why i think the moon landings were a hoax.

Smersh · Mar 11, 2008

hi i have never disputed the fact that the apollo launches took place ...i agree noone could hide a saturn 5 blasting off...as i stated in the notorious " missing thread"the conspiracy starts once they try to land on the moon...earth to moon ok....moon to surface hoax...moon back to earth okthe ability to land on the moon was just not possible at the time....nasa knew that and..but didnt want to lose out to the russians who america thought was going to win the race to the moonso nasa had to fake the actual landing part, get the apollo capsule to the moon ok ...land on moon hoax......moon walk hoax...theres many ways this could have been pulled off.the story continues   Posted by zarniwoopSo you are suggesting that Apollo's 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, all launched on gigantic great Saturn 5 rockets, each sent a spacecraft, complete with lunar landing module, to the Moon but didn't actually LAND there? At a cost of billions and billions of dollars, and kept a secret ever since, by thousands of NASA employees? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea." Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."Website / forums </div>

qso1 · Mar 11, 2008

earth to moon ok....moon to surface hoax...moon back to earth okThis part of your quote stood out for me because if we can get to lunar orbit, why couldn't we make it to the surface?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

Rocketwatcher2002 · Mar 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>About the flag waving thing. Ever heard of solar wind? Posted by Rhiannann</DIV>The reason the flag waved is because of inertia.  I can hold a piece of paper in my hand, and wiggle my hand, and the paper will wave.  It has nothing to do with wind, or a vacuum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Mar 11, 2008

Thats correct but I gotta ask, do you recall ever seeing a flag wave without being touched or blown by the LM RCS at liftoff? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

derekmcd · Mar 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"the ability to land on the moon was just not possible at the time"Posted by zarniwoop</DIV> What "ability" did we not have at the time that did not allow to accomplish this task?  Please be specific.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

3488 · Mar 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What "ability" did we not have at the time that did not allow to accomplish this task?  Please be specific.  Posted by derekmcd</DIV>I agree 100% derekmcd. zarniwoop needs to provide evidence to back up that claim. After all, it is part of the Terms Of Service on SDC.zarniwoop is just <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/9/cf9d748b-b0eb-465b-99c4-a3ac5943d3f9.Medium.gif" alt="" /> yet again & it is just boring, we've heard it all before, yadda, yadda, yadda.Wake me up, when this dead horse has stopped being beaten. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/10/14/5a360e65-f45e-4d82-be54-edb5141fa2de.Medium.gif" alt="" />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

10_stone_5 · Mar 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...first off no abuse from me so i dont expect any back this time...Posted by zarniwoop</DIV> I'm shocked, shocked and appalled ......that you would make this request !! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Smersh · Mar 11, 2008

... we've heard it all before, yadda, yadda, yadda.Wake me up, when this dead horse has stopped being beaten. Andrew Brown. Posted by 3488I'm not sure that the dead horse can still be flogged Andrew. Wouldn't it have decomposed by now?  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/0/9/d0290e16-e6b1-49f6-a974-a1f1ca44bc83.Medium.jpg" alt="" />   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea." Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."Website / forums </div>

3488 · Mar 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... we've heard it all before, yadda, yadda, yadda.Wake me up, when this dead horse has stopped being beaten. Andrew Brown. Posted by 3488I'm not sure that the dead horse can still be flogged Andrew. Wouldn't it have decomposed by now?    Posted by smersh</DIV>Cheers Smersh, ROFLMAO!!!! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/9/2789756b-bd8c-48a2-b97a-8ba5ec7e2092.Medium.gif" alt="" />  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/5/fc531913-8809-4b92-b552-2064b8b55c0d.Medium.gif" alt="" />Just about sums this up really.Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

cosmictraveler · Mar 11, 2008

ok i am always up for a challenge and the gauntlet has been thrown.ok first off no abuse from me so i dont expect any back this time.keep it civil ..any nitpicking and it ends.so it begins.ok so did we go to the moon?.maybe we did just maybe theres some doubt...ok i'll admit in the past i've argued that it was all a hoax ,maybe thats a bit strong....but over the years there have been many instances that have thrown doubt on some of the claims of nasa and some of the whole of the apollo moonlandings.ok i'm not going to start by going over the regular gripes of the hoaxers ie flag waving,rocks with numbers on,missing moonlanders,no stars etc etc except i'll put over a point fairly regular on some other aspect that maybe throws doubt and let you all shoot me down in flames heheh.ok todays little reason for maybe some doubt.many times the argument has been how could nasa or the govt pull the wool over so many peoples eyes ,or how could so many people stay quiet for so long without the secret coming out.

