my moon landing theory and evidence

[Master Sage]

Why do people doubt the moon landings? I think it would be better use of time to go find some soviet UFO files or somthing.

[MID]

im baaaaaaaaack.....

... i do happen to ask why it was that we would drive to on place where we started driving (or walking, i cannot remember) as show in the pictures on page one...

... it also seem wierd to me that in one picture of a mountan, you can see the LEM, and in a picture of the SAME mountan, the LEM base (which should still be there) is gone

I'm not really sure what you mean by your first statement above. You'll have to clarify that for me. I mean, the guys drove where they drove because the places were far away that they drove...otherwise, we wouldn't have needed the LRV. They drove to a site, got off, walked about to various surrounding places, did their thing, got back in and drove to the next station and so forth.

___________________________________________________________________________

You seem to be addressing the rather commonly known images that show what appears to be an identical background and a very different foreground.

But the LM should in no way be there in the first picture of the boulder field. That boulder field was a ways off from where the LM sat.

The explanation for these may surprize you!

Both are Apollo 17 images, taken looking toward the western horizon during EVA 2. Visible in both are the South Massif on the left, Family Mountain in the center, and the edge of the North Massif on the right.

In the boulder field photo (AS17-145-22174), you're looking at a view of the boulders that lie on the edge of Camelot Crater, a crater located about 3000 feet west of the LM. In this picture, the LM is behind the photographer about 3000 feet away.

In the other image you show, with the LM in it, you're looking in essentially the same direction, but this time, the camera is about 3200 feet from where the prior photo was taken, behind the LM, looking at the same background. You can't see the crater, or the boulder field because they are now some 3000 feet out there in front of the LM.

The second image is a video frame as well, with a different field of view and a different resolution than the Hassleblad photo taken during EVA 2. Thus, there's alot more detail in the Hassleblad image.

The mountains, and every other distant object on the surface of the moon, pose a special problem with depth perception. This is because there is no atmosphere there. Atmosphere on earth aids in our depth perception capabilities because it hazes over objects in the distance. That doesn't happen on the moon, so things that are far away tend to look very clear, and deceptively closer than they would on earth. Additionally, there are no familiar objects between the observer and a mountain in the distance on the moon, so as to help distinguish relative distance and size.

In the first boulder field picture, those mountain tops you see in the distance are over 4 miles away from the camera, believe it or not. In the picture with the LM in it, they are a bit over 4 1/2 miles away.

There isn't much difference in the way they look, despite the fact that you're not really comparing photos here, but rather a photo with a video frame. But the point is that the 3000 foot difference doesn't make too much difference in the appearance of the mountains, because they are very far away from the LM.

Did you know in the LRV, driving along at top speed, it took the crew about an hour to drive to the base of that mountain on the left? Well, it did. It's pretty far off.

I hope this explains the different foregrounds in the pictures. In the boulder picture, you're about 12-13% closer to the mountains in the distance than the video frame, and the mountains are about 4.5 miles away, despite the fact that they look like you ought to be able to walk there in relatively short order.

The moon is an alien world in just about every respect.

[MID]

I hope he does too. I've learned several things already from this thread, the websites listed and from you MID. This has turned into a very interesting topic.

Thanks, earthchick.

It's pretty interesting stuff, isn't it?

[The right hand of sanct]

I agree, I've read up on both sides and it would appear those b******* faked the landing .

[MID]

I agree, I've read up on both sides and it would appear those b******* faked the landing .

You've read "both sides"?

And it appears "those b******* faked the landing"?

Naaa, can't be.

You didn't read both sides.

Just my opinion, but otherwise, a very contributory post!

[Lilly]

The mountains, and every other distant object on the surface of the moon, pose a special problem with depth perception. This is because there is no atmosphere there. Atmosphere on earth aids in our depth perception capabilities because it hazes over objects in the distance. That doesn't happen on the moon, so things that are far away tend to look very clear, and deceptively closer than they would on earth...

I never thought about the effects of haze on a person's depth preception! Cool information!

I agree, I've read up on both sides and it would appear those b******* faked the landing

Apparently, you haven't read enough.

[punkmonkey123]

i am starting to ask one other thing. a doctor said that the astronaust would have died from radiation unless confined in 6lb thick lead walls, how did they passit with bareley any radiation exposure?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

i am starting to ask one other thing. a doctor said that the astronaust would have died from radiation unless confined in 6lb thick lead walls, how did they passit with bareley any radiation exposure?

