Moon landing

[Lance Uppercut]

1. The moon walk footage when speeded up 2x shows perfectly in normal time. Meaning all they did supposedly was slow the footage down....hence why it looks and seemingly responds to looking like low gravity. There's a lot of evidence out there, scientific, done by experts in certain fields (like geography, photography, russian scientists, etc) that goes into a lot more detail than can possibly give it justice to mention.

Care to site any of this scientific evidence?

Or to refute the parabolic shape of the dust particles referred to by FIGJAM and my previous link?

2. NY Firemen (reputed firsthand sources) told of detonations going off storey after storey, of "bombs" etc. Not to mention that all buildings that collapsed had that same detonated physics effect of collapsing inwards etc. Even the guy who owned all the buildings said that's what was done. I forget the 'technical' word/jargon for this. Also include building 7 which had no reason to also collapse where it did and nothing else around it. Only those 3 buildings owned by the same guy collapsed. Building 7 also was a safe house for many important insurance/banking documents etc.

Source of these firsthand sources?

3. JFK - it was the CIA, then controlled by George Bush Snr who had many illicite activites going on that JFK tried to shut down (in the Cuban region). J Egdar Hoover was privy to the finer details, the mafiaso who were hired to perform the assassination, (hence Ruby killing Oswald and Ruby himself killed later), and the CIA surgical hackjob done to JFK in the jet back to Washington...that he wrote a memo in safekeeping naming the head of the hit (Bush Snr). Anyway, JFK has too much evidence proving it was a govt/cia hit to even be argued against.


All cases are still wide open.

The truth is out there, it's all a conspiracy. Whooooooo!!!!

 

[johnnyhoward]

This thread should have had a poll in it. I reckon it would be 50-50. Or 'fake' with the 'suprising' lead.

All that would show is that people are idiots.

These conspiracy theories are all fun but unfortunately they're just not believable.

 

[Binxy]

Case. Closed.

 

[Hawkk]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Do these men look like they've just come back from the trips of their lives? Ironically all 3 men that went on the Apollo 11 all resigned from NASA shortly after the mission was completed.

For me, there is something not right about this Press Conference, the only suggestions I could come up with, are;

a) Nervously living in shame from the guilt of being involved in undoubtably human kinds greatest hoax

b) Suffering after affects from the massive amounts of radiation absorbed during their time in orbit - which no doubt will completely screw them up in the medium to long term

c) An encounter with something not known to man kind - just ask Buzz Aldrin (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bQgfaLFTl4U)

I'm open to all suggestions. Suggestions a) and c) imply enormous cover ups by NASA.

I highly doubt the US could have pulled off this hoax without the Russians - who at the time were tracking down every movement made by NASA, finding out though. Bare in mind, the 'Space Race' was at the forefront of the 'Cold War'.

 

[Chief]

Yep Nasa killed them

With cancer.

 

[Chief]

a) Nervously living in shame from the guilt of being involved in undoubtably human kinds greatest hoax

Hey! You're discounting the monumental hoax Collingwood FC pull over their fans every year claiming they have a chance at a flag!

c) An encounter with something not known to man kind - just ask Buzz Aldrin (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bQgfaLFTl4U)

Oh. My. God. Could this (recreated) vague smear be... ALIENS?

I cannot believe the number of people who have the brains to navigate the internet just to flap their hands on a keyboard and come up with such garbage.

 

[exe ex machina]

The moon dust kicks off the tyres in a perfectly parabolic fashion. This is impossible here on Earth. Please explain how it was contrived at any camera speed.

Here's video footage of the moon dune buggy taken from this NASA page....


Here's footage of an Earth Dune Buggy.
[youtube]ZDnlEy9zQp8[/youtube]



Take note of the specific manouvers that the Moon buggy performs, at the speed it's traveling, with a certain engine power, with a particular 'topographical/climate' type, and compare with the same manouvers, speeds and apparently similar topography/climate of the Earth buggy video. IE, A certain video quality, video detail, distance/angle, background monochrome (blackness-blueness) can show that the dust created by the Earth buggy appears to have a parabolic quality too.

Take note of this third video, (go to 3:00 mins) better quality, closer focus, different more violent faster manouvers in a higher powered buggy, different topography/climate type, and it will support the 'parabolic moon dust' argument. IE, yes of course moon dust has a parabolic effect, but action shot on earth under certain conditions and camera quality/angle/distance, etc, and it can be made to appear to look like it has parabolic effect. If they can make everything else ALMOST look so real, if they can replicate appearances/behaviours to the point they go 'live' with a Moon landing, then they can obviously replicate parabolic effects.

