Moon Landing

[Derach]

The 'fake moon landing' has to be the weakest conspiracy theory ever. Most of the claims from the conspiracy theorists are easily explained by film exposure or simple laws of optics (like the reflection of objects on the curved surface of helmets producing unlike images of the same object).

And to say something couldn't have possibly happened because it represents such an insurmountable accomplishment is ludicrous! ... It's like saying the Great Pyramid was never constructed because it is such an unbelievable feat to accomplish that it just couldn't have been done (just ignore the fact that you can actually go see and touch it)! History is littered with unimaginable human achievments.

Besides, not one legitimate scientist (who actually makes their living studying space) can support the ridiculous theory. There are far more legit scientists who argue against global warming than there are to refute the legitimacy of the moon landing.

It is offensive to those people who have devoted their lives (and some who have given it) in pursuit of an accomplishment that some whack-jobs want to deny them. To suggest that the hundreds of people who devoted themselves to the Apollo mission either did so in vain or were actively involved in a conspiracy should outrage the families of those people. I'm not one of them, so I am not offended at anyone's opinion ... even if it is utterly foolish.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Derach And to say something couldn't have possibly happened because it represents such an insurmountable accomplishment is ludicrous! ... It's like saying the Great Pyramid was never constructed because it is such an unbelievable feat to accomplish that it just couldn't have been done

Of course it's real. It was built by Disney in 1963.

To suggest that the hundreds of people who devoted themselves to the Apollo mission either did so in vain or were actively involved in a conspiracy should outrage the families of those people. I'm not one of them, so I am not offended at anyone's opinion ... even if it is utterly foolish.

It suggests that the secret can be kept by THOUSANDS, and not hundreds of people for all these years and that is a big conspiracy theory killer. It is almost impossible to keep ALL those mouths shut. Interestingly enough, I can't think of anyone actually involved in the project saying it was a hoax and providing any proof of such a claim.

[Scott]

I said the astronauts' behavior was only circumstantial evidence.

What do you think of this. I think this is proof that some of the footage was faked.

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.

The hoax-debunking sites provide plausible alternative explanations for a lot of hoax claims but that doesn't debunk them. All it takes is one piece of solid proof that the missions were faked and all of those plausible explanations fall by the wayside. I've seen several things that I think are conclusive proof that at least some of the footage was faked. I've never seen any proof that the missions were real.

Post something specific that you think is proof that the missions were real and we can discuss whether it's really proof.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Scott... Why would the USSR have played along?

In the middle of the Cold War, when both sides were out to embarrass the other... why would they not only play along, but KEEP the secret for so long?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Scott... Why would the USSR have played along? In the middle of the Cold War, when both sides were out to embarrass the other... why would they not only play along, but KEEP the secret for so long? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Same reason they played along with "the Cold War". Uncle Sammy was building them trucks, and ships, and roads so they work their way into Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan.


It's hard to justify all the military spending without spooks that come out of the night. Even if they have to be manufactured.


In his books about such subjects, Anthony Sutton pretty much yanks the rug out from under popular history.


Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, by Antony C. Sutton, 1974

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, by Antony C. Sutton, 1976

The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, by Antony C. Sutton, 1986


You can read two of them free online at the AMPP Bookshelf...
The Architecture of Modern Political Power

[Chris]

Most conspiracy people don't know that Apollo 11 was wrought with problems. On the actual landing, you had scores of engineers back at Mission Control with stopwatches making calculations - to determine how much fuel they could burn to land before reaching the point of no return. The "Eagle" lander landed with 15 seconds of fuel to spare. It had to be manually landed because the computer was trying to land it into some boulders. During the moonwalk, the ignition circuit breaker had broken while they walked around inside with bulky space suits. Buzz Aldrin had to use a pen to push in the circuit breaker at the same time Neil Armstrong had to fire the ignition - the pen saved their lives.

So saying it went off "without a hitch" and therefore had to obviously be faked is a slap in the face to the brilliant engineers and scientists who made it possible. It took guts and brain power. They saw the goal and made it happen.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Chris So saying it went off "without a hitch" and therefore had to obviously be faked is a slap in the face to the brilliant engineers and scientists who made it possible. It took guts and brain power. They saw the goal and made it happen.

Don't forget how Armstrong was damn near killed just flying the lander SIMULATOR. I don't EVER want to be involved with anything that went "without a hitch" as much as Project Apollo.

