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

[cosmored]

1) I did address the flag ripples ... I didn't see any in the Chinese flag that looked like the wind driven US flag. What I did see was motion that was consistent with what I'd expect from a flag of some sort waved in a low G vacuum. Might this also look the same as a flag filmed under water and speeded up ? Perhaps, but it just doesn't have the same damping I've seen with sailcloth under water so I remain unconvinced.

Just explain what causes the movement of the flag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvpPknmHGAM
(30 second time mark)

The "bouyant" cables don't look bouyant to me. If they truely were bouyant you'd see them headed for the surface constantly. They don'tdo that. Look at bbhenbb's vid at about the 3:01 mark. The tether has an angle at the joint to the clip and that angle isn't in the same direction as the astronaut, who must also be bouyant. That angle also changes as the astronaut moves. A bouyant tether would always be going up.

Watch this whole video paying special attention to the cables.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=gMxQEHfU6hM

There are three types of cables: A white one, a thin red one, and a thick red one.

The thick red cable is the one that I'm referring to when I talk about the buoyant safety cable. In the video it had a constant tendency to go upward. Every time it wasn't being pulled tight it wanted to go upward.

Watch it at these time marks.

0:50
2:10
3:00
3:10
6:08
6:44
6:53

As for the bubbles ... one clearly isn't, the others I can't say either way. Would paper act the way we see it if it were under water ? To have bubbles in a tank you have to answer this question yes. The only question raised in the vid that has any validity to me is why debris is still exitting the hatch so long after decompression.

This was a nice tap dance.

People can look at the alleged bubbles and decide for themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=NVbBFwdmldA

Why would anyone need a security clearance to access VAB map data ? Just Google it yourself.

You're playing games here. If there are indeed two sets of data,–the bogus set for the public and the real set for people who design satellites–in order to maintain the fake story of the moon landing, the real data couldn't be made public as it wouldn't be consistent with the story.
On page 16 in the 13th post from the top there's some stuff on space radiation.

only one wave propagates through the Chinese flag at any one moment in direct relation to the motion of the stick

This simply isn't true. Look at it carefully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvpPknmHGAM
(30 second time mark)

The movement of the stick is not causing the rippling. Anyone can see that. That movement could only be caused by a gaseous or liquid medium.

There is a site totally devoted to debunking the "moon Hoax" types, go there. it is called Bad Astronomy.com.

On page 27 of this thread in the 13th post from the top you'll see my rebuttal to claims that Bad Astronomy debunks the hoax theory.

NASA has been cited by third party and international organizations for decades.

We have no idea what deals might have been made behind the scenes. This doesn't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.

On page 16 in the 13th post from the top there's a partial summary of hoax evidence.

There's one thing you have to adress: HOW did they leave all of that equipment on the moon that is still visible today?

Those pictures are fakable so they're not proof.

And the laser reflector which could ONLY have been placed by astronauts on an Apollo mission?

A robot craft could have adjustable reflectors attached to its sides.
http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/ ... lector.flv

Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.

You also keep ignoring the fact that the astronauts did show some symptoms of radiation when they returned home. This should make it obvious they were exposed to space radiation, it just wasn't as fatal as you keep making it out to be.

There are lots of plausible scenarios that would explain this. The press might have lied about the symptoms. They might really have gone high enough to be exposed to a liitle bit of radiation in low earth orbit.

I saw an episode of mythbusters that busted most the hoaxers theories. CASE CLOSED NUTTERS!!!!!!!! :lol: mythbusters says we went to the moon.

Watch this video series.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... ricks&aq=f

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Just explain what causes the movement of the flag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvpPknmHGAM
(30 second time mark)

Have you got your time mark correct ? At 30secs I see the astronaut moving his hand rather rapidly. Even at the 20+ sec mark(s) he still moving the handle and gets smaller flag motion as well. Let me ask, if I did a video capture and showed frame by frame the handle moving, would that prove the waves in the flag were due to that motion ?

