MOON: DID WE LAND ON IT OR WHAT?

One of the greatest conspiracy theories of the modern age contends that contrary to popular belief, sense and irrefutable concrete evidence, the Apollo Moon Landings were nothing more than an elaborate hoax, perpetrated by around 10,000 people, all of who never talked.

The theory goes that, in the middle of the Space Race, it was inconceivable that the Russians should reach the moon first. Even though NASA did not have the technology to reach the moon at all.

One of the so-called &Whistle-blowers who uses the pseudonymn Roger Whitaker and who is a major source to me on this subject, expounded on the fears of that time.

Originally, the U.S. Government was afraid of the socio-political aspects of Ivan reaching the moon first. But other members of Congress were thinking more on economic lines. They feared that if the Reds staked claim to the moon first, they would have an unlimited supply of green cheese, and could put a stranglehold on the World Cheese Market, holding it to ransom or controlling it completely. Which would have been disastrous, a bit like Goldfinger robbing Fort Knox in that book and film.

Of course, we know now that the Moon isnt made of cheese at all, but back then they didnt. Apparently. And they later found that there wasnt a man in it either.

The main sticking point was radiation. Whittaker told me. The space-suits that NASA had been diligently working on were not capable of deflecting the deadly radiation the astronauts would pick up after they passed through the Van Halen belt. The astronauts would have been either killed out there in space, or come back with three heads. Or turned into big cactus-monsters, like something out of Quatermass.

Another of the whistle-blowers Percy Edwards told me that those with Hollywood links attempted to gradually leach the truth to the public with clues in such fare as the James Bond film Diamonds Are Forever, and the James Brolin/ O. J. Simpson sci-fi thriller Capricorn One.

However, the Secret Cabal within NASA who were behind It all tried to discredit them in return by secretly creating and funding the cult TV show The Clangersstupid little knitted creatures who spoke in whistles.

Of course, there are those conspiracy theorists who dare to explore even further. They claim that the real reason for faking the moon landings is that there isnt actually a Moon at all. The celestial body we have seen smiling benignly down upon us for so long is actually nothing more than an elaborate mock-up, and is in fact only a few hundred feet wide, and about a mile up. Probably suspended on strings or something.

But there just daft.

What a load of bull, of course we landed on the moon and there is irrefutable evidence that we did, so 10000 people are lying are they? All those people have kept quiet for years have they?

From my experience no one can keep quiet about anything! anytime about anything, it is asking too much of human nature and especialy on such a world shattering event as that.



The moon is just a piece of cheese on a string is it? where were you educated man? Why dont you use a bit of common! as Moon Maiden would say! and you will know yourself that we did land on the moon. You have been reading too many science fiction books.

Originally posted by "halevan"

What a load of bull, of course we landed on the moon and there is irrefutable evidence that we did, so 10000 people are lying are they? All those people have kept quiet for years have they?

From my experience no one can keep quiet about anything! anytime about anything, it is asking too much of human nature and especialy on such a world shattering event as that.
I'd like to see this 'irrefutable' evidence. I bet you a tenner I can refute it. :)

Show me the proof and I'll believe it.

This has been discussed in another post:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=725

Originally posted by "Tony Ruscoe"

This has been discussed in another post:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=725 So

So... in case you hadn't seen it I was directing you to other people's views which I thought you might be interested in. :roll:

Originally posted by "Tony Ruscoe"

So... in case you hadn't seen it I was directing you to other people's views which I thought you might be interested in. :roll: sowwie Tony thanks for telling me about the other debate about the moon :wink:

Jon is only interested in his own views :)

8) :? :shock:

:? thx dats not nice

Wow, 50% of people think we didn't land on the moon. Been reading the Guardian too much I think.

the 50% also believe its made of cheese :lol:

It's interesting now that China have now outlined plans to go to the Moon by the year 2020.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3288043.stm

So, in a few years time we might be able to answer yes to this question. :o :D

This is either a major X-Files style conspiracy theory or a wonderful pice of tongue-in-cheek satire. My money is on the latter.

If you look at the photos of the moon landing a lot of them don't make sense e.g. shadows in wrong direction, missing shadows, flag blowing in wind but to be honest I don't know either way.

I heard that there is no moon. That's a cover up too.

of course we went to the moon - it's churlish to think otherwise, tho i like the opening post :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Lickszz
It's interesting now that China have now outlined plans to go to the Moon by the year 2020.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3288043.stm

So, in a few years time we might be able to answer yes to this question. :o :D
Or more likely no...

We didn't land on the moon!

There is plenty of evidence out that proves this!

For one why would a flag be blowing on the moon?

Skatie

And can you prove the moon ain't made out of cheese

I resent very much being called 'it' and implying that I am big enough to land on.

My arse may be the size of a small country but at no time has anyone landed on it. No I am not made out of cheese

*ahem*

Moon

sorry I had to

Originally posted by fnkysknky
If you look at the photos of the moon landing a lot of them don't make sense e.g. shadows in wrong direction, missing shadows, flag blowing in wind ...

I had that explained to me by someone once. They claimed that the "official" first steps on the moon weren't actually the first (which is why you can see a random footprint in one shot) - but that they went outside to set up cameras and lights first.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
We didn't land on the moon!
There is plenty of evidence out that proves this!
For one why would a flag be blowing on the moon?
Skatie

The flag blowing in the wind is odd.

But if they were going to fake it you'd have thought they'd have filmed it 3 or 4 times to get it right, rather than releasing a version full of mistakes...

hi all.

i dont think we landed on the moon either.
its more conveivable that thousands of people hoaxed the whole thing, and NOT a SINGLE ONE OF THEM EVER LET ON.
As any1 with a bit of common will know...the media tell us what we need to believe,imsure the american mediaare no different to the rest of the world, and back then, there wasnt as many of the 'instanteneous' means of world wide mass coverage there are now.

in all honesty though.....who really gives a damn....we would be better entertained finding out if the core ofjupiter is REALLY a diamond,dont you think?

;)

rob

Originally posted by Agent Dan
I had that explained to me by someone once. They claimed that the "official" first steps on the moon weren't actually the first (which is why you can see a random footprint in one shot) - but that they went outside to set up cameras and lights first.

Yeah I've seen and heard explanations for it but wasn't convinced with the reasons given - either way it's weird and I'm not that bothered :)

I'm sick of argueing about this. I don't believe we did myself and have yet to see one piece of evidence that conclusively proves that we landed on the moon, but every time I try to argue my case I get told 'Of course we landed on the moon, don't be silly'. At the end of the day, why does it really matter anyway? It's not likely we'll ever know the truth.

Originally posted by Sidla
I'm sick of argueing about this. I don't believe we did myself and have yet to see one piece of evidence that conclusively proves that we landed on the moon, but every time I try to argue my case I get told 'Of course we landed on the moon, don't be silly'. At the end of the day, why does it really matter anyway? It's not likely we'll ever know the truth.

and Princess Diana was killed by MI6 and Elvis is alive and well and working in Kirsy McCall's chip shop


Surely, even if USA was desperate to stop USSR being there first, and had recourse to pretend to be first with an elaborate hoax (which is ridiculous, all that time and all that money just for that...) that wouldnt have stopped the Russians from popping up there the following month.

Or are we saying that no-one has ever gone to the moon at all?

I saw an interesting program many months about this subject. The US-led war in Vietnam was going badly so the US govt invented the Moon landing to divert attention away from this (and send a false threat to the Russians that the US was now ahead in the space race).

Other ambiguities (such as the crosshairs on moonshots in front and behind of objects) were said to be placed by those who created the false images in order that they could later be 'decoded' as fakes.

What else did it say...oh yes, quite a few people involved closely in the moon landing project died in mysterious circumstances shortly afterwards...

Unusually for this type of program, the producers did interview a NASA spokesman, who said something along the lines of what young Sidla said above...

Err, that's it for now...

Rather than just asking Geoff to close this debate as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere I thought the following would convince those who believe in the moon landing that it was all a hoax:

Moon landing (http://www.captaincosmos.clara.co.uk/fake.html)

Originally posted by shefflass
Surely, even if USA was desperate to stop USSR being there first, and had recourse to pretend to be first with an elaborate hoax (which is ridiculous, all that time and all that money just for that...) that wouldnt have stopped the Russians from popping up there the following month.

Or are we saying that no-one has ever gone to the moon at all?
Yes, I believe nobody has ever been to the moon. What makes you so sure it wasn't hoaxed? I'm not saying it would have been easy to hoax, of course it wouldn't, but IMO it seems more likely that they were faked than actually happened.

This is exactly the sort of argument I'm talking about. "America wouldn't spend so much money just to pull off a hoax", of course they would especially if they knew they could get away with it.

The trouble with conspiracies is that people say “well it must be true” because nobody can disprove a lie, which is what 99.99% of conspiracy theories are.

If NASA had faked the moon landings somebody from the tens of thousands of people involved would have come out and said so by now, and they would be paid a huge amount by the media for their trouble. Look at Gordon Liddy – you cant get him off the telly whenever Watergate is mentioned!

Conspiracy theories are the real conspiracy. :loopy:

What would be the point of faking it??? What did they really achieve? You've said 'vietnam' this and 'russia' that but ultimately the moon landings, whether fake or not, never had any impact on these long-running campaigns... not then or now.

It's worth repeating my point above too, cos no-one's answered me yet... If they were going to hoax it, why release a version with so many 'flaws'??? And I say again, what would be the point of faking the moon landings? :mad:

p.s. not implying that our moon fakes anything, of course!! :P

Flags wave when you move them about, air or no air.

Think about it for a moment.

It's a tedious subject because those that would like to believe it is a hoax cannot be convinced by any other proof than a trip to the moon, since everything is just hearsay. Nothing we can post on a forum will be convincing since it is all digital information liable to be tampered with.

By the same token, there isn't a single shred of evidence anyone will ever find off the net that supports the hoax theory either, but this doesn't dissuade people. It's more to do with a desire to believe in big conspiracies, than the moon landings themselves.

But it is revisionism with no foundation in fact. A simple application of Occam's Razor shows this. It would be harder to fake the moon landings than to actually do them.

http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/homepage.html is one of the hundreds of hoax debunking sites.

For those of you who actually believe it was a hoax, can you come up awith a single reliable piece of evidence that would even indicate that the moon landings were a hoax? And don't post some specious tinfoil hatted website link with grainy scans of magazine images....

It is established without question that something has been to the moon to bring back, over the whole apollo programme, half a ton or more of moon rock and dust.

And something planted all those laser reflectors used to measure the earth-moon distance.

This material has been cross checked with russian material also brough from the moon, and has been distributed to universities and laboratories all over the world for peer review and assessment. And not one scientist or academic has ever said:

"hey, this is plaster of paris!"

So something went to the moon and came back with this stuff, on more than one occasion.

Whatever you think of the moon landings from a political and scientific perspective, they were real. As real as the space shuttle and the ISS.

All you need to do is work out why you so badly want it to be a conspiracy that you will believe anything that suggests it may have been a hoax.

Most of the arguments for a hoax revolve around visual 'discrepancies' in the images from the first moon landing, as interpreted by people who really do not have a clue about light, optics, and distance cues in an airless environment.

I don't even care anymore. As you say, it's a tedious argument because it could never be proved either way. As for the "What would be the point?" argument, will everyone just STOP using that!! Of course there would have been a point in faking it!

