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

Page 6 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
A

aphh

Guest
Re: Proof?

netarch":27ncz4qz said:
I call misdirection, aphh!

You said - and I quote - "You might be interested in learning, that besides the U.S. flag, they also planted a flag of the Free Masons." Yet as undeniable proof of your assertion, you post a scan of a picture of Aldrin presenting a Masonic flag to a fellow Mason. That is not proof. As I stated earlier, at best it suggests that Aldrin brought a Masonic flag with him on the mission. That's all. You're reaching conclusions without supporting evidence. And that, my friend, is bad science.

You are resorting to a technicality as your defense, that's not science at all but a debate or a trial technique. Absolutely that flag is today on the Moon, and that was my whole point.

The Free Mason aspect of Apollo is undeniable and invalidates the whole mission in my eyes. We don't know what really happened. People supported an elite group's unknown agenda with their tax money and effort.

That is little better than what the communists did.
 
S

Smersh

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I hope somebody can debunk this. Hoax believers on other boards are now discussing a theory that the Apollo astronauts would not have had time to take all the photographs they did.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

The author of the article on the above site has worked out that the 12 astronauts that walked on the moon took a total of 5771 exposures and claims that would have been impossible given all the other tasks performed, for example Apollo 11, 121 photos and an EVA time of 2 hours, 31 minutes:

Apollo 11....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM ...

I won't quote all the calculations the author has made here (the above is just an extract from the Apollo 11 breakdown and I think the article may be copyright) but if you go to the article at the link I gave, he gives a very detailed breakdown for all six Apollo missions that landed men on the moon. Scroll down to the section headed "A TIME AND MOTION STUDY" and it's all shown there.

I believe most of the author's data, such as number of exposures, tasks performed etc, came from this site.
 
N

netarch

Guest
Re: Proof?

aphh":2j68i5d5 said:
You are resorting to a technicality as your defense, that's not science at all but a debate or a trial technique. Absolutely that flag is today on the Moon, and that was my whole point.

The Free Mason aspect of Apollo is undeniable and invalidates the whole mission in my eyes. We don't know what really happened. People supported an elite group's unknown agenda with their tax money and effort.

That is little better than what the communists did.

My defense is that you offer no scientific proof. Call it a technicality if you wish, but if someone says that H20 boils at 100 degrees Fahrenheit and not 100 degrees Celsius, then we'd expect proof - or at least that experiment can be independently verified, or proven false, by others. You offer up as proof of Apollo 11 planting a Masonic flag on the moon by a photo of Aldrin presenting a flag to a person - on Earth. That is not proof. Do you have a NASA negative showing such a flag. Do you have a quote by Aldrin or Armstrong of them saying they did so. If not, then what you present is idle conjecture. That is not the scientific method, however much you want it to be.

Just so you're sure - if you can offer scientifically valid proof, then we'd admit you were right and we were wrong.
 
A

aphh

Guest
Re: Proof?

netarch":1fehmgja said:
My defense is that you offer no scientific proof. Call it a technicality if you wish, but if someone says that H20 boils at 100 degrees Fahrenheit and not 100 degrees Celsius, then we'd expect proof - or at least that experiment can be independently verified, or proven false, by others. You offer up as proof of Apollo 11 planting a Masonic flag on the moon by a photo of Aldrin presenting a flag to a person - on Earth. That is not proof. Do you have a NASA negative showing such a flag. Do you have a quote by Aldrin or Armstrong of them saying they did so. If not, then what you present is idle conjecture. That is not the scientific method, however much you want it to be.

Just so you're sure - if you can offer scientifically valid proof, then we'd admit you were right and we were wrong.

Who is we?

Once again, you are clinging on a technicality. I provided evidence of the Masonic connection of Apollo, and that was my point.
 
J

jim48

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

This thread is doing much better than I ever expected. And here MeteorWayne wanted to deep-six it. So, what have I missed?
 