There are three types of cables: A white one, a thin red one, and a thick red one.

The thick red cable is the one that I'm referring to when I talk about the buoyant safety cable. In the video it had a constant tendency to go upward. Every time it wasn't being pulled tight it wanted to go upward.

Watch it at these time marks.

0:50
2:10
3:00
3:10
6:08
6:44
6:53

Did you watch at the 3:53 and 4:22 marks. The cable is clearly not headed in the "up" direction,

This was a nice tap dance.

People can look at the alleged bubbles and decide for themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=NVbBFwdmldA

So what has you convinced they are bubbles and not debris ?

You're playing games here. If there are indeed two sets of data,–the bogus set for the public and the real set for people who design satellites–in order to maintain the fake story of the moon landing, the real data couldn't be made public as it wouldn't be consistent with the story. On page 16 in the 13th post from the top there's some stuff on space radiation.

So you don't have any data that says crossing the VA belts is deadly ... you just think so because some uninformed person made a Youtube video that says so ? Think about what you've just said above. That every spacecraft designer sending satellites through the VABs has a "Secret" set of data to design to. That all the commercial companies (making sats) here in the US as well as those in other countries have all managed to keep their employees committed to the "big lie" via bribes or threats. That nobody in India or France or elsewhere has come forward with this "Secret" data set for 40 years. You really believe that ?

Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.

No it isn't but it is proof that at least spacecraft made it through the VABs and to the Moon now isn't it. Given that's proven what more needs to be done to send people ? Why would this be impossible ? Is your only response going to be radiation ?

 

[Moses3]

Buzz Aldrin, several years back, discussed this matter, with a non believer. Buzz amplified his position, on this matter, with a straight left to the head. Looking back, I would assume Buzz settled this argument.

 

[uberhund]

Actually, I'm amazed at the number of college graduates who insist the landings where hoaxed.

But I've lost track of their inane arguments. Can someone who believes in the hoax acquaint me with the current rhetoric regarding the images now coming back of each of the six landing sites, with footprints and downed flags exactly as they were shown to be by photographs taken at the time?

Just trying to stay current with the conspiracy crowd out there.

 

[Moses3]

Very amusing, an astronaut with a flag, waving it on an EVA. Only the Chinese, or Koreans would consider this. This video appears to be genuine. Why would anyone bring out a flag, which would only raise a red flag, at that??

 

[uberhund]

Apollo sites imaged by LRO

Can someone who believes in Apollo landing hoaxes acquaint me with the current hoax rhetoric regarding the LRO images showing each landing site with footprints and equipment placed exactly as they were shown to be by photographs taken at the time?

Also, what will the explanation be when on-site visits made by the Chinese or whomever find the sites to be exactly as videotaped?

Just trying to stay current with the conspiracy crowd out there.

 

[keeper96]

Re: Apollo sites imaged by LRO

Also, what will the explanation be when on-site visits made by the Chinese or whomever find the sites to be exactly as videotaped?

what on-site visits? there will and can never be any on-site visits. It is physically impossible for man to go to the moon. Any subsequent visits made by whoever, will also be hoaxes. All the chinese or whomever will do is take the old footage and photos and ensure that their fakes match the old fakes.

 

[abq_farside]

I am begining to wonder if the hoaxers believe if their life is real? Maybe it is just a big government plot since it appears that you can't trust them for anything.

But what about........And what about.......And this too....... :roll:

 

[uberhund]

Re: Apollo sites imaged by LRO

Ah. Had not heard that one yet. Ok. Thanks. Just wondered.

 

[keeper96]

Re: Apollo sites imaged by LRO

my pleasure. that is the good thing about believing the hoax theories. no need for logic or scientific reasoning. circular logic and denial is all you need.

If NASA/the government was able to fake moon landings in the 60s, just think of the high quality fake landings they could do with today's technology. :mrgreen:

 

[uberhund]

Re: Apollo sites imaged by LRO

Well, exactly.