The moon is quite clearly made of cheese. Where else do you think the super markets and local shops for local people get their stock from? Cows? That's just ridiculous. The Sea of Tranquillity is actually the Sea of Natural Greek Yoghurt - see, the ancient Greeks invented the moon in 2000 BC (Before [Muller Crunch] Corners), and left their mark on it, in the same way that producers of crockery left a stamp on the bottom of a plate so the guys and gals on the BBC's Antiques Roadshow could identify it.

The preview of the moon conspiracy which is being broadcast tonight on c5 @ 9pm has a song on it which ive heard before but never known who its by or what its called? anyone know the song name?

Exactly what conspiracy is there about the Moon?? Is there not one????..unless you mean Moon Landings conspiracy :thumbsup:

Keep an eye open for the bit about the cross hairs on the camera lenses being BEHIND the images photographed.

I don't have Channel 5, but if that music is from Richard Strauss' music version of Also Sprach Zarathustra then I won't be surprised.

I think no one ever went to the moon and it was all done in a studio.
My sons think i`m being a bit negative but if people have been there why with all our techniology have we not got people on there now

I was only little when the moon landing happened but tell people anything then and i`m sure they would have believed it.

I'm with you there rosie.

No doubt there'll be a big discussion on here after the prog.

Should be an interesting few days.

the best bits are the flag fluttering in the wind...in zero gavity, hehe

Also, proffesional photographers reckon theres no way a spaceman with huge clumsy gloves on could have operated a camera well enough to take pics that are that well contructed

There's loads reasons why its fake

My fave space fact ever tho is that one about the americans spending millions of dollars on a pen that works in a zero gravity environment....the Russians used a pencil. I hope that's true.

Sounds about right, boyface:thumbsup:

I think it was a studio set up too.
Shadows and wind and all that. I will watch with interest, 8)

It's amazing the effects you can get with people jumping around and dust falling by slowing down a piece of film to 1/6 normal speed.

Originally posted by wibbles
Exactly what conspiracy is there about the Moon?? Is there not one????..unless you mean Moon Landings conspiracy :thumbsup:

Yea well. I couldnt think of the programme name off the top of my head. Ive watched something similar to this on the Discovery Channel several years ago. Might be the same stuff again but we'll see.

I think Rosies comments are very true. With all the advances in technology from 1969 to 2004 why havnt we returned to the moon?! Why has the attention shifted from the moon to mars when its far cheaper and easier ( I presume to get to the moon )
Why dont we give the Armstrong guy a lie detector test and ask him several questions and see how he does ;)

Of course man landed on the moon.

To clear up some specific points raised here:

Keep an eye open for the bit about the cross hairs on the camera lenses being BEHIND the images photographed.

Bad: Crosshairs were etched in the astronauts' cameras to better help measure objects in the pictures. However, in several images, it looks like the objects are actually in front of the crosshairs, which is impossible if the crosshairs were inside the camera! Therefore, the images were faked.

Good: This argument is pretty silly. Do the HBs think that NASA had painted crosshairs on the set behind the astronauts? I heard one HB claim the crosshairs were added later on, and NASA had messed up some of the imaging. That's ridiculous! Why add in crosshairs later? Cameras equipped with crosshairs have been used for a long time, and it would have been easy to simply use some to take pictures on the faked set. Clearly, the HBs are wrong here, but the images do look funny. What happened?

What happened becomes clearer when you look more closely at the images. The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair (because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too. That's all that happened here; the white object in the image ``fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography.

[Note (added February 18, 2001): I have been informed by David Percy, a photographer quoted in the Fox show, that he does indeed believe that man went to the Moon, but he believes there are anomalies in the imagery taken which ``put into question many aspects of the missions'', which is a different matter. While I disagree that there are anomalies, I have edited out what is essentially a personal attack on Mr. Percy that I had here originally. It is an easy matter to let one's emotions get carried away when writing these essays, and I apologize to him and my readers for letting that get in. I make it a policy to correct Bad Astronomy based on facts, not personalities.]

the best bits are the flag fluttering in the wind...in zero gavity, hehe

Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.

Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?

The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!

Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.

Also, proffesional photographers reckon theres no way a spaceman with huge clumsy gloves on could have operated a camera well enough to take pics that are that well contructed

Bad: The program makes a big deal out of how well the pictures taken from the Moon were exposed and set. Every picture we see is just right, with the scene always centered perfectly. However, the cameras were mounted on the front of the astronauts' spacesuit, and there was no finder. They couldn't have taken perfect pictures every time!

Good ... and of course, no one claims they did. Thousands of pictures were taken on the Moon, and the ones you see will tend to be the good ones. If Buzz Aldrin accidentally cut off Neil Armstrong's head, you probably won't see that image in a magazine. Also, everything done on the Moon was practiced endlessly by the astronauts. The people working on the mission knew that these pictures would be some of the most important images ever taken, so they would have taken particular care in making sure the astronauts could do it cold. When fabled astronaut Story Musgrave replaced a camera on board the Hubble Space Telescope in 1993, someone commented that he made it look easy. "Sure," he replied, "I had practiced it thousands of times!"

The program goes farther than this, though: they actually contacted the man who designed the cameras for the astronauts. When they asked him why the pictures were always perfect, he hemmed and hawed, and finally admitted he had no answer for that. This is hardly evidence that NASA must have faked the missions. All it means is that he couldn't think of anything while sitting on camera! I think this is pretty evil of the program producers to do this; a bit of editing on their part makes it looks like they completely baffled an expert.


All quotes taken from the excellent Bad Astronomy (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) website, which debunks EVERY claim made in the program.


Susie

Capricorn One (http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page=title&r=R2&title=158474) is one excellent film revolving around faked landings, with a fantastic cameo role by Telly Savalas. And at £4.99 delivered you can't go wrong.

So do you think the Appollo missions actually landed on the moon or not?

Of course they happened.


Susie

Given that my last name's Moon, this whole discussion brings up a load of personal innuendos. I'd say Yes though, as I'm not a cynic and I don't really care less - I'm happy to be spoonfed the news that they did get there, good for them.

Threads merged

Did we land?

I'm sure I didn't. I would have remembered. Some of you lot seem to have been to the moon and back.

After seeing last night's programme and Nasa's answers to the critics I believe that they did actually land on the moon.

I was a doubter, but most of NASA's answers made sense. Still not 100% convinced yet though.

I think I pretty much believe that we did now.

It's amazing how my opinion can be so radically altered by 1 hour of television. :loopy:

check this link to see the REAL moon story.


Click here (http://www.computerpranks.com/download/images/bart-moon.gif)

I liked the closing line...

"When you look a all the things needed to maintain a conspiracy, wouldn't it just be easier to build a rocket and go to the moon"

:thumbsup:

I still think the most likely thing is they went to the moon, got some lousy pictures so someone faked up a few for the sake of PR!

Some of the pictures are definately faked, I have no doubt about that.

Originally posted by evildrneil
I still think the most likely thing is they went to the moon, got some lousy pictures so someone faked up a few for the sake of PR!

There are 32,000 pictures taken by manned moon missions, on hasselblad medium format camras with colour and B&W film.

Sidla, I'd be interested in which pictures you think are fake.

why bother with fake pics, when so many are of such excellent quality and clarity.

take a look at the book "Full Moon" which is just colour plates of several hundred of these pictures. ISBN 0-224-06304-9

For those of you that think the landings were faked, never happened etc, then I am very happy to go through every single piece of evidence you cite and hopefully demonstrate to you why it does not constitute the evidence you seem to think it does.

Originally posted by Sidla
Some of the pictures are definately faked, I have no doubt about that.


I'd love to hear something to back this up, especially if they are "definately" [sic] faked.



Susie, who hopes you won't pull out the flag photos, or the "he'd cut the top of his head off" ones

Perhaps we might learn more from the Japanese Selene mission. If this involves extensive photographing of the moon then we should be able to see the old US flags, the Rovers and some launch bases. :o

Originally posted by Lickszz
Perhaps we might learn more from the Japanese Selene mission. If this involves extensive photographing of the moon then we should be able to see the old US flags, the Rovers and some launch bases. :o

That IS funny. The Japanese are going to launch a multi billion yen mission and you want them to look out for flags and tonka toys? I can see them going for that one.

Originally posted by alchresearch
Capricorn One (http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page=title&r=R2&title=158474) is one excellent film revolving around faked landings, with a fantastic cameo role by Telly Savalas. And at £4.99 delivered you can't go wrong.

yea good film that

i'm (like most things) relatively non-plussed about whether they landed or not - the aspect that interests/intrigues me the most from the 'fake corner' is the sheer scale and cover-up it would take to facilitate such a deceit - some posts refer to around 10,000 people being involved. get real. would only take one whistleblower (to coin a phrase currently doing the rounds)with credentials and they'd have come forward by now. unless of course there were only few operational people invloved that sought to decive their colleagues

now a topic far more worthy of debate is whether barry manilow's nose is real or whether it is fake - substitute political gain (ref vietnam, space race etc) for media gain, then you have your justification

one voice singing in the darkness all it takes is one voice - c'mon kids you know the words :D

Originally posted by max
That IS funny. The Japanese are going to launch a multi billion yen mission and you want them to look out for flags and tonka toys? I can see them going for that one.

I think the mission involves imaging pretty much the entire surface using several sections of the EM spectrum.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think the mission involves imaging pretty much the entire surface using several sections of the EM spectrum.

Oh, didn't realise that. Still, someone would need to scan every image looking for a flag or RC car unless they have very sophisticated software which can detect these things.

it's undoubtably a conspiracy...and here's my proof. NASA will go to any lengths to cover it up....even if it means deploying an agent under the name SusieP to post on the sheffieldforum to stop us pesky kids getting to the bottom of this cooky spooky mystery

I've got your card SusieP...you darn double crossing undercover NASA secret agent you

And we would have done it too if it hadn't been for you meddling boyface!

Apparently the Hubble can only see objects on the Moon that are a minimum of 30m across. That's still pretty amazing I suppose though.

Originally posted by max
Oh, didn't realise that. Still, someone would need to scan every image looking for a flag or RC car unless they have very sophisticated software which can detect these things.
well they pretty much know exactly where the rover and modules are sited, and pretty much everything else that has been left up there, to the nearest half meter or so.

Presuming they will take a miilimetric wave radar image, then things as small as 1cm will show up nicely, and they are bound to look for these things if they are able to.

The moon is an astounding resource that we can perhaps use internationally for the benefit of humanity, if we can somehow stop the ever progressing militarization of space.

Burt Rutan is going a long way towards that goal - more power to his elbow.

The moon is the ideal spacecraft launch point, much, much cheaper than getting things off the earth.

On the moon we can build truly gigantic space structures in low gravity and hard vacuum. No clean room necessary (although fine moon dust does get everwhere, it settles pretty quick)

The moon would provide the perfect asteroid refinery base, and presumably, tax haven (although I suspect taxes may be quite high, considering the cost of public services like water and oxygen).

Also the first person to plant a networked computer on the moon may well make a lot of money.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The moon would provide the perfect asteroid refinery base, and presumably, tax haven (although I suspect taxes may be quite high, considering the cost of public services like water and oxygen). Blimey, council tax and water rates on the Moon. :roll: I wonder if Sheffield Council will provide the sports facilities?

surely rupert murdoch or donald trump or gatesy or someone owns the moon now anyway

No one owns the moon.

AFAIK International Space Law sees to that.

However having people on the moon, means you do effectively take possession of it.

lighten up man. your a twit anyone with half a brain maybe even you knows noone does. or does donald trump own you too.

fyi about space law etc.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/spacelaw.htm

Originally posted by SusieP
I'd love to hear something to back this up, especially if they are "definately" [sic] faked.