[Century 25]

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

Yes.. they used all the technology at hand.. but the shuttle could have been much better.. it wasn't the technology that was lacking.. it was the do-it-on-the-cheap gang (repub's) that slashed the larger & better shuttle..

Now Bush has OK'd a "return to the moon" blah.. blah.. all talk & too bad.. gotta dump the shuttle & Hubble.. and forget the space station.. and guess what.. all they could come up with is a 45 or 46 year old design.. merely upgraded in size & booster rating.. that is if the grand plan survives Bush.. doubtful..

So here we will sit and watch other nations advance into space.. while we lost all of those years.. we still use the 50 year old Atlas booster.. what a laugh..

I suppose it has been so long ago now that more & more people can't conceive how we ever went to the moon.. it reminds me of that sci-fi movie.. "From Earth to the Moon" .. similar story.. but it has happened throughout history too..

[Scott]

Is anyone good at math?

Look at the object being thrown at the 1 minute 15 second mark in this video.
YouTube - Six clips of thrown objects

All that has to be done is to measure the distance the object is thrown and measure the speed of the object and see if it works out right according the formulas.

Trajectories

The speed of the object will have to be measured very precisely. I wouldn't know how to do it.

Does anyone see the difference in body movements in the two clips?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm
YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage
(first six seconds)

Wouldn't the movements in all the footage be consistent if they'd really gone to the moon?

At the 30 minute 30 second mark of "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" the Apollo 11 footage can be seen at double speed. It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
Here are two new links to it.
YouTube - funny thing happened on the way to the moon clip
A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon FULL.avi

If it goes off-line again, it can be seen here.
Man didnt land on the moon
(21 minute mark)

I've been gone a long time. I'll address some of the questions.

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?

Couldn't they have used a cardboard hammer and a lead feather and shown it in slow motion?

Scott... Why would the USSR have played along?

There are a lot of plausible explanations. There might have been some kind of agreement with them. You're assuming the official version of what was happening reflects reality. Have you read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?

Uncle Sam: How the Cold War worked
Deterring Democracy: Chapter 1 [1/20]


"What Happened on the Moon" has gone off-line but here are some clips from it.
YouTube - Apollo Moon Hoax? Dr. David Groves Analysis
YouTube - Apollo Moon Hoax? Sun or Spotlight?
YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage
YouTube - Apollo Moon Hoax? Spotlights, Fall-off, Camera Angles

"Astronauts Gone Wild" has gone off-line too but some highlights of it are in this video.
Did we really land Men on the Moon?

Here is a better version of "Was it only a Paper Moon?"
Was it only a paper moon? James Collier (Better Quality)
This is the low-quality version I first posted.
http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm

Here is some more stuff.
Apollo Internet Images and Videos With Inconsistencies Anomalies
Aulis Online - Different Thinking
Aulis Online - Different Thinking
Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?
NASA REALLY MOONED US

mime11.com - Videos About 911
click on "Bomb" icon then click on moon.

Apollo details

Those links of the press conference have gone off-line. Here another one.
Clip of Apollo II press conference

YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax-One Giant Spotlight For Mankind

YouTube - Moon Landing Bogosity Bullshit
YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax- Phil Plaits Bullshit PT.2
YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax-Phil Plaits Bullshit Pt.3

Aulis Online - Different Thinking

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chris The earth's escape velocity is 11.2km/s and the moons is 2.4km/s Less gravity in combination with a smaller escape velocity. require less effort.

Actually, escape velocity isn't really that important. If you have enough fuel, you can escape from the earth's gravity by going 50 mph.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Isherwood Lower gravity and no atmosphere. Lack of money due to public disinterest. Many feel if we can't stake a claim to the moon and exploit it then it isn't worth the effort.

That brings up a good question:

Why can't people stake claims on the moon? Settlers came to the US and started setting up shop and naming stuff that people were already living on and nobody seemed to mind (except the dislodged inhabitants of course). No-one owns the moon. Wouldn't it just be first come first serve?

I agree that it sounds a bit convenient that, in the middle of the Cold War, we miraculously are able to make it to the moon and back and yet no other country, ourselves included, has done it again.

I can't be too skeptical though because my great uncle was Deke Slayton so my going on about doctored photos and such wouldn't do much to honor his memory.

That being said, I don't really care either way. I am pretty sure we made it there to begin with but if we didn't I would understand why our government would have fabricated the information. And I know we could make it there now and in the future so I'm not terribly concerned. I hope I live long enough to see some enhance space missions because that Mars Rover thing was mind blowing!