Belief in this hoax amounts to a religion; it is certainly not any form of science. Consequently, no use of science will convince a true hoax believer.

Speaking of beliefs: I once believed that a simple high school education would be sufficient to equip one to see through the hoaxer arguments, but I see now that even college graduates are no longer equipped with the necessary critical reasoning skills.

 

[uberhund]

Yes, ABQ. It's like talking to someone with a crazy cult religion. One cannot use science to debate religion.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Those pictures are fakable so they're not proof.

On what grounds are they fakable? Can you show us evidence of how they were allegedly faked? They look pretty sound to me. Let's hear your "analysis" of the pics

A robot craft could have adjustable reflectors attached to its sides.
http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/ ... lector.flv

Yes, a soviet rover. COULD they have? Yes. They could also have equipped the ship with lasers to shoot down UFOs. You need to show some evidence that the USSR was cooperating with NASA. Why would they try to help US land on the moon when they were trying just as hard as we were in space? "Who knows what kind of inside deals couldve been going on..." Who knows indeed. There's no proof of any such inside deals, that is simply a baseless international conspiracy theory which we will all find hard to believe unless you give some sound evidence.

There are lots of plausible scenarios that would explain this. The press might have lied about the symptoms. They might really have gone high enough to be exposed to a liitle bit of radiation in low earth orbit.

Those scenarios are entirely made up though. You haven't given any evidence, just babbled about international and media conspiracies that fit in nicely with an alleged moon landing hoax.

Your supposed fortress of data on page 16 has been debunked numerous times in the pages since.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

only one wave propagates through the Chinese flag at any one moment in direct relation to the motion of the stick

This simply isn't true. Look at it carefully.

What does the Chinese space mission have to do with a Moon Landing Hoax? One conspiracy at a time...

...Those pictures are fakable so they're not proof...

Wow, astounding reasoning. So, because something "could be" done, therefore it was done without any further evidence necessary?

OK, I get it.

Following that logic, everything you have posted is absurd and could have been points created by hoax-hoaxers eager to cash in on the fawning legions of tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists out there.

I need no proof for my assertion because the "logic" is irrefutable. Besides, I made the claim, therefore it must be true.

So, thanks for all that "evidence" supporting a Moon Hoax theory. Too bad, though. Because it is possible it "could be" complete hokem (which it is, btw) then I recommend it be casually disregarded. Unless "evidence" rigorously complies with an ad hoc methodology, the Rule of Opinion Stated As Fact and every poor standard of judgment one could possibly think of, it should not even be considered as worthy of "Moon Hoax Evidence."

..A robot craft could have adjustable reflectors attached to its sides...

Space monkeys did it. I said it therefore it must be true. I need not supply any evidence to support such an assertion, right?

There are lots of plausible scenarios that would explain this...

No, there aren't. That's the problem, isn't it?

The press might have lied about the symptoms.

Yes, the Press may have lied.. They would certainly pass up the most astounding government cover-up in written history in order to perpetuate a lie for no possibly worthwhile reason... Meanwhile, space monkeys were being trained to adjust mirrors at a secret ranch in Wyoming. This theory is irrefutable fact that complies with rigorous logic and at least two calories of energy expended in thinking it up without using more energy to actually find any reason to suggest it is otherwise plausible.

They might really have gone high enough to be exposed to a liitle bit of radiation in low earth orbit.

(The Van Allen belt is outside of LEO, btw.) But, sure, they could have been in LEO and gotten some dose there. But, that's sort of a long way to go to get crapped up when rubbing themselves down with some fire detectors or radium watch dials would be a heck of a lot cheaper.

The funny thing is, though, that NASA et al publicly gave opinions that radiation exposure levels would be much higher for said astronauts than they actually turned out to be in practice. Why wouldn't they have simply kept strictly within their own pre-mission estimates in that case? I guess they didn't have enough radium watch dials and tampering with fire-detectors is a big non-no...

