Apollo Moon Hoax

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

logicize

Guest
I'm no supporter of the moon conspiracies, but there are a few questions raised that don't seem to have been adequately answered. These questions are from:<br /><br />http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html<br /><br />At the bottom of the page, there is a list of questions. Here are the ones I'm curious about.<br /><br />3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away? <br /><br />10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry? <br /><br />13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.<br /><br />22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?<br /><br />29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?<br /><br />There is one more interesting point raised on the page, it is it issue of the identical hills under the section 'The Hills Are Alive' on the same page close to the middle.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Check this (Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy) out.<br />If there still any questions unsanswered, feel free to bring them up.<br />Don't expect a warm reception <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
L

logicize

Guest
Good thing I wasn't expecting a warm reception. Really, I do not believe in moon conspiracies, but I think the questions raised are interesting and should be answered.<br /><br />Two of the questions are addressed on the site. Of the two, the dust one sounds reasonable, the other referring to the mountains in the background is not. Since the mountains appear identical on two seperate missions several hundred miles apart, not several hundred feet apart.<br /><br />The remaining questions weren't addressed.
 
D

disownedsky

Guest
<p>I reviewed the questions briefly, and frankly I don't think they're interesting. The question need to be logical to be worth answering.</p><br /><p>And yes, and the whole moon hoax business has been thoroughly debunked. I've got nothing against debunkers when it's bunk.</p>
 
L

logicize

Guest
I have no problem with debunking either. Unfortunately those questions, as far as I can tell, have yet to be debunked.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
I'll have a go at number 13!<br /><br />The spacesuit the astronauts wore on the moon (apollo space suit model A7L) weighed about 81 kilograms (180 pounds) on Earth. That's the weight of a man!<br /><br />The torso is custom-fitted with convoluted joints at the shoulders, elbows, wrists, hips, knees, and ankles. Entry to a suit was through a rear pressure-sealing zipper that ran from the upper back through the crotch. The suit was made from 25 layers of protective materials.<br /><br />The backpack alone was 26kg, nearly 1/3 of the total weight of the suit, and it made the suits top heavy. This is why a lot of films/photos show the astronauts leaning forward.<br /><br />The suggestion is that they should have been able to jump at least 10 feet high on the moon. This suggestion is based on the reduced gravity - 1/6th gravity equals a jump six times as high as on earth. So that means a man on Earth, wearing the suit, would be able to jump under 2 feet - which seems just about plausible, when carrying a suit that doubles his own weight, a suit with joints limiting movement, under 25 layers of material, if he <i> really really </i> tried hard! <br /><br />But the astronauts weren't really trying hard to jump as high as they possibly could in those suits! They were trying to walk about with the least possibility of falling over and perhaps damaging their backpack and risking their lives.<br /><br />To be honest, on Earth, although if you really tried you may be able to jump over a foot high in one of those suits, on the moon it would be highly dangerous. Wearing one of those suits is going to tire you out really quickly on Earth even if you just shuffle around. It was indeed less tiring for the astronauts to move in those suits, but the moon-walk was the most efficient way they found to get about. It was the closest they could get to shuffling around whilst reducing the risk of tripping up and falling over, and whilst maintaining a reasonable speed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Well, I tried to look at some of this stuff.<br /><br />Re: "airbrushed images" video<br /><br />Often when there are gaps in coverage when making mosaics, when they are stitched togther the assmebler will add fuzzy renditions of surrounding areas so there are no black gaps. That's what it looks like to me.<br /><br />Craters are called "round buildings" Give me a break.<br /><br />Obviously, the last image in the is a drawing superimposed on the image. Give me another break.<br /><br />RE: "Missing Flap"<br />The video is so small and low resolution, it's hard to see anything, besides, there is no guarantee that the images were taken at the same moment. <br /><br />The earth in the window stuff:<br />The first clips says the window frame should be out of focus. It is. WTF are they talking about?<br /><br />The alleged "two earths in different windows" clip is so overexposed, out of focus, and low resolution, I can't tell what anything is. It could have been a cow out the window and no one would be able to tell.<br /><br />The missing crosshairs: Isn't it obvious that the missing crosshairs all occur where the object is bright white and the film is overexposed? Any idea how film works when overexposed?<br />Give me a break.<br /><br />The C's? Just give me a break, it would be unusual the letters like O, C and I could be formed by surfaces and shadows?<br /><br />First shadow length: Perhaps a crease would be visible if the rise was at a different angle than the shadow, but looking at the image, it appears they are aligned.<br /><br />After that, the author makes so many assumptions, factual errors, and the pictures are so small, I lost all interest in continuing. I quickly scanned the rest, but my crapometer went off the scale, so I quit. Why bother. Not even worth wasting the time to debunk.<br /><br />That's my 2 bucks worth. (By the way, my Father in Law worked on the actual Hasselblad cameras so I know more about them than you think) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
L

logicize

Guest
Thank you.<br /><br />That makes sense. So far 2 out of 6 have been reasonably explained. That leaves 4. <br /><br />In all fairness, 29 really isn't possible to answer, it's just an observation. It would have been nice if some pictures were available, but they're not. So really, there are only 3 remaining.
 
L

logicize

Guest
Looks like you went through the site too. Yeah, you're right on all that. I just grabbed the things that I have yet to see explained.
 
