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

[Kerberos]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Not at all. I assume little because of the consequences thereof.

You mean like assuming that no one will take a reference to the NASA Enforcement Division seriously?

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Not at all. I assume little because of the consequences thereof.

You mean like assuming that no one will take a reference to the NASA Enforcement Division seriously?

NASA barely gets any money as it is. What makes you think they would waste time and money sending people to random internet forums to convince people of a 40 year old accomplishment? There's literally no return for that investment, usually because no matter what we say to disprove the moon hoaxers they won't change their minds anyway.

 

[drwayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Not at all. I assume little because of the consequences thereof.

You mean like assuming that no one will take a reference to the NASA Enforcement Division seriously?

Why should someone take such a thing seriously?

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Reading through this thread, I see that a member went to the trouble of listing a "Partial Summary of Apollo Hoax Evidence". I think it particularly telling that all the defenders of the Apollo fraud have nothing to say. There are just the irrelevant comments like "I sprayed coffee out of my mouth". So pussycat got your collective tongues? I've never heard of anyone successfully defend against the undisturbed dust under the LEM (where one might reasonably expect a good sized rocket thrust crater). Let's begin with that one.

When the retrorockets fired as the craft descended on the surface, they weren't using that much force due to the low gravity of the moon. Also, because there's no air on the moon, only the dust that was directly in contact with the thrusters was disturbed. This is why it seems like there is no blast crater.

It's also amusing that NASA cannot "find" blueprints for either the LEM or the Rover. You would think that out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of private companies that would have a hand in building the LEM/Rover... that there would be many surviving copies. Yet no LEM or Rover blueprints are anywhere to be found. Of course, if the LEM/Rover are actually theatrical stage props... I understand. However, if those particular blueprints ever show, I want ten copies for my mother. :lol:

What are you going on about? The original copies? It's entirely possible someone misplaced or lost them. If this whole thing was a hoax, wouldn't it have been pretty stupid for them not to have made blueprints for the vehicles?

If you can believe NASA fudged the Apollo program, you can also believe the fudging did not begin with Apollo. Recently, I have begun to see speculation regarding the Mercury, Gemini as well as the early Apollo programs. For example, there is a Swiss fellow who claims most of those missions flew empty (as did the moon rockets). All this is new (and news) to me. For example, I knew the Apollo 11 crew never left low-Earth-orbit. It never occurred to me they possibly never left Earth. Here is that Swiss guy's website:

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/a ... -ENGL.html

If anyone knows of similar sites, please pass them along. Thank you.

WHAT are you even TALKING about. What evidence is there that there wasn't anybody inside those craft? What about the videos of the gemini spacewalks? What is more likely, they went to these huge efforts to make all of this up, or it really happened? The technology existed for it to happen, so why the heck would they fake it?

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

See Kerberos, I adressed someone's questions after he said nobody attempted to defend his points. Do you have similar questions? Or do you just want to keep accusing us of being mean?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Sad little trolls tend to avoid specificity...

A real question could be refuted.

Baseless and unsupported (and BTW, against the rules) accusations againt members are just piles of .....

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

See Kerberos, I adressed someone's questions after he said nobody attempted to defend his points. Do you have similar questions? Or do you just want to keep accusing us of being mean?

I will give you an A for politeness and making an effort, but your "answers" still fall short. Saying that maybe they just lost the blueprints or saying that they were just joking about the lighting on the Lunar surface just doesn't do it. And, of course, there is the big question: if we have had this great technology since 1969, why haven't we gone back to the Moon since the so-called Apollo 17 landing? You may very well be right, but we need more than "maybe" and "possibly".

Now, I'm not trying to personally convince you of anything, Yuri. I'm just saying that I have read both sides in this thread, and the doubters have made much stronger arguments. They've made reasonable points backed by solid supporting evidence.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Sad little trolls tend to avoid specificity...

A real question could be refuted.

