Moon Landings Faked? (and all other space mission fakery)

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I was discussing Apollo hoax disinfo at this site but the moderator started to delete my posts when I was winning the debate, so I stopped. Take a look.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628
www (dot) davidicke (dot) com/forum/showthread (dot) php?t=125628

As a moderator, I won't say please.

DO NOT discuss actions on other sites here at SDC. It is explicity prohibited in the Community Guidelines.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12860

Meteor Wayne

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Well done, Mr. Alp. Bravo!

Would you like to applaud Alp's decision to ignore the radiation issue completely?

Let's discuss that later. For now, I'd like to delve into this "flag waving due to air conditioners movement".

If they faked it, would it not have been very easy for the the backpack that the astronaut is obviously wearing to be a battery powered air-conditioner delivering cool air to the man in the suit? Or are battery-powered air conditioners an impossible technological achievement and therefore a hoax as well?

And in such a thick-looking suit, I doubt external air conditioning would make a difference to the man inside the suit. Besides, if they faked it, they wouldn't bother with air-conditioners in the studio. They'd just make the "astronauts" suffer. After all, with the reflective/protective visors covering their faces, you wouldn't see the "alleged" astronauts sweating.

And of course, like in the movies, they could always do multiple "takes". No reason to make the hoaxing participants suffer for long. "Cut! [Remove his helmet. Give him some water. Wipe his face. Put helmet back on.] Alright. Action!"

I think NASA's budget was a bit larger than the average blockbuster movie.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Well done, Mr. Alp. Bravo!

Would you like to applaud Alp's decision to ignore the radiation issue completely?

Let's discuss that later. For now, I'd like to delve into this "flag waving due to air conditioners movement".

If they faked it, would it not have been very easy for the the backpack that the astronaut is obviously wearing to be a battery powered air-conditioner delivering cool air to the man in the suit? Or are battery-powered air conditioners an impossible technological achievement and therefore a hoax as well?

And in such a thick-looking suit, I doubt external air conditioning would make a difference to the man inside the suit. Besides, if they faked it, they wouldn't bother with air-conditioners in the studio. They'd just make the "astronauts" suffer. After all, with the reflective/protective visors covering their faces, you wouldn't see the "alleged" astronauts sweating.

And of course, like in the movies, they could always do multiple "takes". No reason to make the hoaxing participants suffer for long. "Cut! [Remove his helmet. Give him some water. Wipe his face. Put helmet back on.] Alright. Action!"

I think NASA's budget was a bit larger than the average blockbuster movie.

Exactly, the apollo program cost about $170 billion in today's dollars. I doubt that the JFK administration would spend this much money on a hoax, not to mention the fact that it was pretty obvoius USSR wasn't going to get to the moon.

 

[BurgerB75]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

It's sad these people do not have faith in what mankind can accomplish. It's similar to those people who think the great pyramids in Egypt were build by aliens. Most are probably self-delusional but it scares me to think that a few of them are mocking these people's hard work just to get their 15 minutes of fame.

I used to argue with a fellow I used to work with but, as Ker and now Quantum (odd how Quantum showed up right when Ker went on 'vacation') do, he would just repeat the same old song and dance routine and igone any supporting evidence. It got old and finally no one would speak to him about the issue. Sure enough, when he did not get the attention around the office he thought he deserved he dropped the whole charade entirely.

 

[cosmored]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

The evidence of a hoax is overwhelming. On page 16 in the 13th post from the top there's a partial summary of the evidence.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=18614&start=300

The way the flag moves in this clip without being touched proves the hoax all by itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

As you can see in this clip, it starts to move before the astronaut gets close enough to it to touch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

If static electricity were the explanation, it would move every time the astrtonaut got close to it. It wouldn't only move at the precise moment when it's consistent with the atmophere explanation.

If it were vibration causing the staff and rod to move, they would visibly move. Also, the movement of the flag is not consistent with the rod having caused it to move.

If a kicked rock had caused the flag to move, there would have been a distinct impression of a rock hitting a precise spot on the flag. If kicked dust had caused the flag to move, the dust would have been visible as the dust is visible when kicked up in all the Apollo footage including this clip.

The movement of the flag is consistent with a wave of air hitting it and it moves at the precise moment when it's consistent with the astronaut's walking by it. The speed of the movement and the length of time it moves can be explained by slow-motion. There's some stuff about slow-motion in my post on page 16.

 

[BurgerB75]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

...and to prove my point. Did you look for any other explanation? Are you 100% certain that this is the only reason that the flag "moved"?

How do you know that the movement is "consistent with a wave of air hitting it"? Did you test this in a micro-g environment? Have you actually done any tests at all?

