PDA

View Full Version : Moon Landing A Fake or Fact - expose


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

mari
11-01-2008, 02:03 AM
Was he the guy who perished with 2 others in that module?

mari
11-01-2008, 02:08 AM
I think that's very possible. Certainly some of the aliens regard us in that light and I don't blame them! David Percy says that's why so many spacrcraft have failed over the years. In fact all in all spacecraft have a less that 50% success rate. Luckily most are unmanned, but they still take up a lot of money and efffort.

Yep, I had the strangest feeling all those years ago ('86) when Challenger blew up just off the launch pad -the feeling was as if this was somehow designed to happen- just to keep our wings clipped -ie 'don't get too clever....' We glorified 'progress' at the expense of spirituality then & are still doing it now.

hagbard_celine
12-01-2008, 01:06 PM
Was he the guy who perished with 2 others in that module?

That's him. There was a terrible fire in the spacecraft during a routine test. This has never been subjected to a public enquiery and to this day the Apollo 1 CM remains under lock and key at a military base.

hagbard_celine
12-01-2008, 01:09 PM
Yep, I had the strangest feeling all those years ago ('86) when Challenger blew up just off the launch pad -the feeling was as if this was somehow designed to happen- just to keep our wings clipped -ie 'don't get too clever....' We glorified 'progress' at the expense of spirituality then & are still doing it now.

I don't know about Challenger, but there's no doubt alines have intervened in the space programme. They shot down a rocket bound for the moon with a nuclear warhead. NASA had planned to explode the bomb on the moon! This could mean that someone (or something) is living up there and was endangered by the bomb.

mari
12-01-2008, 02:48 PM
I don't know about Challenger, but there's no doubt alines have intervened in the space programme. They shot down a rocket bound for the moon with a nuclear warhead. NASA had planned to explode the bomb on the moon! This could mean that someone (or something) is living up there and was endangered by the bomb.

:eek: do you have info/links on this?

drakul
12-01-2008, 03:47 PM
I don't know about Challenger, but there's no doubt alines have intervened in the space programme. They shot down a rocket bound for the moon with a nuclear warhead. NASA had planned to explode the bomb on the moon! This could mean that someone (or something) is living up there and was endangered by the bomb.


Why would NASA want to explode a bomb on the moon?

hagbard_celine
14-01-2008, 03:22 PM
:eek: do you have info/links on this?

It's on the Testimony DVD. See the third product down. The witness is a military photographer, but I can't remember his name.

hagbard_celine
14-01-2008, 03:23 PM
Why would NASA want to explode a bomb on the moon?


Good question.:cool:

I have no idea!

Maybe it was to show off our firepower to the aliens. Maybe it was to destroy or create an interdimensional portal.

drakul
14-01-2008, 04:24 PM
Good question.:cool:

I have no idea!

Maybe it was to show off our firepower to the aliens. Maybe it was to destroy or create an interdimensional portal.

Since the moon has little or no atmosphere, would it be possible to explode a nuclear bomb there?

hagbard_celine
14-01-2008, 06:05 PM
Since the moon has little or no atmosphere, would it be possible to explode a nuclear bomb there?

Definitely. A nuclear bomb usues a fission reaction within the particles of the explosive material inside it. What's outside it is irrelevant. It's not like burning coal or oil where an exterior oxygen source is needed.

angelicangel
14-01-2008, 10:17 PM
Can someone tell me why that neither USA or Russia never landed on the moon again after their last landing. It seems funny that one week the Russians landed on the moon, then a few weeks later the USA landed. But why after all this time , no buildings, no more experiments or even bothered to find out if anyone or thing lives there. Another question, people have been complaining about the ozone layer. Well surely if rockets fly out of our atmosphere into space, surely this is doing something to weaken the ozone layer and ruin everything for us people back on earth. Causing harmful rays coming directly to earth.:p

hagbard_celine
16-01-2008, 03:53 AM
Can someone tell me why that neither USA or Russia never landed on the moon again after their last landing. It seems funny that one week the Russians landed on the moon, then a few weeks later the USA landed. But why after all this time , no buildings, no more experiments or even bothered to find out if anyone or thing lives there. Another question, people have been complaining about the ozone layer. Well surely if rockets fly out of our atmosphere into space, surely this is doing something to weaken the ozone layer and ruin everything for us people back on earth. Causing harmful rays coming directly to earth.:p

It's odd that after Apollo 11 a NASA scientist was interviewed saying that by 1985 there'd be a permanent moon base and regular journeys to and from it. Sci-fi at the time often portrayed such progress, like Arthur C Clarke's 2001. In fact we've had to wait until very recently, with President Bush's announcement that he's giving NASA funds for a new manned moon mission and the new project by China to land a man on the moon. Both programmes will probably take 10 to 20 years until they're ready to launch. (If they do claim to get there then don't assume they're for real either!)

As for the environmental damage done by rockets: I don't know. If launches became a regular thing then they might well do some harm to the Earth's atmosphere. Arthur C Clarke mentions this in his novel The Fountains of Paradise. The book is about the construction of a space elevator; a huge tower stretching right up into orbit making space as easy to get to as anywhere else on Earth! Of course when anti-gravity technology gets declassified even this ambitious technology will be obsolete!

adimon
16-01-2008, 04:19 AM
Can someone tell me why that neither USA or Russia never landed on the moon again after their last landing. It seems funny that one week the Russians landed on the moon, then a few weeks later the USA landed. But why after all this time , no buildings, no more experiments or even bothered to find out if anyone or thing lives there. Another question, people have been complaining about the ozone layer. Well surely if rockets fly out of our atmosphere into space, surely this is doing something to weaken the ozone layer and ruin everything for us people back on earth. Causing harmful rays coming directly to earth.:p

Ozone layer = pure bullshit

Reason they haven't sent any more robots to the Moon is there is no point. They have no desire to colonise the moon anymore. They want to aim big, and go for large, far off, habitable planets and galaxies.

hagbard_celine
16-01-2008, 04:25 AM
Ozone layer = pure bullshit

Reason they haven't sent any more robots to the Moon is there is no point. They have no desire to colonise the moon anymore. They want to aim big, and go for large, far off, habitable planets and galaxies.

But the moon would be a useful first step. It's a place you could base spacecraft above the gravity well of the Earth. It's even been found recently to have water on it!

adimon
16-01-2008, 04:29 AM
Good point HC, but my friend who works for GD has done some calculations on a futurological project he's been working on and he thinks they will be sending cities up as spheres contained within pencil tipped modules on top of unimaginably big reservoirs of fuels and jets, and that the gravity different to escape earth vs the moon is not worth the development costs to get the moon up to scratch.

I take it you believe they have lots of shit up there already in the way of infrastructure?

angelicangel
16-01-2008, 12:17 PM
Well I never thought the Moon was so uninteresting, why can't they use it for a stopping off spot for refuelling, repairs and restocking food. Could build a sub station for picking alien radio waves so they wouldn't get interfered with by atmospherics.(like my Sky does sometimes.):p

hagbard_celine
17-01-2008, 03:17 PM
Good point HC, but my friend who works for GD has done some calculations on a futurological project he's been working on and he thinks they will be sending cities up as spheres contained within pencil tipped modules on top of unimaginably big reservoirs of fuels and jets, and that the gravity different to escape earth vs the moon is not worth the development costs to get the moon up to scratch.

I take it you believe they have lots of shit up there already in the way of infrastructure?


Yes, I've always been interested in the Disclosure Project testimony on that. If there is infrastructure up there though it doesn't mean that the people who run it will allow NASA to use it!:eek:

hagbard_celine
17-01-2008, 03:19 PM
Well I never thought the Moon was so uninteresting, why can't they use it for a stopping off spot for refuelling, repairs and restocking food. Could build a sub station for picking alien radio waves so they wouldn't get interfered with by atmospherics.(like my Sky does sometimes.):p

Here's a mainstream film about the moon: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1896055649209378401&q=the+moon&total=96305&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

pri01
17-01-2008, 06:33 PM
Whenever I see the full moon, or a large proportion of it, I often say to whoever is with me "Look up, it's a sunny day on the moon". I know that might sound daft to some of you but that's how I see it, if the other side is dark (night), then the visible side must be day. The thing is, did the supposed moon landers, land on the dark side? If they did land at all, then because the background is black, one has to assume that they were on the dark side. If they landed on the side that is visible from earth, when not obscured from the sun by the earth it would appear as if it were daylight. Wouldn't it?:confused:

hagbard_celine
17-01-2008, 06:49 PM
Whenever I see the full moon, or a large proportion of it, I often say to whoever is with me "Look up, it's a sunny day on the moon". I know that might sound daft to some of you but that's how I see it, if the other side is dark (night), then the visible side must be day. The thing is, did the supposed moon landers, land on the dark side? If they did land at all, then because the background is black, one has to assume that they were on the dark side. If they landed on the side that is visible from earth, when not obscured from the sun by the earth it would appear as if it were daylight. Wouldn't it?:confused:

All the manned missions were supposedly on the Earthside during the lunar daytime, which lasts for 14 of our own. There are photoes of ther far side first taken by the Soviet Luna programme. Iwonderr if it really is the real far side. It looks very different to the near side. There are much fewer of thew "Maria" light patches and the surface is nearly all the dark "Terrae" farmation.

One of the most suspicious things is something that was quickly forgotten about Apollo 13: everyone is so engrossed in the story of the "Houston, we have a problem" rescue attempt that few have commented on where Apollo 13 was going to land if it had succeeded in its mission: The crater of Fra Mauro. But at the time Apollo 13 would have landed Fra Mauro would have passed over the terminator into the lunar night! This would mean the astronauts would be stumbling about in the dark!

dmessick
17-01-2008, 08:13 PM
Well, I never really thought about the moon landing much at all but the fact that where the landing 'occured' had a black background really makes me scratch my head. Shouldn't the background be bright? If they landed on the dark side why was the ground lite up everywhere? I really enjoy this forum by the way. thumbs up.

hagbard_celine
18-01-2008, 06:42 PM
Well, I never really thought about the moon landing much at all but the fact that where the landing 'occured' had a black background really makes me scratch my head. Shouldn't the background be bright? If they landed on the dark side why was the ground lite up everywhere? I really enjoy this forum by the way. thumbs up.


Glad you like it, mate. Me too:)

It certainly should have been in the daytime! The astronauts would have needed sunlight to see what they were doing because they had no artificial lights. Night on the moon is pitch black, especially when the Earth's own night side was turned towards it. In our urban-living culture we rarely experience real night. We have car lights and streetlights everywhere. But when I was at the meet-up in Glastonbury I experienced it. I stumbled back to the campsite completely lost, unable to see the ground beneath my feet! Ask Gold and she'll tell you; she was with me!

For what was for me an incpnvenience would have meant death for the Apollo 13 crew. They couldn't even have landed because they would have had to bring the LM down visually in the final stage of the descent. Fra Mauro lies almost at the centreline of the lunar disc. When Apollo 13 took off the moon was waning to half. By the time the craft would have landed it would have been a crescent with Fra Mauro in darkness. This was forgotten about once the world was focused on the "We have a problem" rescue.

Here's a thought:confused::confused:: Maybe the plan to stage the explosion was made after the launch! It could be that the producers had overlooked that little discrepancy I've just outlined. It's often the most obvious things that do get overlooked! If they'd come hone with colour pics and TV footage of astronauts bouncing around in the sunlight when they were actually at a place where it was night it would have been a dead giveaway. Once they realized their mistake it was too late, the Apollo craft was in orbit. What could they do!? If you were the, dare I say, script-writer what would you come up with?;)

angelicangel
18-01-2008, 07:00 PM
Hi HC, do you think Gerry Anderson had something to do with the moon landings? When you look at some of the Thunderbird stories they seem to have fooled children of certain ages what was going to happen to them. So why couldn't Gerry Anderson fool the rest of the world? ;)

hagbard_celine
18-01-2008, 07:21 PM
Hi HC, do you think Gerry Anderson had something to do with the moon landings? When you look at some of the Thunderbird stories they seem to have fooled children of certain ages what was going to happen to them. So why couldn't Gerry Anderson fool the rest of the world? ;)

Well the quality of the visual effects in the Apollo footage was about the same as that for Space 1999. So maybe Gerry did have something to do with it.

hagbard_celine
19-01-2008, 03:18 AM
(Correction: In the psot before the last I said that the moon would be even darker without the "Earthlight" when the dark side is towards the moon. Of course with the half-moon, the Earth would be half too. The Earth's dark side is only turned towards the moon during a full moon.)

angelicangel
20-01-2008, 01:04 AM
Hi HC, Yes I agree 1999 does sound more like it, gone was the days when we all sat and watched that on tv. Of course it does make you wonder if it was directed, it must have cost the companies lots of money to keep the said astronauts quiet for all those years. Or did they think they had travelled out of space, like something off Big Brother. At one stage I think I remember they wasnt told where they was, but ended up in some sort of warehouse. It's possible, they could have been drugged.:confused:

corivss
20-01-2008, 08:07 AM
The moon landing was real, yes. Although, we had help getting to the moon from ET's who closely monitored the voyage the entire way. UFO's have been documented in reports on every single voyage to the moon. We did not have the technology at the time to make it there by ourselves. The van allen belt radiation would have killed everyone inside the ship without intervention from ET technology. It's time to accept that "we" made it to the moon. There are far more important things to talk about than dwelling on the past one forum post at a time.

boom
20-01-2008, 04:03 PM
The moon landing was real, yes. Although, we had help getting to the moon from ET's who closely monitored the voyage the entire way. UFO's have been documented in reports on every single voyage to the moon. We did not have the technology at the time to make it there by ourselves. The van allen belt radiation would have killed everyone inside the ship without intervention from ET technology. It's time to accept that "we" made it to the moon. There are far more important things to talk about than dwelling on the past one forum post at a time.



Then Again the Apollo missions could have been carried out exacly as we were told. After all there is no evidence to prove otherwise none at all only poor understanding of the subject. Your claim that the Van Allen Belts would have killed everyone inside is totally false.

boom
20-01-2008, 04:08 PM
One of the most suspicious things is something that was quickly forgotten about Apollo 13: everyone is so engrossed in the story of the "Houston, we have a problem" rescue attempt that few have commented on where Apollo 13 was going to land if it had succeeded in its mission: The crater of Fra Mauro. But at the time Apollo 13 would have landed Fra Mauro would have passed over the terminator into the lunar night! This would mean the astronauts would be stumbling about in the dark!

Good old Mary Bennett some would say, others tell the truth.
The claims made by Bennett regarding Apollo 13 are hilarious and show a complete lack of understanding about what she is waffling on about.

boom
20-01-2008, 04:25 PM
"Keep quiet or you'll end up like Gus Grissom!":mad:

Thats totally out of order and totally unfounded. Why would NASA destroy millions of dollars worth of spacecraft and set their program back by a long way even to the point of almost being canceled just to shut someone up? The workmanship in the spacecraft was below par many faults were found unfortunately to late to save those men.

southpaw63
20-01-2008, 06:36 PM
Maybe the ozone=b.s. on rocket reactions, but read Angels Don't Play This HAARP before discounting the effects of rockets and other foreign matter on the environment above us, particularly the VanAllen (?) belts and our electromagnetic net

boom
20-01-2008, 06:53 PM
If burning fossil fuels is actually having an adverse effect on the climate then rocket launches at the moment would be a tiny proportion.

raffles
20-01-2008, 07:44 PM
Your claim that the Van Allen Belts would have killed everyone inside is totally false.

And how do you know this then sunshine ?
Are you an ex-apollo astronaunt, or are you just repeating what you have been told ?

boom
20-01-2008, 07:50 PM
And how do you know this then sunshine ?
Are you an ex-apollo astronaunt, or are you just repeating what you have been told ?

Well that could be said of people who make this claim, that they are also just repeating what they have been told. In fact that seems to be the best bet as all the evidence supports they are wrong and not one single bit supports their fantasy.

raffles
20-01-2008, 09:25 PM
Not myself i question everything, im not saying the van allen belts are safe or not, i have no idea and neither do you, you are going not what you have been told.
There are far too many inconsistencies with the offical story thats why this topic is still getting so many people talking.

boom
20-01-2008, 10:23 PM
Well im saying the Van Allen belts wouldnt not have prevented the Apollo missions with or without alien technology.

What inconsistencies?

raffles
21-01-2008, 01:14 AM
Well im saying the Van Allen belts wouldnt not have prevented the Apollo missions with or without alien technology.

What inconsistencies?

And how do you now the belts wouldnt have stopped the apollo missions ? you dont you have no idea if the belts are safe or not, and neither do i.
It is strange that when the shuttle flew to its highest ever altitude the astronauts reported seeing flashes in their eyes and yet the so called apollo astronauts didnt see this..

Whats inconsistencies you say, well check thru some of the old threads on here there are loads..

angelicangel
21-01-2008, 01:56 AM
I fully agree, years ago people were more gullible than what they are today. Tv was a new form of entertainment and some people believed what they saw. My father wasn't convinced he said it looked like it was staged on a film set, my mother was more on the side that it was genuine. It has only been over the last x amount of years that the truth is finally coming out. I'm sure there is some kind of cover up or someone somewhere knows something they don't want us to know.:confused:

raffles
21-01-2008, 02:19 AM
I fully agree, years ago people were more gullible than what they are today. Tv was a new form of entertainment and some people believed what they saw. My father wasn't convinced he said it looked like it was staged on a film set, my mother was more on the side that it was genuine. It has only been over the last x amount of years that the truth is finally coming out. I'm sure there is some kind of cover up or someone somewhere knows something they don't want us to know.:confused:

LOL, i was having a conversation with my dad about apollo and that it could well have been faked.
My dad said thats nonsance !! i watched the apollo 11 moon landing live on tv so i no they where real !! LMAO

hagbard_celine
21-01-2008, 02:39 PM
And how do you know this then sunshine ?
Are you an ex-apollo astronaunt, or are you just repeating what you have been told ?


Well seeing as the properties of the van Allen belts were not completely understood in the 60's, if they even are today, then if the radiation in them wasn't enough to kill everyone on board the Apollo craft I suppose they were just plain lucky!:rolleyes:

hagbard_celine
21-01-2008, 02:40 PM
Good old Mary Bennett some would say, others tell the truth.
The claims made by Bennett regarding Apollo 13 are hilarious and show a complete lack of understanding about what she is waffling on about.

Is that it? Are you not going to tell us why these claims are hillarious?

hagbard_celine
21-01-2008, 02:42 PM
Thats totally out of order and totally unfounded. Why would NASA destroy millions of dollars worth of spacecraft and set their program back by a long way even to the point of almost being canceled just to shut someone up? The workmanship in the spacecraft was below par many faults were found unfortunately to late to save those men.

Well we don't know do we because there's never been a public inquiry. The CM is to this day stored in a locked hanger. Grisom's widow has been trying to get the govt to hold a coroner's hearing on the matter since the day her husband died. That's what I call out of order.

hagbard_celine
21-01-2008, 02:46 PM
And how do you now the belts wouldnt have stopped the apollo missions ? you dont you have no idea if the belts are safe or not, and neither do i.
It is strange that when the shuttle flew to its highest ever altitude the astronauts reported seeing flashes in their eyes and yet the so called apollo astronauts didnt see this..

Whats inconsistencies you say, well check thru some of the old threads on here there are loads..

What's more the initial analysis of the radiation came back with some very varied results. If you want accurate figures on the properties of the belts then it's hard to know where to go because different sources quote different figures. The belts are probably effected by solar activity too. At the solar maximum they could be much bigger and more intense than at the minimum.

hagbard_celine
21-01-2008, 02:51 PM
I fully agree, years ago people were more gullible than what they are today. Tv was a new form of entertainment and some people believed what they saw. My father wasn't convinced he said it looked like it was staged on a film set, my mother was more on the side that it was genuine. It has only been over the last x amount of years that the truth is finally coming out. I'm sure there is some kind of cover up or someone somewhere knows something they don't want us to know.:confused:

Well done to him for not being swept up in the rapture of it all and keeping his powers of analysis!:)

A few people questioned the moon landings at the time they happened and Bill Kaysing's book came out just a couple of years later. (BTW, his tribute site has been taken down!:() Did you see the film Cadillac Moon? The kid who bullies the boy in the story is a HB. He says "What's the big deal about it? My dad says it's all being filmed in a studio anyway!"

boom
21-01-2008, 03:31 PM
And how do you now the belts wouldnt have stopped the apollo missions ? you dont you have no idea if the belts are safe or not, and neither do i.
It is strange that when the shuttle flew to its highest ever altitude the astronauts reported seeing flashes in their eyes and yet the so called Apollo astronauts didnt see this..

Whats inconsistencies you say, well check thru some of the old threads on here there are loads..


Now hold on i never said the belts were safe they certainly are not. If you hang around in the belts for to long you will get messed up. Thats the key you see the Apollo missions were flown throught the thinnest parts of the belts at high speed that why everyone wasnt killed or harmed.

The claim that someone made that flying through the belts on an Apollo mission would have killed everyone inside is ludicrous as other space craft do it. So are we to assume these other spacecraft are fakes also?


Some Apollo astronauts saw flashes some did not so sorry but you are wrong on that one.

boom
21-01-2008, 03:39 PM
Well we don't know do we because there's never been a public inquiry. The CM is to this day stored in a locked hanger. Grisom's widow has been trying to get the govt to hold a coroner's hearing on the matter since the day her husband died. That's what I call out of order.


Yes we do know you just havent botherd to check facts. So the huge enquiry wasnt good enough for you then? What more do you suggest they could have done? You said about the CM being locked in a hanger as if its hidden away which it isnt. Thats where its kept and yes there is a lock on the door but not for any sinister reason as you seem to be implying. What do you suggest they hang it from the ceiling in the space center?

hagbard_celine
21-01-2008, 03:44 PM
You said about the CM being locked in a hanger as if its hidden away which it isnt. Thats where its kept and yes there is a lock on the door but not for any sinister reason as you seem to be implying. What do you suggest they hang it from the ceiling in the space center?


Well they could allow an independant coroner's team to go aboard. A police CSI investigator.

hagbard_celine
21-01-2008, 03:45 PM
Yes we do know you just havent botherd to check facts. So the huge enquiry wasnt good enough for you then? What more do you suggest they could have done?


If there was a thorough investigation then how come Mrs Grissom is still campaigning for answers? If she's not satisfied with the outcome then why should we be?

boom
21-01-2008, 03:45 PM
What's more the initial analysis of the radiation came back with some very varied results. If you want accurate figures on the properties of the belts then it's hard to know where to go because different sources quote different figures. The belts are probably effected by solar activity too. At the solar maximum they could be much bigger and more intense than at the minimum.

So when a satellite manufacture is going to shield there sat what do they do guess?

hagbard_celine
21-01-2008, 03:46 PM
So when a satellite manufacture is going to shield there sat what do they do guess?

You use the present tense, but what about in the 60's?

boom
21-01-2008, 03:50 PM
Well they could allow an independant coroner's team to go aboard. A police CSI investigator.

Yet they allowed a reporter and camera crew access to it.

If you watch the episode of to the moon and back that deals with this you will realise that there was no cover up. Do you really belive that to shut 1 man up NASA would murder 3 men destroy all that hardware and risk (with very nearly happened) getting the whole program closed. You need to watch that episode of to the moon and back.

hagbard_celine
21-01-2008, 03:54 PM
Yet they allowed a reporter and camera crew access to it.

If you watch the episode of to the moon and back that deals with this you will realise that there was no cover up. Do you really belive that to shut 1 man up NASA would murder 3 men destroy all that hardware and risk (with very nearly happened) getting the whole program closed. You need to watch that episode of to the moon and back.

Maybe they wanted to shut all three of them up.;)

boom
21-01-2008, 03:55 PM
If there was a thorough investigation then how come Mrs Grissom is still campaigning for answers? If she's not satisfied with the outcome then why should we be?

Does she support the idea her son was killed? If she is still demanding for answers what answers is she looking for? I remember Mr Grissom saying at the funeral that he didn't blame NASA in any way.

boom
21-01-2008, 03:57 PM
Maybe they wanted to shut all three of them up.;)

Your case is based on nothing more than speculation. OK so they wanted to shut all 3 up so why risk the whole program?

raffles
21-01-2008, 05:42 PM
Some Apollo astronauts saw flashes some did not so sorry but you are wrong on that one.

Any sources of info on this ? Links etc...

angelicangel
21-01-2008, 05:52 PM
No one is going to let us know what happened. All the governments here and abroad keep a lot of information from us. I'm sure if we really knew the truth some people would go into mad panic. Some would want to experience the rewards of probbing and messing around with things, in other words stirring up sheer havoc.
The 60's was about peace and love, for those of us who was young enough to enjoy it, and everyone took notice of what we was told. Having just coming out of the war, they honestly thought what they was told was right.
I don't know how long it will take to come out in the open, but one day there will be alot of red faces around to say sorry to everyone.:p

boom
22-01-2008, 01:53 PM
You use the present tense, but what about in the 60's?


They got their information from the same place NASA. Satellite manufacturer's did and still do rely on NASA for data regarding radiation levels. No manufacturer wants to waste money by using more materials for shielding and thus adding extra weight and increased launch costs.

Of course NASA didn't do all the work on its own for example

In the 1960s, NASA asked Oak Ridge National Laboratory to predict how astronauts and other materials would be affected by exposure to both the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts and the Sun's radiation. Oak Ridge biologists sent bacteria and blood samples into space and exposed small animals to radiation. They concluded that proper shielding would be key to successful flight not only for living organisms, but for electronic instrumentation as well. To develop shielding for the Apollo crews, Oak Ridge researchers recycled the Lab's Tower Shielding Facility, which had hoisted shielding experiments aloft for the 1950's nuclear-plane project.

NASA has over the years collaborated all this information from different sources. Still that said the place to go for information on space radiation was and is NASA because they are the ones that have the information from their own studies and those done for them by others since the 50's.

boom
22-01-2008, 02:05 PM
Any sources of info on this ? Links etc...




One particular effect possibly related to cosmic rays was the light-flash phenomenon reported on the Apollo 11 and subsequent missions. Although it is well known that ionizing radiations can produce visual phosphenes (subjective sensations best described as flashes of light) of the types reported, a definite correlation was not established between cosmic rays and the observation of flashes during the Apollo Program. The light flashes were described as starlike flashes or streaks of light that apparently occur within the eye. The flashes were observed only when the spacecraft cabin was dark or when blindfolds were provided and the crewmen were concentrating on detection of the flashes.

There is a possibility that visual flashes might indicate the occurrence of damage to the brain or eye; however, no damage has been observed among crewmen who experienced the light-flash phenomenon. During the Apollo 16 and 17 missions, a device known as the Apollo Light Flash Moving Emulsion Detector (ALFMED) was employed for the purpose of establishing if the flashes were indeed being caused by heavy cosmic rays. Further information regarding the light-flash phenomenon is contained in Section IV, Chapter 2 of this book.


http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

The crew members on the last seven Apollo flights observed light flashes that are tentatively attributed to cosmic ray nuclei (atomic number 6) penetrating the head and eyes of the observers. Analyses of the event rates for all missions has revealed an anomalously low rate for transearth coast observations with respect to translunar coast observations.

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/183/4128/957?ck=nck


Since the Apollo 11 mission, and perhaps before, astronauts have been seeing things in space: colorful dots, streaks and flashes spotted when their eyes were closed or when the inside of the spacecraft was dark. During one trip to the Moon, astronauts observed a flurry of activity, in green, which they described as being like a St. Patrick's Day display.

Some scientists scoffed at the ghostly observations and at the prediction from the pre-Apollo era that such a phenomenon could occur.

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mir_lights_030416.html

So not only did Apollo crew members observe and report the flashes some scientists predicted they would see them pre Apollo.

hagbard_celine
23-01-2008, 12:32 PM
They got their information from the same place NASA. Satellite manufacturer's did and still do rely on NASA for data regarding radiation levels. No manufacturer wants to waste money by using more materials for shielding and thus adding extra weight and increased launch costs.

Of course NASA didn't do all the work on its own for example



NASA has over the years collaborated all this information from different sources. Still that said the place to go for information on space radiation was and is NASA because they are the ones that have the information from their own studies and those done for them by others since the 50's.

But in the 60's they knew a lot less about the Van Allen belts than they do now (And todays knowlege is not perfect it seems). And satelites DO fail.

boom
23-01-2008, 10:40 PM
But in the 60's they knew a lot less about the Van Allen belts than they do now (And todays knowlege is not perfect it seems). And satelites DO fail.

Yes they knew less then than they know now, but does the difference equate to not being able to successfully travel through the belts in the 60's?

Satellites do fail you are correct. What are the percentages of satellites that have fail due to incorrect radiation data supplied by NASA compared to satellites that have failed for other reasons?

We know more about the seas than ever. Its safer to sail to say America now than it was 100 years ago because we have more knowledge although that knowledge is not perfect. However sailing to America 100 years ago was by no means impossible.

The fact we have more knowledge of the belts now does not mean the knowledge we had then prevented travel through them. Take a look at the work NASA and others did and you will appreciate it wasnt a back of a cigarette box job.

hagbard_celine
25-01-2008, 10:58 AM
Yes they knew less then than they know now, but does the difference equate to not being able to successfully travel through the belts in the 60's?

Satellites do fail you are correct. What are the percentages of satellites that have fail due to incorrect radiation data supplied by NASA compared to satellites that have failed for other reasons?

We know more about the seas than ever. Its safer to sail to say America now than it was 100 years ago because we have more knowledge although that knowledge is not perfect. However sailing to America 100 years ago was by no means impossible.

The fact we have more knowledge of the belts now does not mean the knowledge we had then prevented travel through them. Take a look at the work NASA and others did and you will appreciate it wasnt a back of a cigarette box job.

I think I answer this earlier on in the thread.

boom
25-01-2008, 03:41 PM
Am i getting you wrong or are you saying that because they didn't have a 100% complete understanding of the belts that would have prevented travel through them? Its a good job most people dont think like that otherwise we would never have left the cave.

boom
26-01-2008, 10:54 PM
I don't know about Challenger, but there's no doubt alines have intervened in the space programme. They shot down a rocket bound for the moon with a nuclear warhead. NASA had planned to explode the bomb on the moon! This could mean that someone (or something) is living up there and was endangered by the bomb.

Are you sure your not on about this this:


http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/ ... 00514.html

Air Force Had Plans to Nuke Moon

The U.S. Air Force developed a top-secret Cold War plan to detonate a nuclear bomb on the moon in the 1950s.

In a letter to the journal Nature, physicist Leonard Reiffel, leader of the effort which was called Project A 119, wrote that the Air Force wanted to explore the effects of exploding a nuclear bomb on the moons face. The Air Force wanted the explosion to be clearly visible from Earth.

Reiffel wrote that the military leaders did not seem concerned with the loss to science that would have resulted from a large atomic explosion on the moons surface. Let alone what it may have done to the appearance of the "man in the moon."

Part of the team researching the hypothetical explosion was a young Carl Sagan, who was recruited to study how the mushroom cloud would expand and collapse under the moons lighter gravity. Sagan proposed that a legitimate scientific purpose for the explosion could have been examining the cloud for possible organic material.

Years later, Sagan apparently presented some of the results of his research on the project in an application for an academic fellowship. Reiffel believes that by doing so Sagan breached national security, as the primary secret of the project was its very existence. This breach of security was discussed in a recent biography of the astronomer, but was not detailed in that book.

Striking the moon with one of the then-available Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) was entirely feasible, Reiffel wrote, to an accuracy within a couple of miles (kilometers).

.

hagbard_celine
27-01-2008, 12:37 PM
Am i getting you wrong or are you saying that because they didn't have a 100% complete understanding of the belts that would have prevented travel through them? Its a good job most people dont think like that otherwise we would never have left the cave.

I address this earlier in the thread.

hagbard_celine
27-01-2008, 12:38 PM
Are you sure your not on about this this:




.

Quite possibly. It sounds fairly similar to what the DP witness said he was invloved in.

boom
27-01-2008, 01:00 PM
I address this earlier in the thread.


It would have been helpful to put yes or no so i dont have to wade the masses of posts.

boom
27-01-2008, 01:01 PM
Quite possibly. It sounds fairly similar to what the DP witness said he was invloved in.

So where id id the NASA being involved and it been shot down come from?

hagbard_celine
27-01-2008, 01:17 PM
It would have been helpful to put yes or no so i dont have to wade the masses of posts.


I can't answer yes or no because it's a trip-up question with either answer.

Was 100% knowlege of the belts required? No. But some knowlege was I'm sure, 70 or 80% for instance. the discrepancies on the balt figures don't come from a 70 or 80% knowlege of the betls. They indicate a far less amount of knowlege.

hagbard_celine
27-01-2008, 01:17 PM
So where id id the NASA being involved and it been shot down come from?

It's on the DP witness movie.

boom
27-01-2008, 01:36 PM
I can't answer yes or no because it's a trip-up question with either answer.

Was 100% knowlege of the belts required? No. But some knowlege was I'm sure, 70 or 80% for instance. the discrepancies on the balt figures don't come from a 70 or 80% knowlege of the betls. They indicate a far less amount of knowlege.

Its not a trip up question its one you dont want to answer.

Why 70 or 80% and how can you know when you have reached that level when you dont have a complete understanding and so dont know how much there is to know. This 70 or 80% figure you pulled out of thin air could never be said to have been reached untill you have a complete understanding then you could say we got to 80% on this or that date. How often do you hear a scientist say they have a complete understanding of anything? Ive read quite a few detailed papers on the belts that show height distance thickness particle and radiation level data. They all seem to be in pretty much in tune. Many people worked many hours and did lots of experiments from around 1958 onwards. You seem to be making out the went on a wing and a prayer.

People think there huge differences when jokers like Bart Sibrel take CNN news articles and run with them.

New evidence has shown that the Van Allen belts are indeed stronger and more dangerous than NASA says. Bart Sibrel

It was reported only that the Van Allen belts were slightly larger in places and slightly denser than previously understood. This is not a new reality, merely a refinement of existing figures. We are still studying the Van Allen belts and must occasionally revise our numerical models. The new findings have implications for the astronauts in the Alpha space station. Since these astronauts will be exposed to the fringes of the Van Allen belts for an extended period, it is prudent now to provide a bit of extra polyethylene shielding to the sleeping quarters. For transitory exposure such as in Apollo missions, the new findings add only a negligible hazard.

boom
27-01-2008, 01:37 PM
It's on the DP witness movie.

So they embellished the story somewhat.

h2pogo
27-01-2008, 11:15 PM
when i first heard of this "conspiracy theory" we never went to the moon i thought it was a dilliberate attempt to confuse people.well it seemd to have worked.i cant belive this is one of the most disscused topics on this forum.instead of getting our heads together to fight and expose the coming global fascist state we are arguing over photos and a theory "they" put out to confuse and divide us.

angelicangel
28-01-2008, 12:33 PM
You have heard the saying "You can confuse people some of the time and I can confuse all of the people everytime." well that is what has happened over the years. If every person on this world believed everything everyone told us, just think what a state this world would be in. Well take a good look at what state the world is in now!!!!! We have to fight for our rites, not judge everything to be real, you can see for yourself these photo's are fake, they just don't fit in with the gravity on the moon, and why is it that the dark side of the moon seems as if the sun is shining on them, also there are no stars. This should be more apparent beings they are nearer to other planets than we are. If you sped the footage of the moon buggy travelling across the surface of the moon, it apparently travels as if it was on a normal road, strange one might say, but with the film as it is, it really seems more convincing than one would like to believe.:p

boom
28-01-2008, 01:21 PM
You have heard the saying "You can confuse people some of the time and I can confuse all of the people everytime." well that is what has happened over the years. If every person on this world believed everything everyone told us, just think what a state this world would be in. Well take a good look at what state the world is in now!!!!! We have to fight for our rites, not judge everything to be real, you can see for yourself these photo's are fake, they just don't fit in with the gravity on the moon, and why is it that the dark side of the moon seems as if the sun is shining on them, also there are no stars. This should be more apparent beings they are nearer to other planets than we are. If you sped the footage of the moon buggy travelling across the surface of the moon, it apparently travels as if it was on a normal road, strange one might say, but with the film as it is, it really seems more convincing than one would like to believe.:p


There is nothing wrong with the photographs or the film, absolutely nothing. Take for example you think theres something amiss because theres no stars in the pictures. If there were stars this would indicate a hoax because they shouldn't be there. Take a look at the pictures and film from the ISS or STS, see any stars? So theres no stars in those pictures either does this mean the ISS and STS are fake also?

They were not on the "dark" side of the Moon had they been well we would have known it was a hoax as no communication would have been possible.

Have you actually ever tried to find out answers to these hoax questions or do you just repeat them?

angelicangel
28-01-2008, 04:24 PM
There is nothing wrong with the photographs or the film, absolutely nothing. Take for example you think theres something amiss because theres no stars in the pictures. If there were stars this would indicate a hoax because they shouldn't be there. Take a look at the pictures and film from the ISS or STS, see any stars? So theres no stars in those pictures either does this mean the ISS and STS are fake also?

They were not on the "dark" side of the Moon had they been well we would have known it was a hoax as no communication would have been possible.

Have you actually ever tried to find out answers to these hoax questions or do you just repeat them?If this is right, why should there be flapping flags on the moon surface when there is no wind and why should the cross hairs be behind the images on some pictures. If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, who was filming him coming down the ladder. Don't tell me this was on the side of the MM. That would have evaporated during launch.:p:p:p

frenat
28-01-2008, 05:45 PM
If this is right, why should there be flapping flags on the moon surface when there is no wind and why should the cross hairs be behind the images on some pictures. If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, who was filming him coming down the ladder. Don't tell me this was on the side of the MM. That would have evaporated during launch.:p:p:p

The flags don't flap. In the many hours of footage they are extremely still unless an astronaut is touching the flag pole. Other times they are wrinkled but stay in the same wrinkles for hours. The only time crosshairs appear to be behind some objects are over bright white objects. The thin crosshairs are bled over and much fainter due to the brightness of the object. In some high res photos you can still see some of the disappearing crosshairs and there are other photos with crosshairs over the flag that only show them disappearing over the white stripes but not the red. This same effect can be reproduced with almost any camera on Earth. As Armstrong was descending the ladder, he released a cord that swung out an arm containing the camera and some other equipment. The camera was positioned on the arm to be aimed at the ladder and they flipped a circuit breaker to turn it on. It was protected during the launch as the LM had a covering over it during launch.

boom
28-01-2008, 05:57 PM
If this is right, why should there be flapping flags on the moon surface when there is no wind and why should the cross hairs be behind the images on some pictures. If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, who was filming him coming down the ladder. Don't tell me this was on the side of the MM. That would have evaporated during launch.:p:p:p


The flags flapping because the astronaut is twisting the pole into the surface. Ask yourself this, if theres a wind strong enough to level the flag out and make it flap why isnt the dust on the ground blowing about.

The Crosshairs are sometimes subject to wash out but if you really look they are still there.

The Cam that filmed Armstrong coming down the ladder was attached to the LM. Armstrong deployed it by pulling a cord. You dont realise that the LM was inside the Saturn V during launch? Once they were in Earth orbit the CM did an about turn and extracted the LM in whats know as a Rendezvous. That said, have you never seen an external cam film a launch of say the STS or an ESA Ariane launch system along with many others?

Look man you really know nothing about the subject. I'm not trying to belittle you but most of the most hardened hoax believers have dropped the points you raised. Do yourself a favor stop repeating what you have been told and start finding out for yourself.

angelicangel
28-01-2008, 11:08 PM
sThe flags flapping because the astronaut is twisting the pole into the surface. Ask yourself this, if theres a wind strong enough to level the flag out and make it flap why isnt the dust on the ground blowing about.

The Crosshairs are sometimes subject to wash out but if you really look they are still there.

The Cam that filmed Armstrong coming down the ladder was attached to the LM. Armstrong deployed it by pulling a cord. You dont realise that the LM was inside the Saturn V during launch? Once they were in Earth orbit the CM did an about turn and extracted the LM in whats know as a Rendezvous. That said, have you never seen an external cam film a launch of say the STS or an ESA Ariane launch system along with many others?