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Apollo sites imaged by LRO

Also, what will the explanation be when on-site visits made by the Chinese or whomever find the sites to be exactly as videotaped?

what on-site visits? there will and can never be any on-site visits. It is physically impossible for man to go to the moon. Any subsequent visits made by whoever, will also be hoaxes. All the chinese or whomever will do is take the old footage and photos and ensure that their fakes match the old fakes.

This is nonsense. It is entirely possible to go to the moon as not only have we been there before but a moon landing is entirely within the laws of physics and human physiology.

This thread should be merged with the existing moon hoax one.

Can someone who believes in Apollo landing hoaxes acquaint me with the current hoax rhetoric regarding the LRO images showing each landing site with footprints and equipment placed exactly as they were shown to be by photographs taken at the time?

BUT ITS FORGED!!!1

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

... rubbing themselves down with some fire detectors or radium watch dials would be a heck of a lot cheaper.

And next week some moron will post a vid on U-tube alleging the above. Legions of fawning syncophants will cry "A ha that's the answer ! It's proof, PROOF that men never walked on the Moon"

 

[RVHM]

Have a look at this. It's ignorance at its most pathetic.

http://starcraft-version1.tripod.com/Fl ... -Moon.html

An extract:

I) Landing on the Moon

Was the "Moon craft" similar to Space Shuttle, the only spacecraft able to return after it is launched into the space (if we don't take in account the Russian Buran, which doesn't fly nowadays because of financial problems)? But Shuttle lands with the use of its wings, it flies similarly to an aircraft when landing. How could the "Moon craft" land in the airless lunar atmosphere, as wings would not be of help here because of absence of air?

And if it was possible to create such a craft, then this means that a better technology than the Space Shuttle could be created. Then why so much money was spent to create the Space Shuttle?

 

[uberhund]

Ordinarily, one expects to see delusional content such as his Web site typed in SOLID CAPS. Give the guy a break though. I remember how I after my first beer also.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Have a look at this. It's ignorance at its most pathetic.

http://starcraft-version1.tripod.com/Fl ... -Moon.html

An extract:

I) Landing on the Moon

Was the "Moon craft" similar to Space Shuttle, the only spacecraft able to return after it is launched into the space (if we don't take in account the Russian Buran, which doesn't fly nowadays because of financial problems)? But Shuttle lands with the use of its wings, it flies similarly to an aircraft when landing. How could the "Moon craft" land in the airless lunar atmosphere, as wings would not be of help here because of absence of air?

And if it was possible to create such a craft, then this means that a better technology than the Space Shuttle could be created. Then why so much money was spent to create the Space Shuttle?

The amount of sheer stupidity contained in one website is mind boggling...

Yeah.

 

[Smersh]

... The amount of sheer stupidity contained in one website is mind boggling...

Yeah.

I think it might have been written by 10 million chimpanzees, sitting in front of 10 million typewriters and given an infinite amount of time. :shock:

 

[Quantum11]

I think that todays state of NASA's human spaceflight is fueling the hoax accusations. Back in the 60's they went from no human flight to lunar landing in 8 (eight)! ! ! ! ! years. Today it takes 8 years just to set up a plan, another 8 to build the prototype and finally in 25 years they can land on the moon. The idea that it was done back then is mindboggling for young people and they have a hard time beliveing it was at all possible.

No...It's mindboggling to intellectual individuals with the ability to use reason and logic. And by your very own logic here, you have proven Apollo Fraud KNOWERS point. They can't even get to the moon now, and Obama has cancelled it because he was probably briefed on the radiation shielding problem we still face to this very day. If we had the technology to get to the moon in 69, then we would have it today. And a trip to the moon would be a piece of cake forty years later. Or perhaps you believe technology goes backward? Is that what you believe?

I will pose my question yet again, and wait for an honest answer.