Susie, who hopes you won't pull out the flag photos, or the "he'd cut the top of his head off" ones
I can't be arsed rooting through all the old stuff now, but the pictures I saw were the ones that made me believe the landings were faked in the first place. There was a few different photographs which were supposed to be completely different locations, but they were quite clearly exactly the same place.

They may not be photographs that NASA claim are genuine though. If they are then they are either faked or not of what NASA claim them to be of.

But if they are "definately" fake, then you could make millions from exposing this. If you "can't be arsed" though. I'm disappointed, actually, I was hoping for a more stimulating discussion with you.


Susie

Originally posted by Sidla
I can't be arsed rooting through all the old stuff now, but the pictures I saw were the ones that made me believe the landings were faked in the first place. There was a few different photographs which were supposed to be completely different locations, but they were quite clearly exactly the same place.

They may not be photographs that NASA claim are genuine though. If they are then they are either faked or not of what NASA claim them to be of.

that sounds more like a labelling issue to me (photos being labelled incorrectly)

Sid, think of it like this...

Stand in fropnt of a mountain range and take a snap. Then move a hundred yards to the left or right and take another snap. The view is the same even though you are in a totally different place.

The Moon has a strange foreshortening effect because of the crystal clear atmosphere.

Originally posted by SusieP
But if they are "definately" fake, then you could make millions from exposing this. If you "can't be arsed" though. I'm disappointed, actually, I was hoping for a more stimulating discussion with you.


Susie
It's already been exposed. I think I may have posted some links earlier on in the topic, but as I said I can't be arsed to look because I'm on dial-up and I'm not bored enough.

Phan or Tony's explainations will do me for now though.

Originally posted by max
That IS funny. The Japanese are going to launch a multi billion yen mission and you want them to look out for flags and tonka toys? I can see them going for that one.

What is even funnier is the fact that you may be able to buy an A-Z of the moon for £4.99. ;)

Nope - we did not land on the moon.

The flag 'flapping' proves this to me and also the other evidence thats around as well.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
Nope - we did not land on the moon.



Of course we didn't. Green cheese would never support the weight of the spacecraft.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
Nope - we did not land on the moon.

The flag 'flapping' proves this to me and also the other evidence thats around as well.

Does the flag flap when they are not moving it? no

Does the flag flap as they manouevre it into position - yes.

Is this surprising?
no.

Mine's a "yes". And a bit of a yawn to go with it. This stuff was being touted way back in the mid seventies when I was a wee sprog. The deeper you look into it, the more the conspiracy evidence seems to crumble. Having said that, the evidence also seems to show that a small selection of photographs were staged, presumably for propaganda reasons.

Originally posted by Ant
Mine's a "yes". And a bit of a yawn to go with it. This stuff was being touted way back in the mid seventies when I was a wee sprog. The deeper you look into it, the more the conspiracy evidence seems to crumble. Having said that, the evidence also seems to show that a small selection of photographs were staged, presumably for propaganda reasons.
which ones?

I have a book of hi quality prints from the original nasa negs.

:D how is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage?

Originally posted by fridgeman
:D how is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage?

brilliant - lol

Apparently when Neil Armstrong made his first moon walk (1969) he made the immortal speech about 'one step for man' etc. As he climbed back into the LEM he was heard to mutter "Good luck Mr Gorsky". The NASA people thought he was referring to a Russian cosmonaut or something, though there was no cosmonaut of that name.

Neil A would never talk about this at the many press conferences he had over the years after - just smiling and changing the topic.

Recently, after Mr Gorsky's death, he let slip the reason.

When he was a young boy he climbed into Mr & Mrs Gorsky's yard to get a ball back. From the bedroom window he heard Mrs Gorsky shouting at her husband, "Sex, you want sex, you'll get sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!".

Hence 'Good luck Mr Gorsky'.

If we did land on the moon, can anyone explain how they managed to get past the Terrahawks Zeriod space defences?

Originally posted by Tony
Sid, think of it like this...

The Moon has a strange foreshortening effect because of the crystal clear atmosphere.

I don't think the Moon has an atmoshere, - but we know what you mean :D

Originally posted by Killian
If we did land on the moon, can anyone explain how they managed to get past the Terrahawks Zeriod space defences?

They were just Russian propoganda, and anyway I thought it was the Americans who landed on the Moon, - or did I miss something ? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Greybeard
and anyway I thought it was the Americans who landed on the Moon, - or did I miss something ? :rolleyes:

As the moon is another planet (and don't go all pedantic on me, I know it's a satellite), I was speaking for the whole of earthkind (Armstrong made a giant leap for 'Mankind' not America). Hope that clears things up. Unless, of course, you're an alien then I apologise for including you.

Originally posted by Killian
Unless, of course, you're an alien then I apologise for including you.

No need to apologise...I think I probably am an alien :P

By the way, we defineately landed on the moon, I have no doubt about it.

SIDLA

:D is it really made of cheese then?

TAMPA, FL -- When Apollo Mission Astronaut Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," statement but followed it up with several remarks to the other astronauts and Mission Control.


Just before he re-entered the lander, however, he made the enigmatic remark, "Good luck Mr. Gorsky." Many people at NASA thought it was a remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut.


However, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs. Over the years, many people questioned Armstrong as to what the "Good luck Mr. Gorsky" statement meant, but Armstrong always just smiled.


This past Monday, June 27, 2005 at the University of Tampa in Florida, while answering questions following a speech, a student brought up the 36-year-old question to Armstrong. This time he finally responded.


Armstrong explained, "When I was a kid, I was playing baseball [with a friend] in the backyard. He hit a fly ball that landed in the yard in front of my neighbor's bedroom windows. My neighbors were Mr. & Mrs. Gorsky. As I leaned down to pick up the ball, I heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at her husband, "You want oral sex?! You'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!"


At this remark, the audience - comprised primarily of college students - began laughing hysterically.

Do you know what?
With everything thats going on with this shuttle mess as well.. it would not at all surprise me if we did not land on the moon.

I mean, lets face it, they cant get a shuttle into space properly without bits dropping off all over the show so how the hell did they manage a more dangerous and more harder moon landing mission??

Smells funny to me methinks.

The unedited NASA film from the triumphant Apollo 11 mission
http://www.blogjam.com/neil_armstrong/

## NEEDS SOUND BUT NOT REALLY WORK SAFE (SWEARING) ##

Originally posted by Jon
TAMPA, FL -- When Apollo Mission Astronaut Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," statement but followed it up with several remarks to the other astronauts and Mission Control.


Just before he re-entered the lander, however, he made the enigmatic remark, "Good luck Mr. Gorsky." Many people at NASA thought it was a remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut.


However, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs. Over the years, many people questioned Armstrong as to what the "Good luck Mr. Gorsky" statement meant, but Armstrong always just smiled.


This past Monday, June 27, 2005 at the University of Tampa in Florida, while answering questions following a speech, a student brought up the 36-year-old question to Armstrong. This time he finally responded.


Armstrong explained, "When I was a kid, I was playing baseball [with a friend] in the backyard. He hit a fly ball that landed in the yard in front of my neighbor's bedroom windows. My neighbors were Mr. & Mrs. Gorsky. As I leaned down to pick up the ball, I heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at her husband, "You want oral sex?! You'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!"


At this remark, the audience - comprised primarily of college students - began laughing hysterically.

I thought that this myth had been debunked years ago. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by serapis
The unedited NASA film from the triumphant Apollo 11 mission
http://www.blogjam.com/neil_armstrong/

## NEEDS SOUND BUT NOT REALLY WORK SAFE (SWEARING) ##

Is this the Area 51 version???
:) LMAO!

With the shadows behind the lunar module?
Hmmm tells you summat right there methinks.

And the flapping american flag???

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Flags wave when you move them about, air or no air.

Think about it for a moment.

It's a tedious subject because those that would like to believe it is a hoax cannot be convinced by any other proof than a trip to the moon, since everything is just hearsay. Nothing we can post on a forum will be convincing since it is all digital information liable to be tampered with.

By the same token, there isn't a single shred of evidence anyone will ever find off the net that supports the hoax theory either, but this doesn't dissuade people. It's more to do with a desire to believe in big conspiracies, than the moon landings themselves.

But it is revisionism with no foundation in fact. A simple application of Occam's Razor shows this. It would be harder to fake the moon landings than to actually do them.

http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/homepage.html is one of the hundreds of hoax debunking sites.

For those of you who actually believe it was a hoax, can you come up awith a single reliable piece of evidence that would even indicate that the moon landings were a hoax? And don't post some specious tinfoil hatted website link with grainy scans of magazine images....

It is established without question that something has been to the moon to bring back, over the whole apollo programme, half a ton or more of moon rock and dust.

And something planted all those laser reflectors used to measure the earth-moon distance.

This material has been cross checked with russian material also brough from the moon, and has been distributed to universities and laboratories all over the world for peer review and assessment. And not one scientist or academic has ever said:

"hey, this is plaster of paris!"

So something went to the moon and came back with this stuff, on more than one occasion.

Whatever you think of the moon landings from a political and scientific perspective, they were real. As real as the space shuttle and the ISS.

All you need to do is work out why you so badly want it to be a conspiracy that you will believe anything that suggests it may have been a hoax.

Most of the arguments for a hoax revolve around visual 'discrepancies' in the images from the first moon landing, as interpreted by people who really do not have a clue about light, optics, and distance cues in an airless environment.

I followed the link above and read with interest the 'de-bunking' of the major theories.

I was quite taken with the explenation for the fluttering flag - the movement of the pole by the astronaut causing the effect etc.... and even more so by the decleration in the last line...

If you don't believe me then watch out for any film clips of the flag moving whilst not being touched. I haven't seen one yet, have you?

see this page (http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/flag_waving.html)

imagine my suprise then, when a few clicks later I found this image on the same webiste.....I've linked to the page so that I can't be accused of doctoring the picture myself.

see this page and click on big shadows at the top, the image is near the bottom of the page that loads (http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/imagebasics.html)

Anyway, just thought it was interesting.

And yes I know he specifically mentions video footage, but what difference would that make - others on here have already established that the flag needs to be held to move.
Our debunker actually contradicts himself here anyway - first of all he says the flag was made to appear as if it was flying, and then he says that you need a person holding the flagpole to create the effect.....

Wow cant take time to look at all the previous crap.

How old were you in 1969? If you were under the age of 10 then butt out!!! you weren't there and know what it meant. Did you watch it on TV? Did you question it then? Well dont question it now.

It was a mega stage in our lives.

We landed, read Buzz's account for goodnees sake.

Originally posted by Agent Dan
I had that explained to me by someone once. They claimed that the "official" first steps on the moon weren't actually the first (which is why you can see a random footprint in one shot) - but that they went outside to set up cameras and lights first.



The flag blowing in the wind is odd.

But if they were going to fake it you'd have thought they'd have filmed it 3 or 4 times to get it right, rather than releasing a version full of mistakes...

Its because when you knock the flag it moves. There is no friction to stop this happening once it starts. Hence the flag appears to being blown. But it isnt. It is just teh affects of the intial knock take a long time to dye down in the absence of air friction. I am sure if you google you can find all this info and more ...

i reckon they ( the usa ,not we uk) didnt land at the time specified,it was faked to score points during the space race,but i think they have landed since as technology has advanced more. one up manship at its best..

Originally posted by depoix
i reckon they ( the usa ,not we uk) didnt land at the time specified,it was faked to score points during the space race,but i think they have landed since as technology has advanced more. one up manship at its best..

No, I don't think they landed on it when they said they did either. It was sooo important for them to 'beat the Russians'.

It was when they speeded up the film that got me. They looked like they were just taking a run and jump in the park. Also the photo light reflections/shadows, and the operation of the camera with those huge gloves on. Among other things.

As to whether they've landed since - f**k knows! They could show me a piece of molten lava and tell me its from the Moon - how the hell would I know?

Great way of milking funds and re-directing them - to god knows where - tho.


I voted 'no'.

I remain sceptical.

I still think its a big fake..

Whats the excuse then for the shadows behind the lander, and being able to see the astronaut climbing down the ladder in perfect lighting while being behind the shaded lander???

Its a load of old cack.

The US made it up to make out they had got their first, so the russians didnt win it.

It was filmed in Area 51 Im guessing as well.. as that seems to be a nicely hidden area full of craters surrounding it.

Check out Google Earth for PC and check out Area 51.

Originally posted by CaroleK
No, I don't think they landed on it when they said they did either. It was sooo important for them to 'beat the Russians'.

It was when they speeded up the film that got me. They looked like they were just taking a run and jump in the park. Also the photo light reflections/shadows, and the operation of the camera with those huge gloves on. Among other things.

As to whether they've landed since - f**k knows! They could show me a piece of molten lava and tell me its from the Moon - how the hell would I know?

Great way of milking funds and re-directing them - to god knows where - tho.

I remain sceptical.

Can you explain how the russions with their vast spy network never found out? I just dont see how they wouldnt have discovered the hoax and exposed it.

Originally posted by Tony
I thought that this myth had been debunked years ago. :rolleyes: If you had read my first post years ago Tony you would have known i wasn't being serious about the topic in the first place....

Of course, there are those conspiracy theorists who dare to explore even further. They claim that the real reason for faking the moon landings is that there isnt actually a Moon at all. The celestial body we have seen smiling benignly down upon us for so long is actually nothing more than an elaborate mock-up, and is in fact only a few hundred feet wide, and about a mile up. Probably suspended on strings or something. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
No one owns the moon.

AFAIK International Space Law sees to that.

However having people on the moon, means you do effectively take possession of it. how do we know no one owns it?was it armstrong that sent back the coded message "santa clause does exist" or is that an urban myth?

i cant see how earth politicians can make laws pertaining to something out in space, thats one big ego they have,"we rule everything"

Originally posted by nightrider
Can you explain how the russions with their vast spy network never found out? I just dont see how they wouldnt have discovered the hoax and exposed it.

What, and throw away all that leverage.

They were prob in on it. There's not as many enemies at the top as you think.

Originally, the U.S. Government was afraid of the socio-political aspects of Ivan reaching the moon first. But other members of Congress were thinking more on economic lines. They feared that if the Reds staked claim to the moon first, they would have an unlimited supply of green cheese, and could put a stranglehold on the World Cheese Market, holding it to ransom or controlling it completely. Which would have been disastrous, a bit like Goldfinger robbing Fort Knox in that book and film.

Of course, we know now that the Moon isnt made of cheese at all, but back then they didnt. Apparently. And they later found that there wasnt a man in it either. :hihi: still my favourite bit

Originally posted by Jon
If you had read my first post years ago Tony you would have known i wasn't being serious about the topic in the first place....
Apologies Jon :D

I do get so cross with conspiracists. Life really is a lot more simple than some people would like to believe. Human nature also makes it very very difficult to keep anything secret for any length of time.

All these anonymous internet forums, and not a single person who was involved has come forward. Moon landings, Diana, 9/11, 7/7, Atlantis, Yetis, etc, :D

www.snopes.com

USE IT!

Unfortunately I think that the sceptics will be unconvinced by the imagery we can expect in 2008 from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which will take in, amongst other things, all the Apollo landing sites at 50cm resolution - which is fine enough to detect the lunar rover, and also shadows from remaining objects, as well as the lunar lander platform, 9 meters in diameter.

If anyone has examined 'full moon', a book of high quality contact prints from the apollo missions, they would be in no doubt as to the reality of the moon landings.

The information gained from from the moon landings has been pored over by academics worldwide, and so has the material that they brought back, half a ton of it.

So, moon landing sceptics, would independently verified images of the remaining apollo equipment left on the moon assuage your doubt?

... after all, as was once said, if there really was a cover up and a faked moon landing then it was a tremendous waste of money...

... it would have been easier and cheaper to go to the Moon. :P

Originally posted by Tony
Apologies Jon :D

I do get so cross with conspiracists. Life really is a lot more simple than some people would like to believe. Human nature also makes it very very difficult to keep anything secret for any length of time.

All these anonymous internet forums, and not a single person who was involved has come forward. Moon landings, Diana, 9/11, 7/7, Atlantis, Yetis, etc, :D :D Tony Have you read my British Roswell report This is true too (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=833&highlight=the+british+roswell) and a load of bull too :hihi:

Originally posted by back2basics
www.snopes.com

USE IT!

Well that sites a load of tosh! That someone was motivated to produce a site that denounced such suspicions speaks volumes.

The sinking of the Titanic was an insurance job.

And the AIDS virus is, I think, a myth. The real killer is in the anti-viral drugs.

No-one has even been able to find the damn thing! They test for it by locating a particular enzyme. An enzyme which is also connected to other non-lethal infections. There are also different tests fior AIDS, depending on the country you're in and the lab you use.

And in the US in the seventies they called in all the local homosexuals and told them they were at risk of hepatitis and that they needed vaccinations. Six months later they were all diagnosed with AIDS.

So that was that group 'taken care of'. They figured no-one would GIVE a ****.

But I'm straying off topic.

' if there really was a cover up and a faked moon landing then it was a tremendous waste of money...' - Tony

Not if you wanted a good reason to divert the funds into other operations.

And no, Planerothyme, 'independently verified' images would not assuage my doubt.

They can be bought so easily, you see. :)

Originally posted by CaroleK
Well that sites a load of tosh! That someone was motivated to produce a site that denounced such suspicions speaks volumes.

The sinking of the Titanic was an insurance job.

And the AIDS virus is, I think, a myth. The real killer is in the anti-viral drugs.

No-one has even been able to find the damn thing! They test for it by locating a particular enzyme. An enzyme which is also connected to other non-lethal infections. There are also different tests fior AIDS, depending on the country you're in and the lab you use.

And in the US in the seventies they called in all the local homosexuals and told them they were at risk of hepatitis and that they needed vaccinations. Six months later they were all diagnosed with AIDS.

So that was that group 'taken care of'. They figured no-one would GIVE a f**k.

But I'm straying off topic.

' if there really was a cover up and a faked moon landing then it was a tremendous waste of money...' - Tony

Not if you wanted a good reason to divert the funds into other operations.

And no, Planerothyme, 'independently verified' images would not assuage my doubt.

They can be bought so easily, you see. :)

How do we know that YOU really exist Carole? For all we know you might just be part of a big conspiracy to undermine the forum by continually posting nonsense ;)

The problem is, we can doubt everything unless we actually experience it ourselves. Even then we can raise questions to our own existence being real. If we doubt everything that we have been taught, then we'll be in a lot of trouble. Our parents might not be our own, the moon may actually be made of cheese, the world may be flat etc...

I suppose we have to look at the evidence and make a leap of faith with everything that we are taught.

The reason the Americans didn't want to draw attention to the REAL moon is that Hitler and his entourage are living there , in a bunker.
Does anyone seriously think that old Adolf committed suicide in 1945 ?
A man who had just wedded his good lady wife ? Ridiculous !
The Americans agreed to spirit Hitler , Bormann , Goebbels and family there on the firm understanding that Hitler would never speak about the secret Hitler--Roosevelt deal , cobbled together in Geneva in '44. Have you noticed not a word about this conference has ever leaked out ? There you are then .
If the Chinese ever do land on the moon , they'll be in for a nasty shock , to find old Adolf , Martin .....et al....there , sitting at a table , slurping back steins of lager and talking about the good old days.

CaroleK,

Do you believe in ANYTHING? You're digging up that Sept 11th conspiracy on another thread and your now saying AIDS is a myth and The titanic sinking was a insurance job.

Stop watching Conspiracy theories on SKY!

I bet you where a blast in GCSE history lessons!

Now hold on there...

I too think the Titanic was a big insurance job gone wrong, it does not too to believe when you know a lot of the facts about the case.

September 11th- Im not too sure on myself.
Same as the AIDS one.

But landing on the moon, we have never landed on it.. sorry to say and as for Diana's crash.. well.

Too many things point to people wanting to rub her out- and I would not be at all surprised if she was pregnant with Dodi's kid.

quick answer,FAKE!!!! the flag moved even when no one was near it and i thought that there was no wind on the moon.

There is little gravity and no atmosphere either.

Set something wobbling, and it will carry on for a long time with zero atmospheric resistance until simple gravity pulls it straight.

Move along, nothing to see, no conspiracy here.

Originally posted by CaroleK
And no, Phanerothyme, 'independently verified' images would not assuage my doubt.

They can be bought so easily, you see. :)

That's what I mean, nothing would convince you. Even if you were given an all expenses paid trip to the moon, I imagine you would assert that it had all been set up prior to your arrival.

What the thinker thinks, the prover proves.

So presumably all 400kgs of moon rock collected by the apollo missions is fake as well? And so, presumably is the half ton or so of Soviet moonrock, which was clearly faked up in the same place as it is identical to the Apollo stuff.

And what was sending the signal from the moon at the time of the Apollo missions? Presumably the USA sent someone up there to pretend to be Neil Armstrong, who was actually faking it up on a soundstage in Area 51?

Occam's Razor is well applied here.

An all expenses paid trip to the Moon just might do it.

'Course I'd have to take my own cameras, witnesses, rock testing kit ... and a parachute, just in case they decide to blow it up en route. :)

Thing is, how would you know it was the actual moon, and not some cunningly desiged mockup?

Having spent years looking at this sort of stuff, here's what I think about the moon landings.

Please read the whole thing as some of it may surprise you!

1. The cross hairs on the photos going behind the image does not necessarily mean the image is fake. If the area the cross-hair goes behind is white, then it may simply be over-exposure bleaching out the lines on the negative.

2. The flag could have waived. It had a horizontal pole along the top edge to hold it out. This was quite springy, and as allready pointed out, would have kept moving for ages once set in motion.

So it looks like maybe we did actually go?

Hang on a mo.........!

What about the photos (allegedly taken miles apart) where the mountains in the background can be made to follow on when the pictures are put side by side?

What about the computers? The whole of NASA's computer centre in the 60's had less processing power than your mobile phone today. Considering they still have computer problems, do you really think they could have done it with 60's technology?

But the thing that convinces me most of all is the speed a de-bunking documentary was made to appear after the original conspiracy theory show. Why did this not debunk EVERY point made in the previous show in turn? Why were explanations not given for certain events?

There ARE people out there with the power to keep 10000 voices silent. They are the so called 'men in black'. You may laugh, but take a look through the TV archives for the episode of Shofield's Quest about the UFO's over Matlock. When you find it, then maybe I'll believe they're not wiping tapes and censoring history.

The mountain question (if I understand your point) is down to the foreshortening effect of the cameras.

As for computers, remember that Germany managed to produce quite accurate unmanned guided missiles in the 1940's (some 25 years before) that were cobbled together from no more than a few gyroscopes and timers.

We split the atom about the same time. Neither of those were faked ;)

I think this (http://www.spassmonkey.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/b3ta/images/moon_landing.jpg) clears it up once and for all.

