We Never Went to the Moon [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

View Full Version : We Never Went to the Moon

Cosmored

03-01-2009, 11:24 AM

Here's some stuff that convinced me we never went to the moon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of that here in this three part series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ&feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736

It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 55 second mark.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286
It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

Here it is doubled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G29WT2_y1-E

When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

It swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.
Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

This is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.
One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og
http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Happened on the Moon" (documentary)
Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3622009579385499503
Part 2
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker&search_type=&aq=f

Here are some articles.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm
http://www.reddit.com/domain/northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com
http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2008/11/project-apollo-what-were-they-thinking_24.html
http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/2008/11/disinformation-techniques.html

The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Here's a link to the entire conference.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1535324572487804641

This keeps going on and offline so if this link is dead, try googling "Apollo 11 press conference".
Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561

Look at the picture in reply #7 of this page at the Clavius forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=714&page=1#14424

The shadow of the rod is proportionally longer than the shadow of the bag. Evidently, that's how they got those pictures of very dark shadows--they drew them.

Here's more on the bogus shadow issue.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11053&hl=apollo

The main reason they had to fake it was probably space radiation. Here are some articles and videos I've found on the subject.
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ65d30kYME

two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo
http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/

These two are important.
---------------------------
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rotplZn0g
---------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcytzf7PkRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6DhY1NvmIc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ltWMbHdDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnckudD9oa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiTzo3G_hvo
---------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFiIR7hA1rM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toI1Xw9paW4
---------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM
(23 parts)

Here's some good research if anyone wants to delve further.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=48603&t=51606

1n50mn14

03-01-2009, 11:39 AM

Oh, for jeeze... *face-palm*
Please tell me your scientific qualifications and what you understand about the basic principles of photography. Because very basic high-school level science and beginner principles of photography disprove every single conspiracy theory in existance. I did a project on this for my Grade Eleven physics class, and did a lot of research, which convinced me completely that it was not a hoax. Fanatical, pseudo physics and the political hypotheses of whistle-blower believers' do not convince me otherwise. 90% of the 'evidence' provided by discrepancies between stories of astronauts, scientists and people involved is taken seriously out of context.

I also believe, quite frankly, that it would be impossible to co-ordinate the lies of the large number of people it would have been necessary to involve.

People will always see what they WANT to see, however, so there is no swaying either side of opinion.

YES, I DO want to believe that my childhood ambitions of being an astronaut were not in vain, YES, I DO want to believe that we are capable of attaining something cosmic and fantastic and beautiful, delving far into the realms of 'impossible' science, and I DO want to believe that man has stood on the moon and planted a flag, even though I am not American, nor even patriotic of my own country...

Cosmored

03-01-2009, 12:23 PM

Some of this evidence of fakery is so clear that it doesn't take a degree to see it.

Let's hear your analysis of this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ&feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1

1n50mn14

03-01-2009, 12:44 PM

Cosmored

03-01-2009, 01:26 PM

I'm not even going to bother dignifying this with a proper response. It wouldn't be forum appropriate, as I'd be extremely frusterated and probably cursing. I apologize. But I think you're completely wrong. Each to their own, though. Have a nice day.
Are you familiar with these two sites?

http://www.bautforum.com/

http://www.clavius.org/
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi
(Clavius forum)

Both the Clavius and Bad Astronomy sites are government damage-control sites. All the regular pro-Apollo posters on those sites know the moon missions were faked.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/2008/11/disinformation-techniques.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a lot of people who make false and idiotic claims about Apollo pictures. They thus provide debunkers with much needed food.
Without this debunker food, they would have to address the real issues, something which they would rather avoid. These issues include:
Lack of star pictures,
Missing technical data,
Reliability issues.
But these are "soft" issues, that is, issues involving expected human behavior. In a topic as controversial as the Apollo program, only hard technical arguments have sufficient convincing power. Here are such issues:
Radiation,
Missing landing blast crater,
Missing sound,
Instantaneous craft kinematics.
Contrary to what a quick glance might lead you to believe, debunker sites such as Clavius do not properly address those issues. When they face debunker food or legitimate errors on the part of hoax theorists, they make well-reasoned arguments and show all their technical knowledge in a pedagogical manner.
Yet, strangely, on those above issues, their responses are not in line with what their competence as displayed in other answers might lead us to expect. They lack technical details and are instead full of handwaving, appeals to authority and fallacious reasoning, such as relying on NASA-provided measured radiation doses to prove that the passage thru the belts was not dangerous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone tries to post something that the regular pro-Apollo posters at Bad Astronomy can't handle, the post won't appear. A note will appear that says "This post must be approved by moderators before it can appear" and then the post will never appear.

Anyway, before they started using that tactic to keep control over the direction debates take, I got banned there.

I was posting there under the name "David C". Look at the last post of this page on which the moderator closed the thread.