Baseless and unsupported (and BTW, against the rules) accusations againt members are just piles of .....

Go back to your masters and tell them that the truth cannot be hidden forever.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

I will give you an A for politeness and making an effort, but your "answers" still fall short. Saying that maybe they just lost the blueprints or saying that they were just joking about the lighting on the Lunar surface just doesn't do it.

I really had no idea what he was talking about with the blueprints. He's going to need to be more specific before we can give a good answer. Also, astronauts make jokes all the time, in this case the lighting being one of them. They were in direct sunlight and the reflected light from the Earth, so it would be understandably bright.

And, of course, there is the big question: if we have had this great technology since 1969, why haven't we gone back to the Moon since the so-called Apollo 17 landing? You may very well be right, but we need more than "maybe" and "possibly".

Because it's impossible to get politicians to do anything meaningful when it comes to technology and progress. If we didn't have a president like JFK then I'm not so sure we would've been to the moon. Also, why would we fake the moon landings six times? Seems a little bit excessive don't you think? And what about all those Saturn V's? Why would they waste billions of dollars on a hoax?

Now, I'm not trying to personally convince you of anything, Yuri. I'm just saying that I have read both sides in this thread, and the doubters have made much stronger arguments. They've made reasonable points backed by solid supporting evidence.

Actually there's a lot more evidence that we landed on the moon. We actually have pictures now of the landing sites, vehicles, equipment, etc. Oh wait, let me guess, those were all doctored in :roll:

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Please do not bash or respond to Kerberos at this time. His self immolation martyrdom is complete, and he has been given a vacation. He will return in a while.

It's poor sportsmanship to discuss a user's posts under such circumstances.

Moderator Meteor wayne

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Kerberos, perhaps if you were talking about the military, then you might just have a possible point. But to my knowledge NASA does not have such a division, and you could not possibly be so stupid as to not know that!

The only enforcement that I remember NASA having all the way back to the 1960's was a very good Quality Assurance Program which saw to it that the various hardware contractors actually were making the hardware that NASA demanded they make. In other and more simple words, they were seeing to it that the taxpayer actually got what the taxpayer was paying taxes for!

And that enforcement only had one major power. That was if the hardware was unsatisfactory the contractor not only did not get paid for it, but the entire contract could be taken away and another contractor given the job!

So just why would MW or any other purely voluntary MOD ever be in such an organization?

Your continuing habit of saying such things about those that simply disagree with your position is really quite despicable, and you should stop and think before making such unsubstantiated accusations. Try to remember that it is always best to make sure that your brain is in gear before placing your hands on the keyboard!

Take it as kindly advice.

Your advice to kerberos aside, I'd have to ask myself if you have actually done any investigation into NASA and their wonderful quality control you speak of.

Maybe the great job of keeping the Apollo 1 crew safe during their plugs out test? Perhaps you could talk to Baron about the quality control or read his 500 page report...Oh, wait....Baron his wife, and stepdaughter killed in their car in a 'freak' train accident. And the 500 page report criticizing the Apollo program comes up, and remains missing...

I believe the family members of two seperate shuttle crews would like to hear your praises of great QUALITY CONTROL by NASA, to ease their troubled minds and hearts over the loss of their loved ones?

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Do you NOT understand how the real world works? When you say something as ridiculous as we didn't land on the moon, people aren't going to take you very seriously.

Now I'm trying to be nice here, are there any questions that you have that have not been answered yet? You keep saying the moon hoaxers have made good points that have yet to be answered, specifically what points are you referring to? We don't want to discourage you from learning but please remember that science isn't a democracy where "both sides" deserve the same "fairness". One side is supported by the evidence, the other is not.

I think when NASA isn't able to show us anything even close to looking like the lander/rover/etc, while flying above the surface of the moon, laser-mapping it, nor using any other method, after over forty years of technological advancement, it's not ridiculous to doubt Apollo. When the Dutch reveal their MOON ROCK was nothing more than a piece of petrified wood, people should demand to ask some serious questions of NASA!

