Moon Landing

[Rocky]

Conspiracies do occur but for the moon lading conspiracy to be viable it would have had to be international and to have included participation of the world’s scientific community.

The video shows they faked it. All they had to do was keep Americans from learning about it.

Nardwuar vs Bill Kaysing
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, how did the media fall for this?
Well, the media doesn't fall for anything. The media is controlled by the government. The Dutch papers on July 21 [1969] said that the moon landing was a hoax, was a fake, and I have been unable to find any of those Dutch papers, although it's well documented that they did publish information, with proof, that the U.S. was spoofing everybody
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There were probably lots of scientists who didn't believe it. The US press is controlled so nothing they said every got reported.

They would have to have taped the entire mission and sent the astronaut's side of the conversations to be played back, this would have to allow for the time differential in communication as the craft drew further from the earth, also video was relatively new and storage would have been on large reels using bulky equipment to play them, this would have to fly to the moon land and take of again and whilst they had the technology to send men to the moon, I think to send that sort of unmanned craft would have been very difficult if not impossible with 1969 technology. The only other method would have been to bounce signals of the spacecraft, they would still have had problems with the time delay in the communications and the fact that the uplink would have been detected.

The video shows that they faked it. The fact that we don't know exactly how they did it yet doesn't make the video evidence go away.
There are plausible scenarios. There might have been an unmanned craft on the moon sending the transmissions back to earth. They might have actually had another unmanned craft go to the moon, orbit it, and come back. The time delay might have been difficult but it wasn't impossible.

Footage like the flag moving when the astronaut walks by it pretty much proves the hoax.
YouTube - Apollo 15 waving flag

All the details of how they did it haven't come to light yet but they will eventually.

[Walrus]

Why the flag moved ... most likely static electricity, from the space suit and probably the flag.

Here is a link to a PDF document on static electricity, relating to the Apollo missions.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1970004167.pdf

[Jack]

I'm amazed that someone could say this in support of a conspiracy...

The Dutch papers on July 21 [1969] said that the moon landing was a hoax, was a fake, and I have been unable to find any of those Dutch papers, although it's well documented that they did publish information, with proof, that the U.S. was spoofing everybody

(Emphasis mine)

Sure, I'm going to accept that without any skepticism at all.

[Nono]

Quote by: Walrus They would have to have taped the entire mission and sent the astronaut's side of the conversations to be played back, this would have to allow for the time differential in communication as the craft drew further from the earth, also video was relatively new and storage would have been on large reels using bulky equipment to play them, this would have to fly to the moon land and take of again and whilst they had the technology to send men to the moon, I think to send that sort of unmanned craft would have been very difficult if not impossible with 1969 technology. The only other method would have been to bounce signals of the spacecraft, they would still have had problems with the time delay in the communications and the fact that the uplink would have been detected.

Yes. This has occurred to me before in connection with Apollo-hoax theories: the hoax would have been even harder to pull off than the real thing.

[Walrus]

Quote by: Nono Yes. This has occurred to me before in connection with Apollo-hoax theories: the hoax would have been even harder to pull off than the real thing.

Absolutely, to send an unmanned craft that would be able to simulate a manned craft would have been impossible, particularly the part of the mission where the astronauts had to take manual control of the craft in order to land and take off (something that was detected and tracked by the Jodrell Bank radio telescope here in the UK). In order to simulate the manual handling of the craft, it would have required onboard computer technology that simply wasn’t available then.

[Rocky]

Why the flag moved ... most likely static electricity, from the space suit and probably the flag.

At the beginning of the clip the astronaut is very close to the flag. I isn't attracted to him or repelled by him. Why would it be affected when he was quite further away from it?

YouTube - Apollo 15 waving flag

The video evidence shows they faked it. All the details of how many people they had to fool and how they fooled them and how many people were actually in on the plan will come to light later.

Once people have seen the evidence, there's no way you can convince them they really went to the moon.

058 - 3223X9053R - NASA - What Happened on the Moon - 1 of 2
058 - 3223X9053R - NASA - What Happened on the Moon - 2 of 2

Was it Only a Paper Moon? (documentary)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...89814268946247

Man didnt land on the moon
Moon Conspiracy (BBC TV)

YouTube - Clip of Apollo 11 press conference

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Rocky The video evidence shows they faked it. All the details of how many people they had to fool and how they fooled them and how many people were actually in on the plan will come to light later.