Cheap space shuttle for Sale (http://www.randomfunnypictures.com/funny_pictures/482.jpg)

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I think this (http://www.spassmonkey.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/b3ta/images/moon_landing.jpg) clears it up once and for all. It's a thread about whether the Apollo missions were all hoaxed or not, and yet you manage to introduce another arse oriented post into the thread, in much the same way that american flag is jammed up the unfortunate model's anus.

Perhaps I'm obsessed:heyhey: :heyhey:

Originally posted by andy1702
But the thing that convinces me most of all is the speed a de-bunking documentary was made to appear after the original conspiracy theory show

Well considering the moon hoax was first popularised in the early 70s, and still, after 30 odd years of trying, no 'conpiracy theorist' has ever managed to collect enough proof that would pass muster with an inquisitive 12 year old, let alone a fully grown adult, I would consider the hoax story to be a hoax in itself.

There's no technology issue. The Russians were still using valves in their onboard computers aboard salyut 7, and as Joe rightly points out, German scientists (many coopted into NASA and ICBM projects by the USA) were highly successful in building both cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with no computers at all (apart from the rooms full of computers, sat at desks with handcranked calculators, writing numbers down for ballistics tables and the like).

The late 50s and early 60s saw the birth of space exploration, starting with sputnik - a beachball sized transmitter successfully put into earth orbit on top of a big rocket.

The beauty of astrogation is that there is no wind, no friction, and no current (unless you count solar wind, which can be handy for propulsion if your sail is *big* enough) - and so getting to the moon is delightfully simple. It's just a very long way.

Every single Apollo mission was tracked by amateurs all over the globe on standard radio frequencies, just like they had tracked sputnik with total amazement years earlier. Not one of them reported the signal as coming from Arizona, and all of them found the best signal to come from the direction of the moon.

Where did all the moon rock come from?

Who planted the laser reflectors that universities worldwide can use to measure the earth-moon distance? Goblins?

Originally posted by CaroleK
Well that sites a load of tosh! That someone was motivated to produce a site that denounced such suspicions speaks volumes.

The sinking of the Titanic was an insurance job.

And the AIDS virus is, I think, a myth. The real killer is in the anti-viral drugs.

No-one has even been able to find the damn thing! They test for it by locating a particular enzyme. An enzyme which is also connected to other non-lethal infections. There are also different tests fior AIDS, depending on the country you're in and the lab you use.

And in the US in the seventies they called in all the local homosexuals and told them they were at risk of hepatitis and that they needed vaccinations. Six months later they were all diagnosed with AIDS.

So that was that group 'taken care of'. They figured no-one would GIVE a ****.

But I'm straying off topic.

' if there really was a cover up and a faked moon landing then it was a tremendous waste of money...' - Tony

Not if you wanted a good reason to divert the funds into other operations.

And no, Planerothyme, 'independently verified' images would not assuage my doubt.

They can be bought so easily, you see. :)

Oh dear god, are you for real?

The proof is here at long last and all arguments are now settled.
http://www.brainsluice.com/miscellanea/misc/moonlanding.html

My only question is, how did the Astronaughts survive for more than a week, following passing through the "Van Halen Belt".

This "Van Halen Belt" stops too much Radiation from getting in to our Atmosphere. The Radiation is such that a man would die within a week, from Radiation sickness once they pass beyond this Belt.

Their is technology though that can pevent the Radiation from penetrating the Rocket. This technology goes somthing like this, 7 feet thick walls made from lead! (or is metres?)

Anyway this solution creates the problem of getting blasted in to space. You won't be able to create the thrust to get such a heavy rocket in to space.

This was the only anti-radiation technology they had in 1969. Now they may have better technology, that I don't know.

I do know that the original group of Astronaughts who landed on the Moon in 1969 are still alive now. So is the Radiation not as strong as Astronomers claim, are the Astronaughts immune to Radiation or was it a case of Capricorn One (Faked!).

I'l let you lot decide. I have my oppinions.

I like your theories on the subject.
like you say why is it going to take us over the next five years to get back when we have so much better technology now.:suspect:

Originally posted by wayne72
My only question is, how did the Astronaughts survive for more than a week, following passing through the "Van Halen Belt".

This "Van Halen Belt" stops too much Radiation from getting in to our Atmosphere. The Radiation is such that a man would die within a week, from Radiation sickness once they pass beyond this Belt.

There are 2 Van allen belts, the inner and outer as explained in this completely unbiased scientific explanation found here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

This explains easily, that because the spacecraft going to the moon were travelling at high speed, the amount of time that the spacecraft spent in the radiation belts, was limited. So therefore, the astronauts ony received a small fraction of the dose of radiation that would be needed to bring on radiation sickness.

But Van Halen Belts are totally different. They aren't hotbeds of radiation, they're rich seams of spandex.

I'm reminded of a comment that a former flatmate of mine made on this issue:

"If governments aren't capable of running health services and other public services effectively, there's no way they'd be capable of a cover-up this big"

:D

The people covering this up are NOT the government. We've all seen the movie Men In Black, but what you probably don't know is than amongst all the false reports and loony stories, someting not disimilar to them DOES actually exist.

Every now and again the occasional video tape from a TV archive getting a little too close to the truth goes missing. Or those claiming to have experienced something odd or know something become ridiculed by the manipulated members of society.

In the case of the moon landings, I'm not saying we didn't go. But what I am saying is that nobody WATCHED us go! Put yourself in the position of the American government for a moment. It's the height of the cold war, computers are in their infancy and television can achieve nothing more than fuzzy black & white pictures on a tiny screen. The race was on to get to the moon and everyone was being rushed. And when you are rushed, you tend to make mistakes.

So the possibility of those first missions ending in disaster with the death of the crews was very real indeed. Politically it was necessary to show the world this great American achievement of sending men to the moon. But the possibility of their deaths being broadcast live around the world was totally unacceptable.

And so as the world watched first hand a rocket blast off that really DID have men aboard heading for the moon (or at least space) an elaborate TV studio was gearing up for it's first live transmission from the capsule and then so-called lunar surface. Portraying the image of triumphant American science weather that was actually the case with the real mission or not.

Yes, there IS a laser reflector on the moon to this day which we can bounce beams off and proves that we were there. But had our real Astronoughts been killed on the journey, perhaps the first words we would have heard when our TV moon was reached would have not been "One small step...." but rarther "There is a problem with the laser reflector"?

What everyone forgets is that TV cameras at the time were large and heavy and confined to studios with flat reinforced floors. Outdoor work in that era was always done with smaller film cameras, not unlike the home movie cameras we used to have and indeed not unlike the small film cameras that went to the moon. So how did they get allegedly LIVE pictures back to us? How did they fit these primative TV cameras into the capsule? And if they were capable of producing small TV cameras, what was the point of taking film cameras along?

For every answer you get, there's always another question to ask.

You are wrong in every single thing that you say.

Van Allen's used to sell ladies shoes in Rotherham Town Centre when I was a kid.

Originally posted by shoeshine
Van Allen's used to sell ladies shoes in Rotherham Town Centre when I was a kid.
But not belts? Pity.

maybe he's branched out since then?

and no I don;t believe for one second we have landed on the moon.

Too young to go in the Van Allens Shop then.....ladies shoes were considered a bit racey in them days.....socks on piano legs etc

Of course we got a man on the Moon...... and George W. Bush is a peacemaker!:heyhey:

And all the crap the idiots have posted on here since my last post, just goes to show what a blinkered and stupid society we live in.

I guess you all just can't handle having to actually THINK about someting:P

I'm thinking B1.

Are you thinking B2?:hihi:

To Andy1702

I respect your integrity and concern about the world around us. I have 3 adult kids (oldest) aged 40, and two grandchildren aged 10 years each. I used to believe "THE SYSTEM" could be changed! I tried to do so in a small village community we lived in and it didn't work!

Hopefully it can in the future because we failed you and people like you. Our hopes lie in your youth and that of our children and their children.

Because we failed does not mean that you and good people like you cannot "CHANGE THE SYSTEM"!

We are just taking the advice of our children to just "Chill Out, Dad"

Apologies for getting too serious.

Just voted..... I don't believe the USA landed a man on the Moon in 1969.... only just had abacus and Slide Rules then. Clive Sinclair hadn't even got the Spectrum out.

Stayed up till 2am to watch black and white pictures on TV link !!! from USA. What a laugh.

How barmy and innocent we were in those days.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear.......the moon is made of cheese and SF forum members are made of cheese and.......oh dear oh dear it's all desperately sad

Originally posted by shoeshine
Just voted..... I don't believe the USA landed a man on the Moon in 1969.

Stayed up till 2am to watch black and white pictures on TV link !!! from USA. What a laugh.


What do you believe happened? Did humans ever land on the moon? What's the story?

Originally posted by andy1702
The people covering this up are NOT the government. We've all seen the movie Men In Black, but what you probably don't know is than amongst all the false reports and loony stories, someting not disimilar to them DOES actually exist.

Every now and again the occasional video tape from a TV archive getting a little too close to the truth goes missing. Or those claiming to have experienced something odd or know something become ridiculed by the manipulated members of society.

In the case of the moon landings, I'm not saying we didn't go. But what I am saying is that nobody WATCHED us go! Put yourself in the position of the American government for a moment. It's the height of the cold war, computers are in their infancy and television can achieve nothing more than fuzzy black & white pictures on a tiny screen. The race was on to get to the moon and everyone was being rushed. And when you are rushed, you tend to make mistakes.

So the possibility of those first missions ending in disaster with the death of the crews was very real indeed. Politically it was necessary to show the world this great American achievement of sending men to the moon. But the possibility of their deaths being broadcast live around the world was totally unacceptable.

And so as the world watched first hand a rocket blast off that really DID have men aboard heading for the moon (or at least space) an elaborate TV studio was gearing up for it's first live transmission from the capsule and then so-called lunar surface. Portraying the image of triumphant American science weather that was actually the case with the real mission or not.

Yes, there IS a laser reflector on the moon to this day which we can bounce beams off and proves that we were there. But had our real Astronoughts been killed on the journey, perhaps the first words we would have heard when our TV moon was reached would have not been "One small step...." but rarther "There is a problem with the laser reflector"?

What everyone forgets is that TV cameras at the time were large and heavy and confined to studios with flat reinforced floors. Outdoor work in that era was always done with smaller film cameras, not unlike the home movie cameras we used to have and indeed not unlike the small film cameras that went to the moon. So how did they get allegedly LIVE pictures back to us? How did they fit these primative TV cameras into the capsule? And if they were capable of producing small TV cameras, what was the point of taking film cameras along?

For every answer you get, there's always another question to ask.

I'm sorry, but that's all pure speculation, frankly it doesn't make any sense at all and you are completely and utterly WRONG. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by andy1702
And all the crap the idiots have posted on here since my last post, just goes to show what a blinkered and stupid society we live in.

I guess you all just can't handle having to actually THINK about someting:P

There's nothing wrong with thinking and journeying within your mind, as long as you keep a grip on reality, and don't rationalise eveything to match up with your delusions. There, I THOUGHT about that reply.........:thumbsup:

Originally posted by shoeshine
Just voted..... I don't believe the USA landed a man on the Moon in 1969.... only just had abacus and Slide Rules then. Clive Sinclair hadn't even got the Spectrum out.

Stayed up till 2am to watch black and white pictures on TV link !!! from USA. What a laugh.

How barmy and innocent we were in those days.

Love the Clive Sinclair reference. Incidently the computers used to Land the on the Moon were bigger than houses and less powerfull than a Speccy. I know I wouldn't have put my trust in a Speccy to get me on the Moon and Home :loopy:

Ah, that's because right up to the 1970's scientists, astronauts, pilots, adventurers generally put all their trust in the individual and collective neural computers that were in use at the time.

They gave better results than digital computers, just like they do today when it comes to analysing the more complex problems.

Originally posted by Tony
Ah, that's because right up to the 1970's scientists, astronauts, pilots, adventurers generally put all their trust in the individual and collective neural computers that were in use at the time.

They gave better results than digital computers, just like they do today when it comes to analysing the more complex problems.

When asked why they persisted in sending humans into space, one NASA spokesman obvserved:

"They are the most powerful parallel processing device capable of being mass produced by unskilled labour"

Of course, not all units are up to the same standard.

Comparisons with a speccy are pointless, as the computers were dedicated to a single task.Like the 'bombe' at Bletchley (bult before 1945!) , it may have been composed of vacuum tubes and whatnot, but at it's given task it was faster than a microprocessor.

And the hoax is so diffuse as to not even represent a target for debunking. Some people believe we never went to the moon, others that we did, but later. The hoax theorists have yet to decide what the hoax actually was.

As I recall, at the time of the reported first Moon Landing by Apollo 11, the good ole US of A was in the middle of the conflict in Vietnam. 100's of their best citizens were dying there daily, and many more were returning home with desperate life-long wounds.

The student campuses were on fire with protests about segregation between black Americans and white Americans and the continuing war in 'Nam. The citizenry of the country had woken up at last to the pointlessness and personal cost of of it all.

To quote, in juxtaposition, reportedly, a politician saying in the New Labour Government here after 9/11....." Today is a good day to bury Bad News". Perhaps in July 1969 there was a good day to report Good News

Maybe they did achieve a Moon Landing in July 1969, I don't know, but I am sure the American people needed some startling news just then the shore up old Uncle Sam.

Anyone watching space cadets???

There was a guy on the E4 show after it the other day, who believes we never landed on the moon, hes a photographer, and expert in spotting fake photo's, he was looking at lunar landing pics and explaining how they could not have been taken on the moon... VERY strong evidence, and perfectly understandable..

I saw this site once how they took "fake" lunar landing pictures...

they actually copied the scenes from the most famous pictures, and re-constructed them somewhere in a desert, when you looked at both the original, and thier re-constructed ones, you couldnt tell the difference at-all, (cept for maybe a few little details on certain items, such as the suits)

The famous one with the flag stuck in the moon... How is it waving and rippling?? "THERES NO WIND ON THE MOON"??

Any ways... :)

Ghozer, if you really believe what you say, just read the whole of this thread when you have a spare half hour. the "famous one" about the flag is the simplest to debunk to be honest.

Hopefully it will make a lot of sense to you.

Everything you mention is clearly and sanely explained, using logic and physics, not the neurotic ramblings of hoax alchemists.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Ghozer
Anyone watching space cadets???

There was a guy on the E4 show after it the other day, who believes we never landed on the moon, hes a photographer, and expert in spotting fake photo's, he was looking at lunar landing pics and explaining how they could not have been taken on the moon...

Have you ever seen a book called "Full Moon".

It has some of the tens of thousands of frames taken over all the Apollo missions that landed on the moon. Are they all fakes?

As far as hoax theories go, most of them would actually be more difficult to execute than an actual moon landing. Why bother hoaxing when it's easier to do the real thing?

It's easier to do it now perhaps, but it wasn't then

The first moon landing is a big fake- people still fall for it now :)

Originally posted by shoeshine
It's easier to do it now perhaps, but it wasn't then

Really? Do please expand on that.

Photography was in it's infancy in about 1860's I believe.

By 1969 it had more than a century of development.

It wasn't difficult in 1969, given the 9 years after JFK's declaration to put a man on the Moon, and 5 years or so after the start of the Vietnam conflict to shoot 1000's of posed photos with appropriate stage sets, camera operators, an unlimited budget etc to give the impression of a succes in anything.

Same with the splashdown...think about how you would do it, if necessary.......easy in a film set,not in real life.

Getting humans onto the surface of the Moon in the first place, and then more incredibly getting them back up to the Command Module, negotiating attachment to and ingress into the CM safely, re-entry into the Earth orbit and subsequent splashdown near a ship....all without harm to the Crew, and without the back-up of modern day technology would have been unbelievable at that time.

The programmes on television were much better then, as well





:hihi:

Originally posted by shoeshine


Getting humans onto the surface of the Moon in the first place, and then more incredibly getting them back up to the Command Module, negotiating attachment to and ingress into the CM safely, re-entry into the Earth orbit and subsequent splashdown near a ship....all without harm to the Crew, and without the back-up of modern day technology would have been unbelievable at that time.

So if you went to the moon today - would you be the first ever visitor from this planet?

i.e. Would you be able to find any trace of human activity there?

I have no doubt that the USA did land on the Moon, but I have doubts about their doing it in 1969, for the reasons I have given in previous responses.

I truly have the greatest respect for all the Americans involved in the Space Programme from inception until now, those who have been to the Lunar Surface, and particularly those great men and women of all nations who have sacrificed their lives for the advancement of humanity and the Space Sciences.

What could be a more noble cause? They should never be forgotten by the rest of the plebs like me!

Originally posted by shoeshine
I have no doubt that the USA did land on the Moon, but I have doubts about their doing it in 1969, for the reasons I have given in previous responses.

So which Apollo mission do you think was actually the first one to reach the moon?

I've no idea.......you tell me!

How many people do you think it took to execute this amazing hoax? There isnt enough money in the world to keep that many people from telling the truth.

Originally posted by shoeshine
I've no idea.......you tell me!

OK - Apollo 11

simple.

OK you win......I didn't stay up till 2.00 am in July 1969 for nothing then.

That's a relief.

Your still wrong though.......money can buy anything if patriotism and the Official Secrets Acts are Draconian enough.

Patriotism in the US has never been in short supply since 1776.

Originally posted by shoeshine
OK you win......I didn't stay up till 2.00 am in July 1969 for nothing then.

That's a relief.

Your still wrong though.......money can buy anything if patriotism and the Official Secrets Acts are Draconian enough.

Patriotism in the US has never been in short supply since 1776.

I had the benefit of it being broadcast during my 6th Form English lesson, in NZ I hasten to add. :D

The one thing the USA has really not been short of ever is money driven traitors. So in the several hundred people required to stage such a scam you don't think just a few would be tempted by international fame by exposing the hoax?

No.. I wouldn't sell my country for money.... would you?

Its all gone quiet

how many people would have to be 'in on it' if it was a hoax? surely not 10000 as someone stated earlier?

Hiya Chickmonk.

Good to hear from you. My wife Babs says hello as well.

Keep watching this space. it could get interesting....in a pleasant way of course

Most people I've spoke to about this either believe or dis-believe outright. However I believe we did land on the moon, but not when everybody thought we did.

Imagine screening a "supposedly live broadcast from the moon" when anything could have happened. Take something like when Derren Brown "supposedly" played Russian roulette. It was not shown live incase the unthinkable had happened.

There is no-way that a couple of guys travelling to another planet would be shown on tv, in 2005... Let alone 1969!! :loopy:

As for saying that people could not keep anything that big a secret for almost forty years is just being naive. Secrets just as big are being kept from us on a daily basis. It's a very sinister event, as are a lot of things to do with the government. And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the people involved would not dare admit the truth. :(

John posted this thread on 30/4/2004 and we are still chewing the fat!!

What a brilliant posting though.

SWFC00 you got it right man

Originally posted by SWFC00
It was not shown live incase the unthinkable had happened.
(

You mean like the challenger disaster was, broadcast live, worldwide?

This is 'soft' supposition.

The hard evidence is there. Man landed on the moon - we are (mostly) all agreed.

The question is when. Why not 1969?

The Challenger Disaster happened in 1986.

At that time NASA were showing everything via Live Feeds on TV from Cape Canvaral, or Cape Kennedy... whatever its name was then, to World TV Networks.

The result for the astronauts was catastrophic, and for their families, friends and the US people absolutely tragic.

Why did it happen?........ pressure from the funding side of the US Government to get a result? We know that the launcher was left in adverse temperature conditions on the launch pad, we know that because of this and other possible manufacturing and inspection shortcomings, financing shortcuts etc. the seals failed on the Launch Rocket. We know that some of America's greatest died in full view of their proud families and friends. You can't cover that up at any price!

To the credit of the USA they didn't even try to do that, ....it was an impossible task.

You are welcome to your beliefs! I insist on being a sceptic until proved wrong.

Its gone quiet again.

Perhaps I should be watching Most Haunted again

The question is when. Why not 1969?

Because I don't believe it was 1969. I don't have an exact date in mind. But I personally don't believe it was that early. If at all.
I sometimes think people are too eager to believe what they
are told, no questions asked.

Originally posted by shoeshine
We know that some of America's greatest died in full view of their proud families and friends. You can't cover that up at any price!

To the credit of the USA they didn't even try to do that, ....it was an impossible task.
Hang on a moment. You are actually saying that it is impossible to cover up a failed seal, but easy to cover up faking a moon landing?

Are you serious? Do you watch lots of horror movies?

Originally posted by shoeshine
You are welcome to your beliefs! I insist on being a sceptic until proved wrong.
No, as a sceptic about an actual event you have to prove yourself right. You cannot do that.

You seem to easily deny real evidence and first hand accounts, but are quite happy to accept the worst scientific conclusions since the flat earth was touted.

Life is simple. There are no international conspiracies. There are no new world orders. There are no aliens in the Whitehouse. The Queen is not a reptilian. There are no satellites controlling your thoughts.

People are creative and stupid in equal measure.

Originally posted by shoeshine
John posted this thread on 30/4/2004 and we are still chewing the fat!!

What a brilliant posting though. :suspect: and did you read what i put and did you take it serious.

Originally posted by SWFC00
Because I don't believe it was 1969. I don't have an exact date in mind. But I personally don't believe it was that early. If at all.
I sometimes think people are too eager to believe what they
are told, no questions asked.

So you aren't sure when men landed on the moon, or if they did at all?

Does that means there must be a cover up?

Jon

Of course I read your first post in your thread.

Belief or disbelief is irrelevant. As I said in my previous reply you started a great thread which. by its nature stimulates much discussion and debate from both sides of the question posed.

Tony

Hang on a moment. You are actually saying that it is impossible to cover up a failed seal, but easy to cover up faking a moon landing?

Please read my posting accurately...I never suggested that the failure of the seals on Challenger had been subject to an attempt to cover up.

No, as a sceptic about an actual event you have to prove yourself right. You cannot do that.

The Sceptic, by definition,has nothing to prove... its the Believer who bears the burden of Proof to the Sceptic. Do you not agree?

So you aren't sure when men landed on the moon, or if they did at all?

No I am not sure when man landed on the moon. But as I have yet to be confronted with indisputable proof one way or the other, I obviously cannot say "Man did definitely land on the moon". Just as I cannot say "Man did definitely not land on the moon"!

Does that means there must be a cover up?

Of course not! However with the information available, I am swayed to believe that there was a cover up. On what scale,
I personally would not like to say without further information. However I expect this "information" will never become available. Certainly not in my lifetime.

SWFC00

I think perhaps we are of like minds in many ways

To be honest I don't care whether they landed on the Moon or not.

It doesn't and hasn't changed my life in the slightest..... just spent my time bringing up family and helping now with our Grandchildren.

Nice to know that there are people out there like you who intellectually challenge the likes of the spin doctors etc who put c**p out to an innocent, well meaning public which believes whatever they are told. I have got sick of this thread cos I don't want to be known as an awkward old b**ger. This time it seems to be getting personal and this is not what SF is about. Surely we can all be pals together, chit chat together, and enjoy the great humour that flows from less serious people on these forums.