[youtube]9n8PcPWlLAE[/youtube]

 

[The Dice Man]

To believe the moon landings were faked means one must also believe in an even bigger conspiracy, that the Cold War was staged and that the USSR and the US were actually in cahoots the entire time, just in order to make people believe man stepped on the moon.

The Russians would've been watching the Yanks the whole way, and Im pretty confident they would've called shennanigans if Armstrong and Co were just doing laps in the Ozone.

 

[exe ex machina]

What's 'wrong' with these sequences?

Ascent from Moon's surface - Apollo

Ascent from the Moon's surface - Taurus

 

[exe ex machina]

What's 'wrong' with this sequence?

Astronaut jumping on the Moon

Speeding this up 2x (roughly) or not, it wouldn't make a difference...the astronaut would weigh 1/6th of his normal weight (including spacesuit/backpack, it wouldn't matter) and should be actually going much much higher up than he does here. Only a person jumping inside an Earth atmosphere/gravity would reach those paltry heights.


Quote:

"If you could jump a metre on the Earth, you could easily jump 5.5 metres on the surface of the Moon. That's almost six times as high (or six times as long - depending on your jump orientation).
You would also be about six times lighter. 18 stone? On the Moon you'd only be about 3 stone. Forget the slim fast plan, you could lose an amazing 15 stone on the Moon Trip Plan!

Surface Acceleration:

Earth 9.8 metres per second per second
Moon 1.6 metres per second per second
The Moon is receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year due to tidal effects, which is also lengthening Earth's rotation period by 0.0000002 seconds per day. So does that mean we're older than we think we are?"

 

[Hawkk]

Oh. My. God. Could this (recreated) vague smear be... ALIENS?

I cannot believe the number of people who have the brains to navigate the internet just to flap their hands on a keyboard and come up with such garbage.

Don't shoot the messenger; I'm just quoting a first hand account from a source that was reasonably reliable - being the 2nd man on the moon and all.

BTW, I highly doubt the crew came into contact with a UFO either...just throwing it out there as a potential option.

But you've got to admit that for one reason or another, the press conference performance does raise questions.

 

[Hawkk]

The Russians would've been watching the Yanks the whole way, and Im pretty confident they would've called shennanigans if Armstrong and Co were just doing laps in the Ozone.

Exactly right, bare in mind the Russians also had satellites orbiting space - almost certainly monitoring NASA's Apollo program. How the Apollo 11 team could possibly get away with doing laps orbiting the Earth while actors staged the landing is totally beyond me.

Winning the Space Race after all went a very long way to winning the war.

 

[exe ex machina]

[youtube]AJql0uzDyRE[/youtube]

Ignore the tacky video program itself, go to 2:05 in the footage and pay close attention to the astronaut getting up. You will see that the other astronaut is NOT even putting any pressure upwards on him, not even really touching him. You will also see that all the weight on the astronaut on the ground is on his back with all the backpack equipment, YET in that sequence when he lifts off the ground, all the PULL (the force lifting him) is coming directly from his back, like, as tacky as it sounds, wires are taking his full weight ONLY at that center of all that weight - his back/backpack and not anywhere else, especially not anywhere else lighter and therefore should be far more weightless.

Then watch how he regains his balance, totally unrealistically, as tho that pulling force from the weighty back is loosened enough to allow him to regain his feet under his own control.

There's something dodgy about that sequence, I'm not saying it's wires, but it's 'wrong' physics just in that highlighted sequence on the 2:05 minute mark.


Also, as per Hawkk's video of the conference....they all look/talk immensely guilty, ethically burdened. Also, jet-lag....I look worse after a flight interstate or overseas, let alone what a trip to the moon and back would do to a person's state.

 

[exe ex machina]

Lance Uppercut....re your post.

The CIA-enacted, Bush Snr-lead, Mafia-hired killing of JFK is indisputable. Ok, maybe the involvment of Bush Snr, the Mafia and CIA could be disputable, depending on what you read or don't read. But the Warren report decisively proved, at the most fundamental level, that there was no lone gunman, and that a highly organized insider involvement was definately there.

Those things established at the most fundamental level logically concludes a CIA organized hit. The CIA at the time was run by Bush Snr, who had many criminal dealings happening at the time, which JFK was actively putting an end to thru sanctioning the FBI itself. FBI run at the time by Hoover. Research Hoover vs Bush Snr.

As for 9/11, this is a most complex debate to properly detail all in one post. But basically, in response to the NY Firemen mention....they were there, inside the building, their voices recorded etc as everything's happening, and hours later, recorded discussing it, and all their conversations and evidence was seized by the authorities and not let out, except for a couple which someone leaked out or managed to get a hold of, you've heard them (yes?) and that's why it's so contentious because these experts and experienced guys all know the difference between these things.

Also, take note of the footage itself of the south and north towers collapsing and building 7 collapsing, and all you really need to do is see it to know it was detonated compared to other detonated building footage. You don't have to go off into elaborate details and clue-hunting, it obviously is good to do so, but the proof is right there in just that alone anyway. Note also that no building ever has burnt to the ground and collapsed like that from a fire.....ever. Wilder fires have raged for hours at much higher temperatures in similar skyscrapers, and they all remained standing, and no detonated collapse let alone a collapse. There would be no reason for Building 7 to even collapse in a detonated fashion from being shaken weak at the foundation from South/North towers collapsing themselves, especially also how all the other nearby buildings, many much closer to Ground Zero than Building 7 even was. There would be no way the North or South towers could have collapsed like they did in minutes from a plane hitting them, and/or ONE bomb blast happening inside. If you also notice the footage of the second jet crashing into the tower, as it collides it completely crumples in on itself into a small ball of rubble on that floor, and that most of the explosive/fire from the fuselage is immediately released OUTSIDE as it collides, never enough of it enters the building to create a fire that intense to melt all that steel AND make it collapse detonation style. It's also very moot that both Towers and Building 7 were all owned by one man, who afterwards even SAID on a TV interview that "the decision was made to 'pull' them", (pull, being the engineering jargon for detonating).

But, the proof is all in the footage of the actual buildings collapsing, let alone all the other million bits of info so widely discussed which can be argued back and forth and can get side-tracked. Just the footage alone of the buildings collapsing is the proof.

 

[HorseHead]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Do these men look like they've just come back from the trips of their lives? Ironically all 3 men that went on the Apollo 11 all resigned from NASA shortly after the mission was completed.

For me, there is something not right about this Press Conference, the only suggestions I could come up with, are;

a) Nervously living in shame from the guilt of being involved in undoubtably human kinds greatest hoax

I think the explanation is quite simple: Those guys are scientists. They're not stand-up comedians or rock stars. They're not going to try to work the room and entertain people. They're dealing with a fairly dry topic and they're obviously very nervous about fronting up to a press conference and speaking in front of who-knows-how-many journalists. How would you expect them to behave?

I highly doubt the US could have pulled off this hoax without the Russians - who at the time were tracking down every movement made by NASA, finding out though. Bare in mind, the 'Space Race' was at the forefront of the 'Cold War'.

Exactly. The moon landing was the final phase in an international ******** measuring competition. As others have already said, if the yanks faked it, the Soviets would have let everyone know all about it.

 

[exe ex machina]

Worth reading the whole page to get a better overview and sources for further links from this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations


It's important to note that there are many hoax arguments, not just one....

Predominant hoax claims

A number of different versions of the hoax have been advanced. The various claims do not present a complete narrative of how the alleged hoax could have been perpetrated, but instead focus on perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the historical record of the missions. Several of these ideas and their most readily identifiable proponents are described below:

Complete hoax — The idea that the entire human landing program was faked. Various sources argue that the technology to send men to the Moon was insufficient and/or that the Van Allen radiation belts made such a trip impossible (Kaysing 2002).

Partial hoax / Unmanned landings — Bart Sibrel argues that Apollo 11 and subsequent astronauts had faked their orbit around the Moon and their walk on its surface by trick photography, and that they never got more than halfway to the Moon. A subset of this proposal is advocated by those who concede the existence of laser mirrors and other observable human-made objects on the Moon. Marcus Allen represented this argument when he said "I would be the first to accept what [telescope images of the landing site] find as powerful evidence that something was placed on the Moon by man." He goes on to say that photographs of the lander would not prove that America put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem—the Russians did that in 1959, the big problem is getting people there." His argument focuses around NASA sending robot missions because radiation levels in space were lethal to humans. Another variant on this is the idea that NASA and its contractors did not recover quickly enough from the Apollo 1 fire, and so all the early Apollo missions were faked, with Apollo 14 or 15 being the first authentic mission.

Manned landings, with backup stagings — Dr. Brian O'Leary once suggested that, as a hypothetical situation, NASA could have falsified some portion of the video and photographs of the Moon landings to replace those damaged or lost during the actual mission. Hoax proponent David Percy apparently took O'Leary's hypothetical as a sincere belief. O'Leary has since reasserted the idea as merely hypothetical.

Manned landings, with cover-ups —William Brian and others believe that, while astronauts did land on the Moon, they covered up what they found, whether it was gravitational anomalies, alien artifacts, or alien encounters. Phillip Lheureux, in Lumieres sur la Lune (Lights on the Moon), said that astronauts did land on the Moon, but that, in order to prevent other nations from benefiting from scientific information in the real photos, NASA published fake images.

 

[exe ex machina]

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetary_lunar.html

Look at the success-failure rate of Russian unmanned craft to the moon, even beyond 1969.

However, the US manned craft were ALL 100% successes, even tho their own unmanned Moon and other space launches have a similar poor success-failure rate.

 

[exe ex machina]

If NASA can show thousands of images of the surface of Mars, of deep interstellar galaxies etc, then it would be very easy for them to prove man walked on the moon by sending unmanned craft to the sites of the supposed moon landings, beaming back images of the specific remnants left from those Apollo missions.

 

[exe ex machina]

Some interesting questions....

* Absence of engine noise in official NASA footage - how was it possible to clearly hear the voices of the Astronauts? See previous NASA link for audio.

* Still Photographs - Cameras were fitted to the Astronauts chest - there was no view finder and photographs could only be taken by movement of the body but 1000's of flawless photographs were taken.

* The Van Allen Radiation Belt - Could the Astronauts survive travelling through the deadly radiation belt which is situated 500 miles above the earth and is 1000's of miles thick with only the protection from their space suits and the thin covering of the space ship when it is estimated that 6 feet of lead would be necessary, would have been needed. None of the Astronauts have since showed any signs of radiation poisoning. And no other manned mission has gone through the Belt.

* No human can get through this belt, if you try then you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 6-10 feet of lead. None of the Apollo craft were covered with 6-10 feet of lead.

* On top of that, there are millions of micro-meteors traveling at speeds of up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.

* An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too hot for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.

The Sun is the only light source, reflection from the surface does not create another light source specifically directed above the astronauts pointing from behind them. In this photo, the source of light is directly behind them, casting the same shadows to the same direction...however, Aldrin's shadow (A) should not be distinctly longer than Armstrong's.

B - Sun only light source, the shadow here should have been black and no detail.
C - The surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.
D - You can plainly see some type of structure reflected through Aldrin's helmet. No idea what it is, but it is there.

E - There's an abnormal shadow on the moon's surface. NASA claims this shadow is cast by the Lunar Module. But on Earth, even when aircraft is flying low to the ground, it does not produce such a clearly defined shadow.

L - This picture was taken from a camera strapped to Conrad's chest. If the camera was attached to Conrad's chest, the top of Bean's helmet should not be in this picture.
7 - There is a strange anomaly in the sky, a phsyical structure of some sort. It is yet to be determined what that might be, but it shouldn't be there.

S - In the circled portion of the screen, these Lunar Rover tracks are too well defined. The fact is, a mixture of a compound and water is needed to make such defined lines.
R - The rock has the letter 'C' carved into the rock. The work of a props department.

P - A blown up segment of Q from the previous image. These cross-hairs appear on every lunar picture. These cross-hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film. Yet, in many of the Moon pics these cross-hairs are placed behind objects on the screen.

 

[exe ex machina]

And finally, this article poses many perplexing questions....

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Some interesting questions....

* Absence of engine noise in official NASA footage - how was it possible to clearly hear the voices of the Astronauts? See previous NASA link for audio.

* Still Photographs - Cameras were fitted to the Astronauts chest - there was no view finder and photographs could only be taken by movement of the body but 1000's of flawless photographs were taken.