E

eburacum45

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Smersh":34pc9hbm said:
I hope somebody can debunk this. Hoax believers on other boards are now discussing a theory that the Apollo astronauts would not have had time to take all the photographs they did.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

The author of the article on the above site has worked out that the 12 astronauts that walked on the moon took a total of 5771 exposures and claims that would have been impossible given all the other tasks performed, for example Apollo 11, 121 photos and an EVA time of 2 hours, 31 minutes:
A very good refutation of this particular piece of nonsense can be found here
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-the ... post395246

The first thing we notice is that for this mission there were 4 segments where the work load was such that either no pictures were taken or less than 6 pictures were taken. That’s a bit over 1 hour of time where only 12 photographs were taken. White suggests in his study that the work load was such that there should have been two hours with no photography.
Lets lay it out simply, the segments and the number of photos:
1. 0 photos
2. 20 photos
3. 2 photos
4. 4 photos
5. 17 photos
6. 25 photos
7. 29 photos
8. 19 photos
9. 6 photos
Its pretty clear from this summary that the Apollo 11 astronauts DID NOT have to take 3.9 photos per minute as White claims. His theory has been refuted.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I didn't want it deep sixed. I wanted it moved to the proper forum, where it fits in perfectly :)
 
J

jim48

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

MeteorWayne":iboeirev said:
I didn't want it deep sixed. I wanted it moved to the proper forum, where it fits in perfectly :)

Only after some nudging by me. ;) How the hell are you, Wayne? Well, I hope!
 
S

Smersh

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

eburacum45":3ucvg4uj said:
... A very good refutation of this particular piece of nonsense can be found here
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-the ... post395246 ...

Thanks a lot for the link to that thread at BAUT, eburacum45. It certainly does look like the guys there have addressed Jack White's claims very well and refuted them. (Back in 2005 as well. I didn't realise this photos theory was that old!) I did find a brief mention at BAUT about the photos claim in another thread when I did a search, but not that entire dedicated thread. Thanks again! Jay Utah said he would update Clavius when he gets a chance, so I guess he's done that by now.

I do read threads at BAUT quite a bit in order to get skeptics views of conspiracies etc but haven't joined (yet ...!)
 
F

freya

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I was amused to read this statement by 'aphh' earlier - quote "For example, in Apollo 11 images there are no vistas or backgrounds at all in the images. Vistas and sceneries only appeared in later missions, as if the imaging techniques got progressively better."
Aphh, have you ever been into a 'real' desert? Here in Australia, we have this little place, okay thousands of square miles/kilometers of this place called The Nullarbor Plain. As the name describes, it is a plain, populated by knee high saltbush and no, zero, ziltch trees. If you stand there and look, north, south, east and west, it is a dead flat, unrelenting sameness. No vistas, no sceneries. Can it be made any 'plainer'. If beings from the moon where to target the Earth for their first risky landing attempt, they would target such a place. As it was, even Tranquility had a few nerve shredding surprises.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

jim48":1340xxwo said:
MeteorWayne":1340xxwo said:
I didn't want it deep sixed. I wanted it moved to the proper forum, where it fits in perfectly :)

Only after some nudging by me. ;) How the hell are you, Wayne? Well, I hope!

No jim, go back and read the second post in the thread, which came in reply to your opening post.

I immediately said it would be moved to The Unexplained, at no time did I suggest deep sixing it.

I don't like being accused of things I haven't done!

Wayne
 
J

jim48

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

MeteorWayne":3kao9ygh said:
jim48":3kao9ygh said:
MeteorWayne":3kao9ygh said:
I didn't want it deep sixed. I wanted it moved to the proper forum, where it fits in perfectly :)

Only after some nudging by me. ;) How the hell are you, Wayne? Well, I hope!

No jim, go back and read the second post in the thread, which came in reply to your opening post.

I immediately said it would be moved to The Unexplained, at no time did I suggest deep sixing it.

I don't like being accused of things I haven't done!

Wayne

I stand corrected. Apologies, apologies.
 
D

davcbow

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

freya":3gzxxi3u said:
I was amused to read this statement by 'aphh' earlier - quote "For example, in Apollo 11 images there are no vistas or backgrounds at all in the images. Vistas and sceneries only appeared in later missions, as if the imaging techniques got progressively better."
Aphh, have you ever been into a 'real' desert? Here in Australia, we have this little place, okay thousands of square miles/kilometers of this place called The Nullarbor Plain. As the name describes, it is a plain, populated by knee high saltbush and no, zero, ziltch trees. If you stand there and look, north, south, east and west, it is a dead flat, unrelenting sameness. No vistas, no sceneries. Can it be made any 'plainer'. If beings from the moon where to target the Earth for their first risky landing attempt, they would target such a place. As it was, even Tranquility had a few nerve shredding surprises.