It depends on the source of radiation he was talking about.

If it the van Allen belts that the doctor was referring to then the answer is that they didn't spend enough time in them. Radiation sickness is dependent on the dosage and the exposure time (this is the reason why you are safe when you have an x-ray but the radiologist will retreat behind a lead shield). You would not want to spend a long time in a spacecraft orbiting inside the van Allen belts. Eventually you would receive a lethal radiation dose and die. Apollo, however, shot through the van Allen belts at very high speed. As a result they simply did not spend enough time within them to receive a harmful radiation dose.

If the source of radiation is from solar flares then it is true that had a solar flare occured while astronauts were on the moon they would have died. There was no such flare during any of the landings. The six missions which landed spent less than two weeks on the lunar furface in a 3½ year period. They would have been extremely unlucky to have been caught by such a flare.

When NASA returns to the moon one of it's aims is to set up a moon base. With astronauts on the moon for long periods radiation exposure and solar flares will become a problem so NASA will have to provide shielding.

Incidently punkmonkey123 in your original post you said:

i have a special theory on how we faked the moon landing

we launched into space and rotated the moon several days.... we then had several actors on a set in area 51 pretend they were on the moon. we then launched back to earth unharmed......

If it is impossible to pass through the van Allen belts your own theory falls, as it requires the Apollo spacecraft to reach lunar orbit.

Edited June 3, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Moon*Ghost]

no offense but these are not your theories on the fake moon landing, they have been floating around the internet for years..

[Moon*Ghost]

Has anyone read about the whole ham radio conspiracy? While the moon landing was being broadcast, Neil Armstrong apparently made a comment about a UFO sitting on the edge of a crater. The live broadcast then was cut and went dead for a few minutes. It resumed a little while later.

However, people with ham radios still heard the feed without the interruption. Neil apparently was scared over a UFO and NASA was trying to calm him down.

Apparently, they were warned not to come back to the moon, and we haven't since.

This also leads us to the whole Hollow Moon Theory. Some theorize the moon is a giant artificial space station and is hollow. There are openings in the moon on the dark side. One question to ask is the impossiblity of the moon being in perfect alignment to cause total sun eclipses. A trait no other planet can boast of.

Another odd happening is this: Scientists were reading siesmic measures on the moon. Something hit the moon at the time of the readings, and the moon 'rang" like a bell for several hours after the impact. As if it were hollow. Also when digging on the moon, the astronauts hit metal and could not dig any deeper.

Edited June 3, 2006 by xymox1971

[Moon*Ghost]

http://216.221.91.136:8081/ramgen/ufor.rm

is a tape of Neil reporting to NASA? maybe?

http://www.cohenufo.org/unsolved.html#aldrinapollo11

those clips are more reports from Apollo 11 mission.

Edited June 3, 2006 by xymox1971

[zircle]

did u guys see buz aldrin punch out that young bloke on thatvideosite.that wasnt an old man protecting a lie it was a man defending somthing he has done

[Moon*Ghost]

here are recorded transactions between astronauts and NASA, very interesting stuff here:

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

[ivytheplant]

The sad thing is, there are so many real conspiracies out there that need to be exposed for the betterment of mankind or the environment, yet conspiracy theorist nuts spend their energy on crap like the moon landing "hoax."

I can't even begin to point out the wrongness of the so-called "evidence" for the faked moon landing. It would require technical explanations, a review of basic physics and high school astronomy, and me banging my head on the table while I did it. And I don't think it's worth it. Not to people who see sharks in the bathtub.

What is so wrong with the world that everything has to be faked? If it's not fundamentalists saying the fossil record is faked, it's conspiracy theorists saying the moon landing was faked. If it's not skeptics saying every bit of paranormal evidence was faked, it's ecoterrorists saying scientific studies are faked. Is the world going to end because something is taken at face value?

It's sad, really. Energies could be much better used uncovering real hoaxes or even helping with charity work. I'm sure there's a few animal and homeless shelters that would love to have the amount of hours in help that people spend on "proving" the moon landing was a hoax.