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-39.html#post893592
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
Since David C did not answer the questions that were asked of him (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=891474), it is clear that this thread is not in which people are responding to each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

Here's the post with the questions asked of me.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-37.html#post891474

Here's where I answered them.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-38.html#post892498

The moderator closed the thread giving the reason that I hadn't answered the questions when I had in fact answered them so I started another thread on the subject.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/52326-9-11-inside-job.html

They closed that thread before a healthy discussion could even get started. I started another thread to complain about it.
http://www.bautforum.com/forum-introductions-feedback/52393-some-pretty-low-tactics.html

That's what got me banned there. Shortly after that they decided to limit discussion in the conspiracy theory section to space and astronomy.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/52887-new-change-conspiracy-theory-section-only-space-astronomy.html

Evidently they couldn't try to discrediting the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without looking silly so they decided to just discontinue talking about it.

Here's another case where the moderator closed a thread because his people couldn't discredit the theory without looking silly.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/49821-cia-cocaine-smuggling.html

I think it's safe to say that "Bad Astronomy" is a government damage-control site that is not dedicated to truth, but to obfuscate truth.

I got banned for 30 days at Clavius for using non-Apollo info to further my argument that Apollo was a hoax.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=971&page=1
(see reply 33)

I continued the topic in the "Conspiracy theory" section instead of the "Hoax theory" section in the hope that they would let me speak freely.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1575

As you can see by reading the thread, they closed it because they couldn't discredit the topic without looking silly.

There are forums on which the moderators use their power to control the direction debates take and Clavius and Bad Astronomy are prime examples. This kind of control is only necessary when a lie is being defended as when there is free debate, a false argument will fall by its own lack of merit and no control over what the other side is allowed to say is necessary.

Here's something else that's interesting.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA

The official US version of the Chinese space walk is that it was real when it was obviously faked in a water tank.

Look at the piece of paper that comes out of the hatch in this clip from the Chinese space walk.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
(00:12 time mark)

The piece of paper comes up, hits the side of the hatch, stops, and then starts moving again. This is inconsistent with zero-G in a vacuum and consistent with water current.

The fact that NASA's position is that this footage was taken in space totally destroys it's credibility.

Anyway, you should examine all the evidence and rethink your position. I know it's not easy for a person to admit he or she's been believing a lie all his or her life so I can understand how you feel. Take a look at this.

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".

Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd believed they went to the moon until the arrival of the internet and I finally saw the evidence of fakery. I didn't feel silly at all though because I believed it simply because I'd never investigated the topic. As soon as I saw the evidence, I simply modified my opinion. It was easy really. Don't feel bad; if you simply hadn't ever seen the evidence before, there's no reason to feel silly.

steve12553

03-01-2009, 01:43 PM

I have to agree with you. Today we do have the technology to fake the moon landing in 1969. Of course that means that we also faked the cold war because certainly the Soviet Union and the Chinese would not have let the US get away with it. Oh, by the way what were our credentials that you were asked about by an earlier poster other that you have an internet connection?

Cosmored

03-01-2009, 01:58 PM

Of course that means that we also faked the cold war because certainly the Soviet Union and the Chinese would not have let the US get away with it.
Watch this video series about the cold war.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f

Also, read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war. It's in his book "Deterring Domocracy".
http://www.amazon.com/Deterring-Democracy-Noam-Chomsky/dp/0374523495/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235930194&sr=1-1

Oh, by the way what were our credentials that you were asked about by an earlier poster other that you have an internet connection?
I have three years of college but I didn't graduate.

Virgil

03-01-2009, 02:14 PM

Cosmo you are a space alien. :alien::alien::alien:

BlueSkyGB

03-01-2009, 03:24 PM

librarius_qui

03-01-2009, 03:58 PM

In a (very slight and metaphoric) way, you're right, mate.

We can't live on the Moon, therefore, we never made it to be ours. When there's a colony, there, I'll say "mankind's gone to the Moon".

Lq#

Emil Miller

03-01-2009, 04:22 PM

librarius_qui

03-01-2009, 05:52 PM

I'm not particularly interested in the moon or other planets within or beyond our solar system as I find our own holds more than enough interest for me already.
I don't know whether man has walked on the moon or not but there certainly seems to be an increasing number of people posing questions; some of which don't appear to have adequate answers.

I'm not interested in planets beyond the Solar system either. But I love to think about the colonization! :) I believe it might give a relief to earth, as well as a new sense of adventure to men, in a .. 'n already too small planet.

(Not to say that we may have reached a moment in which our communications technology might allow us to seriously think about it ...)

[I like to write what I call "futuristic". I don't call it science fiction, because I run from "fiction", I mean, I don't have in my writings 1. light-speed/warp/jump, 2. alien contact, 3. artificial gravity different than epicentrical (?)*, 4. laser weaponry;

it may sound boring, but I try to keep the thing "real", true. This was Jules Verne's legacy, in a way: to think about ~possible~ things, which inspires mankind to give it a try ... (long-distances underwater vehicle (possibly not HIS idea, but his literature, no doubt ...), travelling to the Moon using rockets ...)