He must think the Australian plains are fake too in that case.... :cool:
 
J

jenniferparsons31

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

davcbow":1c4y2v9u said:
He must think the Australian plains are fake too in that case.... :cool:

Hahaha, I lol'd at that. :mrgreen:

(I do some work for a cellulite cream advice website.)
 
F

freya

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

davcbow":15466sol said:
He must think the Australian plains are fake too in that case.... :cool:

I better check my photos, I might have faked them myself.
 
F

freya

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Something about the shadows don't look right :lol:

Enough nonsense, I'm going back to the 'missions and lauches' where I belong. But this forum is great for laughs.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Responding to a couple of aphh's posts in one post for efficiency:

aphh":26zqfckn said:
For example, in Apollo 11 images there are no vistas or backgrounds at all in the images. Vistas and sceneries only appeared in later missions, as if the imaging techniques got progressively better.

No, the still cameras they brought on all the missions were all the same. Good cameras, too, made by Hassleblad, but customized. (Less weight per frame than off-the-shelf cameras and film, and designed to tolerate the thermal conditions. Hassleblad still supplies cameras to NASA.) The difference is the location. The first three missions all landed in plains. The J-series missions were much more capable and landed in rougher, more interesting terrain.

If you think it's odd to have no vista in the background, you should come visit South Dakota sometime. ;-) It's got some bumpy bits, but there are many areas with no "vistas" -- just endless ground.

For me the enthusiasm about the Apollo mission was lost as soon as I learned about the very strong Free Mason aspect, that was involved. You might be interested in learning, that besides the U.S. flag, they also planted a flag of the Free Masons.

I don't believe in secret societies, and especially I am allergic to secret societies controlling governments.

I also loathe the idea of secret societies controlling governments, but I need a bit more evidence than that to conclude that a mysterious conspiracy is controlling our government. And that picture indeed does not prove that a flag of the Free Masons was planted in a manner similar to the US flag, which seems to be what you're implying. That claim is contradicted by the photographic evidence -- there's only flagpole at each Apollo site, and it flies Old Glory.

What *is* happening in that picture is a bit less interesting -- Aldrin is doing a publicity bit for NASA. Starting I believe in the Gemini days (initially unofficially), astronauts have been allowed to bring along stuff of no real value to the mission just for sentimental purposes. From NASA's perspective, it has the value of publicizing the mission relatively cheaply. It also helps humanize things, which is often appreciated not only by the astronauts but also the rank-and-file on the ground. It's a big enough deal now that Space Shuttles usually have at least one locker stuffed with things being flown purely for sentimental reasons -- US flags, state flags, flags of foreign powers, Boy Scout badges, dozens of extra mission patches, books, CDs, and so on. (Granted, for the Shuttle, this stuff has the extra function of ballast to maintain a proper COG.) Shuttle and ISS astronauts also get to bring stuff on their own discretion in their baggage, of course, and you'll occasionally see some of this stuff (the ballast or the personal effects) turning up for sale, billed as "actually flown on STS-XX!" or somesuch, neglecting to mention that it likely never saw the light of day during the mission. One of the more interesting items flown this way on the Shuttle was the famous flag found by firefighters combing the debris of the World Trade Center after 9/11. It remained stowed for the entire flight, but symbolically at least it flew over the entire world for a while....

Side-note: this practice isn't limited to NASA. I have an American flag that was billed as "flown over Iraq by the USAF". One might draw the conclusion that it was flown in combat by some hot-shot fighter pilot, but this is untrue. It was packed into a drone as ballast, accompanying it on a single patrol mission. Flags get unofficially flown this way quite frequently, turning them into souvenirs for airmen and their families.

Nor is it just American. The Russians do it too. One of the quirkier examples is the object used as a crude accelerometer during a Soyuz ascent. Though there are more sophisticated instruments provided, the cosmonauts also like to hang an object on a bungee in the capsule, making it very obvious when they are rising and when they are in freefall. It's a different object each time, chosen by the cosmonauts themselves, sort of personalizing the capsule. They take it down once in orbit, though.