Look man you really know nothing about the subject. I'm not trying to belittle you but most of the most hardened hoax believers have dropped the points you raised. Do yourself a favor stop repeating what you have been told and start finding out for yourself.
Thank you for thinking I don't go into facts and I do not always believe what I am told. Yes ok but why after all these years haven't they done anything else on the moon, is it that after a couple of moon landings they haven't yet uncovered something of interest. Ok moon rock? but there are things that can be unearthed "" "", what is under all that hardened rough surface?? Why haven't they found things like life? Why after years of being told that the moon is being used for some sort of stopping off site for aliens aircraft? All these questions are being tossed about, but no one is told what really is going on. And by the way I'm not a man, and I do have a bit of knowledge to say this is a fake. Also to rendezvous means to meet up with something or somebody, so what do you know?????????????????????????????????????

angelicangel
28-01-2008, 11:49 PM
http://www.unmuseum.org/moonhoax.jpg

h2pogo
29-01-2008, 01:42 AM
If this is right, why should there be flapping flags on the moon surface when there is no wind and why should the cross hairs be behind the images on some pictures. If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, who was filming him coming down the ladder. Don't tell me this was on the side of the MM. That would have evaporated during launch.:p:p:p

have you not heard that there were already people on the moon and you can walk on the moons surface with out a space suit ,it is meant to be easier than to bring a diver up from 10,000 feet.how do you know there is no wind on the moon?

hagbard_celine
29-01-2008, 11:23 AM
Its not a trip up question its one you dont want to answer.

Why 70 or 80% and how can you know when you have reached that level when you dont have a complete understanding and so dont know how much there is to know. This 70 or 80% figure you pulled out of thin air could never be said to have been reached untill you have a complete understanding then you could say we got to 80% on this or that date. How often do you hear a scientist say they have a complete understanding of anything? Ive read quite a few detailed papers on the belts that show height distance thickness particle and radiation level data. They all seem to be in pretty much in tune. Many people worked many hours and did lots of experiments from around 1958 onwards. You seem to be making out the went on a wing and a prayer.

People think there huge differences when jokers like Bart Sibrel take CNN news articles and run with them.

I don't mind answering the question at all. What's more I challenge you to find an other example of any time I have deliberately evaded a question. I even take my debates off friendly terrotory and into Skeppie Central! :cool:Check this out; as you can guess, I'm "Porterboy": http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104352

the question is whether the NASa rocket scientists knew enough about the belts to say they could send a man up through them with a rerasonable chance he could do so unharmed. Based on the extremely elastic figures provided as data for the belts' properties i would say that it doesn't look likely. they were wading out to cross the river without knowing how deep it was.

hagbard_celine
29-01-2008, 11:25 AM
It was reported only that the Van Allen belts were slightly larger in places and slightly denser than previously understood. This is not a new reality, merely a refinement of existing figures. We are still studying the Van Allen belts and must occasionally revise our numerical models. The new findings have implications for the astronauts in the Alpha space station. Since these astronauts will be exposed to the fringes of the Van Allen belts for an extended period, it is prudent now to provide a bit of extra polyethylene shielding to the sleeping quarters. For transitory exposure such as in Apollo missions, the new findings add only a negligible hazard.

Tell that to Reading University! ;)

hagbard_celine
29-01-2008, 11:26 AM
So they embellished the story somewhat.

Did they? :confused: The story, from two different sources, sounds fairly consistent to me.

hagbard_celine
29-01-2008, 11:27 AM
when i first heard of this "conspiracy theory" we never went to the moon i thought it was a dilliberate attempt to confuse people.well it seemd to have worked.i cant belive this is one of the most disscused topics on this forum.instead of getting our heads together to fight and expose the coming global fascist state we are arguing over photos and a theory "they" put out to confuse and divide us.


I don't agree. If the moon landings were fake, and I think they are, then this is one of things we need to work to expose. It's not divideing or distracting me; this is just one of the subjects I research and publicize.

hagbard_celine
29-01-2008, 11:30 AM
There is nothing wrong with the photographs or the film, absolutely nothing. Take for example you think theres something amiss because theres no stars in the pictures. If there were stars this would indicate a hoax because they shouldn't be there. Take a look at the pictures and film from the ISS or STS, see any stars? So theres no stars in those pictures either does this mean the ISS and STS are fake also?

They were not on the "dark" side of the Moon had they been well we would have known it was a hoax as no communication would have been possible.

Have you actually ever tried to find out answers to these hoax questions or do you just repeat them?

I disagree with all that for the reasons stated above. If we're repeating ourselves then it's only because various members keep asking the same questions.

hagbard_celine
29-01-2008, 11:35 AM
The flags don't flap. In the many hours of footage they are extremely still unless an astronaut is touching the flag pole. Other times they are wrinkled but stay in the same wrinkles for hours. The only time crosshairs appear to be behind some objects are over bright white objects. The thin crosshairs are bled over and much fainter due to the brightness of the object. In some high res photos you can still see some of the disappearing crosshairs and there are other photos with crosshairs over the flag that only show them disappearing over the white stripes but not the red. This same effect can be reproduced with almost any camera on Earth. As Armstrong was descending the ladder, he released a cord that swung out an arm containing the camera and some other equipment. The camera was positioned on the arm to be aimed at the ladder and they flipped a circuit breaker to turn it on. It was protected during the launch as the LM had a covering over it during launch.

Fair point on the cross hairs, but if you look back through this thread you'll find that two YouTubers have posted a movie which shows the flag moving when nobody is touching it. here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

here's another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53HEalEPqqQ

hagbard_celine
29-01-2008, 11:39 AM
The flags flapping because the astronaut is twisting the pole into the surface. Ask yourself this, if theres a wind strong enough to level the flag out and make it flap why isnt the dust on the ground blowing about.

What dust? :confused:I don't see any dust. I see the ground, but it's not close enough to see if it consists of dust or not. There are other shots where it is apparent that there is dust on the studio floor, but there's no way of knowing for sure whether or not they used to same set for the flag-planting scene as they did for the scene with the dust in it.

sunyatta60
29-01-2008, 12:19 PM
[QUOTE=boom;255824]There is nothing wrong with the photographs or the film, absolutely nothing.

You have obviously not read Dark Missions by Hoagland and Bara, I have and it is clear that Nasa not only lies routinely but that it also doctors photos and films as a matter of routine. Hoagland's main premise is that Nasa went to the moon and they then were the catalyst for the moon hoax theory in order to cover up what they found on both the moon and mars, artificial alien artifacts.


Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Albert Einstein

hagbard_celine
29-01-2008, 12:41 PM
[QUOTE=boom;255824]There is nothing wrong with the photographs or the film, absolutely nothing.

You have obviously not read Dark Missions by Hoagland and Bara, I have and it is clear that Nasa not only lies routinely but that it also doctors photos and films as a matter of routine. Hoagland's main premise is that Nasa went to the moon and they then were the catalyst for the moon hoax theory in order to cover up what they found on both the moon and mars, artificial alien artifacts.


Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Albert Einstein


Covering up for what's really on the moon is certainly one of the reasons for the Apollo hoax. The testimony of many insiders makes it look as if the moon is nothing like what we've been led to believe it was!

boom
29-01-2008, 01:49 PM
s
Thank you for thinking I don't go into facts and I do not always believe what I am told. Yes ok but why after all these years haven't they done anything else on the moon, is it that after a couple of moon landings they haven't yet uncovered something of interest. Ok moon rock? but there are things that can be unearthed "" "", what is under all that hardened rough surface?? Why haven't they found things like life? Why after years of being told that the moon is being used for some sort of stopping off site for aliens aircraft? All these questions are being tossed about, but no one is told what really is going on. And by the way I'm not a man, and I do have a bit of knowledge to say this is a fake. Also to rendezvous means to meet up with something or somebody, so what do you know?????????????????????????????????????



You cant possibly go for facts or you would have answered all these questions for yourself.

The last Apollo missions were cancelled as the public lost interest congress started to make huge budget cuts. Its not all bad news though, New Moon missions are planned and the hardware is being built as we post. A couple of Moon landings??? hy havent they found life, well maybe there is none, have you evidence there is? Who told you the Moons being used as a stopping off port for aliens?

I'm sorry but you have no knowledge of the subject and your kidding yourself if you think you have. Once again im not being nasty just truthful.

I mean look at this:

Also to rendezvous means to meet up with something or somebody, so what do you know?????????????????????????????????????

Yes rendezvous does mean meeting up and thats exacly what happened 2 spacecraft meeting up thats why it was called rendezvous, obvious when you think about it. Personally if i didn't know i would have looked it up, You however didn't bother.

Earth orbit rendezvous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not only was there a Earth orbit rendezvous but a Moon orbit rendezvous also.

www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Rendezvous.html

boom
29-01-2008, 01:51 PM
What dust? :confused:I don't see any dust. I see the ground, but it's not close enough to see if it consists of dust or not. There are other shots where it is apparent that there is dust on the studio floor, but there's no way of knowing for sure whether or not they used to same set for the flag-planting scene as they did for the scene with the dust in it.



So you cant see dust being moved about around the flags as the astronauts move around them?

boom
29-01-2008, 01:58 PM
[QUOTE=boom;255824]There is nothing wrong with the photographs or the film, absolutely nothing.

You have obviously not read Dark Missions by Hoagland and Bara, I have and it is clear that Nasa not only lies routinely but that it also doctors photos and films as a matter of routine. Hoagland's main premise is that Nasa went to the moon and they then were the catalyst for the moon hoax theory in order to cover up what they found on both the moon and mars, artificial alien artifacts.


Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Albert Einstein

You are mistaken as i have read all of Hoagland's books.

boom
29-01-2008, 02:03 PM
I don't mind answering the question at all. What's more I challenge you to find an other example of any time I have deliberately evaded a question. I even take my debates off friendly terrotory and into Skeppie Central! :cool:Check this out; as you can guess, I'm "Porterboy": http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104352

the question is whether the NASa rocket scientists knew enough about the belts to say they could send a man up through them with a rerasonable chance he could do so unharmed. Based on the extremely elastic figures provided as data for the belts' properties i would say that it doesn't look likely. they were wading out to cross the river without knowing how deep it was.

The answer is yes, it was known they could send men to the moon without them turning up their toes.

boom
29-01-2008, 02:05 PM
Tell that to Reading University! ;)


Your just not getting this are you.

boom
29-01-2008, 02:08 PM
Fair point on the cross hairs, but if you look back through this thread you'll find that two YouTubers have posted a movie which shows the flag moving when nobody is touching it. here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

here's another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53HEalEPqqQ


Come on can you find no other reason why that flags moving?

I'm starting to think you cant be this daft you just need it to be a hoax.

Come on old chap its not hard to work out.

angelicangel
29-01-2008, 04:08 PM
Come on can you find no other reason why that flags moving?

I'm starting to think you cant be this daft you just need it to be a hoax.

Come on old chap its not hard to work out.
How do you know there is wind on the moon????? What happens if their food contains cereals that cause them to produce their own wind.!!!!! I can read and so can many other people belonging to this site, why would we be here not to give our own opinion of what we see. There is freedom of speech!!! If one person doesn't except criticism then tough.:mad:

sunyatta60
30-01-2008, 12:21 PM
[QUOTE=sunyatta60;256787]

You are mistaken as i have read all of Hoagland's books.

Had you have done what you claimed then you would not have made the asinine comment about the Photos and the Films being ok. Hoagland has clearly shown that Nasa fakes the photos and in his book Dark Missions he goes into great detail about how they do this. Nasa does have good reasons to tell lies to the public I cannot think of one reason why Hoagland would want to.

All governments lie part of the time, but NASA is the only one I've ever encountered that does so routinely.
George A. Keyworth Science advisor to Regan

boom
30-01-2008, 01:48 PM
[QUOTE=boom;256884]

Had you have done what you claimed then you would not have made the asinine comment about the Photos and the Films being ok. Hoagland has clearly shown that Nasa fakes the photos and in his book Dark Missions he goes into great detail about how they do this. Nasa does have good reasons to tell lies to the public I cannot think of one reason why Hoagland would want to.

All governments lie part of the time, but NASA is the only one I've ever encountered that does so routinely.
George A. Keyworth Science advisor to Regan

Sorry but the films and pictures are ok. Hoaglands doing very nicely thank you in his ventures and its not unheard of to lie for money Bill Kaysing used to laugh at people who belived the moon hoax storys he did so much to start, laugh in private that is while he counted his money. Hogland has shown nothing but an ability to turn a coin out of fantasy tales of his own making.

raffles
30-01-2008, 11:30 PM
[quote=sunyatta60;257885]

Sorry but the films and pictures are ok. Hoaglands doing very nicely thank you in his ventures and its not unheard of to lie for money Bill Kaysing used to laugh at people who belived the moon hoax storys he did so much to start, laugh in private that is while he counted his money. Hogland has shown nothing but an ability to turn a coin out of fantasy tales of his own making.

The only people who churn out fantasys are nasa or naza as some people like to call them. :D

sunyatta60
31-01-2008, 02:00 PM
[QUOTE=sunyatta60;257885]

Sorry but the films and pictures are ok. Hoaglands doing very nicely thank you in his ventures and its not unheard of to lie for money Bill Kaysing used to laugh at people who belived the moon hoax storys he did so much to start, laugh in private that is while he counted his money. Hogland has shown nothing but an ability to turn a coin out of fantasy tales of his own making.

They are clearly not ok but I guess your standards for Truth and Sobriety are a lot lower than mine. You have not read Dark Mission you have lied about that it seems that you have an agenda maybe you work for NAZA. Hoagland has spent lots of his own money in pursuing something that seems to be an anethma to you and that is called Truth. NASA is clearly lying that comes out loud and clear in Dark Mission Hoagland and Bara show you how they doctor the photos by changing the pixels and introducing noise into those photos. They go into great technical detail with expert witness testimony on how they (NASA) are trying to conceal what is really in the photos. You only have to go to Hoaglands site to see claerly that NASA routinely cuts and re paste Photos from the moon. They have cut out information that they do not want the world to see. Now why would they do that, because they know the old maxim Knowledge is Power.

hagbard_celine
02-02-2008, 12:18 AM
So you cant see dust being moved about around the flags as the astronauts move around them?


I don't recall seeing the same effects in the same shots.

hagbard_celine
02-02-2008, 12:19 AM
The answer is yes, it was known they could send men to the moon without them turning up their toes.


Well, for the reasons I've already stated, I differ.

hagbard_celine
02-02-2008, 12:20 AM
Your just not getting this are you.


No, I'm not gettting why one source gives totally different figures for the van Allen Belts from another.

hagbard_celine
02-02-2008, 12:21 AM
Come on can you find no other reason why that flags moving?

I'm starting to think you cant be this daft you just need it to be a hoax.

Come on old chap its not hard to work out.

That is a purely subjective statement and therefore one I am not qualified to comment on.

lizzy
02-02-2008, 12:32 AM
That is a purely subjective statement and therefore one I am not qualified to comment on.

I know I am with you on this matter.
The Moon landing was a hoax for sure. Those who wish is believe otherwise will not be detered by logic.

hagbard_celine
02-02-2008, 12:34 AM
I know I am with you on this matter.
The Moon landing was a hoax for sure. Those who wish is believe otherwise will not be detered by logic.


Indeed. In fact the logic presented by moon landing supporters that "prove" that we had to have landed on the moon is far more convoluted than anything we "HB's" could come up with.

friendsinthesky
02-02-2008, 11:46 AM
There's NO sufficient proof WE landed on the moon, bar some Z grade 'moon vision'. You'd think they show us a whole lot more yeah? Well, where's the rest of the footage. Don't be stooged folks.

hagbard_celine
03-02-2008, 09:50 PM
It is only some footage that looks like that and it is because of Moon gravity being lower that it looks like that. The greater majority of the footage does not look like Earth gravity when sped up. Especially the times when you see an astronaut fall and flail his arms to try to catch his balance and break his fall. When sped up that looks silly as the movements are way too fast.

But just because one shot uses a certain special effect doesn't mean all of them will use the same one. The different scenes were no doubt shot over a long period of time. In one they could employ a wire gantry, but in another close-up of an astronaut handling a rock such an effect would not be needed. In the same way they might have chose to shoot the astronaut falling at normal speed rather than usiong the 2X speed method, but this can't be used to disporve that they used it in other sequences.

The same thought makes me question SVector's debunking of the time they filmed the Earth from halfway to the moon.

frenat
03-02-2008, 10:34 PM
But just because one shot uses a certain special effect doesn't mean all of them will use the same one. The different scenes were no doubt shot over a long period of time. In one they could employ a wire gantry, but in another close-up of an astronaut handling a rock such an effect would not be needed. In the same way they might have chose to shoot the astronaut falling at normal speed rather than usiong the 2X speed method, but this can't be used to disporve that they used it in other sequences.

The same thought makes me question SVector's debunking of the time they filmed the Earth from halfway to the moon.

But you forget that the original footage is not in short pieces like you find on youtube but rather hours long and uncut. Do you honestly think they used slow motion in some parts but not in others and kept track of it all through hours long takes?

hagbard_celine
03-02-2008, 10:42 PM
But you forget that the original footage is not in short pieces like you find on youtube but rather hours long and uncut. Do you honestly think they used slow motion in some parts but not in others and kept track of it all through hours long takes?

How do you know it was all shot in one go though? Yes, there are some shots that make Tarkovsy's look like brief clips, but they weren't completely continuous.

frenat
04-02-2008, 12:08 AM
How do you know it wasn't? There is no sign of edits, no signs of slow-downs. The frame rate is constant. The record is consistent as one can see in the video pictures being taken that perfectly conform to the pictures on record and the astronauts responding and reacting to live comments from mission control.

hagbard_celine
05-02-2008, 06:02 PM
How do you know it wasn't? There is no sign of edits, no signs of slow-downs. The frame rate is constant. The record is consistent as one can see in the video pictures being taken that perfectly conform to the pictures on record and the astronauts responding and reacting to live comments from mission control.

This could still be reproduced. Obviously this would mean that the shots could not be live in most cases. But a good continuity editor might be enough to create the impresion of a total, uninterupted coverage. There were some poor quality and fuzzy shots of Apollo, espcially on Apollo 11.

hagbard_celine
06-02-2008, 06:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE&feature=related

Here a Horizon regular, Dr Brian Cox, speaks his mind on the Apollo hoax in an outtake from the latest series. He compares the landing on the moon with the discovery of America; bad anology! How many people have been to America? Only 12 have been to the moon.

He does get very cagey. Why does he think it doesn't need proving? He just accepts it as a baseline unquestioned and unquestionable truth! That''s the behavior of a religious man rather than a scientist.:rolleyes:

steevo
07-02-2008, 01:19 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE&feature=related

Here a Horizon regular, Dr Brian Cox, speaks his mind on the Apollo hoax in an outtake from the latest series. He compares the landing on the moon with the discovery of America; bad anology! How many people have been to America? Only 12 have been to the moon.

He does get very cagey. Why does he think it doesn't need proving? He just accepts it as a baseline unquestioned and unquestionable truth! That''s the behavior of a religious man rather than a scientist.:rolleyes:

Dr Brian Cox. Just another whore.
Well I wont be watching The Sky at Night anymore (probably).

the spackler
07-02-2008, 01:51 AM
As Plausible As It All May Seem This Film Is And Has Always Been A Farce. It Is Not A Documentary, And If You Have Seen The Blooper Real It's Not Even A Question That It's Fake. This Film Did More To Help Them Cover It Up Than It Did To Expose Anything...

If These Were Legitimate Interveiws The Answers Wouldn't Be Scripted.

Even At The End Of The Film Itself They Show Several Clips Of The People Involved Having To Do Multiple Takes To Get Their "lines" Right... And Laughing The Whole Time...

I Don't Think This Film Was Done To Expose The Truth About Moon Landings As Much As It Was A Hit Peice To Make Moon Landing Conspiracy Theorists Look Crazy...:d

nsa_
07-02-2008, 03:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE&feature=related

Here a Horizon regular, Dr Brian Cox, speaks his mind on the Apollo hoax in an outtake from the latest series. He compares the landing on the moon with the discovery of America; bad anology! How many people have been to America? Only 12 have been to the moon [emphasis mine].

He does get very cagey. Why does he think it doesn't need proving? He just accepts it as a baseline unquestioned and unquestionable truth! That''s the behavior of a religious man rather than a scientist.:rolleyes:

So you do think they went to the moon!