Edited June 3, 2006 by ivytheplant

[MID]

i am starting to ask one other thing. a doctor said that the astronaust would have died from radiation unless confined in 6lb thick lead walls, how did they passit with bareley any radiation exposure?

There have been a grerat many exaggerations regarding radiation in space. 6 feet of lead shielding is one of the more outlandish ones. One would think the spacecraft was passing through a nuclear reactor core.

What Waspie said is true. The crews passed through the van Allen belts very rapidly, limiting their exposure to particles. Additionally, they were well shielded by their spacecraft (the command module), and they also passed through the thinnest parts of the van Allen belts by virtue of the trajectory of their spacecraft.

Apollo missions were planned so that their earth orbits could be inclined approximately 30 degrees to the equator. The van Allen belts are aligned with the magnetic poles of the earth, not the rotational poles. What this inclination resulted in was that upon leaving orbit for the moon, the spacecraft would pass through the very thinnest parts of the van Allen belts, which of course limited the exposure of the crews even more.

Radiation was not an operational problem for the Apollo missions.

[Hazzard]

Wether or not the moon landing is real or fake has been argued for as long as I can remember.

Yes, there is good evidence that it was faked,,,,,,,

Ok Ill bite, lets se this evidence!

[MID]

Has anyone read about the whole ham radio conspiracy? While the moon landing was being broadcast, Neil Armstrong apparently made a comment about a UFO sitting on the edge of a crater. The live broadcast then was cut and went dead for a few minutes. It resumed a little while later.

However, people with ham radios still heard the feed without the interruption. Neil apparently was scared over a UFO and NASA was trying to calm him down.

Apparently, they were warned not to come back to the moon, and we haven't since.

This also leads us to the whole Hollow Moon Theory. Some theorize the moon is a giant artificial space station and is hollow. There are openings in the moon on the dark side. One question to ask is the impossiblity of the moon being in perfect alignment to cause total sun eclipses. A trait no other planet can boast of.

Another odd happening is this: Scientists were reading siesmic measures on the moon. Something hit the moon at the time of the readings, and the moon 'rang" like a bell for several hours after the impact. As if it were hollow. Also when digging on the moon, the astronauts hit metal and could not dig any deeper.

Yes. It's another one of those completely unsubstantiated nonsense stories that have sprung up over the years.

The very premise of Neil Armstrong being warned not to come back sort of falls short when one realizes that we did in fact go back, six more times over the course of the next 3 1/2 years; and, we are planning to return right now. So much for being warned.

Additionally, if he saw an alien spacecraft sitting on the edge of a crater, it wouldn't have been referred to as a UFO. It would've been referred to as a spacecraft of some sort, since it wouldn't have been flying. Besides, one would think we would've seen it in the TV PAN that was done shortly after they stepped out on the surface, or in one of the hundreds of photos taken while the AS-11 crew was out there.

I have no idea how that leads to a hollow moon idea, and whoever theorizes that the moon is a giant hollow space station is not someone who knows much about the moon. We've never seen any giant openings on the "dark side" (which is a misnomer, since the back side of the moon is just as well lit as the front side, depending on where the sun is in relation to it).

There is also no "impossibility" in the alignment of sun and moon which cause eclipses. They've been happening forever, and we can tell exactly when they're going to happen. In fact, any planet between us and the sun can and does eclipse the sun...like Mercury and Venus.

But they're so far away that their angular size has no effect of blocking out the suns light. The moon is much closer to us and its angular size is a virtual match to the sun's, thus, the occassional eclipse. It's a very natural occurance.

Many objects have hit the moon since the seismic devices were placed there. Several of these things were spacecraft impacting the surface on purpose so we could see the readings from those impacts. And there were in fact some lengthy readings taken of the vibrations from impacted objects. It doesn't mean the moon is a hollow space station, however.

And finally, no astronauit ever hit "metal" on the moon. What we did hit was a very densely compacted substrate, several inches below the regolith, which proved to be very tough. It was not however metal, and with effort, core sanmples were hammered into this hard packed substrate, and were brought back to earth.

[MID]

http://216.221.91.136:8081/ramgen/ufor.rm

is a tape of Neil reporting to NASA? maybe?

http://www.cohenufo.org/unsolved.html#aldrinapollo11

those clips are more reports from Apollo 11 mission.

No, that is not the voice of Neil Armstrong, nor does this clip contain the voice of anyone who was communicating with him from mission control.

