PDA

View Full Version : Was the moon landing a hoax??


leXX
10-21-2002, 09:07 PM
Did we land on the moon in 1969 or was it a hoax by NASA? Some people claim it was all filmed in the Nevada Desert (Area 51) because of presure by the Soviet Union during the cold war. Where NASA technically capable at the time?

The Evidence:

The lack of stars in the background.

No blast crater under the Lunar Lander.

The astronauts footprint is still visible only a few meters away from the lander. Why didn't the dust from the rocked blow it away?

The same background appeared in two different pictures.

Shadows are seen pointing in all directions.

The American flag was waving in the wind.

Objects appear in front of the crosshairs.

The Defence:

The stars are there, they are just too faint to be seen.

The astronauts slowed down as they reached the surface and didn't use that much thrust.

Dust acts differently on Earth than it does on the moon.

The lander is close to the astronaut in the first picture, perhaps a 20 or 30 meters away. The mountain is kilometers away. For the second picture, the astronaut merely moved a few hundred meters to the side. The lander was then out of the picture, but the mountain hardly moved at all!

The shadows are not parallel because of perspective.

The flag is not waving in the wind, it is moving around because the astronauts are moving the pole as they put it in the dirt.

The white object in the image "fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a matter of contrast.


Well there you have it!

Do you think we landed on the moon or do you think NASA faked it?

Dath Maximus
10-21-2002, 09:10 PM
of course they didnt, everyone knows the moon is made of cheese.


seriously though, yes i think they did

Father Torque
10-21-2002, 09:11 PM
i think it was a true event news reporters are just trying to mess with your brain they are always trying to come up with random things to keep their jobs and make a publicity stunt of themselves

Father Torque
10-21-2002, 09:12 PM
hey dath you reminded me of a commercial i saw "it said We landed on the moon in 1969 and figured out it wasnt made of cheese and man has not been back since "Ahhhhhhhhhhh behold da power of cheese. i love that commercial:D :D :D

Taos
10-21-2002, 09:13 PM
Watch the double posts there Torque!! :tsk:


Kind of a different question, makes you think though LeXX-I like that!

I do belive we landed on the moon.....video camera weren't as good back then, that's why the stars were faint!.


:)

Dath Maximus
10-21-2002, 09:14 PM
*slaps hand against forhead*

oye! im reduced to cheese cracker commercials.

Sivy
10-21-2002, 09:15 PM
i think nasa have never lauched a rocket, they spend all they money trying to invent a better low-fat mayonnaise, lol

my vote goes to, i dunno


BTW, i love your sig, Father Torque :o

Father Torque
10-21-2002, 09:21 PM
i wonder why"cough cough cough" by the way thanx again man this is the best avatar ever:D :D :D

pantha-too-kay
10-21-2002, 09:21 PM
I think you guys should look at the evidence more closely.

This is a subject very close to my heart and whilst I think the moon landings were genuine the photographic evidence may say different...

http://hightechbiz.com/pub/moonlanding.html

It makes a compelling argument!!

ckcsaber
10-21-2002, 09:24 PM
I dont beleive for one second that we did not land on the moon

gorganfloss
10-21-2002, 09:25 PM
I think that the moon doesnt exist. It is merely a hoax designed to cover up the changing of the tides.
This makes it impossible that we landed on the so called "moon".
:p

Jed
10-21-2002, 10:17 PM
I personally think that we did, but the evidence is compelling that we didn't. And it's not like any of us know what's in Area 51.

"Watch out, he has his probe!"

hehe, simpsons....

:D

ZBomber
10-21-2002, 10:18 PM
i do not believe it was fake..... :(

Sivy
10-21-2002, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Sivy B
i think nasa have never lauched a rocket, they spend all they money trying to invent a better low-fat mayonnaise, lol



i almost forgot, they spend 150 billion $ on inventing dry ice cream as well

Darth]-[azard
10-21-2002, 11:41 PM
Here is the Skinny. Some guy decided to have a little fun and mess with peoples heads. So he decided to make something America is very proud of and make it look like a fake.

JandoFett1842
10-21-2002, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Darth]-[azard
Here is the Skinny. Some guy decided to have a little fun and mess with peoples heads. So he decided to make something America is very proud of and make it look like a fake.

Just because your jelous of us doesnt mean you have 2 make fun of us or belittle our accompishmets

obi
10-21-2002, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Darth]-[azard
Here is the Skinny. Some guy decided to have a little fun and mess with peoples heads. So he decided to make something America is very proud of and make it look like a fake.

You there! nice avatar. ;)


I think we did land on the moon. in fact, I know we landed on the moon. You can ask thefamilies of the astronauts I am sure.

Quotation
10-22-2002, 12:13 AM
I, for one, believe it was fake. How do explain the crosshairs? Those photographs were obviously doctored. That, and the fact that no-one could survive the radiation emanating from the sun that is quite prevalent outside our atmosphere, confirms a few things.

If you think it isn't, furthermore, you have no evidence to support the fact that *we* (human beings: well, at least, I hope :p ) have intended to venture out into space again. The Challenger crew, unfortunately, is now deceased, and the victim's relations are probably all covered, most conveniently by the Official Secrecies act. :rolleyes: Notice how almost almost every individual in the original moonlanding team was killed in spontaneous incidents?
Burning buildings, etc.

I thinks leXX saw the same documentry as I did, :) , and, upon
seeing it, I was completely convinced. Gullible, maybe. ;)

Sivy, you do have a point though. What is NASA going to do with 6 Billion? :confused:

Pedantic
10-22-2002, 12:17 AM
If one thinks that someone faked the moon landing, one is full of caca. :)

JandoFett1842
10-22-2002, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Quotation

What is NASA going to do with 6 Billion? :confused:

Create new weapons to use on Iraq OF CORUSE!!!

Jedi_Monk
10-22-2002, 01:15 AM
I think I saw this same documentary... I think they also said on it that the Japanese are working on a telescope powerful enough to see the flag we put on the moon. We should know if it was real within a few years.

Also, if humans can't survive outside of our atmosphere, how do you explain the Hubble repair mission? The astronauts fixing the Hubble telescope were under exposure to radiation for hours at a time.

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

Darth Groovy
10-22-2002, 01:31 AM
There was a movie based on this concept made in the 70's called Capricorn One. It's a fictional film, but the concepts are enough to make the most skeptical to raise an eyebrow.

ET Warrior
10-22-2002, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by Jedi_Monk

Also, if humans can't survive outside of our atmosphere, how do you explain the Hubble repair mission? The astronauts fixing the Hubble telescope were under exposure to radiation for hours at a time.


I was just going to point that out.....humans can obviously survive outside of the earths atmosphere....they're done it in orbit around earth....

TiE23
10-22-2002, 02:25 AM
The on Moon Galilaeo (sp) experiment!!!! An astronaut dropped a hammer and a feather at the same time and both landed at the same time, nearly imposible to get a vacuum on earth! (have to get tube big enough to hold the set, have it 33ft high, fill it with water and have only inches of head room! and turn the whole freaking thing upsidedown and get a tiny space of vacuum!!!) :D CASE CLOSED!!!!!!:D

Elijah
10-22-2002, 02:34 AM
We can fly a concord that travles faster than the speed of sound (or somthing like that)... why would it be hard to land on the moon?

Tyrion
10-22-2002, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by Quotation
I, for one, believe it was fake. How do explain the crosshairs? Those photographs were obviously doctored. That, and the fact that no-one could survive the radiation emanating from the sun that is quite prevalent outside our atmosphere, confirms a few things.


Yes, the most brilliant minds in world could be faking it, and proboly tested it 50000000 times,and they forget to take out the crosshairs..:rolleyes:

Frankly,if it was fake, then where did the Space Rocket go at the launching?:confused:

acdcfanbill
10-22-2002, 03:11 AM
I believe that we did... my concrete proof? The fact that the government can hide anything! much less for 40 years. :D they are too imcompitent to doo that...

thehomicidalegg
10-22-2002, 03:55 AM
i believe we did... or want to atleast. But the evidence against certainly makes you think twice. You can't prove either way until another nation lands on the moon and checks the (supposed) landing sites.

also all the videos of moon exploration seems like its in 1.6ms^-2 gravity but if you play the video at twice the speed, it looks exactly like how it would be on earth. this applies both for the moon walks and the rover car thing.