I think when people are awakened to the fact that nearly all of the rocket scientists and the first guy in charge of the American space program were ardent NAZI's responsible for war crimes....PEOPLE HAVE A DUTY to question the actions of NASA, the CIA, our President (Truman), and anyone else responsible for placing such criminals into our space and military programs. (Operation Paperclip). I'll leave the mind-scientists out of the debate for now, but leave what they could have been up to to your own imagination.


When every single serious piece of evidence that could support Apollo and the technology they supposedly used to reach the moon, comes up missing, it's AMERICAN CITIZENS duty to ask the hard questions, and quit accepting weak, non-supported arguments, in favor of having NASA come out publicly and explain why videos and pictures show evidence of spot lights for lighting.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Do you NOT understand how the real world works? When you say something as ridiculous as we didn't land on the moon, people aren't going to take you very seriously.

Now I'm trying to be nice here, are there any questions that you have that have not been answered yet? You keep saying the moon hoaxers have made good points that have yet to be answered, specifically what points are you referring to? We don't want to discourage you from learning but please remember that science isn't a democracy where "both sides" deserve the same "fairness". One side is supported by the evidence, the other is not.

I think when NASA isn't able to show us anything even close to looking like the lander/rover/etc, while flying above the surface of the moon, laser-mapping it, nor using any other method, after over forty years of technological advancement, it's not ridiculous to doubt Apollo. .

Please remove the hands from your face and look in this thread and the LRO one in Missions and Launches...

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Your advice to kerberos aside, I'd have to ask myself if you have actually done any investigation into NASA and their wonderful quality control you speak of.

I believe the family members of two seperate shuttle crews would like to hear your praises of great QUALITY CONTROL by NASA, to ease their troubled minds and hearts over the loss of their loved ones?

Since the space shuttles were the first of their kind reusable manned spacecraft, accidents were bound to occur. Trial-by-error was bound to occur. I don't see any other countries' space agencies doing anything even remotely so ambitious.

And I would surmise that the astronauts and their families understood that manned-spaceflight isn't risk-free. How many people died exploring the planet in wooden ships-of-sail? Out of Magellan's 130 man crew on three boats, about 20 and one boat made it back home.

Manned spaceflight will continue to be dangerous for the foreseeable future, if not forever.

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Do you NOT understand how the real world works? When you say something as ridiculous as we didn't land on the moon, people aren't going to take you very seriously.

Now I'm trying to be nice here, are there any questions that you have that have not been answered yet? You keep saying the moon hoaxers have made good points that have yet to be answered, specifically what points are you referring to? We don't want to discourage you from learning but please remember that science isn't a democracy where "both sides" deserve the same "fairness". One side is supported by the evidence, the other is not.

I think when NASA isn't able to show us anything even close to looking like the lander/rover/etc, while flying above the surface of the moon, laser-mapping it, nor using any other method, after over forty years of technological advancement, it's not ridiculous to doubt Apollo. .

Please remove the hands from your face and look in this thread and the LRO one in Missions and Launches...

When you respond, it would be nice for you to actually speak to the subject being mentioned. I would be glad to continue this conversation, as long as you would be kind enough to address the actual topic.

As for the LRO, I actually had a very long hearty laugh when those proofs came in. We should have clear definition of the landers and rovers...not white and black pixels which prove nothing, except somebody likes to pixelate, what they should obviously be enhancing instead to provide their long awaited proof.

So, to answer your statement of fact about myself, which is indeed false, YES I have taken long deep and exploratory looks at the LRO images. Not the least convinced.

I would like to suggest that we begin a new thread with the topic headline reading, SEROIUS DISCUSSION OF APOLLO. I suggest we invite the professionals of space exploration, like astro and solar physicists, who can explain in detail why so many people intellectually question the validity of Apollo. Please help see that the discussion stays on target and free of flames and such. Thanks MW

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Actually, since it appears you intend to ignore the actual physics of possible resolution, this thread will do just fine.

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Actually, since it appears you intend to ignore the actual physics of possible resolution, this thread will do just fine.

Please then, do explain for all of us the physics of POSSIBLE resolution that makes realistic evidence of Apollo remains impossible?

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Actually, since it appears you intend to ignore the actual physics of possible resolution, this thread will do just fine.

Please then, do explain for all of us the physics of POSSIBLE resolution that makes realistic evidence of Apollo remains impossible?

And after you are done with that please address the radiation issue raised here. Or perhaps you know someone here at Space.com with the credentials to properly address shielding, types, intensities of radiation, and such?

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 EDIT fug EDIT 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

And then there is this video series called MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomolie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM

 

[Quantum11]

Re: LRO Images of Apollo Landing Sites!

Being I am 58 years old and was glued to the TV for all those so called landings I was always 50/50 questioned as did we in fact land men on the moon

After seeing these lousy quality images, the fact NASA saying "see here is the proof" and that in all those sites they point to just one having some tracks says they have been caught cold.

We all remember all the missions that had the moon rover and how much dust and tracks, how they used to do spins and drove in many directions YET not one of those images shows that.

Even if they have better quality images all that would show is man made objects was there but nothing shows proof man himself was there.

If we in fact made that many landings it would be simple and done quickly to return as all the experience and knowledge NASA had from 1960s and 1970s.

So either we blew billions of dollars, had several men die back then and forgot everything or as it looks it was a con job and who today believes anything or anyone tied to the feds ?

Don't try to make sense like this...THey'll call it conjecture...although most of what I get from Apollo non-critics is mostly all conjecture, strawmen and hand-waving...What 'proof' they do conjure up is so riddled with anomolies, sharp grade-schoolers are pointing out.

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Has anyone else seen this video?

With the guy reaching to grab the corner of the flag to keep it from appearing to blow in a wind....

You have a flagpole, with a horizontal bar on top, making an L shape with the flag tethered to it along two edges, leaving only one corner of the flag hanging free. You have a guy twisting or rotating the flagpole as he attempts to drive it into the ground, using a combination of a "drilling" motion back and forth, and then banging the flagpole from above.

You have low gravity and a vacuum, where once something starts moving, it tends to carry on moving for a lot longer than it would on Earth.

Of course the corner of the flag will be waving back and forth. Anything that makes the corner move will have an effect that is far greater than the same effect would be on Earth.

Of course, if they are trying to film it, they want to stop the flag from moving. How might they stop the oscillations in the flag? They can wait for the pendulum-like effect to slow down by itself, which would take a whole lot longer than it would on Earth, or they can simply grab the corner.

and the question about the LIGHTING....along with what appears to be a spotlit set, rather than a sunlit lunar surface, it's no wonder the hoax proponents keep going crazy about Apollo.

It is interesting how the sunlit lunar surface can look like that:
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/manmoon.html
(The rest of the page after Fig 1, Note C

Also, whenever you are taking a photo or a film, you need to make sure the scene is lit well. If the scene is too dark the film won't show much, and if the scene is too bright, the resulting image will look overexposed. You have to take advantange of the natural lighting and adjust the camera, or the position of the camera, to suit. The subject of the photo will naturally be concerned that he is being shown in the best light, even if the only light is coming from the sun.

Part one: The Flag moving by itself, without manipulation..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg[/youtube]

In short, flag waving after it came to rest, without any manipulation.

Part two: "they can simply grab the corner."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji24WNxfHiE[/youtube]

In essence, the pressure of the gloves would have made grabbing anything that thin impossible...