 The only reason that this myth keeps coming up is because people like yourself keep talking about it. There aren't to many of you around, thank goodness, and the myth doesn't seem to be provoking much animosity as once it did. In time it will cease all together just as you will and we won't hear much about it ever again. It would be about time.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It does not require many words to speak the truth. Chief Joseph </div>

Click to expand...

lampblack · Mar 11, 2008

I recall sitting in front of a black-and-white television, watching Walter Cronkite very plainly explain why the flag stands out.It's not a standard cloth flag. It was manufactured using a stiff material, such that it would stand out on its own -- and appear in photographs to be waving in the airless environment of the moon.If you watch the old videos, you'll see that the flag stood stiffly out from the mast before it was planted -- sort of like a piece of cardboard attached to a pole.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

derekmcd · Mar 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"It's not a standard cloth flag. It was manufactured using a stiff material, such that it would stand out on its own..."   Posted by lampblack</DIV> I always thought it was a standard issue flag that hung from a horizontal pole to keep it unfurled. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Mar 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>hi i have never disputed the fact that the apollo launches took place ...i agree noone could hide a saturn 5 blasting off...as i stated in the notorious " missing thread"the conspiracy starts once they try to land on the moon...earth to moon ok....moon to surface hoax...moon back to earth okthe ability to land on the moon was just not possible at the time....nasa knew that and..but didnt want to lose out to the russians who america thought was going to win the race to the moonso nasa had to fake the actual landing part, get the apollo capsule to the moon ok ...land on moon hoax......moon walk hoax...theres many ways this could have been pulled off.the story continues   Posted by zarniwoop</DIV>Why was it impossible for them to land on the moon?The technology was there.  The hard part was getting into space.  After that, it's a "point & shoot."  What is it that makes it impossible to land on the Moon? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

zarniwoop · Mar 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>hi i have never disputed the fact that the apollo launches took place ...i agree noone could hide a saturn 5 blasting off...as i stated in the notorious " missing thread"the conspiracy starts once they try to land on the moon...earth to moon ok....moon to surface hoax...moon back to earth okthe ability to land on the moon was just not possible at the time....nasa knew that and..but didnt want to lose out to the russians who america thought was going to win the race to the moonso nasa had to fake the actual landing part, get the apollo capsule to the moon ok ...land on moon hoax......moon walk hoax...theres many ways this could have been pulled off.the story continues   Posted by zarniwoopSo you are suggesting that Apollo's 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, all launched on gigantic great Saturn 5 rockets, each sent a spacecraft, complete with lunar landing module, to the Moon but didn't actually LAND there? At a cost of billions and billions of dollars, and kept a secret ever since, by thousands of NASA employees? Posted by smersh</DIV> cost did not come into it ,the americans did not want to lose out to russia at any cost.nasa new they hadnt got the tech to actually land on the moon...how many times did they actually land the lunar module test rig sucessfully....none..this equipment was a total failure as was all tests.one of the main reasons of the hoax being pulled off.nasa wasnt ready for a moon shotbut thought the russians were leading and about to launch a moonlanding themselves.this was not acceptable,.......america being beaten by the russians !!!! no way so lets pull of a hoax. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

zarniwoop · Mar 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'm shocked, shocked and appalled ......that you would make this request !! Posted by 10_stone_5</DIV> whys that........everyones entitled to their opinion without being abused. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

zarniwoop · Mar 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What "ability" did we not have at the time that did not allow to accomplish this task?  Please be specific.  Posted by derekmcd</DIV> basically the lunar lander was not ready...nasa new thisbut for reasons stated in other posts they had to launch because of the russians getting closer to their own attempt.the race was to be first once the americans had pulled off the hoaxthen the russians gave up,no need to spend billions of roubles to come second. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Mar 12, 2008

Actually, the Russian lunar program didn't really end in July of 1969.  It suffered a protracted, agonizing death.  Considerable time had already been wasted with the pointless flip-flopping between launch vehicles; as a consequence, none were ready in time.  The innovative and ambitious N-1 rocket failed catastrophically on its first test flight in February of 1969; the second one failed even more spectacularly on July 3, just a couple of weeks before Neil Armstrong would set foot on the moon.  After a two-year delay while the destroyed launch complex was rebuilt and major problems with the vehicle fixed, another attempt was made in June of 1971.  This failed somewhat later in the launch.  The final launch attempt was on November 23, 1971.  One could consider this date the day the Soviet manned lunar program died, although really it had been dying for some time.  The fact that the final N-1 was already built was probably a major factor in giving the green light for it to make a final attempt at a successful unmanned test flight.  For the first time, it made it through first stage flight.  (The first stage had some radical innovations which had unfortunately contributed to the early failures; it took time to iron on the bugs.)  But the second stage failed, and took with it the last vestiges of the Soviet manned lunar program. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

JonClarke · Mar 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>basically the lunar lander was not ready...nasa new thisbut for reasons stated in other posts they had to launch because of the russians getting closer to their own attempt.the race was to be first once the americans had pulled off the hoaxthen the russians gave up,no need to spend billions of roubles to come second. Posted by zarniwoop</DIV>The LM was not ready?  You are aware that a mass model was flight tested with Apollo 4 in January 1967? You know about the first free flight with the unmanned Apollo 5 mission in November 1968? That there was the Apollo 9 crewed test in Earth orbit in March 1969? That there was a crewed flight in low lunar orbit with Apollo 10 in May 1969?  The only thing left to be tested was the actual landing, and that could only be tested by actually landing.  In what way therefore was the LM not ready?Yoy are also asking us to believe that the US flew 7 Apollo missions to the Moon from Apollo 11 onwards without landing once, or even attemtpting to, or saying what were to the actual activities carried out.  What is your evidence for these claims?You also need to explain how almost half a tonne of diverse lunar samples came to Earth, with their lunar context carefully documented including photographs of the samples on the lunar surface and of them being collected.  Many of these photos contain Apollo hardware and astronauts.  Whaat'ss your explanation?The pressure from the Russians was off after Apollo 8.  They were nowhere near ready to landing a man n the Moon.  Their N-11 booster failed its first test in February 1969.  And it's second in early July the same year.  It did not fly agaain until 1971, when it again failed.  The US givernment knew all this at the time.  If the LM was not ready in July 1969, the first landing could have been delayed until decwember and still meet the Kennedy goal. It could have been delayed until 1970, 1971 or even later and still have beaten the Russians. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

CalliArcale · Mar 12, 2008

...as an aside, the Mythbusters are apparently going to do an Apollo-themed episode in late April.  At badastronomy.com, commenters are asking how they'll fit in the requisite mayhem and explosions. 

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Mar 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>basically the lunar lander was not ready...nasa new thisbut for reasons stated in other posts they had to launch because of the russians getting closer to their own attempt.the race was to be first once the americans had pulled off the hoaxthen the russians gave up,no need to spend billions of roubles to come second. Posted by zarniwoop</DIV>I see no evidence for any of these claims.Calli and Jon have sufficiently stated specific rebuttles so I really don't see the need to re-quote them.Is there something specific that demonstrates that the lander was not operational or that the Russians were actually threatening a "win" on the Space Race which would provoke a hoax? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

qso1 · Mar 12, 2008

basically the lunar lander was not ready...nasa new thisbut for reasons stated in other posts they had to launch because of the russians getting closer to their own attempt.the race was to be first once the americans had pulled off the hoaxthen the russians gave up,no need to spend billions of roubles to come second. Posted by zarniwoopYou are correct in that the LM was not ready. However, this changed in 1969. The LM was to have been ready but due mainly to being overweight. It wasn't ready as of mid to late 1968. This was the reason for the Apollo 8 circumlunar flight.Apollo 8 was originally slated to be an earth orbit test of the LM. The LM wasn't ready for Apollo 8 and by summer of 1968, mission planners knew the LM wouldn't be ready by December 1968. But might be ready by early 1969.March 1969, Apollo 9 with an LM aboard, went into earth orbit where it was thoroughly tested. The descent stage engine was tested. The LM went as far away as 120 miles from the CSM. The descent stage was jettisoned so the ascent stage and engine could be tested and they were.A spacewalk was even performed to demonstrate the crew could exit and enter an LM in full EVA garb plus the PLSS backpack.May 1969, the LM was tested on Apollo 10 only this time, it was the dress rehearsal for Apollo 11. The LM performed pretty close to nominal. Cernan did report some instability at one point but they managed to achieve all objectives.Our intel community knew about the N-1 failures well before the Apollo 11 mission. As far back as 1966, James Webb testified to the existence of a huge lunar booster. Those without access to the intel derided Webb by referring to his booster as "Webbs giant".In 1966, Soviet manned flight had been pretty much non existent. If anything, they were not ready for lunar missions. In fact, it may be true that as they claimed, they were not in a moonrace with us. At least not until they began testing Soyuz and the N-1 I have a copy of an "Aviation Leak" article from June or July 1969. Shortly before Apollo 11. That article reported the explosion of a giant lunar booster which by now was known by our intel as the N-1. Despite published reports of the Russians possibly in a position to beat us, the idea the Zond circumlunar mission might have been manned or Luna 15 might be a soil retrieval mission, our intel community knew there was no way for the Russians to beat us.Despite the troubled history of the N-1, the Russians continued testing the giant Saturn class N-1 vehicle well after Apollo 11. There were a total of four tests, the last being late 1972. All four ended in disaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Bedsteadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_programI posted wiki links because they have pretty nice Apollo stuff and much of it I was able to verify accurate by comparison with books I have on Apollo including one written a decade after Apollo 11.http://astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htmAstronautix is probably the best resource in existence on the internet for all things human spaceflight. Check out the dates and history of the N-1. Note its cancellation on May 2, 1974. Almost five years after Apollo 11.My research for a book I wrote years ago caused me to conclude we won the moon race because of our determination and readiness. The Soviets basically flew no Gemini program and that was the program that made a huge difference for America in winning the race. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