I don't know what became of the Mason flag that went on Apollo 11 -- whether it was returned to Earth, tossed out with the trash before liftoff, or left with the LM ascent stage to crash on the Moon. But it was certainly not alone in the category of goofy sentimental items brought on the mission as part of an astronaut's personal effects. It would be interesting to see if there's a complete list someone on the Web (there probably is) of all the stuff they brought along, and its final disposition.
 
2

2001Kubrick

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

It is truly sad that someone would suggest that such a well-documented and profound moment in human history was completely made up. To me, the people who suggest it are actually revealing more about themselves and their own personal issues/insecurities than anything.

There does seem to be a "movement" of a very small number of people that are attempting to discredit NASA on the internet. While I would rather have these people ignored, the truth is, when left to their own devices these ridiculous theories seem to fester in dark places. I think oftentimes by just bringing these ridiculous theories to light they are easily debunked.

That said , I think we can all smile when Buzz punched out that attentioned-whoring Bart whatshisname. :lol:
 
Z

ZenGalacticore

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

2001Kubrick":3ke2zx1e said:
It is truly sad that someone would suggest that such a well-documented and profound moment in human history was completely made up. To me, the people who suggest it are actually revealing more about themselves and their own personal issues/insecurities than anything.

There does seem to be a "movement" of a very small number of people that are attempting to discredit NASA on the internet. While I would rather have these people ignored, the truth is, when left to their own devices these ridiculous theories seem to fester in dark places. I think oftentimes by just bringing these ridiculous theories to light they are easily debunked.

That said , I think we can all smile when Buzz punched out that attentioned-whoring Bart whatshisname. :lol:


Well said!
I too think that people who insist that the moon landings were faked are engaged in what psychologists call 'projection'. They are under-achievers or total non-achievers who cannot believe that such a thing as landing people on an alien world could possibly be accomplished, because they themselves can hardly accomplish anything in their own lives.
 
O

origin

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

That said , I think we can all smile when Buzz punched out that attentioned-whoring Bart whatshisname.

I agree. One of the best parts of that episode is Bart sued Buzz but the judge threw out the case saying basically Buzz should have hit him with a baseball bat...
 
D

davcbow

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

origin":6windzli said:
That said , I think we can all smile when Buzz punched out that attentioned-whoring Bart whatshisname.

I agree. One of the best parts of that episode is Bart sued Buzz but the judge threw out the case saying basically Buzz should have hit him with a baseball bat...


Thats too cool... :D
 
2

2001Kubrick

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I think we can close this thread now. The LRO provided us with great photos, which in proved that the Apollo LMs landed on the moon. The conspiracy theorists have been debunked.

Case closed :D
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

No, unfortunately this thread can never be closed. It's been a subject of discussion ever since the Space.com forums were created, and will come up as long as it exists. Better to keep all the "discussion" in one place.
 
2

2001Kubrick

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

MeteorWayne":10k3y7cq said:
No, unfortunately this thread can never be closed. It's been a subject of discussion ever since the Space.com forums were created, and will come up as long as it exists. Better to keep all the "discussion" in one place.

My previous post was somewhat facetious in nature.

I understand your justification for doing so. What I don't understand is what rational argument someone would still have after seeing satellite photos of the sites (excluding all other evidence). The debate has shifted, and has now relegated the moon hoaxers to the same stature as the flat earthers, in my humble opinion. There is as much proof of an Apollo hoax as there is of a flat earth, or a geo-centric universe.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Re: Moon Landings Faked?

2001Kubrick":2u6gj6jb said:
My previous post was somewhat facetious in nature.

I understand your justification for doing so. What I don't understand is what rational argument someone would still have after seeing satellite photos of the sites (excluding all other evidence). The debate has shifted, and has now relegated the moon hoaxers to the same stature as the flat earthers, in my humble opinion. There is as much proof of an Apollo hoax as there is of a flat earth, or a geo-centric universe.


So was mine, but more exasperated than facetious.

And careful, let's not get this discussion off topic with the flat earth or Geo-centric crowd or I'll have to create new threads for them :)

BTW, rationality need not apply in The Unexplained.

See the sign above the entrance:

BEWARE, THERE BE DRAGONS HERE
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts