Were the moon landings faked ?

[Bogeyman]

I know what you're saying out there "not this old chestnut AGAIN" but this site seems to have tied up all the anomalies into one pretty convincing neat little package.

To me the most unconvincing thing is the supposed film footage of the earth through the window of the capsule........it's like the earth you would see in an old sci fi movie.....before they actually did know what earth looked like from space.........anyhoo heres the link

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Edited February 4, 2005 by Bogeyman

[Looter]

You seemed to have missed the point entirely, what about real Spaceflight? By focusing on meaningless details you fail to understand the essential difference between dreaming about flying to the Moon and actually flying there. Since you cant actually fly to the Moon you can only compare speculating about the Moon with speculating about the Moon. How can you tell what is real? Look at the big picture, no one is flying anywhere close to the Moon. Real Spaceflight is completely different from that kiddies TV show back in the 60's. Technology isn't going backwards, the real World isn't going away, no one needs to lift a finger to kill their Moon program. The real question is how can people in the 21st Century still believe such nonsense? Their minds are simply too small to grasp that they are wrong. They can huff and puff all they want but the net result of all their ignorance is that they crash and burn yet again. Learn to use your minds to think rather than just parrot bull****, the life you save may be your own.

[twinstead]

Every single anomaly on that site has been debunked and explained ad naseum. Basically the site you posted a link to is filled with misinformation, half truths, out-and-out falsehoods and observations made by people who have absolutely no qualifications to make them, but who really don't want you to know that. All tidied up into a package made to order for people who don't think for themselves or do their own research.

The REAL answers are out there, all you have to do is look.

http://www.clavius.org/

Edited for spelling--

Edited February 4, 2005 by twinstead

[Nethius]

First, Looter, could you please provide sources for your information, as I've requested this from you before and never stepped up, I assume you will ignore my request this time as well. I'm sorry but your claims are bogus and incorrect. We have been to the moon, there are space craft in our solar system, planes do get off the ground, we have pictures of planets from space, there are rovers on Mars, we have landed on Venus and Titan. Did you come here from GLP?

Now, Bogeyman, we were just talking about Mars in another thread, so i'm sure you know my stance on this one already.

Please read all of the info on the link posted by Twinstead, it should indeed cover all the questions brought up by your source.

This is another good link for expert information - Bad Astronomy(also if you go the home page there's also a link for the Mars Face, for the other thread)

now to speak specifically about whaat you brought up...

Copy/paste from your link

Another example that appears to be faked is the footage of Earth taken from the Apollo 11 when it was 130,000 miles away. This is the very first view ever taken of Earth on the mission and it seems strange that Buzz Aldrin would film the Earth when he was stood far away from the window,  why would he do that? Surely you would want to get close to the window to get the best picture and also to eliminate light reflections that are evident towards the end of this sequence...   But no, we see the window frame come into view on the left of the shot. The camera isn't set to infinity either to get the closest shot. The window frame that comes into shot would have been out of focus if it was...

First, they are very far away from the Earth, camera's not as good. As far as why would he not be pressed up right against the glass... I think that's quite obvious. Ever look out your window, but need to look left to see something... well, if you looked straight, you can't see it. so he needs to be at an angle to see the Earth, pressing the camera against the glass will only show directly ahead, not to the left. I assume he was using the view finder, and those crafts are not the roomiest things around either... So i bet he was at the best angle and dsistance for him to be able to comfortably view the Earth through the camera.

contrary to what people may think, I highly doubt that Neil/Buzz (and the others) were too concerned about hoaxers. I doubt they thought every little thing they do would be scrutinized to death.

So the entire moon landing was hoaxed because Buzz stood a couple feet back to get a clear view of the Earth? Like I said before, it was probaly the most confortable/possible view he could get while looking through the view finder

I know you're out drinking now, so have one for me too!

Edited February 4, 2005 by Nethius

[Looter]

http://www.apolloexplorer.co.uk/books/sp-4214/ch10-7.html

In terms of resignations many prominent scientists in the Apollo program resigned after Apollo 11.