As for static affecting it "everytime", are you certain that what the astronaut was doing prior to each "touch" of the flag was consistant and would have produced the same charge? When you shuffle your feet on a carpeted floor and touch a doorknob you get shocked, now, touch it again immediately. Did you get shocked again? Nope, didn't think so.

 

[cosmored]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

How do you know that the movement is "consistent with a wave of air hitting it"? Did you test this in a micro-g environment? Have you actually done any tests at all?

Anyone can hang a piece of cloth at about a forty degree angle and trot by it. It moves the way the flag in the video moves. Lighter materials come to a stop quickly. Heavier materials move longer.

It first moves slightly away from the astronaut which is consistent with the pressure wave caused by his approach in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

It then moves back toward him which is consistent with the air flowing to fill the gap by his passing. This can be duplicated on earth.

As for static affecting it "everytime", are you certain that what the astronaut was doing prior to each "touch" of the flag was consistant and would have produced the same charge? When you shuffle your feet on a carpeted floor and touch a doorknob you get shocked, now, touch it again immediately. Did you get shocked again? Nope, didn't think so.

The only time I've ever seen a flag move without being touched is in that clip. The flag moves at the precise moment at which it's consistent with the atmophere explanation. Do you know of any other footage in which the flag moves without being touched?

Also, it were static electricity, the flag would be repelled–not attracted as the flag first moves away from the astronaut. I have to admit that I don't know if that is possible. Can you tell us?

Did you look for any other explanation?

Look in my post. Do you think I missed any other possible explanations?

You're being a bit vague. Are you saying the movement isn't consistent with the atmophere explanation? If you think it isn't, say why. If you think it is, don't you think it's quite a coincidence?

Tell us what you think caused the flag to move.

 

[cosmored]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Here's something else.

Look at the way the corner of Collins' jacket bounces around in this clip.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/7720A028 ... m-par.aspx
(4:10 time mark)

Before he starts to run in place, the corner hangs the way it would in strong gravity. When he's running, the corner goes up, stops, and goes back down. The only identifiable force making it go back down is gravity.

This guy starts running at the 00:14 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4

The movement is identical to the movement of Collins' jacket. This is when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon.

The dogtags that are hanging around his neck also behave the way they would in gravity. I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of the dogtags with some keys hanging around my neck. I only had to impart a little extra horizontal upper body movement. Collins' feet can't be seen. He may be on some kind of exercise device which would explain the extra horizontal upper body movement.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

The evidence of a hoax is overwhelming. ...

No, it really isn't. Despite your insistence to the contrary, there is nothing "overwhelming" about anything you have provided. Show evidence that can not be accounted for due to any other cause that a "hoax" and then, if your reasoning is credible and logic sound, maybe you'll have something interesting. So far, nothing you have presented is inconsistent with already provided explanations.

But, I have to warn you - You're likely to be disappointed in your search for evidence. The Moon landings were not a hoax.

 

[kk434]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Well I think that a small detail in the Moon landings can have been faked, just like gagarin claimed to have landed in his capsule but in reality he ejected from it before landing. In the Lunar case it's not beyond resonable doubt that some pictures are fake, unmanned LEM while all three stayed in lunar orbit and other small details.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Well I think that a small detail in the Moon landings can have been faked, just like gagarin claimed to have landed in his capsule but in reality he ejected from it before landing. In the Lunar case it's not beyond resonable doubt that some pictures are fake, unmanned LEM while all three stayed in lunar orbit and other small details.

Yeah, all 3 of them stayed in the pod even though there's pictures and video of them on the moon. That wouldn't even match up with the hoax theory that it was filmed on Earth, because all of the astronauts would be in the Apollo module.

The moon hoaxers look at all the evidence and shout "FAKE!!" to make it seem like it didn't really happen. Just the same as the people talking about Obama's birth certificate "BUT IT'S FORGED!!!" :roll:

They are simply asking for proof that we can not give. They would not be satisfied unless we invented a time machine and brought them to the moon in July 1969.

 

[kk434]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

They could have filmed the moon scenes before the launch, launched the astronauts into lunar orbit, landed the unmanned LEM to collect rock samples, played the previosly recorded moon scenes now labeled as Live. Then returned to earth.

Well im no true beliver that lunar landings where faked but this theory is at leas plausible.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

And how was the LEM supposed to collect rocks? It had no mechanism to do so without humans doing the work.

