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

[a_lost_packet_]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

...intellect...

You know, you should really stop the sarcastic remarks concerning poster's "intellect."

 

[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.

Wow, you possess a dizzying intellect sir. I mean that most sincerely.

Everyone thinks you should be able to see stars, because they can see them. They know what they look like outside of the light pollution when they make their little trips to the countryside. And if you are armed with knowledge about the added diffusion caused by our atmosphere, then it's downright insulting for anyone claiming to have been on the surface of the moon, denying being able to see any!!

Again, that begs the question: Why didn't they say they saw stars? You don't convince people of hoax like this by denying "common sense".

Furthermore, their inability to see stars is not at all surprising to anybody that knows much about human biology, or photography, or physics. I'm saying, armed with my knowledge of atmospheric diffusion, and optics (a physics degree, btw, and years of studying astronomy beyond that) that it is quite possible for stars not to be visible to astronauts on the sunny side of the moon.

So it's actually more insulting to say, that despite my knowledge and experience in the area, that you just don't believe me, and fail to provide any counter arguement other than "i can see stars on earth, at night"

Before you continue your rant, please go outside, at night to a well light area, like a parking lot, and look up at the stars. Tell me how many you see...then go to a dark area, and take another look.

I'm telling you now that the presence of an atmosphere has only a small affect on your ability to see stars, mostly by it's ability to carry dust and moisture to scatter more light back at you (thus increasing, slightly, ambient light levels, the true cause).

Don't get me started on the 'slow motion = low gravity' illusion, which only works in general. Many people have tried, very hard, to replicate lunar footage using that technique, and they fail. Sure, they can mimic some things, with counterwieghts and pulleys they can even get the gait right..but the suit and other stuff doesn't sit right, move right, or look the same. Check out Mythbusters, they did an episode on it a season or two ago.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Thank you a lost packet and Saiph for those excellent responses/explanations. I think that just about covers everything. I would ask if Quantum had any more questions, but I suppose I should ask "Do you have any more accusations?" because he is clearly blinded in his belief that we did not land on the moon.

I'm happy to answer people's questions about the moon landings, but when they start throwing baseless accusations around, it makes all of us a little sad/angry that they would be insulting the great work the scientists, engineers, astronauts, and countless others did.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Most times it's pointless to argue with fools in this thread.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Re: On the moon..

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.

Or the guy making the vid in your post deliberately mischaracterized the answers given. The transcript of that interview is here.

http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

Here is the relevant part of the transcript:

QUERY: I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect? And secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ALDRIN: The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. [...]

ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

ALDRIN [actually Collins]: I don't remember seeing any.

(The First Lunar Landing As Told By The Astronauts: Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins in a Post-flight Press Conference, NASA EP-73, 1989 pt. VI)

Collins' response is a followup to Armstrong's reference to solar corona photography (Fig. 3) which had been taken from the command module during the translunar coast, in which all three astronauts participated. (Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report NASA SP-214, 1969, p. 39). The reporter's question is a bit confusing since the solar corona cannot be seen from the lunar surface except when the earth eclipses the sun. Or, of course, from a spaceship positioned such that the earth is between the spaceship and the sun. Apollo 11's course provided just such an opportunity. It appears Neil Armstrong interpreted the reporter's phrase "solar corona" to refer to this data.


Note the actual question asked about the stars visible in the corona, not any stars visible from the Moon or CSM. Collins response is to that question. Sarcastic commentary while replaying Collins answer is a sure sign of the disingenuousness of the vid. Talk about strawman arguments .... :?

As to Armstrongs reply ... it's been answered. You show me where your other sources see stars while something akin to the Moon's surface is reflecting sunlight in their vision. All you've got is commentary on how nice the stars are when it's dark. Not quite the same thing is it ? See this response ...

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/stars.html

Heck even wikipedia has that answer ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landi ... y_theories

4. There are no stars in any of the photos; the Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a post-mission press conference to not remember seeing any stars.

