Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Guest Guest

Was the moon landing fake?

168 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

PurpleStuart

I just heard an interesting point - that although there was a successfull moon landing, the actual photos taken on the moon were soo crap they retook the photos, after they returned, at Area 51.

ARMSTRONG: "Houston, we have a problem"

HOUSTON: "We read you, what seems to be the problem?"

ARMSTRONG: "Every time i go to take a photo, Buzz keeps pulling faces..."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dowdy

ARMSTRONG: "oh! Great one Buzz. You just had to do that didn't you?!"

BUZZ: "Do what?"

ARMSTRONG: "YOU FLASHED A MOONIE ON THE MOON!!!!"

BUZZ: "oh yeah....sorry"

ARMSTRONG: "oh that's disgusting Buzz!"

BUZZ: "what did i do wrong now?"

ARMSTRONG: "put that thing away!"

BUZZ: "what?"

ARMSTRONG: "your.."

                         TO BE CONTINUED......... :s2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ridgway

im very open minded about his subject and it has suprised me that so many people are interested about it

i believe more that it may be a hoax and for what reason it was hoaxed i do not know. heres a few thoughts:

1) the american government tried to take the world news from the vietnam war by doing something such as this. to strengthen this point why did the american government want to ban films being released when the war was over? disgrace of what happened? and of how the americans made a 'pigs ear' about what happened.

2) why were the original astronaughts strangely killed when the project was in operation? maybe the american government were scared of a grass in the project. hence why no one has said anything up to now because of this. for example, the simulation that strangely caught fire and no measures were properly taken to investigate the incident.

3) leading from point 2. more possible cover ups of the american government JFK assisination because maybe he told marilyn monroe something he shouldnt have... and then the strange death of her.

but as i say im open minded on the subject and nothing has a firm conclusion to prove anything. But saying that if something had concrete proof would we still believe it?

P.S somewhere above this is a mention of moon rocks being brought back, that isnt concrete proof, it could have been dragged in by the atmosphere like a small asteriod or something. and how can they say scientists proved it was from the moon, have they been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magikman

"the american government tried to take the world news from the vietnam war by doing something such as this. to strengthen this point why did the american government want to ban films being released when the war was over? disgrace of what happened? and of how the americans made a 'pigs ear' about what happened.

 The excitement over the 'moon landing', while certainly historic and uplifting for many American's, was only a welcomed 'diversion', and a brief one at that. An unpopular 'police action' was rapidly escalating into a full sized 'conflict' during this period, as were American casualties and the resultant public uproar over our involvement in it. It would do you well to study up on the history of the period, its glaringly obvious you weren't alive during it. Hell, a flying saucer could have landed on the White House lawn, and it wouldn't have deterred the public's attention from the Vietnam War much, it was the lead story on television every damn day back then. Over 55,000 Americans lost their lives, it would have taken much more than a couple 'moon landings' to make anyone forget what was happening.

 I'm confused by your statement about the government wanting to ban films about the Vietnam War. How did you come by this information? Truth is, they didn't have to, again, our involvement in it was so reviled and people's sense's so overwhelmed daily by the ghastly images on television, that the last thing that people would have wanted to see was a Vietnam war movie. Yes, it was a disgrace, so much so that we are only now beginning to understand how cruel and heartless we were to the brave men and women who returned from that conflict, only to encounter disdain and hateful rhetoric. So much for making a 'pigs ear' out of what happened, hey?

"why were the original astronaughts strangely killed when the project was in operation? maybe the american government were scared of a grass in the project. hence why no one has said anything up to now because of this. for example, the simulation that strangely caught fire and no measures were properly taken to investigate the incident."

 There was nothing 'strange' about the Apollo I disaster. It set back the mission objective for almost a year, during which time everything about the incident was investigated to determine the cause and initiate safety measures and changes. How do you come by your assertions? Here's a link that describes the events of the accident;

http://www.nasm.si.edu/apollo/AS01/a01sum.htm

 I won't debate your third point, as it is far too general in scope and has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

"P.S somewhere above this is a mention of moon rocks being brought back, that isnt concrete proof, it could have been dragged in by the atmosphere like a small asteriod or something. and how can they say scientists proved it was from the moon, have they been?

 Totally false. Meteorites tend to burn up in our atmosphere, and those that do survive to land show all the obvious signs from such an intrusion, like heat scarring, glassification of certain minerals and discoloration. They also are composed of many different metals and substances, while the moon rocks are almost uniformly typical. Here's a brief description for you;

"The composition of the Moon is much like that of the Earth. Its rocks are similar to Earth rocks and contain many but not all of the same minerals. However, the Moon has no atmosphere, it shows no trace of past or present life, and its rocks contain no water.

The Moon rocks show that the lunar surface is very ancient. Its rocks are older than most of the rocks now found on Earth, and the Moon has preserved a record of the earliest history of the formation and development of the planets. In its oldest rocks, we detect indications of an intense primordial melting that left the new born Moon covered with a seething ocean of molten lava hundreds of kilometers deep. Gradually, the lava ocean cooled and solidified, forming the light-colored crust we call the lunar highlands, which still covers 80 percent of the Moon.

 In case you missed it, the undeniable 'proof' of the rocks 'extraterrestrial' origin is the fact that they contain no water. That comes from being exposed to an airless, waterless environment for billions of years.