L

logicize

Guest
Good thanks. By the way, no need to get upset, I just found this stuff. I read through it all and was left with those questions that I couldn't answer. I'm not supporting the statements made in the website.<br /><br />That leaves.<br /><br />The hills thing.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
For question 29 look at THIS link.<br /><br />For the hills issue, look HERE and HERE <br /><br />That's all folks, move along, nothing to see here... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
O

odysseus145

Guest
Clavius.org is another good site.<br /><br />I was 13 when I first saw Fox's Apollo hoax "documentary." I didn't really know too much about it at the time so they sounded convincing. Not long after I searched google and found the Bad Astronomy site which explained just about everything. Now I find the idea of a hoax to be completely absurd. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rfoshaug

Guest
Disproving Apollo hoax theories is one of my favorite hobbies! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />So, on to the questions from that UFO site:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Compared with the bright sunlit lunar surface, stars are very dim. Imagine looking out the window on a starry night here on Earth. Why do you see more stars if you turn off the lights in the room? And a camera does not have the dynamic range of the human eye, so taking a picture showing your living room with lights on and stars outside at the same time is impossible. And that's just a few watts of electric light. The sun is a bit more powerful.<br /><br />Besides, does this "evidence" prove the "Christer Fuglesang Spacewalk Hoax"? Check this image out: <br /><br />link to NASA image... No stars - AHA! A hoax!!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Pure oxygen does not melt stuff! Why should it? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>
 
R

rfoshaug

Guest
The entire web page ends with:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If you are interested in obtaining more information about the Apollo missions and the anomalies that have been uncovered here, why not click on the banner below?<br /><br />Moonmovie.com has a great selection of thought-provoking DVDs that delve into the Apollo missions and shows the viewer why the missions must be faked. According to their investigations, all Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. Moonmovie.com have uncovered some mis-labeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in 'Apollo 11 Monkey Business' and explained in 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon', proves they did not leave low-earth orbit. Other DVDs available include Apollo Astronauts refusing to swear on the Bible that they went to the Moon (and Buzz Aldrin punching the investigator!).<br /><br />We can thoroughly recommend all the DVDs in the collection which we will be reviewing over the next few weeks - so stay tuned!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Isn't it funny how almost every hoax site on the net ends with "click here to purchase"? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
Well if, and only if, Grissom was silenced on purpose, what was that purpose?<br /><br />It is alleged the purpose was to silence the loose cannon, to protect NASAs funding, to allow them to continue the project of <b> landing a man on the moon. </b><br /><br />So it really is a separate issue from the Apollo Moon Hoax.<br /><br />Unless that is, Grissom was silenced because he was going to expose the fraud that NASA was going to perpetrate, that they planned to fake the moon landings. But that is not the allegation that Grissoms family is making.<br /><br />If this thread is about debunking the idea that the moon landings were a hoax, it has done its job. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
The "33 questions'" have been dealt with completely many times. Here is one good place to start. <br /><br />However the moon hoaxers don't let this stop them, and the questions keep popping up from time to time.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
The "30-odd questions'" have been dealt with completely many times. Here is one good place to start. <br /><br />However the moon hoaxers don't let this stop them, and the questions keep popping up.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
I

intersteller5555

Guest
There are a few things you should check out because if i tell you no one would belive me.. got to www.disclosureproject.net... or go to youtube and check the vids out type in Disclosure project.. a dr steven greer has got a bunch of ex GOV people together to release the secrets that have been belived to be kept by the government.. secrets such as There being an extraterestrial moon base on the other side of the moon,the fact that the us gov has Extraterrestrial technology to end engergy criseses... but people Most definitly landed on the moon.. and a few testomonys say that craters arent the only thing they saw!!! its very interesting ive been reasearching this sort of stuff for about a year and a half and have come across many sites some video interviews with ex astronauts and gov employees. that are hard to dismiss as hoaxes...
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
Interesting stuff.<br /><br />But when I see a website that is basically promoting the sale of books, and holds back the information they are <i> selling </i> it makes me question the motives of that website.<br /><br />If mankind has been duped somehow, and there are people out there that that know what is <i> truly </i> going on, surely one of them would give us their proof for <b> free. </b> For the good of mankind and all that.<br /><br />It is legitimate to ask for help funding your research, to ask for donations etc. But is it legitimate to ask for people to pay to see your results? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
<font color="yellow">10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry? </font><br /><br />First, I'll assume that the whip antenna is the one in the photo on this page.<br /><br />A more pointed question asked to the original questioner would be :<br /><br />If the whip antenna burned off the Gemini 6a capsule as you claim it ahould, why wasn't the capsule and its crew utterly incinerated?<br /><br />This is an easy one. We all know that capsules (as well as the Shuttles) re-enter Earth's atmosphere with their heat shields facing the path of re-entry.<br /><br />This does two things. It puts a heat shield between Firery Death and Astronauts, but just as importatly, it deflects heat <b>away</b> from the spacecraft past the edges of the shield.<br /><br />To picture this, imagine gluing a scale model of the Gemini 6a capsule to the bottom of a salad bowl. Everything inside the bowl, including 6a and its whip antenna are protected from the extreme heat generated during re-entry.<br /><br />Had that whip antenna burned up, we would have been having a Memorial Service for three very brave and very incinerated astronauts.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
oh god not again. another moon hoax thread. <br /><br />dear god. oh my god.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts