Moon landing Real/Fake?

[Mercifull]

Even Richard Hoagland admits the moon landings are real and goes into quite detail debunking the conspiracy theorists. Any anyone whos ever heard of Hoagland knows hes the crazy fool who belives aliens built the "face on mars" rofl.

[Tigra00]

Even Richard Hoagland admits the moon landings are real and goes into quite detail debunking the conspiracy theorists. Any anyone whos ever heard of Hoagland knows hes the crazy fool who belives aliens built the "face on mars" rofl.

 

 

 

OMG prove they didn't!

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

I ponder how many "faces" you could find on our planet with clever camera angles zoomed-up-close...Hmm.

[Giordano]

i've done a little bit of research on the topic once when i was bored. on a few sites i had found out a controversy that is actually quite big. i know it'll probly sound stupid, but like moose said this is about our opinions and if we've done any research on the matter. on the sites i browsed i found some information about an alien colony living on the moon, and we never have gone to the moon, because according to the research i made this alien colony had got in touch with this secret international government (besides the UN). this alien colony had threatened to destroy earth if they came to the moon. this alien race is believed to be thousands of years farther in technology than us. i personally believe this ONLY to some extent. so don't be flamin' :thumbsup:

 

A advanced race living in a small piece of rock when theres bigger ones nearby, yeah. Wow.

 

 

 

I see no reason not to believe we landed on the moon. See your computer? Have you ANY idea how it works. Not the motherboard, and hardrives, but the inside, energy, thing that makes it work. If you believe that, I think we can go to the moon. Hell, a 100 ton thing flying thru the air would make me believe. :lol:

[punk4ever]

Sorry, you deserved that. That's like saying you can see the Great Wall of China (which I'd say is a tad bigger than a flag) from space, when you can't.

 

 

 

Actually, the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object that is visible from space.

[Rose_2_Pure]

Jackalope and I have come to the conclusion it's fake since me and her know for a fact the moon is made from cheese so it could not possibly be real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rose

[apinagez]

Sorry, you deserved that. That's like saying you can see the Great Wall of China (which I'd say is a tad bigger than a flag) from space, when you can't.

 

 

 

Actually, the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object that is visible from space.

 

 

 

It's been already proved it isn't visible from space.

[Oy_the_Great]

Belgium's enourmous web of lights is visible though. Or perhaps Belgians are just fluorescent.

[apinagez]

Everywhere's lights are visible. The Wall isn't.

 

Believe me, lights are fluorescent.

[Tigra00]

Sorry, you deserved that. That's like saying you can see the Great Wall of China (which I'd say is a tad bigger than a flag) from space, when you can't.

 

 

 

Actually, the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object that is visible from space.

 

 

 

Myth.

 

 

 

I remember hearing some Astronauts talking to ground command once saying they could not see the wall.

 

 

 

You can see the lights of large cities, however. :P I dunno' how New Yorker's sleep, there is too much damned light.

[punk4ever]

Sorry, you deserved that. That's like saying you can see the Great Wall of China (which I'd say is a tad bigger than a flag) from space, when you can't.

 

 

 

Actually, the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object that is visible from space.

 

 

 

It's been already proved it isn't visible from space.

 

 

 

Okay so I'm behind on the news. Why didn't anyone tell me?!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 505040.stm

[Giordano]

Wall of China thing=pfft. How can like a WALL be seen from space.

[Tigra00]

Wall of China thing=pfft. How can like a WALL be seen from space.

 

 

 

Well it isn't your NORMAL wall...It's more like...A fortress, built to keep people out! :D

[hambonez]

My post and this thread will likely to be deleted in anytime as I type my comment here...

 

 

 

 

 

Moon landing at 1969 is fake. Obviously fake.

 

 

 

First of all, you don't even see the star at the video. Whenever you get out from the earth and travel through space, you ALWAYS see stars all aronud you, ALWAYS. In that landing video, you never seen a single one.

 

Second of all, the flag is not supposed to flap. There's no air in the Moon, there's no atmosphere in that place and no pressure. So, the flag is supposed to stay still in a perfect rectangle. The only place you can flap a flag is in a place where oxygen is present {in which is the Earth.} So in that same video, the flags waves all the time and never stood still.

 

Third of all, they are no crosses at the Moon. You're not supposed to see black camera crosses at the moon. The only cameras that made you see are Filmaking cameraqs from HollyWood in that time. {Plus, if Neil Armstrong is truly the first person who walked on the moon, he should be the first person to plant a cross and an American flag. I'ts obviously impossible to find already-implanted crosses all over the Moon.}

 

 

 

That's why the moon landing back in 1969 was a fake show off historical lie to deceive the Soviets back at the Cold War {when Spoutnik was already launched out in space. the American were already jealous at that time.}

 

 

 

xtra notes:

 

You're supposed to see the American flag and traces of the first moon landing from the naked eye and telecospe but there's acutally no flag on the Moon.

 

 

 

 

 

Woo where to begin.

 

 

 

There were no stars perceived in the video because of the bright light of the sun. Go outside your house stand underneath a street lamp and see if your eyes can focus in on a star. Don't blame it on pollution its like that everywhere.

 

 

 

Second the flag was not flapping it was attached to an aluminum pole that is extremely flimsy. Watch the landing video and check how long it took them to shove it into the hard surface of the moon. And the pole had enough vibrations from being shoved into the surface that it would keep shaking....and shaking all attached objects AKA the FLAG. The flag kept moving due to lack of force keeping it from moving.

 

 

 

Also things like a light shining through a flag was a big one. The flag is very thin and made of transparent materials that allow even some light to shine through it on both sides.

 

 

 

The arguement that the moon landing was faked is extremely elementary and offensive to the people that risked their lives to land on the moon.

 

 

 

There was an experiment in the desert that attempted to recreate the theory of the moon landing being faked. Everyone of the crackpots they interviewed supporting that it was a lie did not have one valid arguement that could not be disproved.[/u]

[Death_By_Pod]

 

There is a difference in landing people on the moon and landing a probe on the moon. You have to overcome cosmic radiation to protect the astronauts. All those space monkeys probably enjoyed being microwaved.

 

 

 

 

So how did they get the probe into space and land on the moon and then have the mirrors placed correctly on the ground; Invisible, noiseless rockets? I know it would be possible at the time with technology but I wonder how feasible it would be to land a probe full of delicate mirrors and somehow place them in the required position. Even if it was possible you would still need to answer how they got a rocket with the probe up in space (around the same time as the Apollo mission) and not be spotted by anyone.

[Kielmccaul75]

Even if it was faked, they have done it since.

 

Short responses for questions ftw.

[Michael_Allen]

i personally think it was faked. why hasnt america been back there in 40 yrs .....

[Tigra00]

i personally think it was faked. why hasnt america been back there in 40 yrs .....

 

 

 

No point...? It costs a lot of money for those pointless visits, surely.

[Mercifull]

i personally think it was faked. why hasnt america been back there in 40 yrs .....

Because it costs millions, not to mention the risks involved of losing human life. Its not like you can send another vehicle to pick them up if the original fails to work.

 

 

 

Besides give it a few years, when the Shuttle program is phased out after 2010 theres going to be a lot more funding for exploration.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/Spreadsheet/5772_Bud ... ctions.xls

[TheLeader]

Dident know that if you throw a stone at 800 m/sec (i know its not humanly possible to throw it) if would leave the worlds orbit!

 

 

 

*goes into garden picks up dog toy, and hurls it* *catches the wind and hits me back in the face*

[issy2]

What the ....

 

 

 

What is WRONG with you people? Don't take this in a bad way, but do you have to believe everything you hear/read/see? I am completely neutral. I will try my hardest not believe or disbelieve anything until I have absolute, personal proof.

 

 

 

There is proof that they did go and there is not. Whether any of it is true or not remains to be discovered...:wink:

 

 

 

The following is based on what I have heard recently-

 

1. The amount of fuel in the engine of the spaceship would not have been nearly enough to force the object out of Earth's atmosphere and continue to the moon. Instead it's rumoured they orbited the earth eight times.

 

 

 

2. The Flag- On Neil Armstrong's camera lens were several black crosses. Assuming they were on the lens, they would have been INFRONT of whatever was filmed. Correct? Well, in the actual film, a corner of one black cross was behind the US Flag, suggesting the flag was placed infront of the black crosses, or the crosses added later.

 

 

 

3. Neil and his colleagues were filmed talking after the rocket had taken off. While they talked, the sound of the engines was drastically reduced to allow listeners to hear their voices. As it was an 'unedited' video, this is impossible.

 

 

 

4. Pictures were taken on two different 'areas' of the Moon's surface. When blended together, photos of Area1 and Area3 were almost identical, which is extremely unlikely.

 

 

 

5. During their trip, there would have been two light sources on the Moon's surface. The Sun, and the ONLY, SINGLE, light on the top of the module. So, then, how were there five shadows for several of the rocks on the landscape?

 

 

 

6. The landscape matches perfectly with part of Area52, a high-security military camp in Arizona.

 

 

 

7. When speeded up x2, Neil's 'moonwalk' perfectly matches his normal stride. This suggests it may have been digitally slowed after filming.

 

 

 

8. Two days before takeoff, the Sun had released a huge solar radiation storm. Even in average conditions, the residue radiation could have caused hairloss to skin cancer outside of atmosphere. According the research, the humans would have needed solid steel 7+ feet thick to protect them.

 

 

 

9. When the module landed on the surface of the moon, it disturbed millions of years of dust. The module was so heavy, so large, that it would have kicked up roughly 5 metres of dust. Due to the atmosphere and gravity on the Moon, this would have have taken at least nine hours to settle. So, when our Mr Armstrong stepped out, and made that footprint, and then filmed it two days later when it was still there...

 

 

 

10. The astronauts' cameras were embedded in the chests of their spacesuits. So, assuming there not just amazingly intelligent, how did they manage to take such perfectly alligned photos of the Moon?

 

 

 

~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

 

As I said, I don't know whether this is true or not, although it seems quite likely. I don't believe they ever went to the Moon.

 

I'll probably add to this. O:)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issy.

[Rose_2_Pure]

 

I will not believe or disbelieve anything until I have absolute, personal proof.

 

 

 

O rly?

 

 

 

 

I don't believe they ever went to the Moon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rose

[StrOwez]

"How can the flag be fluttering?" the 47 year old American kept asking himself when there's no wind on the atmosphere free Moon? That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self- taught engineer from New Jersey.

 

 

 

He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.

 

 

 

It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.

 

 

 

The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars.

 

 

 

And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway being the only casualties. But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake.

 

 

 

For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.

 

 

 

By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.

 

 

 

As Rene points out, that's not all: The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.

 

 

 

Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

 

 

 

The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

 

 

 

The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers" who were keen for the truth to one day get out.

 

 

 

If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, "Why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?"

 

 

 

The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

 

 

 

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.

 

 

 

How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.

 

 

 

Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing. "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.

 

 

 

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.

 

 

 

Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me."

 

 

 

Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.

 

 

 

Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is

 

a spectacular accident rate.

 

 

 

"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking."

 

 

 

NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "Come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon."

 

 

 

A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. "The astronauts simply have to be on board," he says, "in case the rocket exploded. It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead." he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the

 

public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.

 

 

 

And now NASA is planning another giant step - Project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. "Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics," says Rene Chillingly. "Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth."

 

 

 

9 SPACE ODDITIES:

 

 

 

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

 

 

 

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

 

 

 

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

 

 

 

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

 

 

 

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

 

 

 

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

 

 

 

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

 

 

 

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

 

 

 

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[No_OnE]

What the ....

 

 

 

What is WRONG with you people? Don't take this in a bad way, but do you have to believe everything you hear/read/see? I am completely neutral. I will not believe or disbelieve anything until I have absolute, personal proof.

 

 

 

There is proof that they did go and there is not. Whether any of it is true or not remains to be discovered...:wink:

 

 

 

The following is based on what I have heard recently-

 

1. The amount of fuel in the engine of the spaceship would not have been nearly enough to force the object out of Earth's atmosphere and continue to the moon. Instead it's rumoured they orbited the earth eight times.

 

 

 

2. The Flag- On Neil Armstrong's camera lens were several black crosses. Assuming they were on the lens, they would have been INFRONT of whatever was filmed. Correct? Well, in the actual film, a corner of one black cross was behind the US Flag, suggesting the flag was placed infront of the black crosses, or the crosses added later.

 

 

 

3. Neil and his colleagues were filmed talking after the rocket had taken off. While they talked, the sound of the engines was drastically reduced to allow listeners to hear their voices. As it was an 'unedited' video, this is impossible.

 

 

 

4. Pictures were taken on two different 'areas' of the Moon's surface. When blended together, photos of Area1 and Area3 were almost identical, which is extremely unlikely.

 

 

 

5. During their trip, there would have been two light sources on the Moon's surface. The Sun, and the ONLY, SINGLE, light on the top of the module. So, then, how were there five shadows for several of the rocks on the landscape?

 

 

 

6. The landscape matches perfectly with part of Area52, a high-security military camp in Arizona.

 

 

 

7. When speeded up x2, Neil's 'moonwalk' perfectly matches his normal stride. This suggests it may have been digitally slowed after filming.

 

 

 

8. Two days before takeoff, the Sun had released a huge solar radiation storm. Even in average conditions, the residue radiation could have caused hairloss to skin cancer outside of atmosphere. According the research, the humans would have needed solid steel 7+ feet thick to protect them.

 

 

 

9. When the module landed on the surface of the moon, it disturbed millions of years of dust. The module was so heavy, so large, that it would have kicked up roughly 5 metres of dust. Due to the atmosphere and gravity on the Moon, this would have have taken at least nine hours to settle. So, when our Mr Armstrong stepped out, and made that footprint, and then filmed it two days later when it was still there...

 

 

 

10. The astronauts' cameras were embedded in the chests of their spacesuits. So, assuming there not just amazingly intelligent, how did they manage to take such perfectly alligned photos of the Moon?

 

 

 

~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

 

As I said, I don't know whether this is true or not, although it seems quite likely. I don't believe they ever went to the Moon.

 

I'll probably add to this. O:)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issy.

 

So basically, you won't believe they landed on the Moon until NASA comes to your house and offers you a free trip to the Moon. Your saying that until then, you will believe that everyone at NASA are in on some big conspiracy... This topic is moronic. Although the U.S. wanted desperately to get to the Moon before the Soviets did, they wouldn't have gone through the trouble to fake it. Not only that, with all the people it would involve, stuff would leak through and people would eventually find out.

[issy2]

 

I will not believe or disbelieve anything until I have absolute, personal proof.

 

 

 

O rly?

 

 

 

 

I don't believe they ever went to the Moon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rose

 

 

 

You caught me out. #-o #-o Anyway... what I meant is, there's more reason to believe the moon landing was faked than not faked...

 

 

 

Nice,

 

Issy.

[NeoCypherX]

hmm i think was real although i think some of the footage that was taken was fake such as numbers being visible on the moon rocks etc