Ockham's razor. Thousands of telescopes and other devices monitored the entire trip, some of them from people and nations that would stop at nothing to discredit the United States.

Your "theories" about a waving flag proving this or that are nonsense. Sheer, unadulterated nonsense. Your failure to see the big picture has you concentrating on ridiculous little minutia of the evidence and declaring that, with your vast, overwhelming knowledge and experience with how things move in a vacuum in 1/6 the gravity of Earth (knowledge gleaned entirely from reading anti-moon-landing blogs), and that because a flag didn't wave a certain way or a shadow wasn't exactly how you, in your uneducated viewpoint believe it "should" have been, the entire body of evidence that says we did go to the moon is worthless.

Never mind that thousands of people would have to be in on such a conspiracy. Never mind that to execute such a conspiracy would require much more effort and planning than actually going to the moon.

Never mind that these nutjobs have still been unable to say WHY such a thing would be faked. Hint: Since your theory rests on the Russians being complicit in and taking part in the conspiracy, "to beat the Russians" is not a reason why.

We went to the moon. Anyone that believes otherwise is an idiot. Sorry to be so blunt, but this nonsense has gone on quite a bit too long.

[Rocky]

Thousands of telescopes and other devices monitored the entire trip, some of them from people and nations that would stop at nothing to discredit the United States.

Please cite your sources. We may read this but there are lots of plausible scenarios that would explain it.

We might be reading lies.
The people who said they were tracking it might have been in on the hoax.
An unmanned craft might have actually gone to the moon, orbited it during the length of the supposed missions, and then come back.

Your "theories" about a waving flag proving this or that are nonsense. Sheer, unadulterated nonsense.

You haven't said anything here. What you have to do is say exactly what caused the flag to move and why it wasn't atmosphere.

YouTube - Apollo 15 waving flag

I explained why I didn't think it could have been static electricity. I'm still waiting for a rebuttal.

Your failure to see the big picture has you concentrating on ridiculous little minutia of the evidence and declaring that, with your vast, overwhelming knowledge and experience with how things move in a vacuum in 1/6 the gravity of Earth (knowledge gleaned entirely from reading anti-moon-landing blogs), and that because a flag didn't wave a certain way or a shadow wasn't exactly how you, in your uneducated viewpoint believe it "should" have been, the entire body of evidence that says we did go to the moon is worthless.

This is empty rhetoric. There is a mountain of video evidence that they didn't go.

Look at the Apollo 11 footage played at double speed.

Moon Conspiracy (BBC TV)
(30 minute 55 second mark.)

It's exactly like earth movements.

Look at the reflection of the "Sun" in the visors. It can't be the sun. It's too big.
YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax-One Giant Spotlight For Mankind
YouTube - Moon Hoax- The Lies In Your Visors
YouTube - Moon Hoax- The Lies In Your Visors-Addendum

This is just a small sample of the video evidence.

Never mind that thousands of people would have to be in on such a conspiracy.

Most of the people were probably fooled too as they were in their compartments of the program and they weren't in a position to be able to see if the whole thing would work. There probably were thousands who knew the truth though.

According to this article there were 130,000 people working on the Manhattan Project. They mannaged to keep the secret before they carried out the attack on Hiroshima.

Manhattan Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Never mind that to execute such a conspiracy would require much more effort and planning than actually going to the moon.

There were probably some technical impossibilities that prevented them from going such as the radiation problem.

APOLLO TRUTH
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.


Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YouTube - Shuttle at the van Allen Belts
YouTube - Van Allen radiation belt (Part1)

http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldogleb...oooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deadly Radiation At and Past the Van Allen Shields
Apollo details
NASA Warped our View of Space - The Education Forum
YouTube - Lunarcy: NASA's Radiation Problem 4.5

Never mind that these nutjobs have still been unable to say WHY such a thing would be faked.

There are lots of theories on that.

Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motives
Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:
Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Walrus]

I explained why I didn't think it could have been static electricity. I'm still waiting for a rebuttal.

I can’t offer a rebuttal because I don’t know the exact cause, but here are some possibilities.