Thanks again mate....keep looking sideways, but always but don't step out in front of a bus doing it!! See you on other topics sometime.

Originally posted by shoeshine
Please read my posting accurately...I never suggested that the failure of the seals on Challenger had been subject to an attempt to cover up.
No, you seem to suggest that you couldn't cover up a failed seal, therefore nobody tried.

I propose that it is a darned sight easier to cover up a failed seal than to enlist tens of thousands of people over a 15 year period to agree to the same hoax :)


Originally posted by shoeshine
The Sceptic, by definition,has nothing to prove... its the Believer who bears the burden of Proof to the Sceptic. Do you not agree?
I think you have it the wrong way around there. Sceptics tend to question the hoax's, not the truth :P

It is you who proposes an alternative truth in the face of overwhelming evidence, not me.

I have already told you that a Sceptic does not have to prove anything........the ball is in your court......the Believer has to prove it to the Sceptic every time (look in the Oxford Dictionary for definitions of both word concepts). Belief (faith) is in the eyes of the beholder....any faith, about anything.

Anyway Tony I really do not want to pursue this further because I respect your beliefs, so as I just said, on my last posting, I do not want to spoil these Forums by argument.

You are welcome to your beliefs, I remain a Sceptic and proud of it.

SWFC00 I think perhaps we are of like minds in many ways

To be honest I don't care whether they landed on the Moon or not.

It doesn't and hasn't changed my life in the slightest..... just spent my time bringing up family and helping now with our Grandchildren.

Nice to know that there are people out there like you who intellectually challenge the likes of the spin doctors etc who put c**p out to an innocent, well meaning public which believes whatever they are told. I have got sick of this thread cos I don't want to be known as an awkward old b**ger. This time it seems to be getting personal and this is not what SF is about. Surely we can all be pals together, chit chat together, and enjoy the great humour that flows from less serious people on these forums.

Thanks again mate....keep looking sideways, but always but don't step out in front of a bus doing it!! See you on other topics sometime.

I could'nt agree more mate! :thumbsup:

The reasonings behind faking the moon landings are glaringly obvious to anyone who refuses to be spoon-fed their "knowledge" by the mass media.

There WAS a mission to the moon and there WAS an intense race to prove capitalist superiority over the "red manace". To prove to the masses that capitalism is the way to glorious progress and communism was doomed to hacking away at meagre crops with a sickle, the race to the moon HAD to be won.

Consider then, that Neil Armstrong was not a famous face until AFTER the televisual feast of "landing on the moon". He was simply the face of the mission though.

HE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON.

Neil Armstrong is simply a mission figurehead. The US was not ready to admit defeat in their attempts to reach the moon - so whether the moon was reached or not, Armstrong WAS destined to be a historical figure.

It was not Neil Armstrong that left the earth to walk on the moon. Though an unknown astronaut did. The intent and the technology was there to scrape such a momentous trip and come back covered in glory.

The Original poster joked about the green cheese race at the begining of this thread. The truth is not so far removed - but before you dismiss this theory I'm not suggesting that the moon and green cheese have anything in common- that would be silly

What really happened was an unfortunate accident. In normal situations this would have been a national tragedy and an official day of mourning designated to recognise the unfortunate heroes of this episode. But the cold war had no respect for the lives of a few - and face was not going to be lost. The moon landing newsreels were all ready before the coundown, ready in case any failure occured.

No-one envisiaged the catastrophic and tragic failure that befell the mission though - but still, the pre-prepared footage was released to the world to champion the US and Capitalism as victors over Communism, and of Space.

The unfortunates unaware of the "backup plans" reaching the moon found that the moon's solid surface, solid when cooled by space, when heated by the moon lander, became viscous. As the lander sank into the surface, trapping the craft and it's occupants in their celestial tomb, the discovery was made that the substance of the moon was not solid, but rather a slightly mouldy, cooled and solidified ball of philadelphia

Of course we went to the moon. Haven't you watched the 'The Dish'? Great film :D .
::wanders away::

What really happened was an unfortunate accident. In normal situations this would have been a national tragedy and an official day of mourning designated to recognise the unfortunate heroes of this episode. But the cold war had no respect for the lives of a few - and face was not going to be lost. The moon landing newsreels were all ready before the coundown, ready in case any failure occured.

I was going to keep out of this thread, but having just read the above ,it is becoming surreal!

Please, if you want to keep scepticism alive and well please let's be rational in our arguments.

I am not ready for the funny farm just yet.:hihi:

Originally posted by shoeshine
I was going to keep out of this thread, but having just read the above ,it is becoming surreal!

Please, if you want to keep scepticism alive and well please let's be rational in our arguments.

I am not ready for the funny farm just yet.:hihi:

This is partly the problem, whilst healthy skepticism about NASAs claims of 36 years go can be engaged with and argued to the mutual illumination of all, wingnut theories only serve to debase the skeptics position, and make rational debate almost impossible.

I grant you might be right on that one Phanerothyme.....

:thumbsup: we cant have been to the moon, there isnt a mc donalds:hihi:

Would a 20lb Rock appear so heavy on the Moon???

I don't know? do you?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6477886391235654973&q=faked+moon+landing

Originally posted by wayne72
Would a 20lb Rock appear so heavy on the Moon???

I don't know? do you?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6477886391235654973&q=faked+moon+landing

Does it appear heavy, he's holding it in one hand. When was the last time you picked up a 10kg rock with one hand in normal gravity.

The difficulty he's having is getting a grip on it whilst wearing a pressurised fabric suit.

Also, it's not the discrepancy that the film claims to highlight, as it is concentrating on the differing voiceover (although they saw fit to dub some music on their too, so they've messed with the soundtrack themselves.....)

nothing to see here - move along.

I was only having a laugh with the concept.

Wether I believe we went to the Moon or not is too complex for me to be even bothered to post. I believe what I believe on the subject. Thats all that counts for me. I do enjoy adding humour here and there to the often brought up subject. And yes i've picked up a rock weighing this much and to be honest even with our gravity, its not that heavy. Also it didn't look like it should've weighed that much, but then i'm no expert on the physics of moon rock!!!

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The difficulty he's having is getting a grip on it whilst wearing a pressurised fabric suit.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme


:thumbsup: :D :thumbsup:

Ok, Ive been wondering what the hell people think.. Fraud or Real? Im personally thinking its a fraud.. I could go on for ages for points to prove it was a fraud.. And I shall list a few for you :D..

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 taken, are the stars?
http://www.aranyagardens.co.uk/Diploma%20Portfolio/Images/Photos/400/My%20life%20path/Moon%20landing.JPG
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5874.jpg

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.

Isnt that enough evidence to prove it was all a fraud? Please reply on your thoughts or your defence of this event! Exploring google brings up websites on this, and you can find the images to compare these facts to..

I agree 100%.

Never happened! so much easier to fake it than to actually do it!

Exploring google brings up websites on this, and you can find the images to compare these facts to..

I admit that there are some strange things about the lunar landings, but I personally believe they happened.

But more importantly, why not post some links? Then we can see the particular pictures you refer to?

Edit: Sorry, accept my apologies. You did post links.

This hastily copied from http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm. Next!

---------------------------------
I am writing to argue that NASA really did put men on the moon. Here are my 9 responses to your nine "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." The functional word here is "teased". Mission control was, as you said, merely teasing him. There is no way for anyone to be able to tell exactly which way the ball went. And even if you could, maybe he wasn't
holding the club straight, so the head hit the ball on an angle.

2. "A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?"
Mission Control. If you watched the miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon", you would know that there was a guy in mission control, controlling the pan/tilt functions on the tv camera tripod. If you want to bring up the 7 second radio delay due to distance, he actually sent the command to tilt up with the ascending lander 7 seconds before it happened, and it all worked out.

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?" You really ought to learn more about the missions before you start attacking them like this. There was an arm attached to the lander that was deployed just before Neil Armstrong opened the hatch. This arm had a television and a still camera mounted to it.

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." Did you really think that they just sent them up there in an airtight jumper? OK. I'm gonna make this real easy for you. Here is a quote from the NASA KIDS website. so you should be able to understand it. "The space suit is made of hard materials with jointed sections to allow movement. The upper and lower torso sections are put on separately. The two pieces are connected at the waist to allow the flow of water and gas
lines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed protection against meteoroids and radiation. On Earth, the space suit weighs about 100 pounds. In space, the suit weighs much less. Under normal conditions, a space suit should last about 8 years." So. assuming you can read. you have just learnt about an American space suit. There is a hard layer of plastic, among many other things, protecting the astronauts from the vacuum of space.

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." That's like saying 'Why don't the ISS astronauts light up the sky with millions and millions of flares?' CAUSE THERE'S NO POINT!!! What you're saying is. because they didn't put a massive flare on the moon. they never actually went. (Oh.. and by the way. have fun igniting a magnesium flare without oxygen).

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?:

As you can see from this photo of Pete Conrad on Apollo 12, astronauts didn't hold cameras like you do when you're taking a picture of your grandmother, the camera was attached to their suit at the chest. Most small tools used by astronauts were attached to their suits, so they would not be lost.

7&8. "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? & How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?"


Do you honestly mean to tell me that you believe that this photo hasn't been played with? Somebody (no.. NOT NASA) has doctored this photo really badly to make people like YOU think that you have a stronger case against NASA. That astronaut was copied and pasted into that photo. And as for the flag.. that shadow goes to the side with the face clearly lit because it's not exactly parallel to the sun's rays! It's on a bit of an angle, which anybody will tell you, is enough to clearly light the flag. And as for the fluttering.. less drugs for you, man. it's not moving at all. Do you know what happens when a flag is stowed for several weeks, all folded up? You guessed it.. It gets wrinkled! Look at getting some better glasses. As for the stars. in photography, to prevent an over-exposure (phonetically: Ovur-ekspojur) you must close the iris a bit, or in this case, a lot. The sun is much brighter here than the brightest day on earth. With the iris down far enough to prevent over-exposure, there is no way you would ever, EVER see ANYTHING in the sky other than the sun and the earth.

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." A few things you're forgetting.. It's mass was 17 tons, yes, however since weight is relative to gravity, and the moon has 1/6th the earth's gravity, the WEIGHT of the lunar lander was only 17/6 tons (2.833 tonnes). Now I'm not saying that this is light, there was dust stirred up when it landed, but no more that when a chopper lands here on earth.

If they not land it is the biggest con trick of all time time will tell.

Somebody would have blown the whistle by now though if they did not.

What about Nessy?

http://www.markhope.com/form_of_email/1_50/image_hive/nessy.jpg

Interesting replies, thanks for trying to take the **** :o .. I didnt ask for someone to hammer into me, I was giving my point and wondering if someone could HELP by debating..

- You forgot to answer about the booster on the bottom of the ship. If the ship didnt make a crater, why didnt the boosters?
- Didnt you think that if someone did edit a photo to change the flags shadow (to try make people think the landing was fake), couldnt NASA have changed photos to make the landing look real?

One more thing, why hasnt anyone been on the moon since? Surely it would be easier and more cost effective now?

I wouldn't go as far as to say that men haven't been put on the moon, however I tend to agree that the alleged footage would appear to be faked.

As you rightly say, the Apollo missions were at the height of the Cold War. Do you seriously think the Russians would have kept schtumm if there was the slightest possibility of the landings being a hoax?
This site (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) debunks the whole hoax nonsense fairly thoroughly.