The astronauts were talking specifically about naked-eye observations of stars during the daytime. They regularly sighted stars through the spacecraft navigation optics while aligning their inertial reference platforms.
The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure, and could not detect the faint points of light.[94] Even the brightest stars are dim and difficult to see in the daytime on the Moon. Neil Armstrong said that he could not see stars on the daylight side of the Moon with his naked eyes.[95] Edwin Aldrin saw no stars from the Moon [96] Harrison Schmitt saw no stars from the Moon.[97] The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the brightly sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars. Camera settings can turn a well-lit background into ink-black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed in order not to have the foreground light completely wash out the image. A demonstration of this effect is here. The effect is similar to not being able to see stars outside when in a brightly-lit room - the stars only become visible when the light is turned off. The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon. All of the landings were in daylight.[98]
An ultraviolet telescope was taken to the lunar surface on Apollo 16 and operated in the shadow of the lunar module. (It is seen in the background of the pictures showing JohnYoung's jump salutes of the US flag.) It captured pictures of the earth and of many stars, some of which are dim in visible light but bright in the ultraviolet. These observations were later matched up with observations taken by orbiting ultraviolet telescopes. Furthermore, the positions of those stars with respect to the earth are correct for the time and location of the Apollo 16 photographs.
Pictures of the solar corona that included the planet Mercury and some background stars, were taken from lunar orbit by Apollo 15 Command Module Pilot Al Worden shortly before lunar sunrise and after lunar sunset.[99]

Lastly Phil Plait isn't lying, he's just didn't answer the specific question your asking here. He was asked if why stars don't show in the photographs.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

Mr Plait doesn't mention any relatively bright moon surface being in the astronaut's FOV at that point in his explanation but he does go on.

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the question asked was about stars in the photos but the refutation to your point is also above (I highlighted for you). Tell you what though, why don't you e-mail him for an definitive explanation and then we'll see if I'm correct or you are. That or go out at night and hold a flashlight in your FOV and see if you can see the stars under that condition. Talk about dizzying intellect ....

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Re: On the moon..

Note the quote from another person qualified to remark on the sight of stars beyond Earth's gravity shackles...

"Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime, is absolutely mind-blowing."

Michael Melville, SpaceShipOne pilot

So much for trying to say that stars aren't visible until after sunset.

What does Mr Melville say above ? It sounds to me that, as the sky turns black, he gets to (then) see the stars. Sounds to me like when the sky was bright blue he couldn't see them ... like we can't during the day. So how does this make your point again ? Where's the bright object in MM's FOV (like the Moons surface) while he's seeing the stars ? Oh wait ... there isn't ... it has to be pitch black to have the stars appear.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I'd like to point out that if "they" could convincingly fake the images of the Sun and Earth in the distance, as well as the surface of the Moon, then it logically follows that they would be able to easily mimic stars in the "studio sky"!

Ever been to a planetarium or a 'Star Wars' movie?

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Now, if they were the old radium type of coated plastic stars, then there might be a problem. See, radium is more radioactive that plutonium!1!!!!1 ZOMGZ DEY WUD HAD DIED!

That must be why they didn't have glow-in-the-dark stars on the Moon Hoax set - The crew would have been instantly vaporized by the radium in the stickers. Mystery solved!

 

[BurgerB75]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Wow, Quantum and Cosmo really don't have a clue do they...

I'm waiting for the "I'm right your wrong, nyah nyah nyah" as they stick their fingers in their ears.

The really funny thing is that if the hoax were real you would expect all of the papers and press would be all over this. Considering they freak out if the Pres. goes on vacation they would have a field day with this! :lol:

Better stock up now! http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

 

[kk434]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Every year that passes just emboldens the hoax proponents, most of them are young and Apollo was just something they read in thier history book. Since we aren't able to return to the moon any time soon young people start to wonder how it might been possible for those "antient" rocket to make it there.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I have probably said this already, but it won't be long before people start saying that Concorde was a hoax and we have never had commercial air travel that moved faster than sound. How could we prove them wrong?