* The Van Allen Radiation Belt - Could the Astronauts survive travelling through the deadly radiation belt which is situated 500 miles above the earth and is 1000's of miles thick with only the protection from their space suits and the thin covering of the space ship when it is estimated that 6 feet of lead would be necessary, would have been needed. None of the Astronauts have since showed any signs of radiation poisoning. And no other manned mission has gone through the Belt.

* No human can get through this belt, if you try then you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 6-10 feet of lead. None of the Apollo craft were covered with 6-10 feet of lead.

* On top of that, there are millions of micro-meteors traveling at speeds of up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.

* An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too hot for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.

The Sun is the only light source, reflection from the surface does not create another light source specifically directed above the astronauts pointing from behind them. In this photo, the source of light is directly behind them, casting the same shadows to the same direction...however, Aldrin's shadow (A) should not be distinctly longer than Armstrong's.

B - Sun only light source, the shadow here should have been black and no detail.
C - The surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.
D - You can plainly see some type of structure reflected through Aldrin's helmet. No idea what it is, but it is there.

E - There's an abnormal shadow on the moon's surface. NASA claims this shadow is cast by the Lunar Module. But on Earth, even when aircraft is flying low to the ground, it does not produce such a clearly defined shadow.

L - This picture was taken from a camera strapped to Conrad's chest. If the camera was attached to Conrad's chest, the top of Bean's helmet should not be in this picture.
7 - There is a strange anomaly in the sky, a phsyical structure of some sort. It is yet to be determined what that might be, but it shouldn't be there.

S - In the circled portion of the screen, these Lunar Rover tracks are too well defined. The fact is, a mixture of a compound and water is needed to make such defined lines.
R - The rock has the letter 'C' carved into the rock. The work of a props department.

P - A blown up segment of Q from the previous image. These cross-hairs appear on every lunar picture. These cross-hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film. Yet, in many of the Moon pics these cross-hairs are placed behind objects on the screen.

ALL of these are debunked in the links I posted, which you obviously still haven't bothered to read!

EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Debunked. I'm not going to write them out. Read the links I posted. Every single point you make is rebutted.

 

[Binxy]

I haven't waded through all the looney-tunes ramblings but has anyone asked if they still go to the moon and if not, why not?



Case Closed.


I just like saying that - makes me feel like a big man........




...there goes one now.......

 

[exe ex machina]

ALL of these are debunked in the links I posted, which you obviously still haven't bothered to read!

EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Debunked. I'm not going to write them out. Read the links I posted. Every single point you make is rebutted.

I read your links. But as I am always pushed to provide further commentary cite examples etc, then I thought I'd do a bit of that and obviously therefore that you (whomever) can do that back.

Preferably everyone would go off and do their own link reading, raise no questions in a thread or discussion, because it's all out there easily accessible enough to find articles etc. But seeing as this is a thread and people are still going to do the "no it isn't"..."yes it is"..."no it isnt" type of postings (re: Binxy etc) and pushing people to write at length about it, then I was giving you and others the same option back.


Just so everyone knows, because I don't think anyone does.....I don't think there's conclusive evidence for or against the Moon landing conspiracy. I've read all the opinions and theories too, just like you guys. Despite all the "cold hard proof" debunking the conspiracy, there are still many questions left unanswered and many contradictions still that I'm not sold. Many of those "cold hard facts" contradict each other too. I lean towards the "it was fake" argument, I never said I am fully convinced of it. Just there's a lot of iffy things there. It doesn't seem at all like an open-shut case like many hastily conclude one way or the other.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I read your links. But as I am always pushed to provide further commentary cite examples etc, then I thought I'd do a bit of that and obviously therefore that you (whomever) can do that back.

Preferably everyone would go off and do their own link reading, raise no questions in a thread or discussion, because it's all out there easily accessible enough to find articles etc. But seeing as this is a thread and people are still going to do the "no it isn't"..."yes it is"..."no it isnt" type of postings (re: Binxy etc) and pushing people to write at length about it, then I was giving you and others the same option back.

well I'm glad you provided some evidence, even if we'll have to agree to disagree

 

[Chief]

If NASA can show thousands of images of the surface of Mars, of deep interstellar galaxies etc, then it would be very easy for them to prove man walked on the moon by sending unmanned craft to the sites of the supposed moon landings, beaming back images of the specific remnants left from those Apollo missions.

Why would they spend that much money to satisfy a smattering of loons?

The loons would just claim NASA was faking it again.