Interesting replies, thanks for trying to take the **** :o .. I didnt ask for someone to hammer into me, I was giving my point and wondering if someone could HELP by debating..

- You forgot to answer about the booster on the bottom of the ship. If the ship didnt make a crater, why didnt the boosters?
- Didnt you think that if someone did edit a photo to change the flags shadow (to try make people think the landing was fake), couldnt NASA have changed photos to make the landing look real?

One more thing, why hasnt anyone been on the moon since? Surely it would be easier and more cost effective now?

they did go again in fact six more missions went to the moon and a total of twelve people have set foot on the moon

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.

But they did. Neil Armstrong left a reflector (http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html) there. If you have the right kit you can use it yourself to measure the distance to the moon.

Also, as nobody has mentioned it, at the time of the moon landing, & unknown to NASA, the scientists at Jodrell Bank (sp?) were tracking the vehicle. They produced a document clearly showing altitude over time of the LEM, including independently noticing the change in altitude as whoever was piloting changed course slightly to avoid landing in a crater.

And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5905HR.jpg
Looks wrinkled from storage to me.

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_archive.html
It must have been a big job to fake all this lot.

The flag was on an aluminium stand and that bounced for ages after it was touched or brushed by an astronaut, giving the appearance of being blown by the wind.

The lander, although weighing in at 9 tons was standing on four wide teet that distributed its weight.

On a website FOR the moon landing, it states that shadows go in different directions due to the reflected light from earth..

Why in some images are there just one shadow then?

(Thanks for going against the hoax explanations, helped by making me think that it MIGHT be true and MIGHT be fake)

On a website FOR the moon landing, it states that shadows go in different directions due to the reflected light from earth..

Why in some images are there just one shadow then?

(Thanks for going against the hoax explanations)
You can simulate the shadows going in different directions here on earth, just stand two poles together about six feet apart on a sunny day. If the ground is rough itll look as if there are more shadows than poles as the shadows snake along the rough surface.

Depending on how high or low the light source is, it can have some wierd effects.

This has been done a few times before, e.g. here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=828).

As you rightly say, the Apollo missions were at the height of the Cold War. Do you seriously think the Russians would have kept schtumm if there was the slightest possibility of the landings being a hoax?
This site (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) debunks the whole hoax nonsense fairly thoroughly.


Not the best of sites for a debunk. How many times can you find the arguement referring to "the weird alien landscape" as an excuse. Dodgy faux-science explanations which ammount to nought but a rant by a patriot. Some of the expanations are a bit weak, such as the "lack of stars" explanation (again, weird alien environment, and also "stars are too dim" excuse - explain why they show up on photos taken from earth's orbit if they are so dim?) One thing I love is that some arguements put forward refer to us not being able to predict anything that can happen due to the 'weird alien envirnment', then in others he tells people to 'try it themselves' (such as the shadows arguement where he tells you to test it yourself under a lamp-post - erm...weird alien environment). No consistency in the arguements.

I'm not convinced that man landed on the moon back in the 60s, but also not convicned that they never landed there.

The biggest question now is, "If man landed on the moon so many times, why is the progress to put man on the moon again (which was reported in the news this year) so slow that they anticpate it being next decade?"

Defiantly a fraud.:thumbsup:

All they have to do is turn that Hubbell Telescope round and photograph the surface of the moon with all the lunar vehicles and other artefacts in place to prove it happened. But they haven't done that have they...........;)

The reflector could have been launched up there unmanned.

On a website FOR the moon landing, it states that shadows go in different directions due to the reflected light from earth.

They're wrong.

It's because of the light reflected from the surface of the moon (the same reason you can see it - the moon - on a clear night - and also why you have shadows in the night).

I agree with unknown, there is too many questions without any
satifactory answers

I wonder if these questions would arise if an English man had been first to land on the moon, I doubt it.:hihi:

For what reason would the Americans want to fake the Moon landings?
We have all seen the film of the rockets taking off, and most of us watched enthralled as the landings took place.
Many of us have been to the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral and seen the SaturnV's being prepared for launch.
What would be the point of spending so many hundreds of billions on a hoax?

I wonder if these questions would arise if an English man had been first to land on the moon, I doubt it.:hihi:
Just to please you poppins. I don't believe Capt James Cook (not Kirk) ever landed in Australia. I mean, where's the photographs? :confused:

I personally wouldn't be at all suprised if much of the motion picture stuff was faked to make it look good for PR purposes. However I do think that they went to the moon :)

I personally wouldn't be at all suprised if much of the motion picture stuff was faked to make it look good for PR purposes. However I do think that they went to the moon :)
If Wallace and Gromit can do it, I guess anyone can.:thumbsup:
REAL!!! (http://home.swbell.net/z0rt/wallace/gdo5.jpg)

For what reason would the Americans want to fake the Moon landings?



During the late 50s and all through the 60s, the US lived in a state of media and governemnt imposed fear of "the reds under the bed" and communism in general. The US govt kept insisting that the US was more powerful that the Soviets, and so when it was Russia who got a man into space first, the US people were dismayed! A promise was made early in the 60s that the US would put a man on the moon before the decade was out, and the importance of doing so before the Soviets was unbelievable (really...the "must beat the Russians" mentality was huge then).
National pride and beating the pinkos, that is a reason they would want to fake the landings.

All they have to do is turn that Hubbell Telescope round and photograph the surface of the moon with all the lunar vehicles and other artefacts in place to prove it happened. But they haven't done that have they...........;)


They don't even have to do that. With a decent quality telescope from the likes of Woolies, you can look at the moon and see the remains of Apollo 11's landing craft for yourself.

If thet didnt go to the Moon, where did they go?
Sail around in orbit for a few days and then come back?
If anything, at the time the lunar program brought the East and West closer together.
The scientists on both sides were actually cooperating, as far as possible.
It made us feel as if mankind was pulling together for once, and that there was a future for mankind.
This of course was brought to an abrupt halt by the arab wars.

The biggest question now is, "If man landed on the moon so many times, why is the progress to put man on the moon again (which was reported in the news this year) so slow that they anticpate it being next decade?"


Easy. If they do it now, they have to have safety features. The Apollo missions carried at least a ten per cent chance of not returning alive.

For what reason would the Americans want to fake the Moon landings?
What would be the point of spending so many hundreds of billions on a hoax?

The moon landings may have been faked, there is no definitive proof either way. Some say the Moon rocks are the proof, but it we can uncover meteorites from Mars on Earth then we can certainly uncover meteorites from the moon on this planet too.

As for the reasons why the the USA might stage a hoax, well for one thing
JFK made his famous " We shall go to the moon speech" and he said "in this decade" (1960s). Imagine the propaganda value for the Russians if the US didn't achieve what their president had set out for them to achieve.
The US and the Russians were competing to prove who was technologically more advanced in the space race not just to see who could conquer space first but also to signal who was technologically superior in warfare.
Reagan just extended that idea in his "Star wars" program.
So there was plenty at stake at that time, don't forget the US and the Russians nearly started a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
It is not too inconceivable that the US would stage a hoax at that time, the stakes were that high.
Perhaps the US government was going to tell the public the truth once the Soviet threat had past, but the lie had become so big that telling the truth deemed too inconcievable!:huh:

The most convincing argument as far as I am concerned is that faking it and covering up the evidence for this long would be far more difficult than actually doing it.

The moon landings may have been faked, there is no definitive proof either way.


There is a VAST amount of evidence that the landings did actually take place. Moon rock, photographs, film evidence, the testimony of 18 astronauts who went there, NASA records...


....if you want to claim a hoax, you need to provide evidence that ALL of those things were faked and/or unreliable. Nobody has ever yet succeeded in doing that for ANY of it, let alone all of it.

There's no sane reason for anyone to even consider that it might have been a hoax.

But they did. Neil Armstrong left a reflector (http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html) there. If you have the right kit you can use it yourself to measure the distance to the moon.


Indeed, watched someone do it last month on TV (Sky at Night), most impressive!

Every question listed in the OP has been covered time and again.
They recreated the scene in the desert for a TV show. At night with powerful lights reproducing the light sources, every picture turned out exactly the same as the moon shots, no stars, backlit flag, non parallel shadows et al.

Also, as someone pointed out, independant evidence was gathered by Jodrell Bank, I'm sure the Russians could easily verify by similar methods.

There is a VAST amount of evidence that the landings did actually take place. Moon rock, photographs, film evidence, the testimony of 18 astronauts who went there, NASA records...


....if you want to claim a hoax, you need to provide evidence that ALL of those things were faked and/or unreliable. Nobody has ever yet succeeded in doing that for ANY of it, let alone all of it.

There's no sane reason for anyone to even consider that it might have been a hoax.

I would like to believe man did go to the moon as this would be a triumph in our (well USA mainly!) progression & acheivments etc The other thing is if man could go to the moon back in 69 then how come we hav'nt been back since? It should be no problem now?

The evidence has been questioned several times and their's still no satisfactory answers?

All the evidence that I have seen would suggest to me that it was a Hoax?

They recreated the scene in the desert for a TV show. At night with powerful lights reproducing the light sources, every picture turned out exactly the same as the moon shots, no stars, backlit flag, non parallel shadows et al.



Hang on, did that prove they were real, or that you can fake it to look like the 'real' (ie could be fake) landings? That makes no sense. All it showed is that if you replicate it on earth it looks like all the footage that everyone calls fake.

I would like to believe man did go to the moon as this would be a triumph in our (well USA mainly!) progression & acheivments etc The other thing is if man could go to the moon back in 69 then how come we hav'nt been back since? It should be no problem now?

The evidence has been questioned several times and their's still no satisfactory answers?

All the evidence that I have seen would suggest to me that it was a Hoax?

If you read the previous posts they have been back 5 more time,s in total they have been six trips to the moon and twelve people have stepped on the moon since 1969 so have they been six hoax trips to the moon

If you read the previous posts they have been back 5 more time,s in total they have been six trips to the moon and twelve people have stepped on the moon since 1969 so have they been six hoax trips to the moon
Yes would indeed be an expensive exercise to keep one over the russians.Cant believe people sometimes, worlds biggest hoax.:huh: :huh:

if this was a hoax the the Ussr must have been in on it as well.
They sent a lot of landers to the Moon, the 'Lunakod' vehicles for example.
If the Americans were bluffing it would have been blown wide open, there were many Russian sympathisers in high positions in the USA and still are.
Not every yank is a gung ho redneck.
Accept it, Mankind has travelled off the planet and stepped on the Moon.
If The Pope can accept it, I am sure the other religious ones among you should also.

Come on, people. Of course there was a moon landing. How else can you explain Tang? :gag:

I know for one thing, I never landed on the moon - so there's your answer "No" :hihi:

Pictures of the Apollo 15 landing site were taken remotely from orbit in 1994, and the Falcon base module is still there......

I know for one thing, I never landed on the moon - so there's your answer "No" :hihi:
Good point.

Could the title be amended to "did anyone land on the moon?"

I would like to believe man did go to the moon as this would be a triumph in our (well USA mainly!) progression & acheivments etc The other thing is if man could go to the moon back in 69 then how come we hav'nt been back since? It should be no problem now?


It wouldn't. We could decide to send six astronauts to the moon tomorrow, and they could land within a week.

We don't operate like that any more, because we have innumerable safety features and a cost budget. The Apollo program had (effectively) unlimited funds. Moreover, unless and until we're ready to think about building a *permanent* base on the Moon, there's not really any point. There's nothing to be gained from going there that we can't find out by remote instrument.



And if all the evidence you've seen makes you think it was a hoax, you haven't SEEN any evidence.