I don't think he's just accepting it as unquestionable truth, it's just that from the amount of stuff we learnt from it it gets a little tiresome when you hear people say that no moon landings took place over and over again.

angelicangel
07-02-2008, 04:34 PM
What makes you wonder, the US was only just coming into the space age of the time that Russia landed on the moon. But about 2 or 3 weeks landing ( the Russian's) the US had made a craft worthy enough to be able to land, and have people walking on the moon, without any caution or calibrations of what they was going to find. How with little knowledge did they manage to do that, was if from some outside information? Did the Roswell thing really happen? and did some forces teach them to land a LM on the moon.:p

nsa_
07-02-2008, 05:19 PM
What makes you wonder, the US was only just coming into the space age of the time that Russia landed on the moon. But about 2 or 3 weeks landing ( the Russian's) the US had made a craft worthy enough to be able to land, and have people walking on the moon, without any caution or calibrations of what they was going to find. How with little knowledge did they manage to do that, was if from some outside information? Did the Roswell thing really happen? and did some forces teach them to land a LM on the moon.:p

You're claiming that the Apollo program was put together in 3 weeks?

angelicangel
07-02-2008, 06:20 PM
You're claiming that the Apollo program was put together in 3 weeks?
No I am not claiming it took only 3 weeks for the Apollo program to take hold. I am saying that the Russian's orbited the moon and reported back that it was too dangerous for anything to land on the moon. There was dangers of gravity and unbeknown obsticles that could harm anyone. But it was very strange that only a few weeks later, when the US had not any intention of landing a craft on the moon, landed one. It was a farce from then on that everyone was dragged into believing. Well some of the people believed, but a lot of other people decided that it was to surreal to be real. As i stated earlier in this site, there is so many things that don't add up, all you have to do is study the facts and ask your self if you would believe it now?:p

nsa_
07-02-2008, 07:02 PM
No I am not claiming it took only 3 weeks for the Apollo program to take hold. I am saying that the Russian's orbited the moon and reported back that it was too dangerous for anything to land on the moon.


Do you have any references for this? Was it a case of whatever the Russians said was definitive? The People at NASA obviously thought differently.


There was dangers of gravity and unbeknown obsticles that could harm anyone.


I'm not sure what 'dangers of gravity' means but the difference of the gravity on Earth and the Moon can be worked out and then rockets can be engineered to suit. If the gravity on the Moon is 1/6th of what it is on Earth than you'll need 1/6th of the power needed to land on the Earth to land on the Moon.

'Unbeknown' obstacles can become apparent anywhere and not just on Space missions. Careful planning and rigourous training can prevent things from going wrong which is what they did.

But it was very strange that only a few weeks later, when the US had not any intention of landing a craft on the moon, landed one.


The Apollo program started in 1963 whilst the first Apollo craft to land on the Moon was in 1969. So it wasn't a few weeks it was actually 6 years.

As i stated earlier in this site, there is so many things that don't add up, all you have to do is study the facts and ask your self if you would believe it now?:p

I've yet to read a convincing claim made by Hoax believers whilst the evidence for landing on the Moon is plentiful.

I don't suppose you care to enlighten me on what makes you think that the human race hasn't been to the moon?

angelicangel
07-02-2008, 11:08 PM
Do you have any references for this? Was it a case of whatever the Russians said was definitive? The People at NASA obviously thought differently.



I'm not sure what 'dangers of gravity' means but the difference of the gravity on Earth and the Moon can be worked out and then rockets can be engineered to suit. If the gravity on the Moon is 1/6th of what it is on Earth than you'll need 1/6th of the power needed to land on the Earth to land on the Moon.

'Unbeknown' obstacles can become apparent anywhere and not just on Space missions. Careful planning and rigourous training can prevent things from going wrong which is what they did.



The Apollo program started in 1963 whilst the first Apollo craft to land on the Moon was in 1969. So it wasn't a few weeks it was actually 6 years.



I've yet to read a convincing claim made by Hoax believers whilst the evidence for landing on the Moon is plentiful.

I don't suppose you care to enlighten me on what makes you think that the human race hasn't been to the moon? Can you explain why you seem to know quite a bit about this subject. Are you connected to some sort of agency to dispute other peoples theories. I was alive in those time, so I do understand something that happened. You've of you can fool some of the people sometimes, and you can fool a lot of the people all of the time. Well that is what has happened here. :p

angelicangel
07-02-2008, 11:10 PM
Do you have any references for this? Was it a case of whatever the Russians said was definitive? The People at NASA obviously thought differently.



I'm not sure what 'dangers of gravity' means but the difference of the gravity on Earth and the Moon can be worked out and then rockets can be engineered to suit. If the gravity on the Moon is 1/6th of what it is on Earth than you'll need 1/6th of the power needed to land on the Earth to land on the Moon.

'Unbeknown' obstacles can become apparent anywhere and not just on Space missions. Careful planning and rigourous training can prevent things from going wrong which is what they did.



The Apollo program started in 1963 whilst the first Apollo craft to land on the Moon was in 1969. So it wasn't a few weeks it was actually 6 years.



I've yet to read a convincing claim made by Hoax believers whilst the evidence for landing on the Moon is plentiful.

I don't suppose you care to enlighten me on what makes you think that the human race hasn't been to the moon? Can you explain why you seem to know quite a bit about this subject. Are you connected to some sort of agency to dispute other peoples theories. I was alive in those time, so I do understand something that happened. Haven't you heard of "You can fool some of the people sometimes, and you can fool a lot of the people all of the times." Well that is what has happened here. :p

hagbard_celine
08-02-2008, 10:54 AM
So you do think they went to the moon!

I don't think he's just accepting it as unquestionable truth, it's just that from the amount of stuff we learnt from it it gets a little tiresome when you hear people say that no moon landings took place over and over again.

These days I never mention the subject unless someone else brings it up first.:cool:

hagbard_celine
08-02-2008, 10:58 AM
What makes you wonder, the US was only just coming into the space age of the time that Russia landed on the moon. But about 2 or 3 weeks landing ( the Russian's) the US had made a craft worthy enough to be able to land, and have people walking on the moon, without any caution or calibrations of what they was going to find. How with little knowledge did they manage to do that, was if from some outside information? Did the Roswell thing really happen? and did some forces teach them to land a LM on the moon.:p


Up the the success of Apollo the Russians were so decisively ahead that it didn't justify the use of the term "Space Race", having achived nearly all the major firsts. Once the Americans were seen to catch up with their own major historical first, pehaps the greatest one of all: The First Ever Steps Taken by Man on Another World, it benefitted the space programmes of both nations.

angelicangel
08-02-2008, 01:25 PM
Up the the success of Apollo the Russians were so decisively ahead that it didn't justify the use of the term "Space Race", having achived nearly all the major firsts. Once the Americans were seen to catch up with their own major historical first, pehaps the greatest one of all: The First Ever Steps Taken by Man on Another World, it benefitted the space programmes of both nations. But honestly, do you think that the moon landing was fake? My own opinion was that they are fake, but of course until it comes out in the wash, will we ever really know. It doesn't matter how many documentries tell you what happened, there is always some one who is going to say it's a lie. But there again if they told us the truth would we believe them then? You would think that after all these years, what 30/40yrs hence, you would have thought it could have been used for something, lets face it, if there is a piece of land anywhere in the world, someone has to build on it. Surely this could help with the over population on the world. We could all get a fair crack of the whip then.:p

hagbard_celine
09-02-2008, 11:31 AM
But honestly, do you think that the moon landing was fake? My own opinion was that they are fake, but of course until it comes out in the wash, will we ever really know. It doesn't matter how many documentries tell you what happened, there is always some one who is going to say it's a lie. But there again if they told us the truth would we believe them then? You would think that after all these years, what 30/40yrs hence, you would have thought it could have been used for something, lets face it, if there is a piece of land anywhere in the world, someone has to build on it. Surely this could help with the over population on the world. We could all get a fair crack of the whip then.:p

Yes, I'm certain the moon landings were faked and it would be nice to see it come out in the wash, but it is one of these secrets that can't come out. If you find out the govt has awarded honours for cash or lied about WMD that's one thing, but a lie on this scale is unshakable. It would destroy the political structure of the world.

angelicangel
09-02-2008, 12:04 PM
Yes, I'm certain the moon landings were faked and it would be nice to see it come out in the wash, but it is one of these secrets that can't come out. If you find out the govt has awarded honours for cash or lied about WMD that's one thing, but a lie on this scale is unshakable. It would destroy the political structure of the world.

We will never know the real truth about what happened. But we are all doubting thomas's in one way or another. Myself I do feel they are fake, how on earth, excuse the pun, can we have been so advanced in those days to be able to do, experience and have the ability to land a craft on a strange and distant planet? They didn't know about what they was to expect, and was they equipt with any form of defense in case of attack? Who will ever know.

hagbard_celine
07-11-2008, 11:08 PM
Did anyone just watch Little Britain? Did you see the moon landing hoax sketch?:D

stelios
08-11-2008, 09:48 AM
There's NO sufficient proof WE landed on the moon, bar some Z grade 'moon vision'. You'd think they show us a whole lot more yeah? Well, where's the rest of the footage. Don't be stooged folks.

There is zero evidence whatsoever.
Some faked photos and a few minutes of cine film footage cannot trump the lack of basic science reality.
In 1968 it was impossible to send a manned craft to the moon as it is today.
One day it may happen, i hope it does.

They have computer generated graphics now.

stelios
08-11-2008, 09:50 AM
I've yet to read a convincing claim made by Hoax believers whilst the evidence for landing on the Moon is plentiful.

?

How about providing us with some?

shabun
09-11-2008, 10:22 AM
All will be revealed in 2009 when NASA send the LRO mission to photograph the moon surface in preparation for the constellation project moon landing in 2019. Once these photos are recieved then I guess the non-believers will say they have been fabricated?

Also, how do the non-believers explain the laser reflectors left on the moons surface in some of the Apollo locations?

Apologies if its somewhere else in the thread but 39 pages was too much for me. I'm new here.

stelios
09-11-2008, 02:35 PM
All will be revealed in 2009 when NASA send the LRO mission to photograph the moon surface in preparation for the constellation project moon landing in 2019. Once these photos are recieved then I guess the non-believers will say they have been fabricated?

Also, how do the non-believers explain the laser reflectors left on the moons surface in some of the Apollo locations?


So there is no evidence to prove the fairy tale is true other than a planned probe being sent to the moon in 2009?
As it happens the Japs sent a probe in 2007 which photographed the moon in high definition and found ZERO evidence of any lunar rovers or landers or USA flags.
You can see the photos at the Seline site yourself although they seem to have been taken down probably at NASA's request.
The Indians too have sent a probe to the moon too.

So what you are saying is 50 years after NASA had the technology to send people to the moon and back now it is only possible to send probes.

I am glad you have admitted that believing in the moon landings fairy tale is a matter of faith and that non believers are considered heretics.

Lunar reflectors are basically mirrors and were sent there by UNMANNED probes by the Russians and NASA.

shabun
09-11-2008, 04:08 PM
So there is no evidence to prove the fairy tale is true other than a planned probe being sent to the moon in 2009?
As it happens the Japs sent a probe in 2007 which photographed the moon in high definition and found ZERO evidence of any lunar rovers or landers or USA flags.
You can see the photos at the Seline site yourself although they seem to have been taken down probably at NASA's request.
The Indians too have sent a probe to the moon too.

So what you are saying is 50 years after NASA had the technology to send people to the moon and back now it is only possible to send probes.

I am glad you have admitted that believing in the moon landings fairy tale is a matter of faith and that non believers are considered heretics.

Lunar reflectors are basically mirrors and were sent there by UNMANNED probes by the Russians and NASA.

Sorry but I didn't say there is no evidence. In fact I think there is plenty: moon rock, the films, and the statements from the many people who worked on the Project, all of which would have to be lies if you are to be believed. I agree that it is possible that all that is faked but I would argue that it it not plausible.

In any case, the arguments will continue until the 2009 LRO mission so we can wait till then. Please post a link for the other photos you mentioned - I understand that previous photos were nowhere near the definition required but if your statement is correct then the proof that it is faked would be irrefutable. In which case why are these photos not used as the absolute proof of fakery?

So show me these photos please.

As for the lunar reflectors - I think we agree they are indeed there, but you say they were sent by unmanned missions to exactly the same sites the Apollo missions went to. I suppose for that to be possible was for the mirrors to be deployed before the Apollo missions, otherwise it would not have been possible to concoct the fake landing films etc. Do you have any evidence for these unmanned missions? Please provide it.

And finally - I did not say non-believers are heretics (you did) but its a matter of evidence - I happen to think there is more than sufficient evidence that they happened but none at all that they didn't. If you can provide some (like the pictures of the landing sites you mentioned) then I will be happy to accept that the whole lot was faked. Otherwise we will wait till the LRO mission, which no doubt you will say has been faked in advance by another couple of thousand NASA conspirators.

hagbard_celine
09-11-2008, 08:35 PM
All will be revealed in 2009 when NASA send the LRO mission to photograph the moon surface in preparation for the constellation project moon landing in 2019. Once these photos are recieved then I guess the non-believers will say they have been fabricated?

Also, how do the non-believers explain the laser reflectors left on the moons surface in some of the Apollo locations?

Apologies if its somewhere else in the thread but 39 pages was too much for me. I'm new here.

That's OK.:)

I don't see why any new space missions should be used as proof of the moon landings. there are a dozen ways the perpetrators could skip that one.

The retro-refletor on the lunar surface could easily have been placed by robot craft; in fact the technology to do so at the time even existed openly!:eek: A number of soft landings on the moon had been achived by the time of Apollo, the Russians were particularly advanced in that field and had deployed the Lunikhod rover which was a primitive version of the modern Spirit and Pathfinder.

humito
09-11-2008, 08:40 PM
I dont know wether they were faked or not............i think they did go ........but i dont think they did it live on tv......would have been to hectic if things had gone wrong........i think it was sometime later they actually landed and that some of it was faked for the public and deadline.............one thing that has always bothered me is who was taking the film of the landing module lifting off from the moon .the camera clearly follows it upwards as they take off and leave the moon behind????????????

citroen999
09-11-2008, 08:43 PM
All will be revealed in 2009 when NASA send the LRO mission to photograph the moon surface in preparation for the constellation project moon landing in 2019. Once these photos are recieved then I guess the non-believers will say they have been fabricated?

Also, how do the non-believers explain the laser reflectors left on the moons surface in some of the Apollo locations?

Apologies if its somewhere else in the thread but 39 pages was too much for me. I'm new here.

2019 you say.. i assume we are going to get through 2012 then ;)

stelios
09-11-2008, 09:27 PM
In fact I think there is plenty: moon rock, the films, and the statements from the many people who worked on the Project, all of which would have to be lies if you are to be believed. .

Moon rock is probably meteorite rock. Von Braun the nazi who led the Apollo hoax went hunting meteorites in the artic region.
But in any case there is no way to verify a pice of rock as being from the moon as there is nothing to compare it to other than earth rocks.
The films and photos are clearly fake.
The thousands of workers would not have known, because they are simply cogs in the big wheel. A person in Zimbabwe who works in a platinum mine as a tea boy does not know that they are making the raw material for jewellery, catalytic converters or a cure for cancer.
NASA employs millions if you include all the subcontractors and outsourced work. Ofcourse 99% of them would have no idea what the others are doing and would believe the official story. Only Von Braun, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, and tops a couple of hundred people would need to know the truth.
There were whistleblowers who were assasinated.
Of these original conspirators many are dead the money embezzelled has been spent but the lie is upheld because the truth would be devastating to USA moral, economy and prestige.

The sad thing is there are still many people who blindly refuse to deny they have been sold a massive whopper. Because they trust their own power of perception to spot a fake.
Trust me when the doubt creeps in and you study the evidence you too will realise that the entire moon landing theory is a massive hoax and you will wake up to all the other massive hoaxes as well like 911 and 7/7 for example.

Mossad: "By way of deception, thou shalt do war".

shabun
09-11-2008, 10:12 PM
I dont know wether they were faked or not............i think they did go ........but i dont think they did it live on tv......would have been to hectic if things had gone wrong........i think it was sometime later they actually landed and that some of it was faked for the public and deadline.............one thing that has always bothered me is who was taking the film of the landing module lifting off from the moon .the camera clearly follows it upwards as they take off and leave the moon behind????????????

The film you are thinking of is Apollo 17 I think. If not it was 16. Anyway, the filming was done by using the camera on the Lunar Rover which could be controlled remotely.

And yes it was at least live on TV. I know because I watched it.

shabun
09-11-2008, 10:26 PM
That's OK.:)

I don't see why any new space missions should be used as proof of the moon landings. there are a dozen ways the perpetrators could skip that one.

The retro-refletor on the lunar surface could easily have been placed by robot craft; in fact the technology to do so at the time even existed openly!:eek: A number of soft landings on the moon had been achived by the time of Apollo, the Russians were particularly advanced in that field and had deployed the Lunikhod rover which was a primitive version of the modern Spirit and Pathfinder.


I don't understand what you mean. If the LRO is able to take photos then is that not acceptable as proof? I guess they will have to convince everyone that the photos will not be faked but would that not require hundreds of current NASA staff to be also in on it? I can't see why all the current NASA staff (and I assume a bunch of University Researchers) would have any particular reason to do that.

It is also possible that the reflectors could have been placed by robot craft but is it not reasonable to ask for the evidence of this? What missions were they sent on? Do you have launch dates, vehicle specifications etc?

My problem is that there is plenty evidence that the missions happened (all of which could in theory have been faked). But there is no evidence that there were other missions to the moon to deploy these mirrors. The Surveyor and Luna missions which were done before Apollo all have specific recorded landing sites which were extremely far away from the Apollo sites (except the Apollo 12 site which recovered a part of a previous Surveyor rover). For your statement to be correct, there must have been other "secret" missions to secretly deploy these missors in advance of the Apollo flights. I struggle with that one tbh. You seen to be clued-up on this and I value your comments but please could you provide evidence to support the view that the mirrors were deployed by other missions.

shabun
09-11-2008, 10:29 PM
Moon rock is probably meteorite rock. Von Braun the nazi who led the Apollo hoax went hunting meteorites in the artic region.
But in any case there is no way to verify a pice of rock as being from the moon as there is nothing to compare it to other than earth rocks.
The films and photos are clearly fake.
The thousands of workers would not have known, because they are simply cogs in the big wheel. A person in Zimbabwe who works in a platinum mine as a tea boy does not know that they are making the raw material for jewellery, catalytic converters or a cure for cancer.
NASA employs millions if you include all the subcontractors and outsourced work. Ofcourse 99% of them would have no idea what the others are doing and would believe the official story. Only Von Braun, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, and tops a couple of hundred people would need to know the truth.
There were whistleblowers who were assasinated.
Of these original conspirators many are dead the money embezzelled has been spent but the lie is upheld because the truth would be devastating to USA moral, economy and prestige.

The sad thing is there are still many people who blindly refuse to deny they have been sold a massive whopper. Because they trust their own power of perception to spot a fake.
Trust me when the doubt creeps in and you study the evidence you too will realise that the entire moon landing theory is a massive hoax and you will wake up to all the other massive hoaxes as well like 911 and 7/7 for example.

Mossad: "By way of deception, thou shalt do war".

I'm still waiting for the high-resolution photos you mentioned which confirm there is nothing at all at the Apollo sites (except of course the mirrors which you say were placed there by unmanned missions).

stelios
09-11-2008, 11:56 PM
As i already mentioned the Japanese Selene craft orbited the moon and toon high def photos off the alleged apollo landing sites.
But the Selene website has removed these photos.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/img/20071107_kaguya_01.jpg

You can find plenty of Selene photos and as you can see they are high quality. The moon looks like a different place from that portrayed by NASA.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/12/img/20071214_kaguya_sp02_e.jpg

Anyway you asking me to prove that nobody went to the moon is like telling me to prove that there is no Father Christmas. It is up to you and your fellow believers to prove your case.

I guess they will have to convince everyone that the photos will not be faked
Why?
Why does NASA devote so much time and taxpayer money to plead it's case. Surely if the event occured they would not have to continue begging people to believe them. But like any other lie, one lie leads to a web of lies needed to reinforce the first lie.
Ofcourse anything that NASA produces now will be in all probability a photoshopped image. Like the many computer animations they normally produce telling us how other planets MAY look like close up.
Dont you Apollo advocates even stop and ask yourselves why 50 years on the USA is paying the Russians to launch US satelites into space?
Why those hydrogen fuel cells are not in use today?
And why those Saturn V rockets that could carry a 26 tonne payload 238,000 miles in less than 72 hours cannot today carry small payloads a fraction of the distance today.
Why 50 years on no manned craft has gone more than 275 miles up.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/12/img/20071221_kaguya_01_e.jpg

always_rebel
10-11-2008, 02:09 AM
And here we go again; a new arms race beginning with the construction of exterritorial base in Poland and radar in Czech Republic.

shabun
10-11-2008, 02:54 PM
As i already mentioned the Japanese Selene craft orbited the moon and toon high def photos off the alleged apollo landing sites.
But the Selene website has removed these photos.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/img/20071107_kaguya_01.jpg

You can find plenty of Selene photos and as you can see they are high quality. The moon looks like a different place from that portrayed by NASA.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/12/img/20071214_kaguya_sp02_e.jpg

Anyway you asking me to prove that nobody went to the moon is like telling me to prove that there is no Father Christmas. It is up to you and your fellow believers to prove your case.


Why?
Why does NASA devote so much time and taxpayer money to plead it's case. Surely if the event occured they would not have to continue begging people to believe them. But like any other lie, one lie leads to a web of lies needed to reinforce the first lie.
Ofcourse anything that NASA produces now will be in all probability a photoshopped image. Like the many computer animations they normally produce telling us how other planets MAY look like close up.
Dont you Apollo advocates even stop and ask yourselves why 50 years on the USA is paying the Russians to launch US satelites into space?
Why those hydrogen fuel cells are not in use today?
And why those Saturn V rockets that could carry a 26 tonne payload 238,000 miles in less than 72 hours cannot today carry small payloads a fraction of the distance today.
Why 50 years on no manned craft has gone more than 275 miles up.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/12/img/20071221_kaguya_01_e.jpg

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to post the photos. Much appreciated. However, the photos are nowhere near the definition required to show the LEM base, which I think is around 12 feet square. These photos neither prove not disprove the presence of kit on the surface. Any btw - you say that the photos show the moon looks a different place to that portrayed by NASA. No it doesn't - the photos you post are of the far side of the moon and are perfrctly consistent with the NASA moon atlas. The far side of the moon is always oriented away from earth due to the lunar rotation being aligned to its monthly orbit. It is far more cratered than the side you see when you look up at the sky. Pictures confirming this have been available since the mid-60s when USA and USSR photographed it.

tbh i don't think it is worth us debating the issue (I don't agree that I need to "prove anything - I just evaluate the evidence and come to a different conclusion to you) so once the LRO photos are in (and confirmed to be genuine or otherwise) then maybe we can discuss based on whatever that comes up with.

frenat
10-11-2008, 03:37 PM
I dont know wether they were faked or not............i think they did go ........but i dont think they did it live on tv......would have been to hectic if things had gone wrong........i think it was sometime later they actually landed and that some of it was faked for the public and deadline.............one thing that has always bothered me is who was taking the film of the landing module lifting off from the moon .the camera clearly follows it upwards as they take off and leave the moon behind????????????

The camera was controlled remotely by a guy at mission control named Ed Fendell. The rover was parked a known distance from the lander. The takeoff time was known and the amount of delay was known. Plus he had specifically practiced the maneuver to be able to catch the launch. Why couldn't he have captured it?

frenat
10-11-2008, 03:39 PM
As i already mentioned the Japanese Selene craft orbited the moon and toon high def photos off the alleged apollo landing sites.
But the Selene website has removed these photos.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/img/20071107_kaguya_01.jpg

You can find plenty of Selene photos and as you can see they are high quality. The moon looks like a different place from that portrayed by NASA.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/12/img/20071214_kaguya_sp02_e.jpg

Anyway you asking me to prove that nobody went to the moon is like telling me to prove that there is no Father Christmas. It is up to you and your fellow believers to prove your case.


Why?
Why does NASA devote so much time and taxpayer money to plead it's case. Surely if the event occured they would not have to continue begging people to believe them. But like any other lie, one lie leads to a web of lies needed to reinforce the first lie.
Ofcourse anything that NASA produces now will be in all probability a photoshopped image. Like the many computer animations they normally produce telling us how other planets MAY look like close up.
Dont you Apollo advocates even stop and ask yourselves why 50 years on the USA is paying the Russians to launch US satelites into space?
Why those hydrogen fuel cells are not in use today?
And why those Saturn V rockets that could carry a 26 tonne payload 238,000 miles in less than 72 hours cannot today carry small payloads a fraction of the distance today.
Why 50 years on no manned craft has gone more than 275 miles up.

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/12/img/20071221_kaguya_01_e.jpg

NASA doesn't devote much time or money to "plead its case". They had a single book planned but cancelled it when there were concerns over the $10,000 it would have cost. Everything else I've seen is done by third parties often at their own expense.

As for the rest of the questions, the answer is lack of funding and lack of political will.

frenat
10-11-2008, 03:49 PM
Moon rock is probably meteorite rock. Von Braun the nazi who led the Apollo hoax went hunting meteorites in the artic region.
But in any case there is no way to verify a pice of rock as being from the moon as there is nothing to compare it to other than earth rocks.

Von Braun was a rocket scientist. He had no particular geology experience. The trip to Anarctica was not for hunting meteorites. It was a tourist trip. Why send a major public figure if finding meteorites was their goal when a private expedition with actual geologists would do better? Plus it was not known that meteorites that came from the Moon could be found in Antarctica until much later. The rocks can be compared to and have been compared to Russian samples. A geologist (of which hundreds if not thousands have examined the samples) can definitely tell the difference between a rock from the Moon which shows no sign of atmospheric contamination, and has microscopic zap pits and a meteorite which shows signs of having entered the atmosphere and contaminated from after it entered.

The films and photos are clearly fake.
Opinion. Many people including thousands of relevant experts do not agree.

The thousands of workers would not have known, because they are simply cogs in the big wheel. A person in Zimbabwe who works in a platinum mine as a tea boy does not know that they are making the raw material for jewellery, catalytic converters or a cure for cancer.
NASA employs millions if you include all the subcontractors and outsourced work. Ofcourse 99% of them would have no idea what the others are doing and would believe the official story. Only Von Braun, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, and tops a couple of hundred people would need to know the truth.
Granted, not everyone would need to know, but then they would have built working products that would be capable of making it to the Moon. If you have that, then why not go?


There were whistleblowers who were assasinated.
Again, opinion.

shabun
10-11-2008, 04:25 PM
For any Apollo anoraks like me, the Taurus-Littrow photo posted by Stelios is a beauty. If anyone wants to see the landing video of the Apollo 17 LEM at that site it is on the NASA website. Even if you think its a fake it was a textbook landing (or faked landing) in the valley.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17.landing.mov

stelios
10-11-2008, 07:09 PM
Granted, not everyone would need to know, but then they would have built working products that would be capable of making it to the Moon. If you have that, then why not go?

What working products were these?
To take a spacecraft into LOW EARTH ORBIT or to take it all the way to the moon, orbit the moon, land, take off and dock, and then return to the earth another 238,000 miles.
Nobody denies Apollo took off and orbited the earth for a few days and then splash landed back.
So what specific products are you talking about.
The guy who made the Hasselblad camera is an Apollo debunker.

frenat
10-11-2008, 08:00 PM
What working products were these?
To take a spacecraft into LOW EARTH ORBIT or to take it all the way to the moon, orbit the moon, land, take off and dock, and then return to the earth another 238,000 miles.
Nobody denies Apollo took off and orbited the earth for a few days and then splash landed back.
So what specific products are you talking about.
The guy who made the Hasselblad camera is an Apollo debunker.

All of it. The engineers would have made equipment capable of reaching the Moon and returning. The various tracking stations tracked something to the Moon. The Russians tracked something to the Moon. Since you mentioned it, there are some who deny that Apollo took off and orbited the Earth. These are chiefly those who think Apollo a hoax but realize that had the craft stayed in orbit it would have been visible to the naked eye for nearly everyone on the planet so they have to invent some scenario where the Saturn V crashed into the ocean shortly after launch.
As for the Hasselblad, if it is the person I am thinking of, Lundberg, he was misrepresented and taken out of context by hoax believers. I know of no time where he has said he does not believe the landings took place. I have seen though where he is asked photographic questions that he either doesn't know or guesses at (he is not a photographer but an engineer) and it is made to look like he thinks differently than he really does.

http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html

and this quote from the author of the above site here
http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-6017.html
JayUtah18-June-2003, 12:10 AM
The argument that Hasselblad admitted the cameras wouldn't work in space is based on Aulis' treatment of a solitary witness: Jan Lundberg who was the project manager. Lundberg never comes out and says the cameras wouldn't work. He responds in certain ways to certain leading questions by the interviewer, and the result is "spun" to suggest a discrepancy between the as-designed specifications of the cameras and the ways NASA is alleged to have used them.

For example, Brian Welch (NASA) is asked what the reseau fiducials are for. He says that by knowing certain things about how the picture was taken, those marks can be used to measure objects in the photograph. (I agree; I know how to do that.) The question is put to Lundberg whether the fiducials can be used to measure objects in the photographs. "No," says Lundberg, "it would require stereo pairs." This makes it sound like NASA's claim regarding the photography is not supported by the manufacturer. But Lundberg is apparently unaware that the astronauts took many stereo pairs. Further, no attempt is made to reconcile Lundberg's prerequisites with Welch's proviso. They're simply assumed to be incompatible. In fact, "knowing something about the photograph" is speaking to the photogrammetric basis.

And Lundberg is not the only expert on the Hasselblad cameras. He just happens to be the only one that David Percy talked to. And so Lundberg (who is considerably elderly) makes some baffling statements that we know to be false. For example, he implies that the film could only be changed inside the lunar module, which was patently not done. Another discrepancy, says Percy. He doesn't consider that the magazine-loading feature was well-documented and known about by many both at NASA and at Hasselblad. To him it's a matter of "NASA contradicting the expert." We aren't required to explain the discrepancy. Lundberg is the odd man out: expert is as expert does.

Finally Lundberg is consulted on questions of exposure and lighting. He is a mechanical engineer, and while he may know about lighting, the Aulis authors don't establish that he does.

But this is a well-known polemical technique. The sole-authority tactic is used to apparently divert responsibility away from the author and onto some (genuine) authority whose statements are milked for all they're worth -- and then some. Lundberg is clearly confused on some points and clearly out of his element on others. The remaining points are simply manufactured by using bits and pieces of different people's testimony with no attempt to provide a clear background.

The policy of the Hasselblad company is that their equipment was used on the moon, and they're very proud of it.

stelios
10-11-2008, 08:33 PM
The Russians only developed deep space radars in 1972 which coincided wth the last Apollo flight.
Any object that orbits the earth including Apollo moves at an extremely fast speed is invisible not only to the naked eye but to telescopes as well. And 50 years ago radar too.
If as you say it would be visible then why 50 years on are the Yankers trying to build a missile 'defence' shield surely if 50 years ago rockets were visible.

You are having a bubble arent you?

These are chiefly those who think Apollo a hoax but realize that had the craft stayed in orbit it would have been visible to the naked eye for nearly everyone on the planet

And where are these tracking stations you speak of 50 years ago?

shabun
10-11-2008, 08:47 PM
Sorry mate but I think you are wrong again. Any orbiting craft is usually easily visible from earth at night. They move quickly but not that quick. I know the ISS takes about 10 minutes to transit from one horizon to the other and all other satellites are easily seen by naked eye. If the Apollo craft had just orbitted the earth they would have been seen without any problem.

You are at 0/10 so far. Must try harder.

hagbard_celine
10-11-2008, 08:54 PM
I don't understand what you mean. If the LRO is able to take photos then is that not acceptable as proof? I guess they will have to convince everyone that the photos will not be faked but would that not require hundreds of current NASA staff to be also in on it? I can't see why all the current NASA staff (and I assume a bunch of University Researchers) would have any particular reason to do that.

It is also possible that the reflectors could have been placed by robot craft but is it not reasonable to ask for the evidence of this? What missions were they sent on? Do you have launch dates, vehicle specifications etc?

My problem is that there is plenty evidence that the missions happened (all of which could in theory have been faked). But there is no evidence that there were other missions to the moon to deploy these mirrors. The Surveyor and Luna missions which were done before Apollo all have specific recorded landing sites which were extremely far away from the Apollo sites (except the Apollo 12 site which recovered a part of a previous Surveyor rover). For your statement to be correct, there must have been other "secret" missions to secretly deploy these missors in advance of the Apollo flights. I struggle with that one tbh. You seen to be clued-up on this and I value your comments but please could you provide evidence to support the view that the mirrors were deployed by other missions.

Unfortunately my statement is currently unprovable. Any such secret space missions would have been conducted in the strictest secrecy. But it would have been possible. It wouldn't be unprecedented for the United States govt to conduct a massive product in super secrecy that could include secret launches of spacecraft. One of the early shuttle missions was reported on the news as being secret. Not everybody at NASA or whatever agency is working on it needs to know its purpose. Many people in the Manhatten Project played crucial roles in the bomb's development without knowing what a monster they were nurturing. In fact some of the crew of the aircraft who dropped the two bombs on Japan didn't know what they were involved in, and one was so shocked and horrified afterwards by what he'd done he retired to a monastry!:eek:

Maybe the LRO's pictures will not be fake. They make take images of something that looks like Tranquility Base with the LM descent stage, the rover footprints etc, but it will not be real; a balsa-wood model for instance:D. (Although you said above that the camera resolution will not be good enough to make it out.)

shabun
10-11-2008, 09:08 PM
Unfortunately my statement is currently unprovable. Any such secret space missions would have been conducted in the strictest secrecy. But it would have been possible. It wouldn't be unprecedented for the United States govt to conduct a massive product in super secrecy that could include secret launches of spacecraft. One of the early shuttle missions was reported on the news as being secret. Not everybody at NASA or whatever agency is working on it needs to know its purpose. Many people in the Manhatten Project played crucial roles in the bomb's development without knowing what a monster they were nurturing. In fact some of the crew of the aircraft who dropped the two bombs on Japan didn't know what they were involved in, and one was so shocked and horrified afterwards by what he'd done he retired to a monastry!:eek:

Maybe the LRO's pictures will not be fake. They make take images of something that looks like Tranquility Base with the LM descent stage, the rover footprints etc, but it will not be real; a balsa-wood model for instance:D. (Although you said above that the camera resolution will not be good enough to make it out.)

Thanks for the reply. Your statement is unprovable indeed (which is the problem we are all facing) but more importantly there is no evidence whatsoever that the missions happened at all. It is one thing having evidence that is not believed (like say, the moon rock, videos, testaments, etc) but it is another having no evidence whatsoever that three secret missions were launched to the moon to plant the mirrors (I think 3 mirrors were planted but maybe it was another number - it wasn't one though).

However, I think you are pushing it to suggest that NASA will fake the LRO photos - that would require a large amount of current NASA employees to be in on the fakery and I'm not sure that would be sensible for NASA to try (given the high scrutiny the photos will recieve from everyone). I think if NASA are smart they will allow independent checks of the raw data by hoax-theorists. We wait with interest!

btw, what is your reason for thinking the missions were faked? I guess it is probably in a previous post in this thread but if not please let me know. I grew up watching the Apollo missions on TV and I understand younger people may not have any reason to believe they happened but what is your take?

frenat
10-11-2008, 09:28 PM
The Russians only developed deep space radars in 1972 which coincided wth the last Apollo flight.
Any object that orbits the earth including Apollo moves at an extremely fast speed is invisible not only to the naked eye but to telescopes as well. And 50 years ago radar too.
If as you say it would be visible then why 50 years on are the Yankers trying to build a missile 'defence' shield surely if 50 years ago rockets were visible.

You are having a bubble arent you?



And where are these tracking stations you speak of 50 years ago?

Wrong. Russia tracked their own spacecraft around the Moon long before 1972. They had the capability. The 1972 quote is yet another misinterpretation.

Invisible to the naked eye? Then the multiple times I have seen the shuttle, ISS and various satellites are all fakes? I've even seen pics taken through telescopes of the ISS that resolve details. Just because an object in orbit is visible has nothing to do with defence from that object.

The tracking stations are scattered across the world. There were definitely some in the US, UK, and Australia.

hagbard_celine
10-11-2008, 10:22 PM
Thanks for the reply. Your statement is unprovable indeed (which is the problem we are all facing) but more importantly there is no evidence whatsoever that the missions happened at all. It is one thing having evidence that is not believed (like say, the moon rock, videos, testaments, etc) but it is another having no evidence whatsoever that three secret missions were launched to the moon to plant the mirrors (I think 3 mirrors were planted but maybe it was another number - it wasn't one though).

However, I think you are pushing it to suggest that NASA will fake the LRO photos -



Unless they were all planted by the same single mission. It could be that there was already an existing base on the moon at the time (and still is there today) and they could have aranged the mirrors, and also planted fake Apollo debris. As I said I don't claim that nobody has ever been to the moon, only that people went there at the time and using the methods and personnel that history tells us went there. This is why I'm not 100% certain that the LRO photoes will be faked. It might not be necessary.

btw, what is your reason for thinking the missions were faked? I guess it is probably in a previous post in this thread but if not please let me know. I grew up watching the Apollo missions on TV and I understand younger people may not have any reason to believe they happened but what is your take?

I'm actually talking to someone on another forum about this very subject!:D He's just told me how he watched the first moon landing as a kid.

I'm not enturely sure. On one level it was obviously to do with the Cold War and the Space Race, but something intuitiuvely is hinting that there's more to it than that. The movers and shakers of the world might have deemed it necessary for the people of Earth to see astronauts walk on the moon. They have many psychologists who specialize in how people think as a group, nation and world and advise politicians in how to write speeches, speak in Parliament etc; the Tavistock Inbstitute, the Rand Corporation, Brookings Institute etc.

shabun
10-11-2008, 10:38 PM
Unless they were all planted by the same single mission. It could be that there was already an existing base on the moon at the time (and still is there today) and they could have aranged the mirrors, and also planted fake Apollo debris. As I said I don't claim that nobody has ever been to the moon, only that people went there at the time and using the methods and personnel that history tells us went there. This is why I'm not 100% certain that the LRO photoes will be faked. It might not be necessary.



I'm actually talking to someone on another forum about this very subject!:D He's just told me how he watched the first moon landing as a kid.

I'm not enturely sure. On one level it was obviously to do with the Cold War and the Space Race, but something intuitiuvely is hinting that there's more to it than that. The movers and shakers of the world might have deemed it necessary for the people of Earth to see astronauts walk on the moon. They have many psychologists who specialize in how people think as a group, nation and world and advise politicians in how to write speeches, speak in Parliament etc; the Tavistock Inbstitute, the Rand Corporation, Brookings Institute etc.

I also watched the first step on the moon as a kid. I had all the Airfix models and magazines and all that stuff. Nobody doubted the missions were happening in those days, especially the Apollo 13 saga. Our class all had to pray for them now that I remember. But that was then.

But I think its a bit much to suggest there were already bases on the moon and they went out and planted the mirrors and built fake LEM descent stage kit out of balsa-wood (which is not in big supply up there I think). I think I know the answer to this, but do you have any evidence, even a teensy shred, that there were bases on the moon prior to Apollo, with vehicles capable of traversing over extremely rough, and often mountainous terrain, to plant mirrors and build fake LEM descent stages on the landing sites?

hagbard_celine
10-11-2008, 10:50 PM
I also watched the first step on the moon as a kid. I had all the Airfix models and magazines and all that stuff. Nobody doubted the missions were happening in those days, especially the Apollo 13 saga. Our class all had to pray for them now that I remember. But that was then.

But I think its a bit much to suggest there were already bases on the moon and they went out and planted the mirrors and built fake LEM descent stage kit out of balsa-wood (which is not in big supply up there I think). I think I know the answer to this, but do you have any evidence, even a teensy shred, that there were bases on the moon prior to Apollo, with vehicles capable of traversing over extremely rough, and often mountainous terrain, to plant mirrors and build fake LEM descent stages on the landing sites?