1. Possibly it simply reacted to movement.
   
2. The space suits build up an electrostatic charge as the astronauts move, by the layers of the outer protective garment rubbing against each other. He was moving vigorously and so more likely to set up such a charge.
   
3. Although the astronaut appears to be a distance from the flag, cameras can be deceptive when it comes to foreshortening, so he may have been a lot closer than it appears. For example, see the picture of the woman who appears to have a huge foot.
   
4. Another possibility the flag reacted to seismic vibration, maybe even causing the pole to shift slightly. I have an eight inch reflecting telescope, it is mounted on heavy tripod, the whole thing is a very solid and substantial piece of kit but when observing through it, if anyone walks past, even a very small child, the image jumps quite considerably.

I started watching the Google video clip you posted but gave up after finding myself getting both annoyed and amused at the so called expert Mr David Percy (the award winning television, film producer, professional photographer who also a member of the Royal Photographic Society). He was talking rubbish, for someone who supposedly works within the field visual artistic media, he has absolutely no knowledge of basic perspective or of how light sources react in relation to areas of shadow and reflective surfaces.

[tivodan1116]

I'll offer a rebuttal:

People that believe in this idiotic conspiracy theory are not engineers or physicists or anyone who is qualified to make an assessment of the movement of bodies in low- or zero-gravity. They are making guesses, as posters in this thread have done, based on the fact that they have seen a few episodes of CSI and fancy themselves "experts" on the moon landings.

Suggesting that everyone who watched the takeoff and spaceships proceeding to outer space with both the naked eye and telescopes is "part of the conspiracy" is even more asinine, and show the true idiocy of this conspiracy theory - it implicates MILLIONS of people as being "part of the conspiracy" while also saying that NONE of them have talked.... pure bullsh*t.

It's nothing but nonsense. We went to the moon.

[Jack]

Wow, Walrus, now that you've provided photographic evidence I have no choice but to believe in Big Foot.

Thank you, tivodan1116. Well said. My sentiments exactly.

[Rocky]

I can’t offer a rebuttal because I don’t know the exact cause, but here are some possibilities. Possibly it simply reacted to movement. The space suits build up an electrostatic charge as the astronauts move, by the layers of the outer protective garment rubbing against each other. He was moving vigorously and so more likely to set up such a charge. Although the astronaut appears to be a distance from the flag, cameras can be deceptive when it comes to foreshortening, so he may have been a lot closer than it appears. For example, see the picture of the woman who appears to have a huge foot. Another possibility the flag reacted to seismic vibration, maybe even causing the pole to shift slightly. I have an eight inch reflecting telescope, it is mounted on heavy tripod, the whole thing is a very solid and substantial piece of kit but when observing through it, if anyone walks past, even a very small child, the image jumps quite considerably.

Why do you rule out atmosphere? The flag move at the exact point where it would be expected to move due to atmosphere.

I started watching the Google video clip you posted but gave up after finding myself getting both annoyed and amused at the so called expert Mr David Percy (the award winning television, film producer, professional photographer who also a member of the Royal Photographic Society). He was talking rubbish, for someone who supposedly works within the field visual artistic media, he has absolutely no knowledge of basic perspective or of how light sources react in relation to areas of shadow and reflective surfaces.

You're not going to impress anybody unless you go into detail.

Mistakes have been made by hoax-believers. I still haven't seen a mistake that, when corrected, proved they went to the moon.
Why don't you post something that you consider conclusive proof that they went to the moon and we can talk about whether it's really proof. I've seen lots of what I'd call proof that at least some of the footage was faked.

People that believe in this idiotic conspiracy theory are not engineers or physicists or anyone who is qualified to make an assessment of the movement of bodies in low- or zero-gravity. They are making guesses, as posters in this thread have done, based on the fact that they have seen a few episodes of CSI and fancy themselves "experts" on the moon landings.

I've shown video evidence of fakery to people with backgrounds in physics and they agreed that it was taken on earth.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Please cite your sources. We may read this but there are lots of plausible scenarios that would explain it. We might be reading lies. The people who said they were tracking it might have been in on the hoax. An unmanned craft might have actually gone to the moon, orbited it during the length of the supposed missions, and then come back.