The search for truth about Apollo, begins and ends in space. Deadly, radioactive, truth awaits the open-minded.

I invite any solar/astro physicist or space radiation expert, to explain the relative excellent health the Apollo astronauts enjoy/ed after journying into what Van Allen called a sea of deadly radiation.

I also invite you to look at the data for major solar flares, and tell me why NASA, and it's 'space experts' keep saying Apollo astronauts were lucky not to have encountered any major solar flares, otherwise they'd be dead. Because there the **** they are. ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/ ... I55_80.TXT

Now how about you guys do some explaining?

And can you explain why NASA would lie about this simple MAJOR SOLAR FLARE FACT in their:
BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO
SECTION II CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
by J. Vernon Bailey Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm


Here, let me answer for you. If NASA admitted that major solar flares occured during Apollo missions, then they would have major explaining to do, as the solar physicists, have already explained that a major solar flare would have KILLED THEM!

I know, it's just too much logic in one post for you apollo fanboys to handle!

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Apollo sites imaged by LRO

Can someone who believes in Apollo landing hoaxes acquaint me with the current hoax rhetoric regarding the LRO images showing each landing site with footprints and equipment placed exactly as they were shown to be by photographs taken at the time?

Also, what will the explanation be when on-site visits made by the Chinese or whomever find the sites to be exactly as videotaped?

Just trying to stay current with the conspiracy crowd out there.

Wow, the conspiracy buzz word...You left out theory or theorist! At least you are not original!!!

Let's see if I am correct. In your limited imagination, and closed mind, you believe everyone in the world, especially in power, to be benevolent, and incapable of conspiring to hurt, or lie to anyone? Right? Too bad you didn't invest with Bernie!!!


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKj5fckUX-c[/youtube]

Wake up bub!

 

[Quantum11]

Seriously. It would seem to be easier to actually go there than create this elaborate hoax. :lol:

Oh well, as long as the people that are important to me know what we accomplished I'm a happy man. Had my oldest daughter watch The Right Stuff and Apollo 13 a few months ago with me. She loved them and has been on a science kick lately! Score!!

Have you broke the news to your daughter about the innocent little Santa lie? You know they guy that defies gravity with help from his antler buddies, high on magic dust? Well, wait until she figures out why NASA used a mythical gods name, for it's mythical missions....

You really are a bitter shell of a human aren't you? If I were you I'd put down the crack pipe, step outside and get some fresh air.

Why don't you show this post to your daughter? Can she read yet? She can see how daddy attacks the messenger with ludicrous comments, instead of directly addressing the issue. Something you have yet to do...

Tell you what booger....I'm gonna give you a chance.

The following two videos address the lack of believable voices coming from inside a Saturn V during launch. It uses comparisons to shuttle launches to prove it's point. Now, instead of your silly comments, how about dealing directly with the issue. Or does daddy have the cajones?

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

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

 

[Quantum11]

... The amount of sheer stupidity contained in one website is mind boggling...

Yeah.

I think it might have been written by 10 million chimpanzees, sitting in front of 10 million typewriters and given an infinite amount of time. :shock:

Another example of apollo fanboys making inane comments free of anything resembling intelligence!

Congrats, you are what you blame others of being!

 

[Quantum11]

Yes, ABQ. It's like talking to someone with a crazy cult religion. One cannot use science to debate religion.

Funny you bring up religion. Mythical missions named after a mythical god! Do you get the joke they played on you yet?

No?

Hmm...you speak of religion, and yet all the excuses I hear from apollo fanboys are factless, excuses, lacking anything resembling proof. And the suppose absolute proof...rocks....is now falling apart. Just ask the Dutch! Or watch the following. Watch the entire series to see the top three PROOFs for Apollo completely destroyed!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A[/youtube] Start at 5:05...Hear ESA admit they found properties not found in moon rocks from Apollo!!

See you soon Apollo fanboys....Keep dreaming those Apollo Fairy Tales!!