There are several people who've worked in deep black govt projects saying this at the moment. Many have come up with the same story independantly. There's the Relfes from the Mars Project and some of the witnesses from the Disclosure Project. It is known historically that the Nazis had scientists looking into antigravity and esoteric propulsion suystems that would make the rocket obsolete and this research was continued in secret in the USA, Soviet Union and several other countries after World War II. Establishing manned bases on the moon (and even beyond) would have been possible if this research bore fruit.

shabun
10-11-2008, 11:21 PM
There are several people who've worked in deep black govt projects saying this at the moment. Many have come up with the same story independantly. There's the Relfes from the Mars Project and some of the witnesses from the Disclosure Project. It is known historically that the Nazis had scientists looking into antigravity and esoteric propulsion suystems that would make the rocket obsolete and this research was continued in secret in the USA, Soviet Union and several other countries after World War II. Establishing manned bases on the moon (and even beyond) would have been possible if this research bore fruit.

Do you have any links to these people who are saying there were bases on the moon? I'd like to know more. Do you have specific quotes from them or testaments? Or anything in fact.

Anyway, it seems that even if the LRO takes photos of the LEM, you will not be persuaded that the Apollo missions happened. Instead your view will be that the photos are of balsa-wood models put there by the inhabitants of the moon base. I think that unless we both get a trip to the moon on one of these anti-gravity propulsion vehicles in the next few years to visit one of the sites, we are destined to disagree forever, but its been fun discussing it with you.

hagbard_celine
11-11-2008, 12:04 AM
Do you have any links to these people who are saying there were bases on the moon? I'd like to know more. Do you have specific quotes from them or testaments? Or anything in fact.

Anyway, it seems that even if the LRO takes photos of the LEM, you will not be persuaded that the Apollo missions happened. Instead your view will be that the photos are of balsa-wood models put there by the inhabitants of the moon base. I think that unless we both get a trip to the moon on one of these anti-gravity propulsion vehicles in the next few years to visit one of the sites, we are destined to disagree forever, but its been fun discussing it with you.

You too, Shabun. You've got no idea how good it is to discuss this subject with sombody polite and professional for a change!:)

I recomend the Disclosure Project Witness film which is avaiable here: http://www.disclosureproject.org/shop.htm

I think if I took a trip to the moon myself and saw the Apollo bases I'd still be unconvinced. For close inspection, not just balsa-wood models, but much more sophisticated debris could be faked too; also I wouldn't be able to rule out the use of hypnosis and psychotropic drugs to make me think certain things and "see" real Apollo hardware on the moon. This kind of mind-control is even documented by mainstream history; MK Ulktra etc.

stelios
11-11-2008, 03:05 AM
Sorry mate but I think you are wrong again. Any orbiting craft is usually easily visible from earth at night. They move quickly but not that quick. I know the ISS takes about 10 minutes to transit from one horizon to the other and all other satellites are easily seen by naked eye. If the Apollo craft had just orbitted the earth they would have been seen without any problem.

You are at 0/10 so far. Must try harder.

You are talking nonsense.
I dare you to go outside and look up and see one of the hundreds of satelites orbiting right now.
You can see objects moving at 18000 mph in the dark - why would they need radar and star wars and patriots when you could do the same job at a fraction of the cost.

This is the problem with the Apollo spammers they have no grasp of science fact and live in a world of science fiction.

frenat
11-11-2008, 03:50 AM
You are talking nonsense.
I dare you to go outside and look up and see one of the hundreds of satelites orbiting right now.
You can see objects moving at 18000 mph in the dark - why would they need radar and star wars and patriots when you could do the same job at a fraction of the cost.

This is the problem with the Apollo spammers they have no grasp of science fact and live in a world of science fiction.

Try this page
http://www.heavens-above.com/
Put in your location and it will show you many satellites hat are visible with the naked eye. With a telescope even more are visible. In just the next 9 days from my location the ISS will be visible 11 times. As mentioned before, I have personally seen the shuttle, ISS, and multiple satellites. Often multiples in one night. They are not visible all the time but can usually be seen for a few hours after sunset and a few hours before sunrise. Some can even be seen in the day if you know where to look. They can be predicted so accurately though precisely because we know where they are and have their orbits calculated. Radar is partially responsible for that. New objects like a missle launch would not be calculated already of course. While they may be visble based on the time at launch, it is much easier to let the computer receiving the radar returns calculate the trajectory and intercept info as applicable rather than taking painstakingly taking visual observations and measurements only to figure out the trajectory long after impact. Perhaps you should actually try to get a grasp of science fact before posting the nonsense you did above.

stelios
11-11-2008, 04:18 AM
I did a google search and there is a claim made by NASA which you have also repeated that the ISS is visible. But you originally were talking about Apollo.
The ISS is huge and it is also in low earth orbit.

So my question remains HAVE YOU GONE OUT AND LOOKED UP AND SEEN ANYTHING?

And if your only evidence to prove that Apollo really did go to the moon is the claim "that if it didnt we would have been able to see it orbiting the earth with the naked eye" then this isnt a debate it is just you sticking your fingers in your ears.

frenat
11-11-2008, 04:34 AM
I did a google search and there is a claim made by NASA which you have also repeated that the ISS is visible. But you originally were talking about Apollo.
The ISS is huge and it is also in low earth orbit.

So my question remains HAVE YOU GONE OUT AND LOOKED UP AND SEEN ANYTHING?

And if your only evidence to prove that Apollo really did go to the moon is the claim "that if it didnt we would have been able to see it orbiting the earth with the naked eye" then this isnt a debate it is just you sticking your fingers in your ears.

That is hardly the only evidence. Many people can point you towards literally tons of evidence if you are really interested but I suspect you aren't. I personally will not as I don't have the time. I just had my third child born and I still need to finish my Master's soon.

Yes I have actually gone and seen things at night. Many times. Did you not read my two previous posts where I said I had?

As for Apollo, many amateur astronomers saw it in orbit before they fired the burn towards the Moon. Many others also tracked it as it started toward the Moon, or saw the burn that propelled it toward the Moon or saw some ofhte waste dumps on the way. It WAS one of the brightest objects in orbit. It would have been impossible to hide in orbit. The Apollo command module, service doule and lunar module was also rather large and started in low Earth orbit. If it hadn't gone to the Moon it would have had to stay in low Earth orbit and would have been quite visible.

stelios
11-11-2008, 05:09 AM
Congrats on your third.
I have three myself.
I try my best to teach them about the lies we have been told, like the moon hoax, 911, 7/7, war on terror, vaccines, fluoride, aspartame, etc.

shabun
11-11-2008, 11:26 AM
fwiw I have four. The teenager doesn't believe in Apollo either, so thats him out the will.

But, with respect, you are talking bollox on the orbit issue (as you were on the landing-site photo issue also). It is not the only evidence for Apollo and the previous post by frenat is correct. If Apollo did just stay in earth orbit then it would very easily be spotted, as any vehicle in earth orbit (low or high) can be. Get some beers, go out into your garden, lie down, and wait. Almost every evening you will see satellites going by. There are websites available which will tell you when and where to look.

But going by your Avatar - are you an online version of Fonejacker? Will my posts end up in a book somewhere? If so I want commission.

shabun
11-11-2008, 12:04 PM
You too, Shabun. You've got no idea how good it is to discuss this subject with sombody polite and professional for a change!:)

I recomend the Disclosure Project Witness film which is avaiable here: http://www.disclosureproject.org/shop.htm

I think if I took a trip to the moon myself and saw the Apollo bases I'd still be unconvinced. For close inspection, not just balsa-wood models, but much more sophisticated debris could be faked too; also I wouldn't be able to rule out the use of hypnosis and psychotropic drugs to make me think certain things and "see" real Apollo hardware on the moon. This kind of mind-control is even documented by mainstream history; MK Ulktra etc.

lol. you are a tough guy to convince! The only way to convince you would be to take you to the moon (making sure no drugs were given to you which would make you artificially see the LEM and the footprints etc). If we assume you have not been drugged, then you will see the footprints and debris, but you will say is has been planted by people already on a moonbase. How will they hide their tracks? If they came via surface transport then you will see their tracks in the dust (unless you say there is actually wind on the moon after all). But I guess you will say they came by some sort of hovercraft and brushed away their own footprints with some clever moon brushes.

Mind, you, if they did have bases on the moon prior to Apollo, and if they were able to plant the Apollo evidence on the surface, fake the films, fool the observers, orbit the earth without being spotted, silence the whistleblowers, and fake the moon rock, then that is a hell of an achievement! Much more difficult than actually doing the Apollo missions themselves.

Somehow I think I am not going to get your acceptance that perhaps, just perhaps, Apollo did go after all!

lilavati
11-11-2008, 03:32 PM
wow im completely amazed by how knowledgeable you all are about this.
my first realisation that it was fake came when i was 26.id completely bought into it before that.
do you know Srila Prabhupada,the holy man,well he disclosed in the 60s that it was unlikely that they went to the moon and he doubted the honesty of the astronaghts.so i believed his version:eek:
what fascinates me is the mysterious circumstances some of these guys died in when they told or were about to tell.
my husband still wont hear of it that its fake...like im trying to rob him of his childhood innocence!

lilavati
11-11-2008, 03:34 PM
hey hagbard,do you remember me...you did a funny thread on limericks for the great icke??
those were the days!

shabun
11-11-2008, 03:49 PM
wow im completely amazed by how knowledgeable you all are about this.
my first realisation that it was fake came when i was 26.id completely bought into it before that.
do you know Srila Prabhupada,the holy man,well he disclosed in the 60s that it was unlikely that they went to the moon and he doubted the honesty of the astronaghts.so i believed his version:eek:
what fascinates me is the mysterious circumstances some of these guys died in when they told or were about to tell.
my husband still wont hear of it that its fake...like im trying to rob him of his childhood innocence!

I think if you tell your husband its faked because a holy man said so then he may think you are a bit gullible.

What mysterious circumstances are you referring to? Who was about to "tell" and how did they die?

hagbard_celine
11-11-2008, 08:38 PM
hey hagbard,do you remember me...you did a funny thread on limericks for the great icke??
those were the days!

Yeah, I remember. Those limericks were cool!:D

hagbard_celine
11-11-2008, 08:40 PM
lol. you are a tough guy to convince!

Mind, you, if they did have bases on the moon prior to Apollo, and if they were able to plant the Apollo evidence on the surface, fake the films, fool the observers, orbit the earth without being spotted, silence the whistleblowers, and fake the moon rock, then that is a hell of an achievement! Much more difficult than actually doing the Apollo missions themselves.

Somehow I think I am not going to get your acceptance that perhaps, just perhaps, Apollo did go after all!

I don't know about more difficult than doing Apollo for real. And there's no need to use fake moon rocks; real ones are freely available.;)


The only way to convince you would be to take you to the moon (making sure no drugs were given to you which would make you artificially see the LEM and the footprints etc). If we assume you have not been drugged, then you will see the footprints and debris, but you will say is has been planted by people already on a moonbase. How will they hide their tracks? If they came via surface transport then you will see their tracks in the dust (unless you say there is actually wind on the moon after all). But I guess you will say they came by some sort of hovercraft and brushed away their own footprints with some clever moon brushes.

It may sound very tricky, but film set designers in Hollywood and other studioes do this kind of thing every day.

stelios
12-11-2008, 01:28 AM
But going by your Avatar - are you an online version of Fonejacker? Will my posts end up in a book somewhere? If so I want commission.

No, i just find the show very entertaining.
I only recently changed the avatar

http://a711.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/69/l_692981470ea250f681120751f182af0e.jpg

ps:
your teenager is very clever, i would listen to what is common sense

you believe that 50 years ago, before digital watches, before silicon chips, when computers occupied huge buildings and ran on magnetic tape, that a country as backward as the USA could send 3 people over and over again 238,000 miles to the moon and back
yet today they have to pay the Russians to launch satelites into low earth orbit

shabun
12-11-2008, 09:52 AM
No, i just find the show very entertaining.
I only recently changed the avatar

http://a711.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/69/l_692981470ea250f681120751f182af0e.jpg

ps:
your teenager is very clever, i would listen to what is common sense

you believe that 50 years ago, before digital watches, before silicon chips, when computers occupied huge buildings and ran on magnetic tape, that a country as backward as the USA could send 3 people over and over again 238,000 miles to the moon and back
yet today they have to pay the Russians to launch satelites into low earth orbit

If you can show me any evidence they didn't I'd be glad to discuss it with you. You already tried the landing site photos. You were wrong. The earth orbit dicussion - wrong again.

There was no fancy technology needed - rockets were already in existence since WW2 and there had been many previous unmanned flights to the moon (including soft landings) , both by USA and USSR (I think you may have to agree that cos the mirrors got on the surface somehow). The only thing that was radically different was the LEM ascent stage, which is essentially a box with a single thruster underneath it. Because the moons gravity is 1/6th that of earth and there is no atmospheric resistance, the amount of thrust needed to take off from the moon is very small. It wasn't that difficult - they did it six times.

ps I was only kidding about my teenager - he also looked at the evidence and is perfectly happy to accept it happened.

shabun
12-11-2008, 10:20 AM
I don't know about more difficult than doing Apollo for real. And there's no need to use fake moon rocks; real ones are freely available.;)




It may sound very tricky, but film set designers in Hollywood and other studioes do this kind of thing every day.

How do they mimic the 1/6th gravity?

The original point is that you will never believe that it happened, no matter what evidence is put in front of you (even a free trip to the moon to inspect the site wouldn't convince you because you say that you will be drugged!) and despite the fact you have no evidence at all that it didn't happen.

Do you not think you give Conspiracy theorists a bad name!?!?!

stelios
12-11-2008, 03:13 PM
It wasn't that difficult - they did it six times.


Another ridiculous post.
It wasnt that difficult, really? So why for the next 50 years havent they ever done it again?
Ofcourse it isnt difficult when you do everything on a Hollywood film set.

It is you who is the conspiracy theorist.
You promote a story that is so far fetched that in 50 years nobody, Japs, Chinese, Russians, Indians, EUSSR, or the USA have attempted to recreate it.
The Russians state flat out that it is not possible for people to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts without carrying so much shielding that would make the spacecraft imoveable.

frenat
12-11-2008, 03:36 PM
Another ridiculous post.
It wasnt that difficult, really? So why for the next 50 years havent they ever done it again?
Ofcourse it isnt difficult when you do everything on a Hollywood film set.

It is you who is the conspiracy theorist.
You promote a story that is so far fetched that in 50 years nobody, Japs, Chinese, Russians, Indians, EUSSR, or the USA have attempted to recreate it.
The Russians state flat out that it is not possible for people to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts without carrying so much shielding that would make the spacecraft imoveable.


Lack of funding and lack of political will. How would we go when no one wants to pay for it? NASA's budget has been severely slashed since the 60's and they have to spread what they do get to cover multiple programs.

Only the Russians (aside from the US) had a decent shot at getting there. The other countries you listed are not far enough along with their space programs. The Chinese have expressed interest though.

Also, the Russians have not said that about the shielding. They had an active program themselves and were trying to go to the Moon well into the 70's until it was clear their heavy lift booster wasn't going to cut it. Still, they sent the Zond 5 around the Moon with living cargo in it without any excessive shielding.

hagbard_celine
12-11-2008, 08:08 PM
How do they mimic the 1/6th gravity?

The original point is that you will never believe that it happened, no matter what evidence is put in front of you (even a free trip to the moon to inspect the site wouldn't convince you because you say that you will be drugged!) and despite the fact you have no evidence at all that it didn't happen.

Do you not think you give Conspiracy theorists a bad name!?!?!

No, I think not. And for the reason I've stated, I do think that there's evidence it didn't happen.

hagbard_celine
12-11-2008, 08:17 PM
How do they mimic the 1/6th gravity?



Faking low gravity can easily be done by skilled film-makers. See Mary Poppins where Mary leaps over a garden fence, apprently weighting just a few pounds etc; there are many more examples.

onourwayto2012
12-11-2008, 09:53 PM
One reason to believe they were misrepresented if not faked is that practically every major event in history has been misrepresented, as in "a big lie". I don't have much reason to believe this one is any different.

shabun
12-11-2008, 11:01 PM
One reason to believe they were misrepresented if not faked is that practically every major event in history has been misrepresented, as in "a big lie". I don't have much reason to believe this one is any different.

So England never actually won the World Cup.

shabun
12-11-2008, 11:08 PM
Faking low gravity can easily be done by skilled film-makers. See Mary Poppins where Mary leaps over a garden fence, apprently weighting just a few pounds etc; there are many more examples.

That was not the point. We were discussing whether you, personally, if taken to the moon on a freebie, would accept Apollo happened if you saw the landing sites with your own eyes. Your response was that this could be faked by drugging you and doing the whole lot in a studio. I suppose to mimic the gravity they could tie helium balloons to you and using a "balloon-masking" drug on you so you didn't see them.

At least when the LRO orbiter returns its photos of the landing sites in April some people may be convinced, but I fear, not you or Stelios.

shabun
12-11-2008, 11:13 PM
No, I think not. And for the reason I've stated, I do think that there's evidence it didn't happen.

Please provide this evidence so we can discuss.

onourwayto2012
12-11-2008, 11:41 PM
So England never actually won the World Cup.

Of course not! Both teams were hypnotized...the beer was spiked with LSD...and all the TV footage totally faked...gosh!

clint web
13-11-2008, 12:18 AM
So England never actually won the World Cup.

They did but the team were lookalikes. The real team died in a car crash like Paul McCartney did in 1966.

It was a popular year for replacement people.

stelios
13-11-2008, 04:35 AM
That was not the point. We were discussing whether you, personally, if taken to the moon on a freebie, would accept Apollo happened if you saw the landing sites with your own eyes. Your response was that this could be faked by drugging you and doing the whole lot in a studio. I suppose to mimic the gravity they could tie helium balloons to you and using a "balloon-masking" drug on you so you didn't see them.

At least when the LRO orbiter returns its photos of the landing sites in April some people may be convinced, but I fear, not you or Stelios.

You are dreaming.
How much do u think a manned moon shot would cost, if possible?
Faking it is so much cheaper.
Did you watch the Chinese spacewalk?

stelios
13-11-2008, 06:14 AM
Still, they sent the Zond 5 around the Moon with living cargo in it without any excessive shielding.excessive shielding?
Zond 5 is counter hoax
USSR claimed it sent animals to the moon and back still alive

http://www.synlube.com/images/Lunar_Rover.gif
ps: what is upside down umbrella for?

shabun
13-11-2008, 10:22 AM
excessive shielding?
Zond 5 is counter hoax
USSR claimed it sent animals to the moon and back still alive

http://www.synlube.com/images/Lunar_Rover.gif
ps: what is upside down umbrella for?

The umbrella is in case it rains. On the moon, the rain comes from the ground and goes upwards.

For anyone who is seriously interested (not you Stelios) the umbrella is a radio antenna which allowed coms from Houston or the CM which was orbitting round the moon.

qasrose
13-11-2008, 11:09 AM
excessive shielding?
Zond 5 is counter hoax
USSR claimed it sent animals to the moon and back still alive

http://www.synlube.com/images/Lunar_Rover.gif
ps: what is upside down umbrella for?

lmao, Stelios, that isn't an umbrella, it's a satellite dish.

Since when do umbrellas have wires connected to them ha ha

stelios
13-11-2008, 11:17 AM
The umbrella is a directional antenna which in order to work must point in the right direction. It is not pointing in the right direction.
Nothwithstanding the fact that as the rover moves the directional antenna must adjust, which it doesnt.

http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2006/10/04/0001216631/a17anaglyph_vanmeijgaarden_f.small.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6988.jpg

shabun
13-11-2008, 12:10 PM
The umbrella is a directional antenna which in order to work must point in the right direction. It is not pointing in the right direction.
Nothwithstanding the fact that as the rover moves the directional antenna must adjust, which it doesnt.

http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2006/10/04/0001216631/a17anaglyph_vanmeijgaarden_f.small.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6988.jpg

Complete nonsense yet again Stelios. The antenna is pointing towards Earth, which stays in the same position as viewed from the moon. Slight adjustments are all that would be required as the rover moves.

