip each time x the Lord knows how many trips) than to build one in Earth orbit.

Magikman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reese,

  They only stopped going to the moon after 7 or 8 missions. So they spent billions of dollars(total - that was a lot of money at that time) on something they deemed important, and only when they failed, in the general populations mind, to come up with anything concrete or enormously beneficial to mankind, people began to make a fuss. If you are old enough to remember, the Viet Nam war was enough of a drain on the economy, and a non-beneficial space program suffered. No big conspiracy, no hidden agenda, just plain economics.

  If it was so easy for NASA and the government to fake the Moon landing photo's, why didn't the Russians? At the time there was a great propaganda battle between the US & the USSR. It should have been just as easy for Russia to fake a Moon landing and claim to be first. They had all the same resources and scientific knowledge, & their desire to be seen as the greatest nation on the planet was probably even stronger, so what kept them from doing it? A desire to be seen as the best is a great motivator, I for one cannot see the reason for the Russians at the time to not try to exploit it. Then again, why would we be viewed as the "greatest country in the world" just because we made it to the Moon? Even back then we faced many problems, ie; poverty, rioting(Viet Nam war), poor health care, et al. There may have been a certain amount of pride in being the first to the Moon, but thats about it.

 In my honest opinion the claims about the Moon landing being a hoax are patently ridiculous and without any concrete scientific documentation or reasoning. Anyone with a little common sense and who was around at the time can but only shake their heads at the absurdity of it all.

Magikman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reese,

   This will be my last post on this subject, as it's relevance just doesn't deserve this much attention.

   If you click on his about me link, you will get a history of his qualifications and experience. His writing style is admittedly a little tearse, its obvious he doesn't suffer fools gladly, especially for those who proport to have "controversial new information" on a subject or an event they have little or no scientific knowledge about. He 'shreads' many of their findings by using solid scientific reasoning and experience with the subject matter. You seem to think he has gotten most of his information from someone who worked for NASA and wrote a journal about one of the missions. That isn't true. In one instance while trying to describe the effect of perceiving objects at certain distances(parallax view) in an airless environment vs. an environment with air(and the corresponding haze and pollution which distort this perception), he directs the reader to a web site that deals with the subject in a more detailed way. This happens to be the archieve site of the Apollo Lunar Missions. Its here that you can access all the information written down by the lunar astronauts on their missions and transcribed by editors. Its an incredible storehouse of information, for those who would actually want to read what's there. The man isn't afraid to admit when he's not absolutely sure about his information, so he actually takes the time to find a credible source for you to follow-up on. He provides links to other web sites that support his position, which go into even further detail scientifically if you desire. You could even try the NASA.gov website, but of course whats the point if they mean to continue the deception, even if it's 40 years later. He doesn't do this for his own personal financial gain, but rather to expose these 'con-men' to people who may be duped by them. There is one thing that you say that baffels me. What do you mean about not wanting to believe everything you read? What is it that you have to fear about something that is concisely written, and supported by undeniable facts? You had to have read or seen something that made you think the Moon landing was fake(or did you always think that?) What were their qualifications? What scientific reasoning did they use to support their position? I'm hoping it's something a little more substantial than the Enquirer.

  You still haven't answered my question. Why didn't the Russians fake a moon landing? The benefit to them would have been greater, and easier to pull off considering how they suppressed their press and the truth to their people. Back then damned little escaped the attention of our press,ie; videotape of soldiers bodies in Viet Nam, the Watergate scandal, student riots, the demonstrations in Chicago, etc. I'm not denying that coverups never happened, but there would have been too many people involved in this to keep it quiet. The Russians had the ability to track our space craft, why didn't they say anything? Any knowledge they would have had, heck, even a suspicion, would have been all over the news. Sure the Moon landing made us feel good about ourselves, but I don't remember it lasting that long. The war in Viet Nam, rioting, inflation and other problems quickly dimmed its importance. Putting a man on the Moon sure scared the hell out of the North Vietnamese, didn't it? Its hard to see what purpose faking a Moon landing served us, even in the short run.

  It was a great scientific achievement, nothing else. Hard work and determination by a group of people following a natural progression of events accomplished a goal. No mystery, no deception. Do yourself a favor and really read the information provided at the site I suggested, or not. It's up to you.

Magikman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in all probability, if the moon landings had been faked, it would be a lot more obvious, and we would know all about it by now. It's also likely that out of the vast number of people who would have been involved, at least one of them would have come forward and revealed the truth.

If the landings were faked, then everyone involved is still lying to this day - including all the Astronauts, all the NASA admins, all the men who were involved in putting together, launching and monitering the spacecraft and so on. This in itself seems unlikely - I wouldn't expect such a large number of people could continue to lie convinvingly for this amount of time.

Still, the possibility exists - and I'm sure there will be a lot more controversy over the subject for a long time to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is obviously a considerable difference of opinion on this subject, and there is evidence to support both theories regarding the validity of the moon landings.

One important thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet, is the moon rocks that have been brought back by astronauts on several ocasions. These rocks have been examined by hundreds of independant scientists, and they all agree that the rocks did indeed come from the moon.