That voice tape is a clever little fabrication which contains a bunch of nonsensical talk about nothing.

The second source contains clips of speculation about the Apollo 11 "UFO sighting", which was one of the LM housing panels from their S4B which was spinning quite a distance away from them during their trans-lunar journey.

[MID]

here are recorded transactions between astronauts and NASA, very interesting stuff here:

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

It is only interesting in that someone actually took all the time that was required to put these false conversations together, out of bits and pieces of actual discussions about several different things at several different times...so as to make it look like they're talking about UFOs or some such nonsense.

What you do not know about these "conversations" is that they are not actual conversations.

They are in fact snippets of pieces of actual comments made by astronauts on the moon, edited, often mis-spelled or mis-quoted, taken completely out of their actual context, and put to gether so as to give a completely false impression.

They are laughable. The very first Apollo 16 conversation is actually a collection of partial sentences, some mis-quotes, and such (the wrong astronaut indicated as the speaker, etc.) which took place on Apollo 16 over the course of a two hour period, at a couple different locations on the moon, from conversations about completely different things.

These are the utter fabrications that I've personally illustrated for "Cosmic Dave", showing him the actual content of the real conversations.

He ignores it completely, thus proving the absolute irrelevance of his web page and his conclusions.

Most moon hoax sites present information which is based strictly on a lack of knowledge, and a desire to be heard, and to stir up controversy, and make a buck on the un-knowledgable. Mis-interpretations abound, and grossly silly conclusions propogate these places.

Some, like this page you guide the reader to, provide utter falsifications...including the photo of Neil Armstrong taken by Buzz Aldrin which appears at the top of the page.

That photo, like all of the conversations printed beneath it, does not exist.

I've said it before, Cosmic Conspiracies is not a source where one goes to find out information. It is a repository of everything typical in Apollo hoax believers--lack of knowledge regarding the subject matter, reliance on fools (i.e., Kaysing, Percy, Sibrel, etc.), and in this case, blatant fabrication.

[ivytheplant]

There is also no "impossibility" in the alignment of sun and moon which cause eclipses. They've been happening forever, and we can tell exactly when they're going to happen. In fact, any planet between us and the sun can and does eclipse the sun...like Mercury and Venus.

But they're so far away that their angular size has no effect of blocking out the suns light. The moon is much closer to us and its angular size is a virtual match to the sun's, thus, the occassional eclipse. It's a very natural occurance.

And don't forget that the moon is actually moving away from the earth, about 3.8 centimeters a year. In roughly 500 million years, total solar eclipses won't even happen anymore.

Of course it's all just part of a conspiracy. They made the moon like that so it wouldn't look suspicious. So the moon is really the Death Star? "That's no moon! It's a space station!"

Edited June 3, 2006 by ivytheplant

[Moon*Ghost]

It is only interesting in that someone actually took all the time that was required to put these false conversations together, out of bits and pieces of actual discussions about several different things at several different times...so as to make it look like they're talking about UFOs or some such nonsense.

What you do not know about these "conversations" is that they are not actual conversations.

They are in fact snippets of pieces of actual comments made by astronauts on the moon, edited, often mis-spelled or mis-quoted, taken completely out of their actual context, and put to gether so as to give a completely false impression.

They are laughable. The very first Apollo 16 conversation is actually a collection of partial sentences, some mis-quotes, and such (the wrong astronaut indicated as the speaker, etc.) which took place on Apollo 16 over the course of a two hour period, at a couple different locations on the moon, from conversations about completely different things.

These are the utter fabrications that I've personally illustrated for "Cosmic Dave", showing him the actual content of the real conversations.

He ignores it completely, thus proving the absolute irrelevance of his web page and his conclusions.

Most moon hoax sites present information which is based strictly on a lack of knowledge, and a desire to be heard, and to stir up controversy, and make a buck on the un-knowledgable. Mis-interpretations abound, and grossly silly conclusions propogate these places.

Some, like this page you guide the reader to, provide utter falsifications...including the photo of Neil Armstrong taken by Buzz Aldrin which appears at the top of the page.

That photo, like all of the conversations printed beneath it, does not exist.