Next?

stelios
13-11-2008, 12:27 PM
Complete nonsense yet again Stelios. The antenna is pointing towards Earth, which stays in the same position as viewed from the moon. Slight adjustments are all that would be required as the rover moves.

Next?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1502962445208997168
Slight adjustments?
The beach buggy drives and the antenna remains FIXED
meaning it is there just for decoration

shabun
13-11-2008, 12:38 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1502962445208997168
Slight adjustments?
The beach buggy drives and the antenna remains FIXED
meaning it is there just for decoration

Wrong again. You must try harder. The antenna is pointing vertically upwards, towards the earth. As the rover drives, it remains pointing always in the same direction no matter how the rover turns. So in this case there is no need to adjust it. If you look at various pictures of the rover you will see in some cases it points in different directions (i.e. it is adjustable) but in the case you showed there is no need.

Come on mate! I know you will never believe it happened but you need to be smarter if you want to look like you know what you are talking about.

Next?

stelios
13-11-2008, 12:50 PM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ke9p444euxE

Provide us with evidence of the driver speaking to earth.
Antenna adjustments.
What powers the buggy?
Power was provided by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries
Why arent these batteries in use today? powering electric vehicles
On Apollo 17 the 210 kg rover using batteries went 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes carrying a 100kg astrozero

Why dont the tyres melt in the 200 degree heat? they are aluinium
It had two side-by-side foldable seats made of tubular aluminum with nylon webbing and aluminum floor panels.
WHY DOES THE SAND BEHAVE LIKE IT'S IN EARTH GRAVITY?

shabun
13-11-2008, 01:08 PM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ke9p444euxE

Provide us with evidence of the driver speaking to earth.
Antenna adjustments.
What powers the buggy?
Why arent these batteries in use today?
Why dont the tyres melt in the 200 degree heat?
WHY DOES THE SAND BEHAVE LIKE IT'S IN EARTH GRAVITY?

Provide us with evidence of the driver speaking to earth. Go to the NASA Apollo website and you will get clips of that. I liked your movie though.

Antenna adjustments. Look carefully at the movie you posted around 1.42 and you will get a close up of the antenna to see that it is adjustable. As I said before, there is no need to adjust it when it is pointing close to vertically as it is always pointing at the earth. And for completeness, the astronauts also communicate to earth via the LEM (which is what they did on the missions before the rover appeared) but the buggy antenna is for when they went longer distances away from the LEM so they were out of range of the LEM. In the clip you show the astronauts are still close to the LEM so the rover antenna was probably not used.

What powers the buggy? Batteries - you know that already otherwirse why the next question?

Why arent these batteries in use today? They probably are - I'll check what specific type they were and let you know.

Why dont the tyres melt in the 200 degree heat? You got me on that one - I'll find out.

WHY DOES THE SAND BEHAVE LIKE IT'S IN EARTH GRAVITY? It doesn't. It actually behaves exactly as it should in lower gravity. If it was on earth you would expect the dust to folow a more horizontal (or to be exact parabolic) trajectory as there is a greater component of gravity on earth to pull it down. On the moon it squirts way up into the air as there is less gravity pulling it back.

shabun
13-11-2008, 01:14 PM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ke9p444euxE

Provide us with evidence of the driver speaking to earth.
Antenna adjustments.
What powers the buggy?
Power was provided by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries
Why arent these batteries in use today? powering electric vehicles
On Apollo 17 the 210 kg rover using batteries went 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes carrying a 100kg astrozero

Why dont the tyres melt in the 200 degree heat? they are aluinium
It had two side-by-side foldable seats made of tubular aluminum with nylon webbing and aluminum floor panels.
WHY DOES THE SAND BEHAVE LIKE IT'S IN EARTH GRAVITY?

feck stelios you are answering your own posts. Thanks anyway, it saves me the bother of finding out about the batteries.

hagbard_celine
13-11-2008, 08:24 PM
Please provide this evidence so we can discuss.


Well... that's what this thread is all about.:confused: With all due respect, I know it's a long thread, but if you think it's long to read it's even longer to type out again;).

Tell me which areas you wish to queirie and we'll take them one at a time.

shabun
13-11-2008, 08:58 PM
Well... that's what this thread is all about.:confused: With all due respect, I know it's a long thread, but if you think it's long to read it's even longer to type out again;).

Tell me which areas you wish to queirie and we'll take them one at a time.

Thanks.

Lets discuss the mirrors on the moon. Please provide the evidence that they were not placed there by the Apollo missions.

hagbard_celine
13-11-2008, 09:06 PM
Thanks.

Lets discuss the mirrors on the moon. Please provide the evidence that they were not placed there by the Apollo missions.

Well I have no record of whatever classified mission might have put them there, but then what is the reason to believe NASA when they claim it was placed there by Armstrong's and Aldrin's hands?:confused: I hope you do realize that classified space missions do take place. Space is a battlefield, during the Cold War and since its end.

Logically, which is more likely: that they left the secret Illuminati/Alien moon base and travelled a few dozen miles to put a retroreflector where the Apollo astronauts in the scenario would leave it... or we really did send 12 guys to the moon with Stone Age chemical rockets, polystyrene radiation shields and fibreglass suits?:D

shabun
13-11-2008, 09:27 PM
Well I have no record of whatever classified mission might have put them there, but then what is the reason to believe NASA when they claim it was placed there by Armstrong's and Aldrin's hands?:confused: I hope you do realize that classified space missions do take place. Space is a battlefield, during the Cold War and since its end.

Logically, which is more likely: that they left the secret Illuminati/Alien moon base and travelled a few dozen miles to put a retroreflector where the Apollo astronauts in the scenario would leave it... or we really did send 12 guys to the moon with Stone Age chemical rockets, polystyrene radiation shields and fibreglass suits?:D

Sorry but I must press you on this (hopes he is getting somewhere).

We said we would discuss evidence, which you said you have. So I asked you directly for the evidence that the reflectors were not placed by Apollo.

Your response is that you have no record of which mission actually put them there, i.e you have no evidence at all. None.

To me this is a big issue, as we actually do agree (phew) that the reflectors are there. However, your answer as to how the reflectors got there has no supporting evidence at all.

Lets try another - please provide evidence which supports the view that the Apollo craft took off, orbited the earth for a few days, and then landed again at the end of the "mission". If you propose a different scenario occurred, please provide evideance for that.

Thanks.

stelios
14-11-2008, 02:43 AM
Lunar Reflectors were placed on the moon by unmanned probes.
You might be denying this but NASA dont deny this, they even claim reflectors helped their guidance systems.

USSR which does not claim to have put people on the moon also claims to have placed reflectors there. Interestin to look at Soviet Rover designs. Look at the difference in the wheels and the antenna. On Apollo the wheels would clearly melt or slip and slide in the sand. The Soviet vehicle looks much more fit for purpose.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Lunokhod2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Lunokhod_1.jpg

ps: the soviets used Solar powered battery charging which is believable unlike NASA who claim to have used non rechargeable ready charged batteries which we are led to believe carried and maintained the charge without overheating in the 200 degree heat travelling 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes. The Soviets only claimed much shorter trips following long periods of recharging. Which is clearly more believeable.
Apollo is clearly an exercise in bullshitting.

frenat
14-11-2008, 03:51 AM
Lunar Reflectors were placed on the moon by unmanned probes.
You might be denying this but NASA dont deny this, they even claim reflectors helped their guidance systems.

USSR which does not claim to have put people on the moon also claims to have placed reflectors there.

Russia did place some reflectors. However, because theirs were not placed by hand they are so badly aligned that the US ones are used preferentially. There is still no evidence of a secret mission of the US to place reflectors, or the robotic craft ever being built and used by the US to place them.


Interestin to look at Soviet Rover designs. Look at the difference in the wheels and the antenna. On Apollo the wheels would clearly melt or slip and slide in the sand. The Soviet vehicle looks much more fit for purpose.

Melt? You're kidding right? Few metals melt at 250 degrees. Certainly not zinc, steel, aluminum and titanium which is what the wheels were made of.
List of elements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Further, while the Moon can get up to 250 degrees, it only does that after more than a week in full sunlight. Since they landed in lunar morning, the ground would not have been that hot.

Why should the wheels slip? The top speed was only 8 mph and the wheels look like and were designed to have plenty of traction.

http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/apollo/lrv22.jpg
good article and picture here
http://www.batsinthebelfry.com/rover/making_rover.php


ps: the soviets used Solar powered battery charging which is believable unlike NASA who claim to have used non rechargeable ready charged batteries which we are led to believe carried and maintained the charge without overheating in the 200 degree heat travelling 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes. The Soviets only claimed much shorter trips following long periods of recharging. Which is clearly more believeable.
Apollo is clearly an exercise in bullshitting.

The batteries used in the rover were designed with a capacity of 121 amp-hours. Can you prove this was not enough to do what they claimed to do? When would the batteries ever come in contact with the 200 degree heat? Keep in mind the ground would not be that hot yet and the batteries are surrounded by a vacuum. Unless the batteries are placed directly on the ground for conduction, they are not going to get any heat from it.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
http://www.fi.edu/pieces/schutte/LRV.html

twistedconcept
14-11-2008, 04:04 AM
Numerous researchers claim that we've had excellent technology for years, which is far ahead of what's available in the public arena. If true, it would have been simple for them to travel to the moon.

stelios
14-11-2008, 05:30 AM
Can you prove this was not enough to do what they claimed to do? When would the batteries ever come in contact with the 200 degree heat?

It is the your job to prove your case. I like millions of other Brits reject the fairy tale as a pack of lies that is totally far fetched.

ps
NYLON which you convenently avoided does melt

pss
all batteries get hot even on earth, without touching the ground
zinc, steel, aluminum and titanium are excellent heat conductors meaning the over would be blazing hot

frenat
14-11-2008, 01:49 PM
It is the your job to prove your case. I like millions of other Brits reject the fairy tale as a pack of lies that is totally far fetched.

ps
NYLON which you convenently avoided does melt

pss
all batteries get hot even on earth, without touching the ground
zinc, steel, aluminum and titanium are excellent heat conductors meaning the over would be blazing hot

Nope, you got the burden of proof wrong. Apollo is an accepted fact in the scientific community. You made the claim against it, you prove it. I won't do you your job for you. So far you've offered very few facts and plenty of handwaving.

And since you mentioned it, nylon, is not one of the components of the wheels which you specificaly mentioned would be the parts melting. Also, the melting point of nylon varies from 420 degrees fahrenheit to over 550 degrees. Still none of it melts at 200 degrees.

bemore
14-11-2008, 03:39 PM
The cameras used to film in space/take pictures had buttons proven to be too small to be operated with by the gloves of the space suit.

There is radiation is space, the space suits of the apollo mission were not radiation proof hence all the astronauts would of died very much sooner.

Moon landing+Race with russia= Fake landing.

As of the mirrors on the moon....so many MANY sattelites have been launched since then that logically anything could of put them there.

But like many things discussed on this website, we can only specualte and we will never ulitmatly know.

Peace

shabun
14-11-2008, 03:48 PM
The cameras used to film in space/take pictures had buttons proven to be too small to be operated with by the gloves of the space suit.

There is radiation is space, the space suits of the apollo mission were not radiation proof hence all the astronauts would of died very much sooner.

Moon landing+Race with russia= Fake landing.

As of the mirrors on the moon....so many MANY sattelites have been launched since then that logically anything could of put them there.

But like many things discussed on this website, we can only specualte and we will never ulitmatly know.

Peace

Not true about the reflectors - The satellites launched since Apollo are not relevant. The mirrors were in operation immediately in 1969/70.

frenat
14-11-2008, 03:49 PM
I'm only going to comment on one point partly because I'm getting bored and partly because I found it funny.

There is radiation is space, the space suits of the apollo mission were not radiation proof hence all the astronauts would of died very much sooner.


Without saying what kind of radiation or how much, this statement is useless. That's like saying there is radiation on Earth (which there is,all around us, even in our food) so we shouldn't be able to live. There are many different types of radiation and it varies in levels. A quantification is necessary.

shabun
14-11-2008, 03:56 PM
I'm only going to comment on one point partly because I'm getting bored and partly because I found it funny.



Without saying what kind of radiation or how much, this statement is useless. That's like saying there is radiation on Earth (which there is,all around us, even in our food) so we shouldn't be able to live. There are many different types of radiation and it varies in levels. A quantification is necessary.

Don't get bored!! I need you on this thread - you know a lot more about the scientific details than me!!

frenat
14-11-2008, 04:06 PM
Don't get bored!! I need you on this thread - you know a lot more about the scientific details than me!!

to be honest I just don't have the time. I am currently on 6 different boards and would like to cut back to 3. I still need to finish my masters and I just had a third kid. I may watch but I doubt I'll be very active here. I appreciate the comment about scientific details but there is still much I would like to know. If you want to know more though you can check out the forums at www.apollohoax.net and of course clavius.org is always a very knowledgeable site although I'm sure both of those would not be looked upon too highly by some people here.

shabun
14-11-2008, 04:10 PM
to be honest I just don't have the time. I am currently on 6 different boards and would like to cut back to 3. I still need to finish my masters and I just had a third kid. I may watch but I doubt I'll be very active here. I appreciate the comment about scientific details but there is still much I would like to know. If you want to know more though you can check out the forums at www.apollohoax.net and of course clavius.org is always a very knowledgeable site although I'm sure both of those would not be looked upon too highly by some people here.

Thanks for the links. I'm off to take a look - I struggle on this forum tbh

As for the kids - I have four. My recommendation - stop at three.

carlo839
14-11-2008, 05:27 PM
I have been watching your posts for quite a while and unlike you i have looked at all the points of view with the same objectiveness.
I even took your advise and looked at apollohoax.net.
I draw your attention to the first item on the right hand side of the opening page.,chinese telescope shows halo created by lunar lander of appollo 15 taking off from moon surface. Maybe my history is gah-gah but arent the legs of the lunar lander left behind when the lander returns to its mothership. Why arent they shown in the telescope picture and not a perfectly natural occurence caused by drifting ie a halo in the surface?????

Just to put my two pennys worth into the debate i feel that you are all getting far too complicated there are much simpler explanations that could debunk pictures released by nasa.
If you take the time to look at the various videos etc that have been recommended to you all you will see firstly, Neil Armstrong still claims to be the first man on the moon yet who filmed him coming down the stairs????
This was explained i beleive by Buzz Aldrin and it was claimed by Nasa it was he who filmed Neil Armstrong, therefore by definition Nasa even lied and then forcibly had to admit the truth.
I think what is really hard for the no moon landers like myself is that this was the most amazing event of the 60's via lots of drugs for free.
Surely it is not beyond the beleivers of the ,moon landings to agree that why did Nasa have to lie about anything????
There are various other films etc that you would have to ask who was filming that when it happened ie various films of the lunar lander taking off from the moon.
Thats all for the moment i just hope instead of arguing about things you know absolutely nothing about including me you can atleast ask the common sense question who was left behind to film the lunar lander taking off?????

thefallguy
14-11-2008, 05:43 PM
I believe we have been to the moon for thousands of years and are still going.
Nasa have alot of explaining to do. Cat Stevens Moonshadow 2008 blind science remix (watch in HQ) - YouTube

carlo839
14-11-2008, 06:05 PM
Im sorry i like the original better.
I think you will find that cat stevens was halucinating when he wrote that song.
David Bowie seemed to be much more on the ball with starman.

frenat
14-11-2008, 06:18 PM
I have been watching your posts for quite a while and unlike you i have looked at all the points of view with the same objectiveness.
I even took your advise and looked at apollohoax.net.
I draw your attention to the first item on the right hand side of the opening page.,chinese telescope shows halo created by lunar lander of appollo 15 taking off from moon surface. Maybe my history is gah-gah but arent the legs of the lunar lander left behind when the lander returns to its mothership. Why arent they shown in the telescope picture and not a perfectly natural occurence caused by drifting ie a halo in the surface?????
The legs of the lander are not big enough to be resolved with any telescope on Earth or above it. Hubble has a resolution of about a football field per pixel at the distance of the moon. In order to resove the objects left on the Moon the objective mirror would have to be hundreds of feet across or in orbit around the Moon.

Just to put my two pennys worth into the debate i feel that you are all getting far too complicated there are much simpler explanations that could debunk pictures released by nasa.
If you take the time to look at the various videos etc that have been recommended to you all you will see firstly, Neil Armstrong still claims to be the first man on the moon yet who filmed him coming down the stairs????
This was explained i beleive by Buzz Aldrin and it was claimed by Nasa it was he who filmed Neil Armstrong, therefore by definition Nasa even lied and then forcibly had to admit the truth.
I think what is really hard for the no moon landers like myself is that this was the most amazing event of the 60's via lots of drugs for free.
Surely it is not beyond the beleivers of the ,moon landings to agree that why did Nasa have to lie about anything????NASA hasn't lied. They also have not claimed that that Buzz filmed Neil coming down the ladder. There was a camera attached to the MESA arm. This was preaimed at the ladder so that when released from its stored position as Neil did before he started down it would be pointing directly at him. As for photographs of astronauts coming down the ladder, on Apollo 11 those are all of Buzz as Neil had the camera most of the time. None of those are claimed to be of Neil or of the first steps on the Moon.


There are various other films etc that you would have to ask who was filming that when it happened ie various films of the lunar lander taking off from the moon.
Like which ones?

Thats all for the moment i just hope instead of arguing about things you know absolutely nothing about including me you can atleast ask the common sense question who was left behind to film the lunar lander taking off?????

his name was Ed Fendell. He controlled the camera on the rover remotely from Earth. Since the delay time was known and the takeoff time was known, it was a matter of just starting to pan upward at the appropriate time.

carlo839
14-11-2008, 06:40 PM
Not sure how to do the fancy stuff with showing someone elses quote however i am sure if anyone is interested in what we are saying they will work it out. Nasa only admitted that it was Buzz who filmed Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder when they were pressed about the issue years ago. As yuou have just said in your own post it was Buzz filming Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder.

Willing to accept that telescope cant see the lander legs however i find it hard to beleive that these same telescopes can show the lunar landing site when the lunar lander we are told did not leave a crater as sceptics would have expected.

I do not think we are talking about the same videos as the lander was already taking off so i dont think anyone or ED was panning up to the lander taking off or as you have just argued was able to film this from earth.

carlo839
14-11-2008, 06:42 PM
Just as an idea for you why dont you look at the pictures taken from the chinese telescope it looks a lot smaller area than a football pitch to me. Maybe my eyes are getting too old

frenat
14-11-2008, 07:00 PM
Not sure how to do the fancy stuff with showing someone elses quote however i am sure if anyone is interested in what we are saying they will work it out. Nasa only admitted that it was Buzz who filmed Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder when they were pressed about the issue years ago. As yuou have just said in your own post it was Buzz filming Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder.
Wrong. NASA has never said that Buzz filmed Neil coming down the ladder and neither did I. Read my post again. The filming was done automatically by a video camera attached to the MESA arm. The third paragraph here describes the mechanism
http://www.apolloartifacts.com/2008/01/apollo-lunar-mo.html
Any photographs of an astronaut coming down the ladder are of Buzz taken by Neil and have never been claimed to be the other way.

Willing to accept that telescope cant see the lander legs however i find it hard to beleive that these same telescopes can show the lunar landing site when the lunar lander we are told did not leave a crater as sceptics would have expected.
Please find the picture you are thinking of as it is impossible to comment on it otherwise. I'm thinking the picture was taken from lunar orbit though and not by a Chinese telescope as they have not sent any to the Moon yet.

I do not think we are talking about the same videos as the lander was already taking off so i dont think anyone or ED was panning up to the lander taking off or as you have just argued was able to film this from earth. There are only a few videos of the lander taking off. These were done on the last three missions as they were the ones that also included rovers. The filming was done by a remotely controlled camera mounted on the rover by Ed Fendell. Ed was on Earth. The first two videos were not done well and are seldome seen because of it. One of them the rover was not parked the correct distance from the lander and it was not captured well. On another I believe he either got the timing wrong or the camera did not pan up correctly, I can't remember which. On the one that appears to pan correctly, it was definitely doen by Ed remotely from mission control. He had also been controlling the camera remotely to follow the astronauts throughout their EVA. Perhaps the video you are thinking of is one of the other times or is a clip.

carlo839
14-11-2008, 07:05 PM
Just to put a finer point on it if the lunar rover was able to take pictures of the lander taking off why couldnt ED or anyone else at NASA keep taking pictures and even manoeuvure the camera to other positions it would have been cool to see how long NASA would be able to film the lunar surface for,would this not have been interesting.

frenat
14-11-2008, 07:07 PM
Just to put a finer point on it if the lunar rover was able to take pictures of the lander taking off why couldnt ED or anyone else at NASA keep taking pictures and even manoeuvure the camera to other positions it would have been cool to see how long NASA would be able to film the lunar surface for,would this not have been interesting.

