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

bigsteff

the question we should be asking is what kind of cheese is it made out off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bizarro

sometimes, i wonder about these morons that inhabit the world. im going to come up with a theory that the oceans are not real, they just are wave pools that all the governments of the world have along their shores laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HD

It could be a hologram, projected from various government installations throughout the world. It could be a large, crudely painted balloon, held in place by helium and propelled by tiny sails and rudders

There are some fruit cakes out there! wacko.gifblink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueDarkness

EEEhhh...well there are those people that think the whole world is fake and they have "proof" it's just a holographic projection.... blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
djdodo

Although I believe it that humans have reached the moon ... I found this web site with these faked photos ... it might help to support this topic ... tongue.gif

http://batesmotel.8m.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dust19

Looking at area C you will notice that the surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.

found this on the site DJDODO just linked.....i think this guy isn't taking into consideration the aperature on the camera. In order to llet in the most light (probably needed on the MOON!) the aperature must be open on the way. This extremely limits your DOF (depth of field) thus resulting in the "fading" effect...

also about the "no stars in the pictures" deal. I just don't see that as a big deal. I have taken pictures here on a clear night with many manymanymany stars visible, they never appear in the picture. They are still too dim compared to the illuminated foreground. Star pictures only turn out if your main purpose is to capture them on film. You must use longer exposure times. For the stars to show up in the moon pictures, the astonauts would be very very blurred from motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
djdodo

Well ((Dust19)) ... I did not believe the theory of that web site too ... but i only put it ... lol .. laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ansemheart

if it was a hoax, then it was probably to gets the hundreds of millions of dollars of donation. The american gov. could be just using it people to get a lot of cash! I'm glad im in the UK.

grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snuffypuffer

He doesn't believe in the moon? Odd duck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

I'm glad im in the UK.

  grin2.gif

We in America are also glad you live in the UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bounty-hunter
alien.gif Exactly how can any one be sure that we have or will ever land on the moon alien.gifwhistling2.gifwhistling2.gifwhistling2.gifwhistling2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kaj

I have no comments about the theories you posted, interesting reading anyway.

I want to make another input: Look at our technology, how it was back then.

How the heck could enyone get to the moon with that??????

If we did go to the moon,

Is it possible that other intelligences technologies were used???

Only being openminded about this too wink2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phantom
sometimes, i wonder about these morons that inhabit the world. im going to come up with a theory that the oceans are not real, they just are wave pools that all the governments of the world have along their shores laugh.gif

*dialing* Hello Kofi? He knows... I'm telling you he knows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil_kanga77

I recently read in "Investigating the Unexplained" by Paul Roland the following:

"it is not unreasonable to assume that the extreme temperatures would have made it impossible to load the film which would have been fused into a sticky morass"

"the astronaut's shots should have been adversely affected by the sun's radiation in a similar way during the journey behind the Belt, but they were all perfect. Perhaps too perfect"

"one theory that no one seems to have considered is the possibility that the landings did take place, by that NASA was embarrassed when its film did not survive the journey for reasons already stated. In it's desperation to satisfy public expectation, exploit it's propaganda coup and secure its future funding it foolishly faked photographs in a studio, perhaps where the landing had previously been rehearsed. Or maybe photographs taken during those rehearsals were used"

Another point made in the book is:

"by the end of the decade, we are led to believe that men landed on the moon in a rocket whose computer had less processing power than a modern pocket calculator"

If that is true, then why now (with all the technology and funds) are we not diving deeper into space?

huh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

"by the end of the decade, we are led to believe that men landed on the moon in a rocket whose computer had less processing power than a modern pocket calculator"

If that is true, then why now (with all the technology and funds) are we not diving deeper into space?

Hi Lil_Kanga,

It's not really a matter of computer processing power, manned space flight further afield is severely limited by current propulsion systems, fuel types etc.

It wouldn't matter if a spacecraft had the most sophisticated computer in the world, if it used the same fuel and propulsion system as Apollo 11 used to get to the moon, you still wouldn't be able to get there any faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exeter

If the race to see who gets to the moon first was such a big deal, what happened to the Russians? Are we to believe that because the US got to the moon first (hoax or not) the Russians simply gave up and said, "That's it! I don't want to play anymore!"???

If the race to the moon was indeed such an important issue back then (as the US made it out to be), Russia would have continued in their attempts at getting a cosmonaut on the lunar soil, US flag or not.

I tend to agree with an earlier post that theorized that the Lunar missions were nothing more than propaganda, as well as a distraction from the conflict in Vietnam.

That could explain why we haven't gone back since.

Sorry if this was a bit off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil_kanga77

Hi Saruman,

Thanks for your reply.

I guess I just wonder why, given the decades that have passed since this "event" that we haven't been there more times or done more in outer space than build a space station.

It's like we discovered something yet left it alone once we discovered it. I can't think of something else we've discovered that we've "forgotten" about, can you?

Btw, this is a really great forum. I'm new and already learning lots!

thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lung

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

evidence:

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.

It's understandable to be ignorant of space, considering how few of us who have ever been there. What's unforgivable, however, is you ignorance of photography, a subject mastered by a great many more right here on good ol' earth wacko.gif

Stars, due to their relative dullness, require a lot of exposure. However, to photograph an astronaut in direct sunlight on the moon where there is no atmosphere to diffuse light, obviously requires a very short exposure. 1/500th of a second should be ample. So, how many stars do you think are going to be visible at that exposure? whistling2.gif

Ironically, if the photos had stars in them, they would have had to have been doctored, not the other way around!

Before you make assumptions based upon your own ignorance, i suggest that you learn some simple facts rolleyes.gif

And as for Maria Blyzinsky, stars not appearing in the photos does not contradict her correct statement that stars would indeed be visible on the moon in sunlight. It looks as though you've used a strawman argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanatos

I'm fond of the school of thought that man made it too the moon, but the radiation in space and heat of reentry fried all the film, and so then they made all the fake footage based on the experiences of the astronauts so that they wouldn't look like a bunch of fools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lung

That sounds more plausible, but transmitting footage live would circumvent that problem, wouldn't it? Besides, radiation in general doesn't destroy film, only certain wavelengths, such as x-rays. Even then, you can put your film through airport x-rays many times before the film gets washed out.

As for heat on re-entry, i think the astronauts would suffer before the film!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyWatcher

Honestly?

I don't know what to think of the moon missions...but some of the photos give food for thought. Like the layout where ALL the shadows are wrong, coming from 3 different sources. NASA said they had only one light source up there. Plus there was a landscape comparison of the appollo missions and the arizona desert, and they weren't only similar, they matched up perfectly, hill for hill, rock for rock.

And the flag and the wind thing.....i don't know what to think for sure. lol

I do believe that we were told not to come back, after we set the Van Allan belt on fire. We needed to grow up and think about the repercussions of our actions on a galactic scale, and thusly, were told "Stay in your own region until you advance, or there will be hell to pay....stoopid earthlings." w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyWatcher

Just found this. It could be that we were told not to come back, or are hiding something of major importance from the masses.

Moon Cities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Krow

thank you sky watcher...that was a great piece of reading...very...interesting...to say the least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PurpleStuart

Skywatcher - if you follow the the links earlier in this thread you'll find that all those points are explained fully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tupac-lives

Explain this:

we allegedly landed on the moon several times, between 1969 to the early 70's, when technology was not as improved as we are today, so how come now for thirty odd years we have not been able to land man back onthe moon or even on another planet.

technology keeps on moving forwards, but space technology has from my point of view moved backwards, 30 years is a very long time and surely before now we would of had the means to venture man further and further into space.

Questions have to be raised, did we ever land on the moon. alien.gifalien.gif

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.