Moon Landing

[Chris]

On Sept. 1, 1974, an SR-71 flew from New York to London in 1 hour, 54 minutes, 56 seconds

kick ass!

[Chris]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio You guys do know the easy answer to all"We didn't go to the moon!" arguments right? If that were true, why didn't the USSR just embarrass us to the world, seeing as they were tracking the Apollo missions to catch us trying to cheat.

thats exactly right.

Or, we could just refer back to the reflectors, as I posted about earlier, to which these Moon landing deniers seem to overlook.

[Scott]

The people who made those hoax videos did get a few things wrong--the stars, the flag blowing. There are no stars or wind in a studio either.

Here's some stuff that convinced me that they didn't go to the moon.
This is from Apollo 11
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

We can only see the area around the lander. Everything else is dark.
The same footage can be seen at double speed here.
YouTube - A funny thing happened on the way to the moon
30 minute 30 second mark.

At double speed the astronaut looks like he's in earth gravity.

In this footage from Apollo 17 the background is illuminated.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1185610.rm

Why isn't it illuminated in the Apollo 11 footage?

At the 1 minute 47 second mark of this Apollo 17 footage the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor is much bigger than the reflection of the sun in this space-walking shuttle astronaut's visor.
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827..._sts51i_ox.jpg

This photo is from Apollo 12.
http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/...entenary_4.jpg

The reflection in the visor is similar to that of the shuttle astronaut's.

According to the hoax theory some of the footage was shot in the desert and some was shot in a studio. Evidently, Apollo 12 was shot in the desert and Apollo 17 was shot in a studio. The reflection in the Apollo 17 astronaut's visor is that of a big artificial light source--not the sun. The light source is probably more than three feet wide.

Look at the first six seconds of this video.
YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage

The astronaut is running. The movements are different from the movements of the astronaut in the Apollo 11 footage. In the Apollo 11 footage they probably only used slow-motion. In the later missions they probably used wire supports or a combination of wire supports and slow motion--maybe at eighty percent normal speed or something.

So far I've never seen anything I would call proof that they went to the moon. I've seen a lot of stuff that I consider proof that they didn't go though.

There is lots of circumstantial evidence too. There are no clear shots of an object being thrown to illustrate how things move in lunar gravity. The Hammer feather drop was fakable.

The reflectors might be on an unmanned craft that soft-landed.

There's also the behavior of the astronauts.
Astronauts Gone Wild - Google Video

This has 7 parts
YouTube - APOLLO 11 Most Miserable Press Conference in History Part 1

Here's some more stuff.
Man didnt land on the moon - Google Video

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

Apollo details
Apollo 11 - Classified NASA Video - astronauts phaking footage - |\/|4T|2][X - Google Video

What Happened on the Moon - 1 of 2 - Google Video
What Happened on the Moon - 2 of 2 - Google Video

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chris thats exactly right. Or, we could just refer back to the reflectors, as I posted about earlier, to which these Moon landing deniers seem to overlook.

So a robot could not have positioned those reflectors?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Scott The astronaut is running. The movements are different from the movements of the astronaut in the Apollo 11 footage. In the Apollo 11 footage they probably only used slow-motion. In the later missions they probably used wire supports or a combination of wire supports and slow motion--maybe at eighty percent normal speed or something.

Sorry, but when you use words like "probably" so many times and "or something" with no proof to back up what you say, your credibility goes right out the window.

Like, "they probably only used slow-motion". Well, DID they or DIDN'T they?

When you try to refute a widely believed event like this, a fact or two would be nice.
You might as well say they had Superman on the payroll and NASA put him in a space suit, gave him a camera and a flag and told him to fly to the Moon and take some shots.


Try harder, or just admit there is absolutely nothing anyone can EVER say to shake your belief the Moon landing was faked.

[Chris]

Quote by: Milton Bradley So a robot could not have positioned those reflectors?

If we are going to send a robot - why not send a person? Also all these moon conspiracy theorists say we had such low tech back then - i.e. the ships, WHat makes you think we were able to make robots capable of placing reflectors at the right position? Also what about the moon rock evidence?

[Scribbler1]

Don't forget the REAL reason we rushed to the Moon in the first place. We HAD to send a human there to claim the planet before the Soviets.

It wasn't all about science and exploration and all that. It was about beating the Soviets. Too many people forget that this was ALL about the Cold War.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Chris kick ass!

Also: Returning to the U.S. on Sept. 13, 1974, the same aircraft established a world speed record of 3 hours, 47 minutes, 36 seconds for the 5,463 mile (8,790 km) flight from London to Los Angeles. It literally outraced the sun, landing some four hours before the time of day it took off.

Back to the Future..!!!

[Chris]

Ill bet if you had a cesium clock on board you will see some time dilation.

-well come to think of it now, they have been doing experiments and even on spacecraft, there is a very small time dilation - on the order of nanoseconds.

Semi-back on subject - Apollo 10 has the record for the highest speed attained by a manned vehicle: 39,897 km/h. The speed record was set during the return from the Moon on 26 May 1969.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Technically, people DID die. The Apollo program was created specifically for a Moon shot. Apollo 1 was the one that burned up on the launchpad and killed Grissom, Chafee and White. And the actual flights didn't go without a hitch either (Apollo 13). But, amazingly, nobody died in Space.