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Every year that passes just emboldens the hoax proponents, most of them are young and Apollo was just something they read in thier history book. Since we aren't able to return to the moon any time soon young people start to wonder how it might been possible for those "antient" rocket to make it there.

This is why a return to the moon and moon colonization are important. We need to inspire the next generation and children to take up jobs in math and science. A lot of the moon hoax theorists probably are younger than 40 and do not believe that we had the technology to land on the moon.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I have probably said this already, but it won't be long before people start saying that Concorde was a hoax and we have never had commercial air travel that moved faster than sound. How could we prove them wrong?

That's why it's called the sound barrier !

There's always going to be the hucksters that try to make $$s selling their stories and some nutcases who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them but what bothers me is that there seems to be a larger mass of non-morons who, for some reason I can't fathom, buy into the hoax story. Sensationalism "wins" I guess ...

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Every year that passes just emboldens the hoax proponents, most of them are young and Apollo was just something they read in thier history book.

First off, I watched the Apollo 11 footage live...And it isn't years that embolden hoax proponents, it's continuing evidence mounting up against Apollo...

Since we aren't able to return to the moon any time soon young people start to wonder how it might been possible for those "antient" rocket to make it there.

This is why a return to the moon and moon colonization are important. We need to inspire the next generation and children to take up jobs in math and science. A lot of the moon hoax theorists probably are younger than 40 and do not believe that we had the technology to land on the moon.

If you want to get to the moon, you should encourage your children to learn about radiation, and radiation shielding...Because that's the only way anyone is going to walk on the 4 billion year irradiated wasteland!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q35QqUg[/youtube]

Since they can't even make it with our current technology, it seems certain to those who don't suffer from cognitive dissonance, that they certainly didn't make it back then.

Just search space radiation shielding to get various articles, etc. that describe how missions beyond our magnetosphere will require significant radiation shielding developments.

And if they actually watch the footage, and see the strange movements indicating cables,
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTSnLsYAA7U[/youtube]

pictures of the SUN that appear as if a spotlight instead.

BTW, this is what the sun looks like in space...

If they look and see pictures of the LEM where the sides look like cardboard put together by high school drama prop designers.

When they see continual proof of tomfoolery like the Dutch did recently...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...y-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

When you hear Alan Bean not aware that he went through the Van Allen Belts...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM7EzTPxK2c[/youtube]

When Telemetry tapes go missing...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0hsMJj9Q-A[/youtube]

When NASA's Apollo reports state information, that can be ascertained as false...
"Summary and Conclusions
Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions."
Source:http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

You can find the major solar flares during Apollo missions at the following link:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_FLARES/FLARES_INDEX/McMath/CFI55_80.TXT


"Finding 5-5. SPE prediction. At present, the ability to predict an SPE and to project its evolution once underway does not exist. Such a capability will play an important role in managing the SPE radiation hazard."

Source:http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12045&page=83

Then, when Apollo supporting website owners like Jay Windley add to NASA's deceptions with his own:
"A major solar event doesn't just cut loose without warning. It is possible to observe the "weather" on the sun and predict when a major event will occur. And this is what was done on the Apollo missions. To be sure, the missions were planned months in advance and the forecasting was not that farsighted. But they would have had enough warning to call off the mission should a solar event have started boiling up from the depths of the sun."

And another false statement by Windley...

"The records also show that no major solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions, but the conspiracists don't care to look that closely."
Source: http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html

See the NGDC link above for major solar flares to see Windleys erroneous statement refuted.

So, with just these few things I mention here, it's quite easy to see why thoughtful, intelligent human beings might just find Apollo difficult to swallow!

 

[cosmored]

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

You're ignoring the radiation issue. There's some stuff on space radiation on page 16 in the 13th post from the top. It may turn out that they've been lying to us about space radiation.

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.

Who knows what kind of secret deals were made? You're also assuming that we were being told the truth about what was happening back then. The US press lies to Americans on a regular basis.

http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/apr2304.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media ... watch.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_t ... media&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0

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.