 

[kk434]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Well... Those Moon rocks are "Rock solid" evidence for the Lunar landings, studied in labs around the world there is no way that they where fake. But a hidden collecting device in the part of LEM that stayed on the moon might have picked them up.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

The way the flag moves in this clip without being touched proves the hoax all by itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

As you can see in this clip, it starts to move before the astronaut gets close enough to it to touch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

At the very beginning of the first clip (around 0:04 - 0:05) we see a plume of dust move into view, followed by the astronaut holding the flag. As he moves around between 0:10 and 0:15 you can see how the dust billows out around his feet, even when he is moving quite slowly.

Note that the initial plume of dust occurs at 0:04 - 0:05 and the astronaut enters the frame at 0:09 - 0:10, so the plume of dust precedes him by around 4 - 5 seconds or so.

Is it inconceivable that the guy who passes the flag at the end of the clip, where the flag starts moving before he reaches it, was moving very fast and therefore kicking up a plume of dust which hit the flag before he got there? The clip is quite dark there, and the dust was quite hard to see at the beginning, when the clip was a lot brighter.

Unseen dust kicked up by the fast moving astronaut hit the flag before he got there, making it move. Atmospherics are not the only possibility!

If we acknowledge that the plume of dust at 0:05 was kicked up by an astronaut who only entered the frame a few seconds later, then what would that plume of dust have done if there was a flag hanging here? Would the flag have moved before the astronaut got there?

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Well... Those Moon rocks are "Rock solid" evidence for the Lunar landings, studied in labs around the world there is no way that they where fake. But a hidden collecting device in the part of LEM that stayed on the moon might have picked them up.

And God might have miracled them straight to NASA and saved us all the trouble of going there in the first place.

In other words - "Might haves" and "Maybesos" are fine, if there is a plausible reason to suggest them.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Well... Those Moon rocks are "Rock solid" evidence for the Lunar landings, studied in labs around the world there is no way that they where fake. But a hidden collecting device in the part of LEM that stayed on the moon might have picked them up.

All available evidence points to the fact that the astronauts collected the rocks. Yes it is plausible that it had that, it's also plausible they had a secret laser gun attached to the craft to kill space aliens. If you have anything to show the LEM had a mechanical device for retrieving hundreds of pounds of moon rocks, then you need to let us know. Otherwise we can't rely on wild speculation.

 

[Smersh]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

The evidence of a hoax is overwhelming. On page 16 in the 13th post from the top there's a partial summary of the evidence.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=18614&start=300 ...

I remember seeing that post when you first made it, but didn't pay much attention to it because you were throwing far too much at us in one go in the form of links to youtube videos, website articles etc etc. There were at least 100 links there in one post and very little comment about any of them from yourself, stating your arguments as to why you supported the content in the links - did you honestly expect anyone to spend several hours ploughing through all that lot?

That said, your more recent posts have been much better though - much more concise, to the point and not throwing too much at us in one go. (Even though I don't agree with your views themselves.) Debates are conducted much more efficiently and it's much easier and fairer for both sides if done that way.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

The evidence of a hoax is overwhelming. On page 16 in the 13th post from the top there's a partial summary of the evidence.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=18614&start=300

No, it's not. You're saying that the flag movement is caused my an air conditioner in the background rather than a guy walking buy an stirring up some dust. That hardly counts as "overwhelming evidence". I think there's a lot more evidence actually, that we landed on the moon. Not only the photo and video data (though this doesn't matter anyway because the moon hoaxers always say those are fake), there is moon dust in the astronauts' space suits and moon rocks they brought back with them on the LEM. You can argue video "evidence" all day long, but you can't ignore the reality of the physical evidence. We also have LRO pictures of the landing sites (wait, let me guess, those are doctored :roll: )

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

They could have filmed the moon scenes before the launch, launched the astronauts into lunar orbit, landed the unmanned LEM to collect rock samples, played the previosly recorded moon scenes now labeled as Live. Then returned to earth.

Well im no true beliver that lunar landings where faked but this theory is at leas plausible.

With all that trouble, may as well actually land on the Moon. :lol:

 

[CAllenDoudna]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

When someone says the Moon Landings or 9-11 or whatever was faked I check myself and realize that though they may be ignorant and mis-informed they are NOT looney. Their question is sincere--but they probably aren't going to be persuaded by a lot of technical stuff they don't understand and will likely dismiss all such as the Secret Powers That Control Everything making up a lot of garbage trying to confuse them. So I try to appeal to what they should reasonably know and ask them how it could have been pulled off.

Other countries were watching the Apollo Moon Shot and many of them would have greatly enjoyed watching America fall flat on its face in a spectacular way. The Europeans have always thought we were just a little too big for our britches and needed to have our egos deflated. The Russians and Chinese were competing with us in a serious ideological struggle to control the world. The Japanese had lost a lot of face when they lost World War II and they would have been a little less humiliated had our Moon Landings been exposed as a fraud.