Magikman  :sg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ridgway

all very good points and i stand corrected on MOST points but it all seems a bit too shady, whether its becuase they are covering up what they found or whether they went at all i do not know.

arent the japanese planning to go within the next decade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

Nope. Nobody's planning on going to the moon, but the Chinese are planning a manned space flight within the next few years. CLICK HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheff_Pud

Maybe the Chinese want to get a restaurant set up there before Macdonalds?  :s01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Althalus

And then you get all of the structures that are on the moon such as the castle and the tower, not to mention the other things up there.  Thats one good reason they wanted to fake the landing.  That or they took rubbish pictures and none of them turned out cos its dark up there and the sun would have given terrible lens flare, so they would have had to retake the photos back here on earth and pass them off as the real thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheff_Pud

??? ??? ??? ??? :s01 :s9 ??? ??? ??? ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Althalus

what don't you get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpaceyKC

               I know this is paranoid thinking but,  what's to keep a country from launching a missile/shuttle into outer space,  and then getting into a position to claim they are going to, TAKE OVER THE WORLD!?  (like that silly mouse with the big head)  ::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

What could that missile/shuttle do that ground based inter-continental ballistic missiles with multiple nuclear warheads can't do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpaceyKC

         

                Uhmmmm.......

                     throw confetti?  ;D   :se

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odinsupreme

Brain: "Are you thinking the same think as I am Pinky?"

Pinky: "Yes, but how can we get the Elephant in that     tiny box?"

Brain: *Kicks Pinky*

Odin S.

PS,

The little Mouse with the Big head of Nora :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpaceyKC

              And to think I was the one who came into the chatroom cause I thought you were gonna be all alone - never again!

                 The Big Head has spoken!  

               *then kicks Odin*     'Sorry,  I thought you were Pinky!!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kira

:s2 Sorry but i have to to do this....................

    'They're Pinky and the Brain, they're Pinky and

       The Brain... one is a Genius,the other insane'

You decide which....... :s03

                                            Narffff

'at which point Celtic goes to lie down having just completly lost the plot!' :s9          

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Becca_gurl

I finished that theme song on another post about albino squirrels.  ;D

Narffff right back at everyone.

:shworship the rebecca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Logic

Why do we have to worship you :sq

Well back to the post of the of the moon landing:

I believe the moon landing was a fake as well.Reason #1 If there is no oxegen or air on the moon then why on the video did the flag flap in the breeze? as well as that a 150-200 lb man needed lead shoes to walk on the moon to prevent floating away,why didnt the flag float up? And like someone else mentioned in another post there is a 1000 mile gas mass on the way to the moon which

the astronauts would not have survived.Something else was mentioned as well when I watched conspiracy theory about a nasa investigator who wrote a 600 page book of his findings.Himself and his family were killed when a train ran into their car.The book was never found! Nasa argues how could they possible keep all their employees quite? Thats easy! The ones that did know the truth are dead,the rest were kept in the dark watching the movie on a monitor

or tv just like us,so they believe it.

It doesnt take a geneous to figure out it was garbage! for one reason only.How in the world would they know what to expect in a place they know nothing about and never been too before never mind fitting a man with suits and lead boots.How did they know their was no oxegen? How did they know there was no gravity.They sure didnt send lab rats up there to test!

Also , a theory that they used Nevada Airforce base         because of the sand and the dry arid lands.Similar to the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

Logic,

The flag was not flapping in the wind. By the sound of it, you saw the video footage but didn't understand what you were seeing. The reason why the flag APPEARED to be flapping in the video footage was because the flag pole was being twisted rapidly by hand to 'drill' it into the ground. Watch the video again and see what I mean, you will find it's rather obvious after it being explained. This also explains why the flag didn't 'float' away as well.

The gas you are refering to is the Van Allen Belt, which is a high-intensity particulate radiation trapped in Earth's magnetic field and surrounding the planet. But most experts even to this day agree that traveling through the Van Allen Belts for a brief period traveling at high speeds shouldn't cause too much harm. After all, the shuttle goes through the same belts everytime it goes up, and you can't use the argument that the shuttle is built to withstand it, because nothing we have is built to withstand that radiation for prolong periods.

As far as the book and the deaths go, well, that's where you have your typical 'conspiracy theory' I guess. :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Logic

Very well then. but what about the stars. There were no stars visible how could that be?

I believe for three reasons we faked the moon landing:

1. Wanted to win Space Race agianst Russia

2. NASA got over 3 billion dollars is my guess.

3. Attract Public Attention, and to prove that we are the mightiest country in the world. :sr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

Logic,

Your second and third reasons are mere speculation and I have nothing to say about that. Your first reason is a very good reason indeed. If there is any one reason why the Moon landing would be faked, I believe it would be for that reason. However I believe the Moon landing to be real.

So why aren't there stars in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day. So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

Have you actually read this entire thread? Many of the points you brought up have already been discussed. Magikman posted a link to a very informative site, and in case you missed, HERE IT IS AGAIN it does a better job than I can do to argue my point that the Moon landing really happened. I advise you check it out if you haven't already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Althalus

i always thought that you could not see the stars on the moon, cos there is very little atmosphere, and you need some to be able to see them.

thanks for the enlightenment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

I wonder what they're doing on the moon now. It is in a very convenient place, with earth being so close and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

I think they're building a secret military base as a first line of defense against an alien invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cerberus

i have looked at some old photos of the moon landing.i noticed something strange about two of the astronauts.if you look at one of the pictures(i dont have it on me) it shows two shadows of two people.ok so far right? answer is yes, but take into account the moon has nothing to cast a shadow on except the astronauts.so why is it that the two astro's are standing parallel only metres apart and one casts a longer shadow? the astronauts are both same height.whats more intriging is that the astro's shadow on the left-hand side is facing south-west.the astronauts shadow on the right-hand is facing south.they are not close enough to block out each other.was something else casting a shadow? a stage prop for the most expensive film ever made? i'm sure if i spent that amount of money, the public would want results.Do you agree? You decide..... :s6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.