So now your conspiracy not only contends that the Soviet Union and others were in on it, but they, with the help of historians, fabricated the entire cold war and the years of hostility and hatred it involved. The Soviets almost certainly had intel on all aspects of the mission, and much of their technology was at least as good as ours. Next you'll claim that the country of Russia does not exist and is a creation of the U.S. This is the reason why I reject almost all so called theories like this, their supporters always forget that it would have been far more simple for the official version to be true than their convoluted suppositions to be.

[another day]

Always beware of the "one trick ponies" that only come to debate ONE issue. Like this guy with his moon landing bs, and that likely-a-serial killer poster with his anti-woman nonsense.

They are tunnel visioned and incapacitated in their pursuit of knowledge. His flawed and selective reasoning on this issue proves that.

[Walrus]

You're not going to impress anybody unless you go into detail.

Why would I want to impress you?

Why don't you post something that you consider conclusive proof that they went to the moon and we can talk about whether it's really proof.

I don’t have any. I have no conclusive proof that men went to the moon. I also have no conclusive proof that lizard people aren’t running the planet, that extraterrestrials aren’t abducting people with the knowledge of the government, that the CIA weren’t responsible for 9/11 or that the Nazi Holocaust actually took place,

These are conspiracy theories and those who truly believe in them will accept no evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

What would you accept as conclusive proof?

[Rocky]

What would you accept as conclusive proof?

I'll know it when I see it. So far I've seen nothing. However, I have seen lots of conclusive proof that at least some of the footage was filmed on earth. (See posts # 246 and #248)

If they'd really gone, they wouldn't have filmed any of it on earth.

I just noticed that the link to the documentary "Was it Only a Paper Moon?" in post #246 is off-line. Here's a lower-quality version of it.

http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm

[Jack]

You're not going to impress anybody unless you go into detail.

I've shown video evidence of fakery to people with backgrounds in physics and they agreed that it was taken on earth.

The lack of specificity is indeed unimpressive.

[Walrus]

I'll know it when I see it. So far I've seen nothing.

I wish you well with that endeavour, unfortunately I don’t think I can provide the evidence, I will however try to qualify my criticism of David Percy as an expert.

Regarding Mr Percy’s comments on the parallel shadows; we are looking at single point perspective and parallel lines however they are created will appear to converge at infinity and the point of infinity relates to the point of observation. This is not impressive stuff, far from it, most schoolchildren should be aware of this fact. For photographer not to know this is unbelievable, therefore it suggests that he is either a complete idiot or he is being deliberately misleading, ether way it does bring his ability as an expert into question.

To emphasise my point, here are three pictures, the first, is the one in question from the Apollo mission, the second is taken from a similar viewpoint to demonstrates how parallel lines appear to converge, the third is of sun created shadows showing that shadow lines also appear to converge although in this picture the convergence point is out of frame.







As to the effects of light on reflective surfaces here is a link to a site that deals with this (also other issues, including parallel lines) in relation to the moon and its lack of atmosphere.

The Moon Hoax Debate

[Rocky]

You people are ignoring the evidence I posted in posts # 246 and #248. The page you posted ( The Moon Hoax Debate ) recommends Clavius and Bad Astronomy for further reading. Neither of those sites has any credibility.

You all know who Jay Windley is.

Clavius: Conspiracy - about the author

He and his fellow posters got caught telling a big lie on the Clavius forum. It's all explained here.

ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue

A strange scenario re sifted sand | GeologyRocks

Jay Windley ducked a question asked of him in reply #3 of this thread because it's the job of the Clavius forum to discredit any theory that goes against the official government version of anything and this was too clear for him to try to discredit without looking silly.

ApolloHoax.net - A question for Jay Windley

Bad Astronomy is also a government damage-control site. Look at the lame excuse the moderator gave for closing this thread.

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...smuggling.html

He closed it because he knew his people would just end up looking silly if they tried to discredit the theory put forth.

Just the fact that the Clavis and Bad Astronomy sites exist is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax as all the posters on their forums do not debate in good faith.

Some mistakes have been made by moon hoax-believers but I've never seen a mistake that, when corrected, proved they went to the moon.

There's lots of proof that they didn't go. You people are just ignoring it. You can't come up with any proof that they went.

You are just like the Black Knight in this video clip.

YouTube - Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight

[Walrus]

Black Knight ... Nah ... Castle Anthrax ... now that is my idea of fun.