There might have been an unmanned craft on the surface of the moon relaying signals to earth.
http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/ ... lector.flv

An unmanned craft might have actually gone to the moon, orbited for the duration of the missions and returned to earth.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... ncies&aq=f

What is that even supposed to be a video of? NASA using an unmanned probe to collect moon rocks? That craft wasn't adapted for the Saturn V in the first place, there's no way that they launched that instead of Apollo. The apollo crew returned with moon rocks that was unloaded off their ship. The LEM did not have a mechanism for collecting moon rocks (well I suppose there could of been a "secret" moon rock collecting device, but there's no evidence for this. it'd be the same as saying that they also had attached a laser gun for shooting flying saucers)

It's plausible that a different craft was used.

continued...

 

[BurgerB75]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

OMG these two are hilarious. :lol:

I would get upset but it's like getting mad at my children when they don't know any better.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

You're not providing evidence, you're providing possible alternatives to what really happened. There's video of the astronauts walking into the Saturn V, and unless those were faked too (but I guess no video is off limits to the moon hoaxers) then they definitely at least went into LEO. There were no unmanned craft orbiting the moon, no unmanned landers, none of that. You say it's "plausible" that a different type of craft landed other than the LEM, well it's also plausible that they decided to to to Venus rather than the Moon. You might think this can be easily refuted, but that's not the case when you can say whatever evidence is presented is automatically wrong because it's issued by the ebil gubbermint.

In regards to space radiation, that issue has been discussed many times. I'm guessing you ignored the responses we already gave you, so hopefully one more time will hopefully make you understand:

THEY WERE NOT IN THE BELTS LONG ENOUGH TO DIE. They were only in the Van Allen belts for about four hours, and the worst part of it for about an hour. Space radiation is one of the fundamentals of your argument, yet you ignore the fact that the hull of the ship blocked most of it. In fact, space radiation is a good argument for the moon landings, because the astronauts showed some symptoms of radiation exposure.

Here's some good answers to the Van Allen issue:
http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

1. The Apollo spacecraft passed through the Van Allen belt quite quickly, so that in the short time they were exposed, the astronauts did not receive a dose of radiation considered dangerous, at least not compared to the inevitable other risks in the mission.

This is the straightforward, scientific answer. It is correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.


2. It has to be possible to go to the Moon, because we who are old enough all saw them on TV; a million of us (me included, for Apollo 11) saw the actual launch; a few of us (me included, for Apollo 8) saw the Trans-Lunar Injection burn, from low-Earth orbit to trans-lunar trajectory in the dark sky over Hawaii; and how could anyone fake all that?!

This is a simple common-sense answer. Also correct, I think.


3. There was a monstrous government conspiracy, and the whole thing was faked. I am part of that conspiracy, so you cannot trust my answer.

I know for a fact this one is false -- but how can you know that?!


4. There was a monstrous conspiracy, and the whole thing was faked. I was deceived too, so you cannot trust my answer.

I am as sure as I think one can reasonably be about anything that this one is false, but of course how could I possibly be absolutely certain, in principle?


5. You can't know anything for sure that you have not completely verified yourself, all you can do is take the word of people you trust. So who do you trust?

There is a lot of truth in this one, especially in principle. In practice, we can usually do quite a bit better, especially in the sciences; but the issue is not silly or unimportant, even so. The head of the government of South Africa, for example, is in serious doubt about whether the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, causes AIDS, because he is (probably sincerely, I guess) in doubt about whom to trust; although there seems to be no serious scientific controversy about the issue. Millions of lives could be at stake as a result.

I reccomend you read that entire page. It's not that long and has some good information about the spacecraft's protection it gave to astronauts.

On effects of radiation to the astronauts' health: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

Average radiation doses were computed for each mission (table 2). Individual readings varied approximately 20 percent from the average because of differences in the shielding effectiveness of various parts of the Apollo spacecraft as well as differences in duties, movements, and locations of crewmen. Doses to blood-forming organs were approximately 40 percent lower than the values measured at the body surface. In comparison with the doses actually received, the maximum operational dose (MOD) limit for each of the Apollo missions was set at 400 rads (X-ray equivalent) to skin and 50 rads to the blood-forming organs.

Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem[*] set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States. Thus, radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected.

If the only people you trust are people that claim everything is a conspiracy, then you are burying your head in the sand and therefore there's not much point in arguing with you because everything that we present as evidence you immediately claim is fake.

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

OMG these two are hilarious. :lol:

I would get upset but it's like getting mad at my children when they don't know any better.

This is a comment I've come to expect from those who have no idea how to answer to the anomolies, and obvious deceptions coming from NASA and it's Apollo defenders.

You don't need to get upset, or use your current ploy of condescension to deal with us little kids....BTW, if you would actually read the thread you would have come to know that I watched Apollo unfold on a TV with my own eyes.

And when I was little I believed in Santa Claus for awhile. I gave up believing in flying reindeer, way before I gave up believing in RADIATION-PROOF TEST PILOTS. Some Fairy Tales take longer to figure out then others...

Now, how about addressing any of the information supplied in my latest post? It would be a great relief from your current attempt at hand-waving, and belittling![youtube][/youtube]

 

[cosmored]

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.

That video doesn't deal with a case of the flag moving without being touched. They don't exactly duplicate the conditions of the Apollo 15 footage in the Mythbusters video; in the Apollo 15 footage the angle of the movement is consistent with atmophere if the fabric of the flag is not light. Slow-motion explains the length of time the flag moves and the speed of the movement.

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?

If dust-free sand was used in the places where dust was kicked up, the fact that there were no dust-clouds is consistent with atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc

It's not hard to sift and wash sand to make it dust-free. I know there are photos of footprints that are obviously in fine sand but both types of sand could have been used where appropriate. We didn't see the footprints being made; there might have been dust clouds for all we know.

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#


That's because legitimate scientific journals aren't going to publish nonsense that relies on a few points of data rather than the accepted explanation which has plenty of evidence.

Look what the RAND corporation says about depleted uranium.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land ... 170-99.htm

There are other scientists who hold the opposite view.
http://www.google.es/search?q=depleted% ... &tbs=vid:1

Two groups of scientists are saying totally opposite thing about the global warming issue.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 479496579#
http://www.google.com/search?q=the+grea ... hl=en&aq=f

It's plausible that, in the two above issues, one group of scientists have sold out and is going along with the official version and the other group is sincere.

If you consider the testimonies of the two scientists I posted on page 29 and the stuff I posted about the lying press in my last post and the fact that Americans are given an upside-down version of history...
http://www.google.es/search?q=economic% ... &tbs=vid:1
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

...no person of average intelligence who is aware of all this would consider documents saying something happened to be proof that it actually happened.

In zero gravity, things aren't pre-determined to point in any particular direction. Now, I'm assuming that you think NASA "faked" the LEO part because his jacket corner decided to point towards the Earth. This would require them to use wires and harnesses, and apply these to every single object to give the appearance of weightlessness. It would be far easier for them just to have used a vomit comet.

That footage was taken in gravity.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/7720A028 ... m-par.aspx

The corner of his jacket hangs down the way it would in gravity before he starts to jog in place. When he's jogging in place, the corner of his jacket goes up, stops, and comes back down the way it would in gravity. If you don't think gravity is the force that makes the corner of the jacket stop going up and come back down, tell us what the force is.

 

[BurgerB75]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Some Fairy Tales take longer to figure out then others...

Yes, apparently for you they do...

BTW, if you would actually read the thread you would have come to know that I watched Apollo unfold on a TV with my own eyes.

But how do I know that is true? I didn't see you watch the TV.

Remember kids, if it's on the Internet it must be true!!

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Some Fairy Tales take longer to figure out then others...

Yes, apparently for you they do...

BTW, if you would actually read the thread you would have come to know that I watched Apollo unfold on a TV with my own eyes.

But how do I know that is true? I didn't see you watch the TV.

Remember kids, if it's on the Internet it must be true!!

Are you going to continue your trolling ways of trying to start a flame war? Or are you going to address the issues, topics, and links I've provided for you to observe? Or will handwaving and making silly statments all I'll be able to expect from you?