[Sunofone]

Every single anomaly on that site has been debunked and explained ad naseum.  Basically the site you posted a link to is filled with misinformation, half truths, out-and-out falsehoods

The REAL answers are out there, all you have to do is look.

the only misinformation, half truths and out-and-out falsehoods come from nasa-the real place to look for answers is in between the lines-to think that that there is no profit in returning to the moon is to under estimate the mining,real estate and tourist businesses

Edited February 5, 2005 by Sunofone

[Thanato]

so they spent Billions, built Massive Rockets, Launched people up into space for 2 weeks? Dosnt make much sence to me.

And what about Apollo 11?

~Thanato

[twinstead]

Any rational intelligent person, upon hearing the rebuttal to the so-called evidence that the moon landings were hoaxed, would at the very least tend to question the motives and qualifications of its proponents.

The ONLY way anybody with any scientific background who was presented with the evidence that exists that the missions were legitimate could still hold on to the theory is due to ideology--not facts.

There's too many things for you to explain that suggest the landings were real. There are too many scientists world-wide, many of whom are from nations not friendly to the US, who have no problem with the landings that have to be dealt with. There were just too many amateur astronomers who tracked the missions from the Earth to the Moon that have to be dealt with. There is the Soviet Union and its advanced tracking capabilities that would have blown the whistle in a second that have to be dealt with.

There are thousands of geologists who know what they are talking about, from dozens of nations, who have examined the substantial amount of moon material, both rocks, soil AND core samples who have no problem with them that have to be dealt with.

I have been reading many of the posts about the moon landings on this and other sites and I can guarantee most objections to the moon landings are strictly ideological. The science and engineering involved and documented that show the missions were legitimate is so substantial as to be overwhelming.

You want to deny they happened? Show you are qualified to suggest they didn't, and provide your evidence.

Edited February 5, 2005 by twinstead

[twinstead]

so they spent Billions, built Massive Rockets, Launched people up into space for 2 weeks?

It is even more than that. Thousands of engineers were given instructions and plans to build systems that HAD to work. They couldn't have been given bogus plans or the 'hoax' would have been blown. So thousands of engineers built an entire infrastructure that would actually support a manned mission to the moon, whether they really went or not.

The ramifications of that is staggering; in order to fool so many really really smart people, the 'fake' landings would have to be completely real down to the last detail. Every vendor, every engineer, every contractor, every system down to the smallest detail would have to build exactly to what would be needed for a real moon landing. And those people would have KNOWN if there was ANY deviation from what would actually have worked.

The secret would need to be kept for decade after decade, even after better technology became available to test the hardware and evidence. The designers of the so-called hoax had no way of knowing if in 5 or 10 years the Soviets or Europe or China or Japan would be able to send a man to the moon, notice that there was no NASA hardware there and blow the hoax.

It is a common thought by people who study conspiracy theories that it would have been more difficult to fake it than actually do it.

[twinstead]

Oh, and Sonofone, explain to me why we haven't been back to the moon since.

[Sunofone]

Oh, and Sonofone, explain to me why we haven't been back to the moon since.

476455[/snapback]

you kew where this was going

but seriously how can we go "back" to a place weve never been

[Sunofone]

so they spent Billions, built Massive Rockets, Launched people up into space for 2 weeks? Dosnt make much sence to me.

And what about Apollo 11?

~Thanato

476436[/snapback]

now you getting it! you are aware of the definiton of "pork barrel" right?-somebody pocketed those billions-thats why the three astronauts were killed before the start of apollo-they knew how cheap and inadequate their equipment was

Edited February 5, 2005 by Sunofone

[Nethius]

now you getting it! you are aware of the definiton of "pork barrel" right?-somebody pocketed those billions-thats why the three astronauts were killed before the start of apollo-they knew how cheap and inadequate their equipment was

Yea, one guy took billions of dollars, and no one cared. I should belive this because you think it's true?

Those 3 astronauts died in a very unfortunate accident. To say otherwise is very disrespectful. NASA did not build Apollo 1 just to kill 3 innocent people.

Do you not understand how many people were involved? How much time was put into these projects? It is not a HOAX!