I've said it before, Cosmic Conspiracies is not a source where one goes to find out information. It is a repository of everything typical in Apollo hoax believers--lack of knowledge regarding the subject matter, reliance on fools (i.e., Kaysing, Percy, Sibrel, etc.), and in this case, blatant fabrication.

MID I am not the one who made this stuff up. I was merely directing people to it. While others here have praised your intelligence, I find you a bit condescending. Also there have been many scientists who state the placement of the moon, in a natural development, in its current orbit, is a scientific impossibility. YOU need to read up more on this before you discredit it. And how do you explain the rock and soil from the moon tests older than earth rocks and soil? Human error? I will try and supply more information for you to read and discredit.

Also the moon does not revolve like the earth does, so one side always faces the earth, or did you even know that as well??

Edited June 3, 2006 by xymox1971

[Lilly]

. Also there have been many scientists who state the placement of the moon, in a natural development, in its current orbit, is a scientific impossibility.

Names of these scientists, please.

YOU need to read up more on this before you discredit it. And how do you explain the rock and soil from the moon tests older than earth rocks and soil?

Provide links to these tests, I'd like to see them.

Also the moon does not revolve like the earth does, so one side always faces the earth, or did you even know that as well??

Wrong...completely wrong. The moon both revolves and rotates. We don’t see that rotation because the moon rotates at the same rate as it revolves around our Earth...that's why we only see the one side. It appears that perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do?

[ivytheplant]

MID I am not the one who made this stuff up.

I think that sums it up perfectly.

Also there have been many scientists who state the placement of the moon, in a natural development, in its current orbit, is a scientific impossibility.

Name them.

YOU need to read up more on this before you discredit it.

And you need to crack open a few science textbooks.

And how do you explain the rock and soil from the moon tests older than earth rocks and soil? Human error?

*raises hand and waves it around* oo! oo! I know this one! Pick me! Pick me!

You see, on planet Earth (I assume you do live here?) there are forces at work constantly changing the face of the planet. We have an atmosphere, which lends itself to the weather constantly eroding, breaking down, and altering the rocks around us and erasing traces of mountains, craters, and pretty much anything. We have active volcanic systems, which melt and reform the rocks, basically recycling the planet. We have metamorphic systems (orogeny, etc) which change rocks into a completely new form. When undergo a volcanic or metamorphic (and sometimes both) change, it basically wipes out what that rock once was. You could have a sedimentary rock from an shallow reef with fossils in it undergo change and it comes out as pumice or obsidian, with every bit of its former life erased. Basically, you'd never know it used to have fossils in it.

We are constantly finding new rocks that are older than rocks we had previously found. It's very hard to even find rocks on this planet that accurately predict the age of the earth. So far, we haven't found rocks as old as rocks from the moon because they either don't exist, or we haven't found the tiny little place they might be yet. The earth is big and stuff is constantly changing. There might be a rock from the beginning of the earth's life under a skyscraper or in the middle of the deepest part of th eocean. We just haven't found it yet.

The moon, however, is dead. That's why there's small craters millions of years old the same now as they were when they were formed. There are no systems on the moon to change the rock or the appearance.

And THAT is why the age of moon rocks is stupid "evidence" for the moon being the Death Star.

I will try and supply more information for you to read and discredit.

Just try to find information that's real.

Also the moon does not revolve like the earth does, so one side always faces the earth, or did you even know that as well??

You're right, that's definite proof that the moon is really the Death Star.

[cutewhenyoubiteme]

And how do you explain the rock and soil from the moon tests older than earth rocks and soil? Human error?

yea like everyone else said, ~subtraction (tectonic plate movment that basically slides under the other craeting stuffs like mountain ranges, and meets the molten stuffs lower down.... and all the other forms of erosion an atmosphere provides. Although they have found some pretty old rocks maybe 1 billion years younger than the moon with the first micro cellular life fossilized in it,

so in a way human error, just humans that dont know how to interprate evidence, how you decode what you find is usually more imporatant than what you find.

also, yea the moon rotates at the rate it revolves, hence the one face always ...well faces, its gravitational effects on the tides due to mass would be a hard thing to fake too

[frogfish]

Wrong...completely wrong. The moon both revolves and rotates. We don’t see that rotation because the moon rotates at the same rate as it revolves around our Earth...that's why we only see the one side. It appears that perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do

Actually, the moon is tidally locked with earth...that's why you always see one side.