I find it very interesting that series (I don't know if it still goes, 'cause we don't have cable tv anylonger ...), "Battlestar Gallactica", because of the space simulation and effect they created ... (They had two problems as "sci-fi": false artificial gravity, and "jump" in space (...).) Their space effect for sound of ships was very interesting, because they managed to put -- in television! -- an idea of space without sound in the vacuum! They used effects that gave idea of sound inside the ships, machinery sounds, internal explosions and communication noise. That was genious!, brilliantly executed! :) ...

Anyway, therefore, my futuristics are basically about "history" of the Solar system colonization ... I'll try to begin translate it, as soon as I publish it all, at the blog.

*centrífuga, in Portuguese]

Lq#

SleepyWitch

03-02-2009, 04:07 AM

I'm not interested in planets beyond the Solar system either. But I love to think about the colonization! I believe it might give a relief to earth, as well as a new sense of adventure to men, in a .. 'n already too small planet.
and after we've destroyed all the other planets in the galaxy, where do we go from there? especially without warp dive... How's about conserving the one planet we have?
but I agree with you on the science fiction bit. I like that kind of story.

cosmo, who are you? a guest who read this (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42057) thread and registered just to bring up that conspiracy theory again?

Lokasenna

03-02-2009, 04:56 AM

Oh deary, deary me...

Just face it - we landed on the moon. If the US government spent all that money on merely faking, I'd be really brassed off if I were American.

If it was a hoax, then would the government do such a sloppy job as to make it so apparently obvious? Photoshopping materials works both ways, you know? You can make something real look fake.

The question will become largely academic once we get to the moon again and actually see the evidence there on the surface.

bazarov

03-02-2009, 05:24 AM

I am sure USSR would see the fake in 60's; and they are still silent.

P.S. Gravity on moon is six times lesser then on Earth.

bazarov

03-02-2009, 05:27 AM

I am sure USSR would see the fake in 60's; and they are still silent.

P.S. Gravity on moon is six times lesser then on Earth.

wat??

03-02-2009, 05:41 AM

I've never laughed so hard......:lol:

Oops gotta go...Just glimpsed Bigfoot and Nessie outside ......:lol:

I always believe what I see on youtube also.......:lol::alien::lol:and as for the net...
well.....LOL

I really doubt that you even bothered to watch even one of the youtube videos the original poster linked, and your only contribution to the thread was to make an insulting and mocking post.

I am not saying I believe the OP, but still...

ClaesGefvenberg

03-02-2009, 07:51 AM

This is really quite tedious. A simple search for the original posters name will reveal a multitude of similar posts to lots of other forums. The content is much the same though: An abundance of links. Clicking those links will provide the linked sites with more traffic. Simple as that. Don't go there.

/Claes

Emil Miller

03-02-2009, 09:52 AM

SleepyWitch

03-02-2009, 09:58 AM

As I said in a previous post, I keep an open mind on the subject.
However, there are certainly some interesting questions that remain to be answered:

1. How did they get through the van Allen belt? Given that, even at the speed they were travelling, they would have been exposed long enough to have killed them.

never heard of the van Allen belt before *blush*, but here's what wiki says. not that I consider wiki a 100% reliable source

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 (the Starfish Prime test) and several satellites ceased operation.[citation needed] Geomagnetic 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. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.

Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares.

An astronaut shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit passing through the radiation belt will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year.[6]

edit to add:

The outer belt consists mainly of high energy(0.1–10 MeV) electrons trapped by the Earth's magnetosphere
bleh, would that be gamma rays?

SleepyWitch

03-02-2009, 10:05 AM

I am sure USSR would see the fake in 60's; and they are still silent.

P.S. Gravity on moon is six times lesser then on Earth.

I'm with baz. I wouldn't put it past the U.S. to fake a moon landing just to win the space race. After all the Soviet space dog (whatsname? Leika?) died a few minutes after take-off and the barking from space was taped. But the USSR would have called their bluff. I'm sure they were on the look-out for evidence that disproves an American moon landing.

Virgil

03-02-2009, 10:10 AM

I'm with baz. I wouldn't put it past the U.S. to fake a moon landing just to win the space race.

Why do you say that? What exactly have we faked that you would think it would be something we would do?

Emil Miller

03-02-2009, 10:19 AM

I'm with baz. I wouldn't put it past the U.S. to fake a moon landing just to win the space race. After all the Soviet space dog (whatsname? Leika?) died a few minutes after take-off and the barking from space was taped. But the USSR would have called their bluff. I'm sure they were on the look-out for evidence that disproves an American moon landing.