GonkH8er
10-22-2002, 03:56 AM
I found something better LeXX :)

It's worth the long read......


Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick?
The greater lunar lie.

In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video
footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the
mind of Ralph Rene. "How can the flag be fluttering," the 47-year-old
American kept asking himself, "when there's no wind on the atmosphere-free
Moon?"

That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the
self-taught engineer from New Jersey. He started investigating the Apollo
Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing
sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had
never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.

It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But
Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.

The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space,
leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency
meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable $40 billion.

And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill
fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway - being the only casualties. But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the
only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake.

For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts gambol threw rocks and dust.

Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film "man's greatest achievement" from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.

By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem.
The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and
sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. As Rene points out, that's not all:

* The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feat without being able to see what they were doing.

* Their film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless.

* They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to end their fingers.

Award winning British photographer David passer is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows:

The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was
the sun.

* The American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.

* Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

* The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.

David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers", who were keen for the truth to one day get out.

If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?

The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun.

Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt.
But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA,
"about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil".

How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction
of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started.

"They should have been fried," says Rene.

Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon)
was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of
Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of
their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing. "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" - was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says
Rene.

Aldrin may also fear for his life. Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo programme, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty:
"if there is ever a serious accident in the space programme, it's likely to be me."

Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.

Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry student in high school knows high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive.

In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad,a total of 11 would-be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is a spectacular accident rate.

"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking for."

NASA won't respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real.

But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape.

"The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "come to your own decision
about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon".

A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift-offs. The astronauts simply have to be on board, he says, in case the rocket exploded. "It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead," he claims, adding that they came down a day or so
later, out of the public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.

And now NASA is planning another giant step - project Outreach, a $ 1 trillion manned mission to Mars. "Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics," says Rene Chillingly.

"Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth."

Space oddities

* Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

* A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

* One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to
take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

* The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

* The Moon landings took place during the Cold War Why didn't America make a signal on the move that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been
phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

Text from pictures in the article show Only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering? How can the flag be brightly lit when it's not facingany light?

And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust.

The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

The Truthful Liar
10-22-2002, 05:01 AM
A very good read. Even though I'm a born american I have extreme doubts that the ultimate american dream was reached, to land on the moon.

BCanr2d2
10-22-2002, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Quotation
Notice how almost almost every individual in the original moonlanding team was killed in spontaneous incidents?
Burning buildings, etc.


Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong go against that theory anyway....

As for the supposed facts people bring up about the moon and inconsistencies, let's get rid of a few....

They didn't really know that much about the moon when they flew up there, so many of the supposed facts aren't overly researched, nor have they been looked at, just like the deep sea, which we know less about than the moon..... We don't know the entire earth and the secrets it holds, let alone places outside of here....

No atmosphere on the moon? Who says? Had they really looked at the moon in any way, shape or form in depth before they landed on it? It may not be a large gaseous atmosphere like Earth's but doesn't say that a moon can't have one - Titan, a moon of Saturn is proof of that, and they weren't too sure of that until the 80's.
It's using dated knowledge.....

No dust thrown about - what is the density of the dust, is it small lightweight dust that needs a ant to walk to throw up clouds of dust, or is more like a clay like substance, with more substance it than we know?

Radiation - we have seen that most forms of radiation can simply be reflected away by foils of various substances. The current suits worn by shuttle astronauts look barely different to those of the 1960's....

17 ton lander - amazing that they miss the fact that it have large spikes on it, so that when it landed, it was very doubtful the full weight was placed on the lunar surface..

These are but a few of the supposed lies that are easily shown to be just as full of holes as they believe the lunar missions to be.

STTCT
10-22-2002, 08:36 AM
It is real: how would you explain the moon rocks.

"We've found particles of fresh glass in Moon rocks that were produced by explosive volcanic activity and by meteorite impacts over 3 billion years ago," added Norman. "The presence of water on Earth rapidly breaks down such volcanic glass in only a few million years. "

PhantomHelix
10-22-2002, 08:39 AM
i dont think it was faked.

bak then, their editing abilities were the equivalent of a two yr old's. my 5 yr old bro could do better at editing. it would have been impossible with the techno. bak then.......