Part three: "The subject of the photo will naturally be concerned that he is being shown in the best light.."
How many times have you heard people outside in the sun, ask if they are being shown in the best light? I believe the sun is the best light we have available on our little planet here. All of this is pure conjecture, it's just an interesting comment to me..."the lighting halfway decent?"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd6ekSYpt9w[/youtube]

Hear him say it for yourself. And look for yourself how the spotlit effect and fall-off add to the lack of a realistic sun-lit lunar surface. And notice how the remaster is being done to lessen those effects!

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."

Dr. James Van Allen

If you are going to quote the man who called space a sea of deadly radiation as you have here, you wouldn't happen to be kind enough to provide the source for said quote?

Meanwhile let's examine what the discoverer of the radiation belts had to say about them after his original research was presented shall we?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ur7gB3ABo0[/youtube]
The beginning reaffirms the lack of dexterity of Apollo gloves. At 9:46 we finally see numbers and comments from Van Allen's original findings..as well as EE Kovalev.


The beginning

 

[Quantum11]

On the moon..

On the sunlit side of the lunar surface, would you be able to see the stars?

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Re: Has anyone else seen this video?

By the way, the vids are pretty painful to watch. When are Moon Hoaxers going to put together decent videos that effectively argue their points? I suppose when they get some effective points to argue, the videos will improve.

Part one: The Flag moving by itself, without manipulation..

In short, flag waving after it came to rest, without any manipulation.

No, in short, that is a video effect. You can see other objects being effected the same way in the video. Are you saying everything became magically animate? I can't even see much of a video effect compared to other objects in the scene, which clearly demonstrate it much better than a few pixels on the flag.

Part two: "they can simply grab the corner."

In essence, the pressure of the gloves would have made grabbing anything that thin impossible...

No. First of all, in the vid, the comparisons made between "inflated" suits is invalid. The suits of Gemini and Apollo were not the same suits. As a matter of fact, the Apollo Moon suits had a restraint layer built into the suit to prevent problems with inflation. A7L They were also more armored against potential micro-meteorite impacts. They were extremely stiff suits to begin with.

Gemini Suit

Apollo Suit

They're obviously not the same suit.

Secondly, If I wrapped my hand in a ductape covered oven mitt, as long as I could still flex my fingers, I could pick up an eagle feather. Spacesuit gloves are specially designed to combat problems with internal pressure. Apollo suit also had rubber fingertips.

Obviously, whoever the guy is that made the vid is more interested in portraying himself as some sort of Moon Hoax James Bond than accurately portraying a factual argument.

Part three: "The subject of the photo will naturally be concerned that he is being shown in the best light.."
How many times have you heard people outside in the sun, ask if they are being shown in the best light? I believe the sun is the best light we have available on our little planet here. All of this is pure conjecture, it's just an interesting comment to me..."the lighting halfway decent?"

Hear him say it for yourself. And look for yourself how the spotlit effect and fall-off add to the lack of a realistic sun-lit lunar surface. And notice how the remaster is being done to lessen those effects!

On the Moon, there may not be much of an atmosphere for a scattering effect, but you're definitely going to see that high albedo objects reflect light. That's part of what is happening here. Another thing is that it's a high-contrast picture - It's going to somewhat have a "white-out" effect like an old 50's black&white television show. There is no "spotlight" effect going on here.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Please then, do explain for all of us the physics of POSSIBLE resolution that makes realistic evidence of Apollo remains impossible?

Do you want the license plate number? Wait awhile. When we get some "Enemy of the State" better-than-TacSat-capable satellites orbiting the Moon, you can check the landers for dings and scratches. Until then, we'll have to use the LRO which is not designed to take those kind of pictures.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

... I suggest we invite the professionals of space exploration, like astro and solar physicists, who can explain in detail why so many people intellectually question the validity of Apollo. ..

There's nothing intellectual about questioning the validity of the Apollo missions. The questions have been asked, they are plainly answered with as much evidence as anyone could want, aside from a trip to the Moon on an Apollo-style mission for themselves. There's no intellectualizing necessary.