Laika died when the satellite burned up on re-entering the earth's tmosphere.
As for the former USSR calling a bluff, how would they have been able to prove anything that NASA couldn't deny anyway?

SleepyWitch

03-02-2009, 10:34 AM

Why do you say that? What exactly have we faked that you would think it would be something we would do?

oops, sorry Virge, I didn't mean to sound anti-American. Plus, I don't think it was a fake. I wouldn't have put it past the USSR either to fake a moon landing, given the political climate of the day. But I was only speaking hypothetically.

Laika died when the satellite burned up on re-entering the earth's tmosphere.
I seem to remember that DER SPIEGEL said she died a lot earlier.

BlueSkyGB

03-02-2009, 11:09 AM

I really doubt that you even bothered to watch even one of the youtube videos the original poster linked, and your only contribution to the thread was to make an insulting and mocking post.

I am not saying I believe the OP, but still...

Actually I have seen them....being a retired science teacher..
my curious nature has led me to watch these clips before..
have also watched the UFO clips and the clips on 911 and various other conspiracy type theory clips....
always been curious and willing to try and see the other side of things..
but really....:)

Emil Miller

03-02-2009, 11:13 AM

oops, sorry Virge, I didn't mean to sound anti-American. Plus, I don't think it was a fake. I wouldn't have put it past the USSR either to fake a moon landing, given the political climate of the day. But I was only speaking hypothetically.

I seem to remember that DER SPIEGEL said she died a lot earlier.

Well I wouldn't like to contradict one of my favourite magazines, but I remember when the event took place. I even bought a packet of Russian cigarettes named Laika at the Soviet exhibition held in London shortly afterwards. BBC radio reported that the dog died as I have stated.

weltanschauung

03-02-2009, 12:53 PM

Why do you say that? What exactly have we faked that you would think it would be something we would do?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8175484657963455824

also: the JFK "incident", the gulf war, weapons of mass destruction in iraq, the terrorist paranoia, area 51...

Virgil

03-02-2009, 12:56 PM

I'm leaving this insane conversation. Nuts belong with nuts.

weltanschauung

03-02-2009, 01:00 PM

yeah ok.

anyhow:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Tomblvd

03-02-2009, 02:00 PM

As I said in a previous post, I keep an open mind on the subject.
However, there are certainly some interesting questions that remain to be answered:

1. How did they get through the van Allen belt? Given that, even at the speed they were travelling, they would have been exposed long enough to have killed them.

That is a common misconception. The fact is that the astronauts were only in the belts a short period of time, and the walls of the CM were enough to block much of the radiation.

There is little argument to this. Literally hundreds of satellites from many different countries reside within the belts, so the amount of radiation within them is well known.

Why does some of the photographic material released by NASA show EXACTLY the same rock formations in different parts of the photos?

Could you give some links that show this? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "rock formations".

3. Why did Neil Armstrong flatly refuse to swear on the bible that he had walked on the moon when asked by an enquirer to do so?

Because the man that "asked" him, Bart Sibrel (the same man that was punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin), tresspassed on his property in order to get access to him.

Emil Miller

03-02-2009, 03:27 PM

That is a common misconception. The fact is that the astronauts were only in the belts a short period of time, and the walls of the CM were enough to block much of the radiation.

There is little argument to this. Literally hundreds of satellites from many different countries reside within the belts, so the amount of radiation within them is well known.

Could you give some links that show this? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "rock formations".

Because the man that "asked" him, Bart Sibrel (the same man that was punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin), tresspassed on his property in order to get access to him.

Thanks for your answers. Either yesterday or the day before,there was an item with a similar title to this thread on the MSN news page that always comes up when I call up the internet . It showed a man pointing out details of NASA moon photos that were obviously faked or had been altered by the man himself. He was very articulate and pointed out several areas of rock formations i.e. rocks shown on different parts of the moon surface that were identical. I don't know who he was because there were a number of different items concerning the "moon landings" and I didn't have time to watch everything.

There was also a second item in which a different man showed that mathematically the width of the Van Allen belt was such that, at the speed of the vehicle given by NASA, it would have taken too long to traverse the belt for the astronauts tio have survived unscathed. Satellites of course are non-sentient and would not be affected, but using the data obtained from them the presenter showed how humans would not survive the journey.

With regard to the Neil Armstrong incident, I am surprised that neither he nor Buzz Aldrin, both of whom are supposed to be trained to stay cool in a crisis, didn't just say "OK wise guy" then take the oath and in so doing damage the doubters case instead of creating the impression that they were afraid to do so.

Tomblvd

03-02-2009, 03:42 PM

Thanks for your answers. Either yesterday or the day before,there was an item with a similar title to this thread on the MSN news page that always comes up when I call up the internet . It showed a man pointing out details of NASA moon photos that were obviously faked or had been altered by the man himself. He was very articulate and pointed out several areas of rock formations i.e. rocks shown on different parts of the moon surface that were identical. I don't know who he was because there were a number of different items concerning the "moon landings" and I didn't have time to watch everything.