You need to consider your sources, the links I've posted or others have, are words of real experts in their fields that relate to this. Many of these hoax sites are built by some job blow with absolutely no science/space/photo/film expertise at all. Just some kid who reads some hoax site, thinks it's real cause the author says so, then goes out and copy/pastes tons of text from other hoax sites, and has his own. So who are you going to believe experts, or someone who knows how to copy/paste?

It's been the same old arguments over and over, and they have all been proven to be false, but these hoaxer just turn a blind eye and refuse to see the mounds of evidence that proves them wrong

My only advice to you is to examine both sides. Take the time to read the debunking sites, dont' jsut dismiss them like so many others. You never know maybe you'll actually learn something!

[Nethius]

http://www.apolloexplorer.co.uk/books/sp-4214/ch10-7.html

In terms of resignations many prominent scientists in the Apollo program resigned after Apollo 11.

476198[/snapback]

Sorry, I'm very hung over right now, not able to read that entore link right now, I will later (probably tomorrow)

But could you please explain to me how that link proves we don't have the capablility to send man into space?

Just by looking at the first line of that site goes against you theory. "The samples returned by Apollo 11 were just becoming available to experimenters when Apollo 12 was launched" How can we have samples if we were never there, like you say?

I have yet to read one of your posts that have made any sense. If you continue to post on this topic, can you please explain yourself a little more?

[Sunofone]

Do you not understand how many people were involved?

Just by looking at the first line of that site goes against you theory.  "The samples returned by Apollo 11 were just becoming available to experimenters when Apollo 12 was launched"  How can we have samples if we were never there, like you say?

of course not everyone was in on it-just those on a need to know basis-to think that man isnt clever enough to pull it off is naive-

the fact that we have never been there and no one knows exactly what the composition of the rocks would be makes it extremely easy to fabricate false evidence as no one can disprove something that doesnt have an original to compare it to-the most knowledgable scientist in the world in that particular field could easily be given an offer he couldnt refuse and be forced to say anything and of course there would be no one with the "proper credentials" to dispute it-and ill say this one more time - "if" we had really been there we surely would have sustained a maintained campaign and neither side in this debate will be proven beyond a resonable doubt until,as twinstead has reminded us of my past comments,we go again wont happen

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

Some of you believe every conspriacy theory out there. It is absoultely pathetic.

[pallidin]

Do you not understand how many people were involved?

Just by looking at the first line of that site goes against you theory.  "The samples returned by Apollo 11 were just becoming available to experimenters when Apollo 12 was launched"  How can we have samples if we were never there, like you say?

of course not everyone was in on it-just those on a need to know basis-to think that man isnt clever enough to pull it off is naive-

the fact that we have never been there and no one knows exactly what the composition of the rocks would be makes it extremely easy to fabricate false evidence as no one can disprove something that doesnt have an original to compare it to-the most knowledgable scientist in the world in that particular field could easily be given an offer he couldnt refuse and be forced to say anything and of course there would be no one with the "proper credentials" to dispute it-and ill say this one more time - "if" we had really been there we surely would have sustained a maintained campaign and neither side in this debate will be proven beyond a resonable doubt until,as twinstead has reminded us of my past comments,we go again wont happen

477166[/snapback]

Whatever.

So, I suppose the International Space Station is a hoax, that ICBM's(which breach space) are a hoax, and that all the planetary missions done by the U.S., Russia, etc... are a hoax.

Countries which don't even like us recognize our achievements on the moon, and have publicly declared their own interest for it. But, I suppose that is a hoax also.

Damn, how sad.

[Looter]

The Moonrocks were lunar meteorites from Antarctica. They were the inspiration for the hoax. Moonrockology was a discipline created by Shoemaker. Thats how you can really tell its fake: the emphasis on the Moonrocks, they spent all their time on the Moon collecting rocks. They collected 100's of pounds, you know why. Thats all they had, the whole idea that they flew to the Moon is based on those rocks, and trick photography. Did it work? Could they actually fool people with people with just a bunch of rocks? Not only that but the very sites that prove that the Moonlandings are real say that the Moonrocks are the most important proof there is. To me that is the hallmark of fakeness, when I first realized that it might be fake that was how I could test my theory. Could they have fooled everyone with just a bunch of Moonrocks? If they went on and on about Moonrocks it would be fake. Well do they ever! So you can just keep pounding the table with your Moonrocks all day long and you are only confirming what I already know. Thats how they fooled you: Moonrocks!