ShockV1.89
10-22-2002, 09:42 AM
"The american flag was waving in the wind."

You call that evidence? The flag was set on metal wire, so it was always sticking out. Anyone who cares to do a touch of research can find that out. You can buy those things at the smithsonian.

And as for "How could they film Armstrong jumping onto the moon from outside the lander?" Easy. It wasnt Armstrong. It was Aldrin. People commonly play the "Small step..." line while playing that clip, and then mix the two up. Aldrin was the one being filmed jumping from the lander to the surface.

The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun

And the earth? And reflections from the moon? (it's rather reflective...) And the earths great bodys of water? (very reflective)

Theres more holes in those arguments than moon cheese.

Darklighter
10-22-2002, 11:00 AM
If they faked it, how do you explain them being blasted off into space? i mean how would they have been able to pull off the stunt if they were already up there? lol

Plus I don't think that the technology was advanced enough back then to make a hoax as believable as that. If it was a fake though, it was pretty amazingly done lol...

C'jais
10-22-2002, 11:01 AM
Bcan: I think it's a fair bet to assume it's easy to calculate that the moon has no atmosphere. And even if people were up there, they would have known whether it has an atmosphere or not. But they insist it hasn't got one, the very people who went there, and orchestrated the entire mission and looked at the data from it.

Dust. They brought some dust back from the moon, so they ought to know if it's light or heavy. Besides, since a claylike mass requires water in the first place, I'll say it's light and dusty up there.

Radiation. As have already been stated, astronauts have never been so far away from the earth as we think. On the moon, the radiation is darn more deadly than in the immediate vicinity of the earth.

17 ton lander. When the lander impacted, it ought to make some deep marks (not to mention a lot of dirt kicked up, even if it's clay), even by some large spikes.

STTCT: I believe it's easy to manufacture such "evidence" in a lab, not to mention that the whole statement about the stones could easily have been a lie, using pebble from my garden.

ShockV: I agree with your statement about the flag, and it's at least possible that, since it's weightless, the waving flag could just have been caused by shaking it violently, easily done by whacking in into the ground.

I don't however consider the earth's water to be that reflective. Nor the moon's surface for that matter, since the sun was not on their side at that time.

Overall, an excellent read by GonkH8, even though I still have some reservations about the whole thing being fake. However, take a good note at what that guy says about the photographs, those claims aren't as easily dismissed as the physical "facts".

C'jais
10-22-2002, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Darklighter
If they faked it, how do you explain them being blasted off into space? i mean how would they have been able to pull off the stunt if they were already up there? lol


Better yet, ask them how they managed to film them being blasted off into space from up there....

FatalStrike
10-22-2002, 02:35 PM
What a silly question! Of course we landed on the moon. Where else do you think we found the creatures we based Q-bert and Pac-man on? Don't even get me started about that annoying Kirby! That bastard kept eating the equipment.

Geez people get with the times!

SamuelDravis
10-22-2002, 04:01 PM
besides, don't you think that russia would have exposed it by now if it wasn't real? they had sent the luna probes before the US sent anything. they knew what the moon looked like. and they had radar and telescopes to track the saturn V's. i think we really did land on the moon.

Elijah
10-22-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by cjais

I don't however consider the earth's water to be that reflective. Nor the moon's surface for that matter, since the sun was not on their side at that time.


Have you ever been outside during a full moon? its very very bright yes? you think that the moon puts out its own light? Of cores not! The moon reflects ALOT of light from the sun

whitedragon
10-22-2002, 04:57 PM
lexx my friend im sorry but this a dumb thread. and what made you post this

acdcfanbill
10-22-2002, 05:04 PM
White, are you looking to make you stay at Lucasforums a lot shorter than it could be?

leXX
10-22-2002, 06:06 PM
It's not a dumb question at all! It is an extremely interesting question. Would you prefer me ask 'What is your favourite pizza?' :rolleyes:. You really should open your mind.