Brian, I think I have a good idea what you are talking about. Were these rock formations large? Or were they something that could have been picked up?

There was also a second item in which a different man showed that mathematically the width of the Van Allen belt was such that, at the speed of the vehicle given by NASA, it would have taken too long to traverse the belt for the astronauts tio have survived unscathed. Satellites of course are non-sentient and would not be affected, but using the data obtained from them the presenter showed how humans would not survive the journey.

Have you ever fried a computer motherboard with static electricity? Electronics are much more sensitive than you think.

But the point is that whoever designs geosynchonous satellites have to take into consideration the radiation of the VA belts. Every engineer knows the numbers, and if there were a discrepancy, someone would have blown the whistle. Also, looking just at the width of the belts is inadequate. Think of the belts as a large doughnut encircling the equator. The cover approximately 20 degrees on either side of the equator. The lunar launches were all around 30 degrees (this is off the top of my head), so the did not go through the densest part of the belts.

With regard to the Neil Armstrong incident, I am surprised that neither he nor Buzz Aldrin, both of whom are supposed to be trained to stay cool in a crisis, didn't just say "OK wise guy" then take the oath and in so doing damage the doubters case instead of creating the impression that they were afraid to do so.

If someone broke into my property I would not get near them. And you need to look into exactly what was done to Aldrin to get him to that hotel for that ambush. Neither of those men owe Sibrel the time of day. He's trying to play a game of "gotcha", and they aren't playing along.

I hope this clears things up a bit for you.

Emil Miller

03-03-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Thanks for your answers. Either yesterday or the day before,there was an item with a similar title to this thread on the MSN news page that always comes up when I call up the internet . It showed a man pointing out details of NASA moon photos that were obviously faked or had been altered by the man himself. He was very articulate and pointed out several areas of rock formations i.e. rocks shown on different parts of the moon surface that were identical. I don't know who he was because there were a number of different items concerning the "moon landings" and I didn't have time to watch everything.

Brian, I think I have a good idea what you are talking about. Were these rock formations large? Or were they something that could have been picked up?

Some looked quite small, about the size of a baseball, and others were larger, maybe the size of a suitcase. I think they could have been picked up; they were randomly scattered about the surface.

kevinthediltz

03-03-2009, 01:34 PM

1n50mn14

03-03-2009, 02:01 PM

*cheers on Kevin and again leaves thread*

weltanschauung

03-03-2009, 02:48 PM

Emil Miller

03-03-2009, 03:06 PM

Ok, I am saying one thing and one thing only then leaving this convorsation.
The rock formations seen several times; Don't you think that if the US govt was going to fake something this huge they would spend maybe 10 extra bucks to make more than 3 paper machea rocks? The US govt can be dumb sometimes (Im in the US by the way), but not that dumb.
And next time you are in the mountains, look around. Rocks look very similar to each other.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. The rocks were real and they were in close-up to the camera,but different parts of the photos showed identical areas where the rocks were exactly and, without doubt, the same rocks.Therefore, the photo's appear to have been doctored for some reason.
As I said earlier on this thread, I don't care either way if men have been to the moon or not, as I have very little interest in astronomy or space travel.
So it makes no difference to me personally,but there seem to be a number of questions surrounding the moon project that have caught my attention and I am trying to find the answers.

conversation*

no i dont think so, everyone was already too busy with tv, coca-cola and the beatles to question anything.
besides, this isnt a matter of criticism to americans, its a criticism to american government. the government doesnt represent the people, and it never has. the government represents the government. russia had just sent a dog in a metal ball, excuse me, a spaceshuttle, to the moon. the US had to do something quick. QUICK! just like they did to find the "responsible" for kennedy's death. the people demand, the government obbeys, right? http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/3.gif

The Russians didn't send a dog to the moon. Laika was the first animal to circumnavigate the earth in space. It wasn't until Russia's Yuri Gagarin became the first man to do it that the US government began to speed up its space programme.

BlueSkyGB

03-03-2009, 03:32 PM

Just do a google search and you'll find lots of reputable sites that debunk the Fake Landing....CNN....even the Mythbusters show did an episode on this...
Also a Science site I follow..had a member that was banned...happened to have the same name as the creator of this thread Cosmored...is this another conspiracy?......:alien:

and with that I leave this thread.