[Sunofone]

Whatever.

So, I suppose the International Space Station is a hoax, that ICBM's(which breach space) are a hoax, and that all the planetary missions done by the U.S., Russia, etc... are a hoax.

Countries which don't even like us recognize our achievements on the moon, and have publicly declared their own interest for it. But, I suppose that is a hoax also.

Damn, how sad.

477364[/snapback]

the iss is simply in orbit and will never venture beyond the van allen radiation belts-icbm's?huh?are these piloted by humans?the fact is humans have never ventured past the van allen radiation belts-counties that dont like us? your still under the impression that the govts of the world are really seperate entities-war is a nothing more than a system of population control which centralizes power into the hands of those that maintain their power by fooling the masses by dividing us-your right it really is sad

[pallidin]

Whatever.

So, I suppose the International Space Station is a hoax, that ICBM's(which breach space) are a hoax, and that all the planetary missions done by the U.S., Russia, etc... are a hoax.

Countries which don't even like us recognize our achievements on the moon, and have publicly declared their own interest for it. But, I suppose that is a hoax also.

Damn, how sad.

477364[/snapback]

the iss is simply in orbit and will never venture beyond the van allen radiation belts-icbm's?huh?are these piloted by humans?the fact is humans have never ventured past the van allen radiation belts-counties that dont like us? your still under the impression that the govts of the world are really seperate entities-war is a nothing more than a system of population control which centralizes power into the hands of those that maintain their power by fooling the masses by dividing us-your right it really is sad

477969[/snapback]

The following is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Belt

The Van Allen Belt's Impact on Space Travel

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. In 1962, the Van Allen belts were temporarily amplified by a high-altitude nuclear explosion and several satellites ceased operation. Magnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.

A object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (3) (25 Sv) per year.

Conspiracy theorists have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, even at the peak of the belts, one could live for several months without receiving a lethal dose, and launch sites and paths are chosen not to pass through said peak. Astronauts traveling to the moon probably have an increased lifetime risk of cancer, but would be expected not to (and did not) have noticeable illness.

[pallidin]

From: http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/FAQs4.html#q48

Appolo Astronauts and radiation

(Or: Did our astronauts really land on the Moon?)

On the Art Bell radio show last night I heard a fellow state that the Van Allen radiation belt's level of radiation was/is so intense... that for the 2 hours each way that our astronauts would have spent in it would have been fatal to them and therefore man being on the moon was impossible to have happened.

He also specified that whatever shielding was present on their craft would not have spared them.

Would you be so kind as to illuminate me about the credibility and scientific accuracy of his claims regarding the Van Allen belt's level of radiation ?

Reply

The argument which you raised keeps coming back in my e-mail; see for instance

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/StarFAQ4,htm#68

The answer is always--no. The radiation is bad, but not THAT bad. Astronauts went through the belt quickly, and the dosage was minimal. Two hours were certainly not enough to kill anyone--two weeks, maybe, I am not sure (the dosage to the skin would be heavy, but to the heart or brain much less so because most of the inner belt protons do not penetrate far).

[pallidin]

So, I guess that blows your theory of a Van Allen Belt boundary for human space travel. Oh, of course, the sites I gave are also part of the conspiracy and lies.

[pallidin]

And, 30-foot waves did not stop those interested in discovering America. They just built better ships.

But, I suppose that the entire existance of America is a hoax because earlier ships and technology could not do it. So, instead of moving forward, you say "well, a small fishing boat can't cross the Atlantic ocean so nothing ever will"

[Sunofone]

ill retract and sincerely admit my ignorance........when we return to the moon!

[Stellar]

palladin, its useless. Sunofone went on ranting and ranting about the VARB in the last moon hoax thread... I pointed him to why he's wrong and he just ignored me.