I watched the documentry last year, as did alot of you and was immediately compelled by the evidence set before me. The thought of it being a hoax had never crossed my mind until then and I watched the program without blinking.

Gonkh8er > A very very interesting read, thank you very much. There was alot in there that I did not know about and has just convinced me even more that it was all a hoax.

I think the American Government was under a hell of a lot of pressure during the cold war and the thought of the Russians reaching the moon before them was just too unbearable. How much 'stuff' do you think the American Government and every other Government in the world hides from us? Are we to believe everything that is told to us by them. I don't like the idea of it being fake any more than you lot, but the evidence all points towards a hoax for me. An ex-Nasa engineer even said that NASA did not have the technical capability or hardware at the time to even consider going to the moon.

I just ask everyone who is convinced it is not a fake to look at both arguments very carefully before you make any final decision. So much is hidden from us that it is mind boggling.

teutonicknight
10-22-2002, 09:52 PM
Hm... this is an intersting question...

I think that it was a hoax, looking at all the evidence, plus for the fact that the film it's self looked to perfect. You would think that in all the confusion of just landing on the moon, the camera guy would mess up, or go out of focus... or something!

gorganfloss
10-22-2002, 09:55 PM
Heres some evidence that we really did land on the moon.
WARNING: Not so mild language.

http://www.dorkproductions.com/animemtv/Holy****.jpg


damn, they censored the link...
put the sh!t word where the **** is IF you want to see the pic. Really funny.

TiE23
10-22-2002, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Tie 23
The on Moon Galilaeo (sp) experiment!!!! An astronaut dropped a hammer and a feather at the same time and both landed at the same time, nearly imposible to get a vacuum on earth! (have to get tube big enough to hold the set, have it 33ft high, fill it with water and have only inches of head room! and turn the whole freaking thing upsidedown and get a tiny space of vacuum!!!) :D CASE CLOSED!!!!!!:D
HELLO!!!!! Get a learning movie at you library called "Galileao and the giants" (some thing like that) watch it, about the hammer vs. feather falling speed!!! It is about an hour and kinda interesting, and at the very end they show an astronaut do the (hammer and feather, will they fall and hit the ground at the same time?) with no atmosphere= no wind resistance!!!! they hit at the same time, then the astronaut says "well, looks like galilaeo was right!"

there is only a very expensive and difficult way to get a vacuum!!!! (the 33ft tube thingy)
CASE CLOSED!!! :D :D

I am sooo right! *does little victory dance*

Quotation
10-23-2002, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion


Frankly,if it was fake, then where did the Space Rocket go at the launching?:confused:

Into the altosphere, round the Earth, and back into the sea.

Jando and JediMonk, you both have valid points. And Pedantic, yes, I may be full of caca. :rolleyes:

But, seriously, would it be rational to send a several-million dollar telescope out into space completely suceptible to the elements in constant need of repair?

GonkH8er
10-23-2002, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by Quotation



But, seriously, would it be rational to send a several-million dollar telescope out into space completely suceptible to the elements in constant need of repair?


If it makes america look more bold and advanced and willing in the eyes of the public, then yes.

and if the government has billions to spend on the space program each year, then yes.

and if it were to result in a space tube between earth and the moon supplying us with an almost limitless quantity of cheese, then yes....

Elijah
10-23-2002, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Quotation

Into the altosphere, round the Earth, and back into the sea.


Well if you believe that, than why would it be so hard to go to the moon?

TheWhiteRaider
10-23-2002, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg


Well if you believe that, than why would it be so hard to go to the moon?

I thought I would never say this, but I agree with him. Why I thought I would never say this. We almost always have different views.

Taos
10-23-2002, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er



If it makes america look more bold and advanced and willing in the eyes of the public, then yes.


They'll do anything to make themselves look better! Window-dressing.....:rolleyes:



and if it were to result in a space tube between earth and the moon supplying us with an almost limitless quantity of cheese, then yes....


We've gotta keep that cheese comin' down to the earth!!! :D

Quotation
10-23-2002, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by ZDawg


Well if you believe that, than why would it be so hard to go to the moon?

Did I not say *outside* the atmosphere, in my first post? Radiation is the only obstruction that prevents us from accessing the Moon...