Eugenie

03-03-2009, 03:57 PM

Well, there have been many frauds in this world. But my question is this to the nay sayers,

Those rockets, weighing a kazillion pounds actually did lift off from the earth, too many saw in person that fact.
And it is true that we have space debris ,right , and once you go so high you immediately go into an orbit mode.
So, if these vessels did not go there, stay there the amount of time reported, where did the rockets go, and how then did they get back to earth with only the capsule and the person actually in it, seen coming down from the high atmosphere and photographed.
If you say that it was by a plane, honestly that would have been the scoop of the century, everyone of the reporters there would have looked up. It would have been enough to impeach the president, defrauding the public and wasting enough money to feed the earth.
Anyone can make these videos against it, and doctor it up, feed it to you John and Sally public and laugh and laugh at you. I mean if the government could pull off something so fantastic, a small group of intelligent students can have their fun with you.

librarius_qui

03-03-2009, 05:09 PM

and after we've destroyed all the other planets in the galaxy, where do we go from there? especially without warp dive... How's about conserving the one planet we have?
but I agree with you on the science fiction bit. I like that kind of story.

[I'm not here ... :D ]

Actually, there's little to destroy up there on Mars and Jupiterian Europa ... We'll have to learn a lot about building, though. To survive in such places, we'll have to recicle simply EVERYTHING :rolleyes:

Emil Miller

03-03-2009, 05:16 PM

weltanschauung

03-03-2009, 11:12 PM

The Russians didn't send a dog to the moon. Laika was the first animal to circumnavigate the earth in space. It wasn't until Russia's Yuri Gagarin became the first man to do it that the US government began to speed up its space programme.

equally HUUUGE and relevant.

Emil Miller

03-04-2009, 02:29 AM

Well, there have been many frauds in this world. But my question is this to the nay sayers,

I mean if the government could pull off something so fantastic, a small group of intelligent students can have their fun with you.

The operative word in this sentence is "IF"

kasie

03-04-2009, 05:12 AM

This thread is quite entertaining but not quite up to the standards of Capricorn 1 - that had pictures....

Chava

03-04-2009, 05:20 AM

Emil Miller

03-04-2009, 11:49 AM

Just a tangent to think about; I can see why the filming of the 'moon scenes' were made on earth, but does that neccesarily mean they didn't go to the moon? I can imagine that if you're going to send a crew to the moon, and you kniow the entire population is waiting for live footage, what do you o if there is no transmission, and how could you know if there was transmission untill they were up there. Making 'backup' scenes seems the logical thing to do.

But really, I have no idea what the truth is, and it doesn't really interest me. The whole Imperialist race to conquer the moon and the universe seems a silly form of escapism to me.

I can't see the logic behind this reasoning. Are you saying that NASA was prepared to show a simulation of the landings while explaining that they couldn't transmit the actual thing for technical reasons. Hardly anybody would have believed that the actual landing had taken place.

Chava

03-04-2009, 03:05 PM

Emil Miller

03-04-2009, 07:41 PM

Rather the opposite; they went, the transmission was faulty, so they just 'transmitted' recordings they had already made, and passed them off as the real thing.

Look, I'm not claiming anything. I don't necessarily think that's what happened, it just occured to me. Not arguing with anyone, since I really don't think I have any qualifications to bring to the discussion.

No, that's OK, but what amazes me is that members of this forum would prefer to spend time talking about what they had to eat or what they are wearing rather than discuss something as important as the moon landings. What is it with you people that you can't see the significance of the original thread ?
Although you might think it no great loss, I am seriously thinking of abandoning this website on the grounds tha many of it's members can't be taken seriously.

Chava

03-04-2009, 07:49 PM

manolia

03-05-2009, 05:03 AM

No, that's OK, but what amazes me is that members of this forum would prefer to spend time talking about what they had to eat or what they are wearing rather than discuss something as important as the moon landings. What is it with you people that you can't see the significance of the original thread ?
Although you might think it no great loss, I am seriously thinking of abandoning this website on the grounds tha many of it's members can't be taken seriously.

I think people do see the significance (just look at the views this thread has in just a few days ;))..but some may be a little sceptical as to contributing in fear of stirring a hornet's nest..ok for my part i agree with all the questions you've posed..seen too many documentaries on this subject and i wasn't satisfied by the answers..the fact that i haven't studied astrophysics may have something to do with this :lol:

Edit
I also have one more question to add (in good faith..it's a real question not a rhetorical one). If moon landing is possible why are there no moon landings since (not just by americans, by any nation)? Isn't the moon interesting enough to be studied further?

SleepyWitch

03-05-2009, 06:50 AM

Edit
I also have one more question to add (in good faith..it's a real question not a rhetorical one). If moon landing is possible why are there no moon landings since (not just by americans, by any nation)? Isn't the moon interesting enough to be studied further?