But.. on the Lunar Missions.. actual space flight.. no.. no fatalities.. And Apollo XIII demonstrated the redundancy & can-do spirit of the real NASA.. that is long.. long gone. The shittle.. er.. shuttle.. is a sorry excuse for the original design.. it was tricky dick's cheapened version that we have today.. complete with Thiokol's join-the-sections solid boosters.. cheaper than one-piece boosters.. space flight shouldn't be trusted to the low bidder/cheap design concept crowd.

Check this site out.. lots of great info: Race To The Moon 1957:1975

[Century 25]

lol.. yeah.. a few nanoseconds.. Actually.. I was sort of saying in an oblique way that we should go "back" to the future.. this was a future looking country in the 60's.. even late 50's.. progressive.. architecture too.. but that has been stifled.. gag me with a crown molding..

[Scott]

So a robot could not have positioned those reflectors?

The reflectors might have been built on the lander. There might have been adjustable reflectors all the way around a circular-shaped lander. The reflectors wouldn't have had to be placed on the surface like the pictures we see of them.

Sorry, but when you use words like "probably" so many times and "or something" with no proof to back up what you say, your credibility goes right out the window.

The motion of the astronauts in the two sets of footage is noticably different. I said "Probably" because I don't know exactly how much they slowed down the footage from the Apollo 17 missions. I think the fact that the gravity affects them differently is proof enough.

Also--when the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, it looks exactly like the astronauts are moving in earth gravity.
There's also the behavior of the astronauts in the press conference. That's mere circumstantial evidence but it's pretty strong.

[Athena]

My father supported his family nicely in an exclusive neighbor within driving distance of NASA. Other men, who also working at NASA, lived in the neighborhood. Now if the moon landing is nothing but a scam, it was a very elaborate one, involving many families living well as this technology was developed and moon mission was completed.

It would also include many more people working on parts that were contracted out to them, across the country, such my neighbor who was in charge of quality control of some contracted out parts.

Having nuclear bombs is not enough. You must also be able to deliver those bombs. Missile technology is very important to this military technology. A base of operation is also very important, and the USSR had nuclear ability and orbited the earth. Rest assured, if the USSR appeared to be in the process of building a missile base on the moon, the US would be very interested in developing on the real estate. So in part, we are less interested in the moon, because the USSR isn't going there soon.

My father has consulted on the Star Wars project, and unfortunately can not tell me what he knows, but this program has proceeded through every administration. I think it would be safe to say, this military technology has developed in a different direction than land based bases. So not returning to the moon is not a matter of lack of technology, but rather the result of technology advancing in a different direction.

We made a huge technological leap following WW II. In part this was possible because of the GI Bill and so many returning soldiers taking advantage of it, as my father did. In part it was also because the technology of WW II changed how we perceive national defensive and what our nation can do, and must do. I hope some day more people understand the connection between Hitler's New World Order and Bush's New World Order, and why we replaced liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose, and what this has to do with contracting out military support, instead of the military managing everything involved with war, and many other dramatic changes in our country.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Scott There's also the behavior of the astronauts. Astronauts Gone Wild - Google Video

Interesting interviews. The whole production would have been more credible without the artsy 3 mins to the end added to it. That said, the behaviour of the astronauts do seem odd. As for the discrepencies between some of the statements of the different astronauts; that could be simply due to their age and ability to recall.

I can forgive those astronauts for getting angry the way they did. They were duped into those interviews under false pretenses.

I`ve gone back and forth over whether I believe we actually went to the moon. The one point that usually makes me believe we did is that there would have had to been so many people in on this conspiracy that it would have been impossible to keep a lid on it. Someone on the inside would have decided to leak the info or write a book about it for personal gain.

[Chris]

Quote by: Scott The reflectors might have been built on the lander. There might have been adjustable reflectors all the way around a circular-shaped lander. The reflectors wouldn't have had to be placed on the surface like the pictures we see of them.

You mean these photos: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...anging/a14.jpg

The ones with Astronauts footprints? Or are those Robot Footprints?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Century 25 But.. on the Lunar Missions.. actual space flight.. no.. no fatalities..

I said that.

And Apollo XIII demonstrated the redundancy & can-do spirit of the real NASA.. that is long.. long gone. The shittle.. er.. shuttle.. is a sorry excuse for the original design.. it was tricky dick's cheapened version that we have today.. complete with Thiokol's join-the-sections solid boosters.. cheaper than one-piece boosters.. space flight shouldn't be trusted to the low bidder/cheap design concept crowd.

Agreed. But still, NASA has worked wonders with what they had.

[Chris]

Scott, those astronauts are from a different era - they werent pansy ass men, they were acting that way because of an annoying idiot getting in their faces harassing them.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Chris Scott, those astronauts are from a different era - they werent pansy ass men, they were acting that way because of an annoying idiot getting in their faces harassing them.

And of course this is thrown in as a distraction because there is no credible evidence to support a fake moon landing CT. How astronauts behave during interviews has NOTHING to do with whether they made it to the Moon or not.

This one isn't even a "nice try."

[Chris]

Quote by: Scott There is lots of circumstantial evidence too. There are no clear shots of an object being thrown to illustrate how things move in lunar gravity. The Hammer feather drop was fakable.

You make this claim but you fail to give us any evidence or reason how you think it is "fakable"

How can it be faked?

[Chris]

The whole big argument that guy has from the google video is stupid. The light in the upper left, is a light from within the spacecraft. The black marks that get in front of the earth are someone else in the craft.

The whole claim is ludicrous and him, by going and harassing these poor old men, who probably have had enough harassing from the moon landing conspiracy crowd, just got fed up with another asshole asking to come into their homes and personal time under false pretenses.

I probably would have done the same thing they did.