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Muckraker Why can't people stake claims on the moon? Settlers came to the US and started setting up shop and naming stuff that people were already living on and nobody seemed to mind (except the dislodged inhabitants of course). No-one owns the moon. Wouldn't it just be first come first serve?

Settlers actually went out the the land they wanted and physically staked a claim. When the average person can go to the moon and stake a claim, maybe it will be honored.

Quote by: Muckraker I agree that it sounds a bit convenient that, in the middle of the Cold War, we miraculously are able to make it to the moon and back and yet no other country, ourselves included, has done it again.

We went because we wanted to beat the Russians to the moon. Aside from that, why would we want to go back? What would the payoff be?

Quote by: Muckraker I hope I live long enough to see some enhance space missions because that Mars Rover thing was mind blowing!

The first soft landing on Mars, with thousands of photos beamed back, was in 1976. In spite of all the hoopla about the 2004 landing, what new information we got was worth the $400 million dollar cost? More than 30 years later, and we accomplished very little of real value.

[Chris]

Quote by: Zeebadee Actually, escape velocity isn't really that important. If you have enough fuel, you can escape from the earth's gravity by going 50 mph.

uhhh, no you cant. Care to explain why you think you can?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chris uhhh, no you cant. Care to explain why you think you can?

Sure, this is a commonly misunderstood problem. Escape velocity is determined in part by the distance of the vehicle from the center of the earth. Start out going straight up from the earth at 50 mph and, if you have enough fuel, eventually you will be at a point far enough from the center of the earth so that escape velocity from that point is 50 mph. There are many disbelievers about this, but it's really just simple math.

[Scott]

Does anyone see the difference in body movements in the two clips? http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage (first six seconds) Wouldn't the movements in all the footage be consistent if they'd really gone to the moon?

I'd like to hear your opinions of this. I see a difference in the body movement of the astronauts in the two clips. Do you see any difference?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Chris uhhh, no you cant. Care to explain why you think you can?

Actually you could, but you would need a tremendous amount of fuel to do it.
An object's escape velocity is simply the speed at which it can excape the gravitational pull of the Earth without using any power. The point being, the booster is designed to get the vehicle up to speed before its fuel runs out.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Scribbler1 And don't forget the Moon doesn't spin, so the best landing spots should be easy to figure out.

Of course the moon spins. Picture yourself on Mars watching the earth. Every time the moon goes around the earth you've watched it complete a revolution.

[SoylentGreen]

Muckraker Why can't people stake claims on the moon?

Oh but you can.



Lunar Property from the Lunar Embassy - World Headquarters

A company called Lunar Embassy, which describes itself as "the founders and leaders of the extraterrestrial real estate market," claims to have been in the business of selling Lunar Property for over 25 years to over 3.4 million customers. There are other companies selling land on the moon as well, but it seems that Lunar Embassy is the first and biggest. According to the Lunar Embassy website, you can buy one acre of "prime real estate" on the moon -- with great Earth views -- for just $19.95. Lunar Embassy has also created "The Century Club" for "1000 lucky participants" who get 1777.58 acres of celestial land and other "benefits" for a mere $1000 US dollars. Chinese authorities have shut down this scheme in China on charges of "profiteering and lunacy." (We doubt this pun was intended.) Lunar Embassy is also selling extraterrestrial domains: For example, you can reserve your .ln, .le, .moon or .mars domain name now. ;-) So, is this for real or a scam? According to the Lunar Embassy website, their legal basis for ownership is that "one can become the legal owner of an extraterrestrial body, if you are the first one who claimed it, and that is the Lunar Embassy."

And after you get your one acre theres a bridge in brooklyn that I happen to know is for sale if your interested.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Zeebadee Of course the moon spins. Picture yourself on Mars watching the earth. Every time the moon goes around the earth you've watched it complete a revolution.

No, the moon doesn't spin, it ORBITS the Earth, but the same side faces the Earth at all times. Human eyes never saw the dark side until Apollo 10 orbited the Moon.

The "spin" part is more of a technicality.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Scribbler1 No, the moon doesn't spin, it ORBITS the Earth, but the same side faces the Earth at all times. Human eyes never saw the dark side until Apollo 10 orbited the Moon. The "spin" part is more of a technicality.

Like I said, an observer on Mars would see all sides of the moon, and to him, it would complete a revolution. Therefore, it must rotate.