I think that's probably because it's easier to send robot probes up there.??? they may be expensive to produce, but then they are easier to maintain because they don't need food, space suits etc. I think the Americans only sent a man to the moon back at that time because they wanted to prove they can do it. They wanted to win the space race but in the long run, it's more efficient to use robots???

manolia

03-05-2009, 06:57 AM

Yes sleepy, i have heard that explanation before..but is sending robots the same as sending people, scientists, geologists etc? I don't think that robots can replace scientists in field work. I don't know. You may be right..but it's not what i was taught in uni..i spent two years of my life (almost) studying rocks for my dissertation..and instead of studying the rock shambles available in the lab we took a few excursions to see them in their natural environment (to study fractures, joints, ground displacements using topographic organs and such)..i am aware of the costs and the difficulties-impossibilities to do that on the moon..but still..??
Edit
One could think that after 40 years they could get there?

Emil Miller

03-05-2009, 07:07 AM

Well, for me this site is a place of escapism. I spend every other hour of the day discussing politics, and what not in class, out of class, at work, with family, with friends. What I'm wearing or eating doesn't matter at all, of course. I have many times wanted to add comments to threads, but you know, I haven't had time to read all the philosophers, or the appropriate texts, or studied the available data. If I do comment it would often be based on personal opinion and analysis. Others have been flamed for that before, and it can be a little intimidating. I don't necessarily want to spend my time arguing about things, which it just often seems to be, what many threads digress to.

On the particular topic of moonlandings, no i don't find, wether or not we did, so important, but it's fine that others do. I'm not sure I see what the exact significance of wandering around up there, is. I'm not sure I even approve of all the funding that goes into this, is it going to the right place? Americans spent millions of dollars developing an anti-gravity pen, the russians brought pencils...? :)

I appreciate your concern about contributing to certain threads because of lack familiarity with the subject but, surely, on this General forum the majority of posters will not have a great knowlege of the subject. Nobody should be afraid to give their opinion, however misinformed ,and if in the process they are corrected in a reasonable manner, then they have learned something from the thread. If rudeness or intimdation is used, as opposed to a little fun, by a forum member, it should be reported to the moderators. Of course there will be arguments, or differing points of view, but that's what a forum is for.

Like you, I have no particular interest in the moon landing itself but I am interested in politics.The ramifications of a country falsifying such an event are very far-reaching and that is why I am concerned that this thread has not generated the interest it deserves.

Emil Miller

03-05-2009, 07:17 AM

I think people do see the significance (just look at the views this thread has in just a few days ;))..but some may be a little sceptical as to contributing in fear of stirring a hornet's nest..ok for my part i agree with all the questions you've posed..seen too many documentaries on this subject and i wasn't satisfied by the answers..the fact that i haven't studied astrophysics may have something to do with this :lol:

Edit
I also have one more question to add (in good faith..it's a real question not a rhetorical one). If moon landing is possible why are there no moon landings since (not just by americans, by any nation)? Isn't the moon interesting enough to be studied further?

According to Wickipedia, NASA carried out six manned lunar landings between 1969 - 1972

manolia

03-05-2009, 07:30 AM

And..? that's it? The question remains.

Emil Miller

03-05-2009, 08:28 AM

And..? that's it? The question remains.

I thought that you were implying that there had been only one 'manned' moon landing. However, it still doesn't alter the fact that there appear to be areas of doubt about the project; a lie told once can be told many times. Nevertheless, there is a valid reason why NASA has not attempted manned moon missions since 1972. Since that time, NASA has had to curtail its expenditure due to the enormous cost of its operations. This is one reason why the USA entered into co-operation with the Russian Federation over manned flights to the Mir space station. The economic crisis that is now beginning to grip the USA, and by extension the rest of the world, may delay NASA's and other countries space activities further.

SleepyWitch

03-05-2009, 08:31 AM

I thought that you were implying that there had been only one 'manned' moon landing. However, it still doesn't alter the fact that there appear to be areas of doubt about the project; a lie told once can be told many times. Nevertheless, there is a valid reason why NASA has not attempted manned moon missions since 1972. Since that time, NASA has had to curtail its expenditure due to the enormous cost of its operations. This is one reason why the USA entered into co-operation with the Russian Federation over manned flights to the Mir space station. The economic crisis that is now beginning to grip the USA, and by extension the rest of the world, may delay NASA's and other countries space activities further.
yeah, it's about time humanity got their/our priorities straight.

manolia

03-05-2009, 08:34 AM

[/B]
yeah, it's about time humanity got their/our priorities straight.

Oh i wholeheartendly agree with that! There are far more important issues (poverty, hunger) and i find money on research on natural resources (such as geothermal power, tidal waves etc) as money better spent..

1n50mn14

03-05-2009, 10:12 AM

I also have one more question to add (in good faith..it's a real question not a rhetorical one). If moon landing is possible why are there no moon landings since (not just by americans, by any nation)? Isn't the moon interesting enough to be studied further?