They did but there was not much to see. They couldn't control the rover remotely so the camera was fixed in position. I don't know how long the camera lasted but I believe it died soon afterward.

carlo839
14-11-2008, 07:12 PM
The clip i am referring to is at this address http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/index.html, on the right hand side sorry japanese not chinese.apologies but computers are not my strong point but i am sure you can see for yourself.

frenat
14-11-2008, 07:23 PM
The clip i am referring to is at this address http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/index.html, on the right hand side sorry japanese not chinese.apologies but computers are not my strong point but i am sure you can see for yourself.

I figured it was the Selene probe. Thanks for the link. This was taken from lunar orbit not from Earth. It is however, still too low res to make out any hardware but the disturbance described was found.
the direct link is here
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/apollo15_halo.html
and here is the image
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/263241main_halo_655.jpg
notice the scale on the right of the pic. That small line is equal to 200 meters. The disturbance was caused by the descent engines as they hovered closer to the surface before landing.

carlo839
14-11-2008, 07:32 PM
[QUOTE=frenat;614595]Wrong. NASA has never said that Buzz filmed Neil coming down the ladder and neither did I. Read my post again. The filming was done automatically by a video camera attached to the MESA arm. The third paragraph here describes the mechanism
http://www.apolloartifacts.com/2008/01/apollo-lunar-mo.html
Any photographs of an astronaut coming down the ladder are of Buzz taken by Neil and have never been claimed to be the other way.


(Best i can do cut and paste.)
The film i am referring to is shown every time the moon landings are mentioned.
As the film is played Neil Armstrongs famous words are being spoken "Eagle has landed etc" giving the impression that Neil is saying those words as he descends the ladder i would have thought as did millions of others i suspect.
Hence my point who was filming Neil coming down the ladder.
I am not aware of your age but my mother and father both remember this argument back in the 70s to which NASA reply was roughly ohhhh it seemed to look better for the media.
If this is a film taken by Neil of Buzz then why wasnt Buzz saying this why was he quiet?? If your theory is correct of another camera on the lunar lander (which i very much doubt and btw is not shown on the original blueprints of appollo 11) how did Neil set this camera to the correct position???? are you saying that there was a monitor inside the lunar lander???
The weight issue aside i have sat in the lunar lander from apollo 11 at cape canaveral florida and i can assure you there are no exterior cameras

carlo839
14-11-2008, 07:41 PM
notice the scale on the right of the pic. That small line is equal to 200 meters. The disturbance was caused by the descent engines as they hovered closer to the surface before landing.



We have already been told by NASA and others that because of the vacumn on the moon no debris/crater was created by the thrusters of the lunar landers as people have already been debating in other posts. Why is there no debris field or crater due to the thrusters onboard????? was the topic of discussion i beleive.

frenat
14-11-2008, 07:43 PM
Wrong. NASA has never said that Buzz filmed Neil coming down the ladder and neither did I. Read my post again. The filming was done automatically by a video camera attached to the MESA arm. The third paragraph here describes the mechanism
http://www.apolloartifacts.com/2008/01/apollo-lunar-mo.html
Any photographs of an astronaut coming down the ladder are of Buzz taken by Neil and have never been claimed to be the other way.



The film i am referring to is shown every time the moon landings are mentioned.
As the film is played Neil Armstrongs famous words are being spoken "Eagle has landed etc" giving the impression that Neil is saying those words as he descends the ladder i would have thought as did millions of others i suspect.
Hence my point who was filming Neil coming down the ladder.
I am not aware of your age but my mother and father both remember this argument back in the 70s to which NASA reply was roughly ohhhh it seemed to look better for the media.
If this is a film taken by Neil of Buzz then why wasnt Buzz saying this why was he quiet?? If your theory is correct of another camera on the lunar lander (which i very much doubt and btw is not shown on the original blueprints of appollo 11) how did Neil set this camera to the correct position???? are you saying that there was a monitor inside the lunar lander???
The weight issue aside i have sat in the lunar lander from apollo 11 at cape canaveral florida and i can assure you there are no exterior cameras

The camera was pre-aimed. It was attached to the MESA arm that Neil deployed while exiting the lander. It was not operated by Buzz.
check out his link, third paraph under Lunar surface operations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11#Lunar_surface_operations
where it says this
Climbing down the nine-rung ladder, Armstrong pulled a D-ring to deploy the Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA) folded against Eagle's side and activate the TV camera.
It was definitely in the blueprints and has been the explanation since the very first landing.

frenat
14-11-2008, 07:50 PM
notice the scale on the right of the pic. That small line is equal to 200 meters. The disturbance was caused by the descent engines as they hovered closer to the surface before landing.



We have already been told by NASA and others that because of the vacumn on the moon no debris/crater was created by the thrusters of the lunar landers as people have already been debating in other posts. Why is there no debris field or crater due to the thrusters onboard????? was the topic of discussion i beleive.

Why should there be a crater? The descent engine was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust but throttled down during landing to about 3,000 pounds. The engine nozzle was 54 inches across which gave it an area of about 2300 square inches. This means the thrust had a pressure of less than 1.5 pounds per square inch. This is far less than the thrusters on a Harrier which doesn't create craters either. It was enough to blow some dust around which is what created the disturbance in the Selene pic.

carlo839
14-11-2008, 07:52 PM
To clarify for you the mesa arm is not shown in any clips or pictures taken of the lunar lander and for the sake of ease look at this NASA picture of the lunar lander on the website you mention there is no mesa arm on this side?????


Do you agree or not?????

because i am going to find you a picture of the other side released by NASA to prove you wrong once and for all because i am getting bored of trying to show you something that i think you already know is not there.

carlo839
14-11-2008, 07:56 PM
Show me the MESA arm in this picture please http://www.novaspace.com/AUTO/Moonwalk/ALDRIN/Ladder.html remembering that the angle of the picture of Neil/Buzz coming down the ladder FOR THE FIRST TIME was from below not above as shown thousands of times by NASA.

carlo839
14-11-2008, 08:01 PM
You even get a signature of authenticity with these pictures that they were signed by Buzz aldrin. Do you see that this picture was taken by someone on the right hand side of Buzz aldrin and not from the left as the film and pictures of Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder show. Do you see my point now?????

Thank you to all the support i have been getting from the private messagers by the way i am sure i will work that one out at a later date lol.

frenat
14-11-2008, 08:53 PM
You even get a signature of authenticity with these pictures that they were signed by Buzz aldrin. Do you see that this picture was taken by someone on the right hand side of Buzz aldrin and not from the left as the film and pictures of Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder show. Do you see my point now?????

Thank you to all the support i have been getting from the private messagers by the way i am sure i will work that one out at a later date lol.

It is a picture of Buzz. So what? It is not claimed to be the first steps of Neil and has never been claimed to be the first steps of Neil. I have said time and again that all still pictures were of Buzz taken by Neil. That picture was taken from the right side of the ladder when looking at the lander. The video of Neil however was taken by the camera attached to the MESA which is on the left side of the ladder. This is a picture from that video taken from the MESA
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Apollo_11_first_step.jpg
The MESA is not visible in the picture you posted. It can be seen here
http://www.clavius.org/mesacam.html
and is mentioned multiple times in the lunar surface journal here
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/
which is a record of all the activity on the Moon.
in the panorama located here
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12pan1162447.jpg
you can see it on the side of the lander on the far right of the pan, on the left of the ladder.
I've cut out and marked it for you here.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/plan2scrap/Apollo12withMESA.jpg
Why the hostility? It seems you were talking about a still picture when I was talking about the video showing the first steps. We were talking about different pictures.

Again, check out this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11#Lunar_surface_operations
the pics on the right in the Lunar Surface operations sections are taken from the camera on the MESA. Notice they are slow scan black and white video.

frenat
14-11-2008, 09:24 PM
There is also this diagram
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/LEM-linedrawing.png
Notice on the opposite side of the lander in this view where is says Modular equipment stowage assembly (MESA) quadrant 4.
here you can see an astronaut (likely Buzz standing in front of the MESA)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:5927_NASA.jpg
Here you can see the MESA on Apollo 12
http://www.answers.com/topic/apollo-12-bean-jpg-1
Details of the MESA
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/mesa.htm
Details of the camera stowed in the MESA
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/apollocams.htm#A11%20B&W
Pictures of Quad 4 where the MESA was near the bottom here
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/pjlmpics.htm

carlo839
15-11-2008, 12:25 AM
I suggest you look up and research who Paul Feljd was, not from NAsa but a HOLLYWOOD movie technical advisor, these are his drawings. http://www.cradleofaviation.org/exhibits/restorations/lem.html.
This is who you are using as evidence to try and satisfy yourself of something that did not exist on the Apollo 11 mission and was only added in after people in the 1970's 1980's started to disbeleive.

The link above is taken from your link of the diagram to explain where the MESA was stored.http://www.myspacemuseum.com/pjlmpics.htm.
I state once again i have sat in the mock up of the apollo 11 ascent stage in cape canaveral florida and when i asked the same question i asked you, the tour guides did not have the answer.

frenat
15-11-2008, 01:57 AM
I suggest you look up and research who Paul Feljd was, not from NAsa but a HOLLYWOOD movie technical advisor, these are his drawings. http://www.cradleofaviation.org/exhibits/restorations/lem.html.
This is who you are using as evidence to try and satisfy yourself of something that did not exist on the Apollo 11 mission and was only added in after people in the 1970's 1980's started to disbeleive.

The link above is taken from your link of the diagram to explain where the MESA was stored.http://www.myspacemuseum.com/pjlmpics.htm.
I state once again i have sat in the mock up of the apollo 11 ascent stage in cape canaveral florida and when i asked the same question i asked you, the tour guides did not have the answer.

Prove he made the drawings. All the page says is he scanned and donated them. There are plenty of pictures dating back to 1969 showing the MESA. I already posted a few showing the one on Apollo 11 and 12. But what's the point? You obviously don't want to believe it anyway.

stelios
15-11-2008, 06:33 AM
India yesterday landed a probe on the moon.
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/moonmission/Election_Story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080072656
In 2007 Japan had a satelite orbiting exploring the moon
All the Apollo advocates seem to ignore the fact that 50 years have passed during which many probes have been sent to the moon all unmanned and none has found anything, no rovers, no Apollo landers and no alien bases.
If it was so easy to travel to the oon and back in the 1960s why is it impossible today?
Why arent any billionaires who have paid the Russians to become space tourists ever suggested going beyond low Earth orbit?

Constantly people make excuses, but ignore the science.
It is impossible.

Suppose your masters showed u a hazy cine film circa 1969 which showed an athlete running a mile in not 4 minutes but 4 seconds. His world record still stands today and has never been matched or even challenged.
Wouldnt people after 50 years begin to doubt its validity.

The furthest anyone has gone into space is approximately 250 miles.
But Apollo claims to have taken people 238,000 miles.
The Indian and Japanese lunar probes took 3 weeks to get there and were unmanned with very small payloads.
But Apollo claims to have carried a 26 tonne payload 238,000 miles to the moon against earth gravity in less than 3 days.
Then landed a manned probe which is impossible as Neil Arstrong struggled to even control this device in testing.
http://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/images/moon_0056.jpghttp://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/images/moon_0058.jpg

Then nasa claim the lander took off and miraculusly performed a space dock.
But the first space dock did not occur until 1973 with Skylab.
So how in 1969, 238,000 miles away with only a 32k computer could they have performed the first ever space dock totally unrehearsed?
http://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/lem_lunar_lander.html

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/255/PreviewComp/SuperStock_255-28354.jpg
perhaps the Apollo Witnesses can post evidence of the lunar space dock heres some images
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/html/as11.htm

stelios
15-11-2008, 06:44 AM
http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/illus/ilt/T028517A.gif

Astronauts used the command and service modules of the Apollo spacecraft to orbit the earth, travel to the moon, and return to the earth. The command module housed the astronauts during take-off and reentry into the earth's atmosphere. The service module carried consumable supplies such as fuel, food, and water, and was detached from the command module before the astronauts reentered the atmosphere.

What a load of old cobblers.
50 years ago this pint sized baby flew a total of 500,000 miles in 5 days.
Yet today the fuel cells are still not in use.

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=70089&rendTypeId=4

frenat
15-11-2008, 03:45 PM
nevermind

guuna
16-11-2008, 05:27 AM
Has anyone seen the movie FIRST MEN IN THE MOON? It was made in 1964.

It begins with a modern day(1964) moon expedition that is in fact pretty accuratly in keeping with the supposedly 'real' moon landings some five years later. This group find the union jack on the lunar surface and a note dating from 1899 and several names.

The space agency then manage to trace one of the expedition members to a care home in kent, the films story then begins to unfold as the old man tells them of how he and his fiance teamed up with a eccentric inventor who had created a antigravity device that they then put to use as the power plant for a converted bathysphere that eventually takes them to the moon.

once there they encounter insect-like humanoid inhabitants who live in underground glass and crystal caverns and derive their energy from huge crystals that refract sunlight and distill oxygenated atmosphere in vast vats.

the source material was a book by H.G. Wells who was well known as a fabien society member.

The beginning of the film bears the credit to 'the national aeronautics and space administration', I reckon this movie contains alot of hidden meanings and symbols.

the book Nasa, ONE DARK MISSION by Richard Hoagland makes for interesting reading as much of what it has in common with what is in this film.

hagbard_celine
16-11-2008, 05:27 PM
Sorry but I must press you on this (hopes he is getting somewhere).

We said we would discuss evidence, which you said you have. So I asked you directly for the evidence that the reflectors were not placed by Apollo.

Your response is that you have no record of which mission actually put them there, i.e you have no evidence at all. None.

To me this is a big issue, as we actually do agree (phew) that the reflectors are there. However, your answer as to how the reflectors got there has no supporting evidence at all.

Lets try another - please provide evidence which supports the view that the Apollo craft took off, orbited the earth for a few days, and then landed again at the end of the "mission". If you propose a different scenario occurred, please provide evideance for that.

Thanks.

You keep asking mke for evidence for this and evidence for that, but where's your evidence?:confused: Carl Sagan once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" The claim that NASA sent 12 men to the moon with Stone Age chemical rockets, polystyrene radiation shields and plastic fibre spacesuits is an extraordinary claim. Where's the evidence that supports it? All I see is scientific data that in no way require human collection, studio-shot photographs and TV footage and the ducious testimony of government agents with a track record for truth that equals Turkey's succes in the Eurovision Song Contest.;)

shabun
17-11-2008, 03:12 PM
You keep asking mke for evidence for this and evidence for that, but where's your evidence?:confused: Carl Sagan once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" The claim that NASA sent 12 men to the moon with Stone Age chemical rockets, polystyrene radiation shields and plastic fibre spacesuits is an extraordinary claim. Where's the evidence that supports it? All I see is scientific data that in no way require human collection, studio-shot photographs and TV footage and the ducious testimony of government agents with a track record for truth that equals Turkey's succes in the Eurovision Song Contest.;)

Well, as you are the sceptic on this issue, i.e you don't believe the official account then I'd say the burden of proof is on you, hence my asking for evidence for your claim, which I don't think is and unreasonable request. The fact that you can't provide any is interesting.

Now as for evidence that it did happen, there is of course lots (rock, videos, testaments, reflectors), but all of it you refute as false (without evidence to support that either). That is your opinion which of course should be respected.

So we are left at stalemate and there is little point in debating further, until the LRO photos are taken. If they show the equipment is there, then you will say the photos are false. If they show no equipment then you will say they are genuine! Whereas I will accept the photos are genuine in either case, as I know they will be subject to independent scrutiny.

Lets discuss again in April when the photos come in.

hagbard_celine
17-11-2008, 04:27 PM
Well, as you are the sceptic on this issue, i.e you don't believe the official account then I'd say the burden of proof is on you, hence my asking for evidence for your claim, which I don't think is and unreasonable request. The fact that you can't provide any is interesting.

Now as for evidence that it did happen, there is of course lots (rock, videos, testaments, reflectors), but all of it you refute as false (without evidence to support that either). That is your opinion which of course should be respected.

So we are left at stalemate and there is little point in debating further, until the LRO photos are taken. If they show the equipment is there, then you will say the photos are false. If they show no equipment then you will say they are genuine! Whereas I will accept the photos are genuine in either case, as I know they will be subject to independent scrutiny.

Lets discuss again in April when the photos come in.

I'll look forward to it:D. Though if they don't show any Apollo relics I'll be surprised... and wonder what they're up to;).

shabun
17-11-2008, 04:39 PM
I'll look forward to it:D. Though if they don't show any Apollo relics I'll be surprised... and wonder what they're up to;).

OK, lets reconvene in April (subject to LRO being cancelled/further delayed/explodes).

stelios
17-11-2008, 06:56 PM
you can wait for evidence and recovene, meanwhile the rest of us will carry on spreading the word. The Apollo moon landings are a hoax.

onourwayto2012
17-11-2008, 07:52 PM
You keep asking mke for evidence for this and evidence for that, but where's your evidence?:confused: Carl Sagan once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" The claim that NASA sent 12 men to the moon with Stone Age chemical rockets, polystyrene radiation shields and plastic fibre spacesuits is an extraordinary claim. Where's the evidence that supports it? All I see is scientific data that in no way require human collection, studio-shot photographs and TV footage and the ducious testimony of government agents with a track record for truth that equals Turkey's succes in the Eurovision Song Contest.;)

in other words... Official Story/Version = load of crap
as is the case 99.63% of the time(proven fact!)... once in a while they goof and tell the truth

graflok
17-11-2008, 10:03 PM
Since the Apollo photography and footage looks so phony and since NASA
spent untold millions of tax payers' dollars on this project (and continues to
do so) and since former NASA employees have stated that they've witnessed
NASA's dishonesty and deception, I would think the "burden of proof" lies with
NASA to prove they really did what they said they did. They do supposedly
work for us, after all.

However, I'm not holding my breath until April or any other time. ;)

hagbard_celine
18-11-2008, 07:21 PM
S

I'm not holding my breath until April or any other time. ;)

Me neither. The fake Apollo bases, seen from an unmanned orbiting craft, wouldn't need to be very sophisticated, simply foil and balsa-wood shells would do.:p

moonraven
18-11-2008, 09:17 PM
I think the footage and photography for the moon landings that we're asked to believe is real, is an insult to our intelligence. I shake my head at what these powers-that-be can make us all believe, just because we're told that it is true. They must be sitting there laughing at us all. They give us the most ridiculous pieces of "evidence" and we all blindly accept it because it's on the tv.

stelios
19-11-2008, 02:32 AM
I think the footage and photography for the moon landings that we're asked to believe is real, is an insult to our intelligence. I shake my head at what these powers-that-be can make us all believe, just because we're told that it is true. They must be sitting there laughing at us all. They give us the most ridiculous pieces of "evidence" and we all blindly accept it because it's on the tv.

Spot on.
It really is ridiculous isnt it.

hagbard_celine
19-11-2008, 04:52 PM
Spot on.
It really is ridiculous isnt it.

I find it encouraging that more and more people can see the fake nature of the Apollo visual record.:cool:

stelios
22-11-2008, 09:06 AM
LiveLeak.com - Moon Hoax Confirmed Again - Fake Footage of Apollo 17
LiveLeak.com - No stars visible on Moon?

friendsinthesky
22-11-2008, 09:22 AM
The fuckers faking the landing pics tells me that, they can't see into the future. Why else would they do it so poorly?

kamakazi
22-11-2008, 12:15 PM
The fuckers faking the landing pics tells me that, they can't see into the future. Why else would they do it so poorly?

the world still got fooled by them just like the fake WTC "plane" videos on 9/11. clearly no matter how bad they fuck up the masses will fall for just about anything.