In 1969, robotic technology capable of carrying out a sample return mission involving such a large quantity of material from the moon was just not available, meaning that astronauts must have been there and retrieved it themselves. The Russians sent a probe to the moon at around the same time as the original moon landing, and managed to bring back a very small amount of rock indeed.

Even today, bringing material back from another planetry body is not easy - given the amount of time NASA has taken to attempt bringing rocks back from Mars. This would indicate that the only way these moon rocks could have been acquired in 1969, is if they were brought back by astronauts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard story after story about the moon landing being fake, but I just dont believe it.  There are a lot of signs that point to yes it was fake, but until I have hard core proof I will never believe it.

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I've never researched the moon landings,but just to reiterate what SuRaMaN stated earlier.

I cant see how the truth about the "fake" landing could elude the population, and especially the media all the way to this day.

And they brought back some rocks. Even the experts agreed these werent manufactured stage props.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is really old... but I still want to just say something about it. After the Fox program on the subject of the moon landing being fake, I was SO convinced that it was one big hoax. After it was aired, my Tech Ed teacher decided to talk about it with our class. He hadn't seen it, so we told him point after point that we remembered from the program. He was able to knock down each and every one of them, so I then thought that it probably wasn't a hoax. You really can't be sure about it though... I don't know how much experience my teacher has with this kind of stuff, but he sure did make some interesting points. Sorry, this happened last year and I forget what they were, but I do know that they were quite convincing. Then again, so was the Fox program, so... who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any amature film footage from earth of the landing?  Or any sightings with a telescope?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MC,(didn't really want to call you m*****case, I was going to go with Bill, but don't know if that is your name),

 The technology doesn't even exist today for someone to video tape a moon landing from the earth, nor are there any telescopes powerful enough to view a 'landing', much less anyone capable of doing it back in the late '60's or early '70's.

 In 1998 NASA's Lunar Prospector mapped the surface of the moon with high resolution capabilities. However, even from its orbit, the pixel resolution wasn't fine enough to render recognizable detail to the Apollo 16 landing site. You could go to the NASA website to see the available pictures. Meanwhile, click on the other links provided in this thread if you want to get an overview of the various viewpoints.

MAGIKMAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The name is bill, but mc will do.  i guess i can understand that we didn't have the technology then, but now?  You would think we could at least see a lander with todays technology. Anyways, i've allways felt it was fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too.  

The light sources in the photography, the 'wind' ruffling the flag, the crosshairs in the images being tampered with, and the landscapes matching up in different shots (one with the pod, one without) all make me doubtful.  Also, the whole 'live from the MOON' film technology doesn't add up, even the still photos themselves have such a beauty to them, do you really think you could replicate them with a 1960's polaroid strapped to your chest?!  Ok, so say America won the race to go to the moon, why are we still not doing research ON it?  

I don't buy it.  

:-/ ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to give this thing a little twist, maybe they have landed on the moon (probably) but they didn't do it the way that we get to see it, or it was the second attemp, so it wasn't Armstrong but another human who was the first to touch the moon. The rocks (the first they brought to earth) could be from our planet because I have never seen those stones..

Why would they do something like this, well, maybe they received some sort of information that the russians where almost on the moon so they had to come up with something, the Russians, who thought to be the first took no precautions.

Odin Supreme 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ScaryD,

 Most of the questions you ask are answered quite well if you follow the link I provide in this thread HERE. You really can't rely on the sensational and unreliable 'claims' made by those who lack the knowledge and expertise in the subjects they question. Many of the 'anomalies' mentioned have simple and credible explanations. You also have to remember that the photographs you are questioning are from later 'missions', and are mostly from the mid '70's, when the technology was far more advanced and the 'picture' quality greatly improved. They had plenty of time to experiment and develop higher quality equipment. As to your question about ongoing research, you need to read all the posts in this thread. The moon missions were very costly, and because of a variety of reasons, little monetary or scientific advancement to the US being one of the biggest, it was decided that further manned missions would be non-beneficial.

Research is still ongoing, but only by using satellites. Even that disturbs a great many Americans. What exactly is gained by studying a big, dead rock?

 Finally, no one has still been able to provide an answer to this simple question. If the moon missions were faked, why didn't the Russians ever expose the fraud to the world? They had the capability to track the capsule, and would have jumped at the chance, knowing how badly the revelation would have harmed other countries perceptions of the United States. It only takes a little common sense to realize how absurd the moon hoax claims are.

MAGIKMAN you either, so how do I know you are from this planet?  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magikman,

I never said that I was from "your" planet... ;D

Odin Supreme 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exuse me.... ooops I'm sorry. Did you all say this was earth!?!?  Damn made a wrong turn at mars.... ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one have never believed that the moon landings were hoaxs - for all the points that have already been outlined above.

But an extra point to those who do believe it is a fake - do you also believe in the US using alien technology and roswell? If so then how hard is it to believe in the moon landings later? I'm not saying i believe in the roswell incident, 'cos i don't but if you do it isn't much of a leap in logic?

:sg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't have said it better PS :sj

:sq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One school of thought says that the moon landing did take place, but that they found something up there, and they had to film the process of the landing here on earth to stop anyone from finding out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Althalus,

Hmm, an what have they found, you made me curious! A base of some sort?

Odin S. :s9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

;D Althalus - thats even more bonkers  :s04

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.