onesmallstep · Mar 12, 2008

I believe the reason zarniwoop thinks as he does is primarily because he is not old enough to remember when it actually happened.  The last landing was in December 1972.  That is almost, gasp, 36 years ago. I could even understand someone having doubts about Lindberg's Atlantic crossing if no one followed in his footsteps 36 years later.It is not zarniwoop's fault that he has doubts. And asking him to produce evidence to back up the things he is saying is ridiculous, because we know there can be no valid evidence to support such claims. Ridicule and animated pictures of the beating of dead horses don't add anything constructive to the discussion either. From the statements he makes it is clear he has just not studied his history very well.Us old timers who sat mesmerized in front of the tv as Walter Cronkite described the events know it happened.  But now, there is a younger generation of humans who can only read about it in a history book, and they are asking a very valid question, "If we could do it 36 years ago, why haven't we been back since?" This is a question I myself would like answered.So let's get on with the show, 36 years is too long to wait for an encore. Let's prove it to zaniwoop and the rest of his generation. Let's get those brass plaques fabbed up and go place them at the six apollo landing sites declaring them historical locations. Then we can actually get on with the business of colonizing the moon, preparing/practicing for a Mars mission, and saving the human race from eventual extinction by becoming a space faring civilization.sheeesh. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Mar 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> ..And asking him to produce evidence to back up the things he is saying is ridiculous,.. Posted by onesmallstep</DIV>I don't think so.  After all, I don't ask him to produce evidence because I wish to trounce it.  It's part of a learning exercise - critical thinking.Reading statements on the 'net is one thing.  But, actually finding evidence that corroborates those statements is another.  The first step, always, is to examine the evidence before accepting the statement as truth.  That's why I ask for it - It's in order to get the poster to examine what it is they are proposing and why it is supposedly credible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

origin · Mar 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> the ability to land on the moon was just not possible at the time....nasa knew that and..but didnt want to lose out to the russians who america thought was going to win the race to the moonso nasa </DIV>2 quick points:How could we 'lose' to the russians if it was not possible to land on the moon at that time?  This is a strange logical falicy.The other point is we did have the technology as demonstrated here http://video.aol.com/video-detail/llrv-training-flight-with-astronaut-neil-armstrong/2060426102.  Or do you think that this is a fake video.  By the way in the quote your should have used a comma after 'Russians'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Mar 13, 2008

Regarding the LM not being ready, and so the moon missions being faked to throw off the Russians -- the huge irony of this claim is that the Russian lunar complex was far less ready than the LM.  They dealt with that problem mainly by clever propaganda -- they hinted that they could easily go to the Moon, but were far too sophisticated and sensible for such silly things as space races.  They would focus on practical things.  The nice thing about this strategy is that it was a propaganda win-win -- if their lunar attempt failed, they would merely claim they meant it that way, but if it was a success, then they could happily seize on that success.  However, the last thing they wanted was a mission that would demonstrate inferiority to the Americans.  And their system was definitely inferior.  Thanks to all the time wasted in political infighting and jousting between the design bureaus, by the time they finally started building their system they had painted themselves into engineering corners which meant stripping down the system to where it was barely functional.  The final design, to be launched by N-1, was a two-man uprated Soyuz docked to a one-man lander which may have been open to the vacuum of space.  Their mission would have been even more of a "flags and bootprints" mission than ours, because it would barely even have been able to manage that. Still, their program made some very important triumphs which not a lot of people in the West hear about.  The only robotic sample-return mission from the Moon.  (Until Genesis and Stardust, it was the only robotic sample return mission from ANYWHERE.  Still the only one from the surface of another world, since Hayabusa ultimately failed to return samples from 25143 Itokawa.  And then there are the two Lunokhods.  Magnificent vehicles.  It was Lunokhod 2 that carried a retroreflector similar to the Apollo reflectors.  It was a "guest experiment" from CNES (the French space agency); the Russians were an early adopter of the international philosophy towards space exploration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

why i think the moon landings were a hoax.

Smersh

Guest

qso1

Guest

Rocketwatcher2002

Guest

qso1

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

3488

Guest

10_stone_5

Guest

Smersh

Guest

3488

Guest

cosmictraveler

Guest

lampblack

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

zarniwoop

Guest

zarniwoop

Guest

zarniwoop

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

qso1

Guest

onesmallstep

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

origin

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page