Each of these had the technical means to monitor our Moon shots. They could not only follow it with telescopes, but they could monitor the radio traffic and would have immeadiately detected if a signal came from Nevada rather than from the Moon. The news reporter who exposed fraud in the Government or the Military would have made a fortune from the story, been nominated for numerous awards and would have made thousands of dollars on every speaking engagement--and he would have been booked solid with three speaking engagements a day for the next three years while his book would have made millions of dollars.

A lot of people and a lot of countries had a lot to gain by showing that the Moon Landings were a hoax--and they had the technical means at their disposal to monitor the communications and determine where they were coming from. So if it was fake, why didn't they expose it back then? Everybody was watching and they were all ready to pounce.

 

[cosmored]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Is it inconceivable that the guy who passes the flag at the end of the clip, where the flag starts moving before he reaches it, was moving very fast and therefore kicking up a plume of dust which hit the flag before he got there? The clip is quite dark there, and the dust was quite hard to see at the beginning, when the clip was a lot brighter.

The video has some parts where it is dark and some parts where it gets brighter. In both cases the dust that they kick up is very clear. Why would it be easy to see in every case except for the case where we can't see his feet?

Unseen dust kicked up by the fast moving astronaut hit the flag before he got there, making it move. Atmospherics are not the only possibility!

We can see in this video that the flag starts to move much too late for dust to have hit it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

It would have started moving sooner, when the astronaut was further away, if dust had caused it to move. The time at which the flag starts to move is perfectly consistent wit the atmosphere explanation.

If we acknowledge that the plume of dust at 0:05 was kicked up by an astronaut who only entered the frame a few seconds later, then what would that plume of dust have done if there was a flag hanging here? Would the flag have moved before the astronaut got there?

That plume of dust was too low to hit a flag. It was also very visible.

Rocks aren't proof of anything. There are too many plausible explanations that would explain them. Some of them might actually have been collected by unmanned craft.
http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/ ... lector.flv

They may be lying to us about the rocks. Here's a clip which shows a scientist saying it's impossible to publish anything in science journals that goes against the official version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
(16 second mark)

At around the 30 minute time mark in this video a scientist talks about having been harassed and her career having been ruined for having blown the whistle.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 248030643#

All we have is documents that tell us that the rocks are real. Seeing that we are lied to about so many things, we can't take that as conclusive proof of anything as it might be another lie.

Somebody please address the issue of Collins' jacket corner.

 

[Quantum11]

Re: On the moon..

So, do you all know more about the ability to see stars on the lunar surface, then say...A moonwalker himself?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aisdh5sdrgk[/youtube]

When Armstrong, then Collins denied being able to see any stars, a host of intellectuals realized that either they were lying, or they had no idea what it was like to stand on the moon. Or, they were actually telling the truth. They were on a moon set, and thus couldn't see any stars.

 

[Saiph]

Re: On the moon..

Right, because the best way to sell a hoax, is to claim things people would find wrong, or counter intuitive :? If they were faking it, they'd have said they could see stars, cause that's what everyone thinks you should be able to do.



Notice my claim earlier stated that, with proper preperation you may be able to see stars, not that you easily could under normal conditions. I'm not surprised the astronauts didn't see stars, not even when I first heard of the 'problem' with regards to photographs.

Standing on the moon, in daylight, without trying to block out light scattered from your surroundings, you will not see stars. Compared to the ambient light levels, they are far to weak for your eyes to see under those conditions. In order to protect your eyes, your pupils have contracted and your receptors have changed their chemistry to limit sensitivity. If they were adapted so that they could discern starlight, it would be incredibly painful to look at anything else. You've probably experienced similar sensations when people flip on the lights when you awake, or leaving a dark theater to go outside.


Just to make it clear, the presence of an atmosphere is not what makes stars hard to see during the daytime, it's the ambient light levels. Air does help spread the daylight around more, increasing the ambient light level, but that's it. With sufficient shielding you can see stars in the daytime, granted that usually means standing at the bottom of a deep well, but it can and has been done.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Have you watched the video comparing the movement of a flag in a vacuum to the movement of a flag in an atmosphere?

If you had, you would realise that the scenes showing the astronauts on the moon could not have been filmed in a room containing an atmosphere.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMr8H1vmOo[/youtube]
The flag moves as it does in a vacuum, therefore it cannot be moving due to a disturbance in the atmosphere. The answer must lie elsewhere as to how the flag could have moved before the astronaut reached it.

Question: How do you think that dust should act, in a vacuum? Would it hang in the air in the same way as it does on Earth? Or would it fall straight back down to the ground?


____