And Gonkh@ter, the Public wouldn't be so unanimous when they compensate for the destroyed parts via Tax...Nice avatar, anyway. ;)

thehomicidalegg
10-23-2002, 07:10 AM
Instead of going to the moon, the saturn v rocket would launch the apollo spacecraft in orbit.

russia sent a man into orbit in 1961, if there is not much difference between orbit and the moon then wouldnt they also have sent men to the moon relatively soon? in fact Russia had 14 luna probes (or so) but never attempted a landing.

the difference between the two is to escape from earths gravity and 3 days of spacetravel including journeying beyond the protective vincintity to earth and exposure to extreme radiation


The most intriguing 'error' from the nasa moon landing videos are the fact that the astronaut are always clearly seen, even when stepping into a area shrouded by the darkest of shadows. there are several of these moments in the videos, where the astronauts steps into the shadow of the lunar lander, where no details can be seen anywhere except the brilliant white suit of the astronaut.


but the problem with these types of documentries is that they only presents one perspective, one arguement. It is not a balanced look at both sides. I saw a documentry regarding this, where the only NASA guy is this creepy guy who resembles issurance sellsman and all his said was "I can explain these inconsistensies, but I dont want to, because that would take too much effort so just trust me that we landed, OKAY?" i have yet to see a single source compliled that states BOTH sides of the argument in details, thus atleast providing a more credible and authoritive look on this matter.

However, there is no certain way to prove either is true, until a third party lands on the moon and find the relics or the absence of on the moon.

MysticSpade
10-23-2002, 07:38 AM
i believe that we never really landed on the moon, as far as i know they coulda shot that in my backyard and i still wouldn't care.

Wrinkled~Lemon
10-23-2002, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by SamuelDravis
they had sent the luna probes before the US sent anything. they knew what the moon looked like. and they had radar and telescopes to track the saturn V's.

which is why russia never sent anyone to the moon... i saw in a documentary interviewing these cosmounats(sp) saying that it was immpossible to get past the Van Allen Belt without flying a 6meter lead thick hull space shuttle

also, the cameras that they used back then was mounted onto the chest of the astronauts... which means that the astronauts didnt know wat they were pointing at! notice how the pictures had everything so focused n perfect?
try holding ur camera at chest level n take pictures with them without looking into the viewfinder n see how 'perfect' the pictures comes out

whitedragon
10-23-2002, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by leXX
It's not a dumb question at all! It is an extremely interesting question. Would you prefer me ask 'What is your favourite pizza?' :rolleyes:. You really should open your mind.

I watched the documentry last year, as did alot of you and was immediately compelled by the evidence set before me. The thought of it being a hoax had never crossed my mind until then and I watched the program without blinking.

Gonkh8er > A very very interesting read, thank you very much. There was alot in there that I did not know about and has just convinced me even more that it was all a hoax.

I think the American Government was under a hell of a lot of pressure during the cold war and the thought of the Russians reaching the moon before them was just too unbearable. How much 'stuff' do you think the American Government and every other Government in the world hides from us? Are we to believe everything that is told to us by them. I don't like the idea of it being fake any more than you lot, but the evidence all points towards a hoax for me. An ex-Nasa engineer even said that NASA did not have the technical capability or hardware at the time to even consider going to the moon.

I just ask everyone who is convinced it is not a fake to look at both arguments very carefully before you make any final decision. So much is hidden from us that it is mind boggling.
well i dont see what they have to gain by fakeing something like that. i dont mean to offend anyone by saying so

MysticSpade
10-23-2002, 05:45 PM
what they'd have to gain is beatin Russia to it first. but i will stand on thinkin that it is a total fake. for the reasons based on LeXX's very 1st post on this thread.

whitedragon
10-23-2002, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by MysticSpade
what they'd have to gain is beatin Russia to it first. but i will stand on thinkin that it is a total fake. for the reasons based on LeXX's very 1st post on this thread.
i still dont think it was faked

Absurd
10-23-2002, 07:19 PM
http://www.dc8p.com/html/moonhoax.html

Quotation
10-24-2002, 03:41 PM
Bump.

Opinions anyone? I need to work on my debating skills....Not that there are any... :(