 

[BurgerB75]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Some Fairy Tales take longer to figure out then others...

Yes, apparently for you they do...

BTW, if you would actually read the thread you would have come to know that I watched Apollo unfold on a TV with my own eyes.

But how do I know that is true? I didn't see you watch the TV.

Remember kids, if it's on the Internet it must be true!!

Are you going to continue your trolling ways of trying to start a flame war? Or are you going to address the issues, topics, and links I've provided for you to observe? Or will handwaving and making silly statments all I'll be able to expect from you?

Meh, as long as you continue to belittle the efforts of those that allowed humankind to land on the moon you really think you deserve any other kind of treatment? Handwaving is all the hoaxers are good at so you should at least be familiar with it when you see it. But please, continue trying to ride your 15 minutes of fame.

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

You're not providing evidence, you're providing possible alternatives to what really happened. There's video of the astronauts walking into the Saturn V, and unless those were faked too (but I guess no video is off limits to the moon hoaxers) then they definitely at least went into LEO. There were no unmanned craft orbiting the moon, no unmanned landers, none of that. You say it's "plausible" that a different type of craft landed other than the LEM, well it's also plausible that they decided to to to Venus rather than the Moon. You might think this can be easily refuted, but that's not the case when you can say whatever evidence is presented is automatically wrong because it's issued by the ebil gubbermint.

ebil gubbermint....funny....I guess all governments are inherently good. They only seek the highest good for their citizens...They would never do things like allow ardent NAZI's to infiltrate our military industrial complex, universities, and space program....Right?

Project Paperclip Von Braun
Mk Ultra Radiation and mind control experiments on unwitting public.

These searches should wake you up from your government is good trance for long enough to end the condescension of those who don't trust everything uncle sam and company is selling.

BTW, I doubt there was even anyone aboard a Saturn V, ever...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1c6ktHYO-I[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7ngE6sq2EM[/youtube]

Perhaps your ears will serve you where your eyes have failed thus far.

And as for how they could have gotten back down from their perch on the Saturn V, with no one seeing, this video should suffice..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLiAwSKkm6k[/youtube]

 

[mark_d_s]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Or will handwaving and making silly statments all I'll be able to expect from you?

Pot... Kettle... Black

You posted some photos of what the sun should look like from space. That truly demonstrated your level of ignorance. The big bright 'spotlights', as you call them, are a function of overexposure. The starburst effect is a function of a stopped down lens. That's all. Nothing more. Not proof of anything but a delusional mind.

But, do you know what's saddest? These aren't even your own delusions - you're just rehashing someone else's nonsense.

Why not go find a more sympathetic forum, where you can cuddle up to other paranoid people and convince yourselves that the conspiracy is real, and nearly all 7 billion of the rest of us are in on it...

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

ebil gubbermint....funny....I guess all governments are inherently good. They only seek the highest good for their citizens...They would never do things like allow ardent NAZI's to infiltrate our military industrial complex, universities, and space program....Right?

Project Paperclip Von Braun
Mk Ultra Radiation and mind control experiments on unwitting public.

These searches should wake you up from your government is good trance for long enough to end the condescension of those who don't trust everything uncle sam and company is selling.

And what harm did these "nazis" do to us? They contributed a lot to the American space program (Though I guess you don't care much for that either. Didn't you say that the Mercury and Gemini programs were faked also? Hell, why not the shuttle and ISS programs? For that matter what about voyager? Those all could've been faked. Show me some evidence they weren't faked)

BTW, I doubt there was even anyone aboard a Saturn V, ever...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1c6ktHYO-I[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7ngE6sq2EM[/youtube]

Perhaps your ears will serve you where your eyes have failed thus far.

And as for how they could have gotten back down from their perch on the Saturn V, with no one seeing, this video should suffice..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLiAwSKkm6k[/youtube]

[/quote]

Whatever you're trying to post as images or videos aren't coming up. But are you actually saying nobody was on board the Saturn V?

The plot thickens