The point of making the original moon landind was to beat the Russians during the Cold War (in a nutshell.) After doing so, and winning, there was no political purpose to another (massively publicised) landing. As a previous poster said, NASA did in fact conduct six manned moon landings between '69 and '72. Also- do you have any idea how expensive sending men to the moon is??? One just can't take up and do it on a whim. After the original landings, and discovering most of what they wanted to about the moon, they moved on to other things. Funding for NASA (I don't know about other space programmes) has been less and less and less every year since the first landing. >.< Even if they wanted to, they couldn't afford to do it now.

Emil Miller

03-05-2009, 10:18 AM

Oh i wholeheartendly agree with that! There are far more important issues (poverty, hunger) and i find money on research on natural resources (such as geothermal power, tidal waves etc) as money better spent..

i would tend to agree with that but it doesn't address the central question as to whether the moon landings were genuine.

manolia

03-05-2009, 10:26 AM

i would tend to agree with that but it doesn't address the central question as to whether the moon landings were genuine.

True..that's why i responted to the thread in the first place :)

Yes sleepy, i have heard that explanation before..but is sending robots the same as sending people, scientists, geologists etc? I don't think that robots can replace scientists in field work. I don't know. You may be right..but it's not what i was taught in uni..i spent two years of my life (almost) studying rocks for my dissertation..and instead of studying the rock shambles available in the lab we took a few excursions to see them in their natural environment (to study fractures, joints, ground displacements using topographic organs and such)..i am aware of the costs and the difficulties-impossibilities to do that on the moon..but still..??
Edit
One could think that after 40 years they could get there?

The point of making the original moon landind was to beat the Russians during the Cold War (in a nutshell.) After doing so, and winning, there was no political purpose to another (massively publicised) landing. As a previous poster said, NASA did in fact conduct six manned moon landings between '69 and '72. Also- do you have any idea how expensive sending men to the moon is??? One just can't take up and do it on a whim. After the original landings, and discovering most of what they wanted to about the moon, they moved on to other things. Funding for NASA (I don't know about other space programmes) has been less and less and less every year since the first landing. >.< Even if they wanted to, they couldn't afford to do it now.

:rolleyes:

1n50mn14

03-05-2009, 10:39 AM

Why the eye-roll? I think that's a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Emil Miller

03-05-2009, 10:44 AM

True..that's why i responted to the thread in the first place :)

Yes and thank's for doing so. At least you and some other members have taken an interest in one of the more comment worthy threads to appear on this forum.
I hope others will also express an opinion about the moon landings.

manolia

03-05-2009, 10:48 AM

@ Becca
Yep it is, but like i said i am aware of the costs..they are huge..i know there were other landings-in fact i remember who was the one who first passed this particular piece of information a few years ago- it was shortly after i had heard of the whole moan hoax theory..hehe (i wasn't clear enough in my first post, bad phrasing perhaps, but me and B Bean have established that already) and i think that in order to learn enough about a place whether on earth or everywhere scientists have to get there (especially when it comes to soils, rock formations, land displacements, geological strata and suchlike stuff). So i don't think they discovered much as it is. And i disagree that the whole research concerning the moon is a whim (perhaps i don't understand what you mean) :)
The whole cutting down of the costs is perfectly acceptable as an explanation..i wasn't aware of that..it makes one interested to know what programs NASA has chosen instead of learning more about the moon.

Yes and thank's for doing so. At least you and some other members have taken an interest in one of the more comment worthy threads to appear on this forum.
I hope others will also express an opinion about the moon landings.

You are welcome :)

librarius_qui

03-05-2009, 01:46 PM

But really, I have no idea what the truth is, and it doesn't really interest me. The whole Imperialist race to conquer the moon (...) seems a silly form of escapism to me.

As a race I agree.

Even though, it HAS BEEN a race as well, back then, when people like a "mythical"* C. Columbus (C. Colón) looked at the ocean and thought with himself "I want to see the other side of the world", or "lets get to China through the other side of the world" (...), a race between Spain and Portugal (soon later, with the Dutch, and the French, and the English).

I agree that the race isn't good in itself, because it means competition, and, among nations -- sports apart -- it's never been good. But we've been through this, so, why not thinking about colonizing the Solar system? (We DON'T and probably WON'T have means of going beyond that but, even if we come to do, it'll only happen if we give a first step (...)) It sounds exciting to me, and not easy, though.

I like the idea of getting to Mars and to Europa, up there. A ... 'n achievement, a new achievement to mankind. Possibly one that we might hope to do "the right way" (haha!) this time ...

If noone believed, there would be no discovery~

[& I'm still not here :rolleyes: ...]

__________
*Not doubting he existed, only emphasizing the romantic look (I myself, but not only) many people have on such (historical) figure (...)--

ClaesGefvenberg

03-06-2009, 02:59 AM

OK, that is quite enough. Let's keep things civil, shall we?

/Claes

Scheherazade

03-06-2009, 08:04 AM

Since we have proved once more that we, as a group, are not able to discuss certain topics civilly, this thread will now be closed.

Some offensive posts have also been deleted.