Here is final convincing evidence that NASA lied about the moonlandings.
http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm
(Thanks go to my colleague Miranda at the Science Forums for bringing this important new evidence to my attention) Something about those little orange men that just aint right...what exactly are they looking at? 
I had read similar article where there was doubt on the vedio that NASA showed.Some things striked out like,The flag was in motion with same speed as on earth,which is not possible(Some scientists said).Lets see to them if anyone gets good proof that really landed on moon .
If they only had video or photographs or something like that to prove that they landed on the moon, or if they'd collected samples or something.
Oh, wait, they did...
There is one piece of evidence which is incontravertible and blows all conspiracy theory out of the water.
The astronauts on Apollo 11 set up a small reflector on the moon at a precise angle, designed to reflect laser beams back to Earth.
This reflector is still used today in order to measure the distance to the moon very accurately.
Case closed. Blows all conspiracy? Blasphemy! You're a NASA agent, and the reflector was planted by the orange men in those oh-so-authentic photos! 
| Cddhesh wrote: |
| I had read similar article where there was doubt on the vedio that NASA showed.Some things striked out like,The flag was in motion with same speed as on earth,which is not possible(Some scientists said).Lets see to them if anyone gets good proof that really landed on moon . |
Try reading the Bad Astronomy site on the Moon Hoax - all the most common reasons people give for thinking it was a hoax are addressed there.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.htmlYes, we have not been to the moon. By the way, JFK was shot with a magic bullet.
Honestly, I can't believe that that conspiracy still exists. It's been debunked so many times. Every bit of evidence against a moon landing by NASA has been debunked.
What about those strange animals and creatures there? There's nothing like that on Earth! How could they replicate them? It's impossible.
| Insanity wrote: |
| What about those strange animals and creatures there? There's nothing like that on Earth! How could they replicate them? It's impossible. |
Quite right. The Clangers are only able to exist in fairly hard-vacuum and could not possibly live on Earth since they would implode due to the pressure. The soup-dragon would also have problems with the boiling point of the soup.has anyone heard of the "Big foot" on mars? lol, supposedly the mars rover took a pic and something that's prolly a rock kinda looks like a person or ape thing...there's a pic of it on some news site, but i'm not sure which. but somehow it really looks surprisingly real! anyway, i doubt NASA's ever going to find real evidence for it.
There's a picture of it in this forum about 10 topics down.
To be serious for a moment....
The point of this thread was to ridicule the ever-recurring claims that the moon-landings were some sort of giant hoax. I hope I have succeded in this aim and that no members of the forum genuinely believe the conspiracy theorists.
Questioning science is always allowed - in fact it is essential - but when the questions have been answered over and over again then I don't think it is too much of a liberty to poke a bit of fun at them.
There's quite an interesting book that has just been released:-
Dark Mission by RICHARD C HOAGLAND & MIKE BARA
lots of photographs etc.
Claiming that artifacts were found on the moon and NASA had doctored the pics.
Not all of what they say is believable, but an interesting read non the less.
Another if your interesting Ufology (Roswell in particular)
The Roswell Legacy - Jesse Marcel Jnr.
Giving his account of when his father found the debris at roswell and brought it home on his way back to the army base so his son and wife could see it 1st hand. Describing the memory metal and the I beams before the story broke.
Oh dear. Just when I thought it was safe to ignore this thread we have another loony conspiracy.
Hoagland is a loony (sorry to use such inexact terminology - I am not qualified to say exactly whether he is paranoid, schizophrenic, manic etc).
He is an unqualified nut with a theory and should be given no consideration, apart from that which is necessary to lob his book in the nearest bin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland
It depresses me that, when there is so much useful and beautiful stuff to read on the subject of science*, people still buy stuff from fruitcases like Hoagland.
As for Roswell...I thought that everyone had accepted the realities of that by now....obviously not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_Incident
* 2 suggestions:
For the mathematically inclined - Roger Penrose "Road to Reality"
For the layman who wants to get a handle on string theory - Brian Green "Elegant Universe" well shite, to keep the thought going instead of making a new thread...Do you think there is any substance to the theory that we did in fact land on the moon...and maybe had to film a faux landing to show the public because of other reasons? Possibly something in the videos/photos that the public could not see (ie extra terrestrials), or more simply the original photos/videos were damaged by the radiation or particle beams or..whatever is up there?
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| well shite, to keep the thought going instead of making a new thread...Do you think there is any substance to the theory that we did in fact land on the moon...and maybe had to film a faux landing to show the public because of other reasons? Possibly something in the videos/photos that the public could not see (ie extra terrestrials), or more simply the original photos/videos were damaged by the radiation or particle beams or..whatever is up there? |
How many ways do I have to say it?
Yes, we did land on the moon.
Yes, there is overwhelming evidence to support that claim
No, the landing was not simulated
No, the original film was not damaged by radiation or particle beams
On the claim of extra-terrestrials. Yes, it is certainly the case that the Apollo 11 astronauts saw something that they could not explain outside their craft. Does this mean they didn't land on the moon? - no. Was the fact of their sighting covered-up? - no, it is a matter of public record.
http://www.debunker.com/texts/apollo11.htmlanswer all of these and the theories will stop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations#Conspiracy_theory
oh wait they already did
what I dont understand is that nasa can easily take a photo of the American flag on the moon and post it online for all of us too see....or have some Russian astronauts do it so we know its real..... | Bikerman wrote: |
| As for Roswell...I thought that everyone had accepted the realities of that by now....obviously not. |
Surely the definitive answer to what happened at Roswell was outlined in the film Independence Day 
Here's 1 for you.....
You know how you can buy acres of the moon? (can't remember the company "moonrealestate" or something).
A. If you own the plot that the moon rovers are parked on can you charge america for 40 years of parking fees?
B. If the US start mining on the moon in the area owned by you can you claim some of the profits?
Just a thought.. 
Nice one - I'll send the link to my friends
| Quote: |
| Secondly, the interior of the shopping basket can clearly be seen when all areas in shadow should be pitch black due to the absence of air molecules. |
something for you to use some thought about above, if people were to believe this (and believe me, some will) shouldn't the earth be eternally dark? and that would also mean that there would be no stars, no life at all Klness | thebattler36 wrote: |
| Quote: | | Secondly, the interior of the shopping basket can clearly be seen when all areas in shadow should be pitch black due to the absence of air molecules. |
something for you to use some thought about above, if people were to believe this (and believe me, some will) shouldn't the earth be eternally dark? and that would also mean that there would be no stars, no life at all Klness |
Why? Not all of the Earth is in shadow during the day. The point in the spoof is that with no secondary light source the shadow should be fairly 'pitch black'. | Bikerman wrote: |
| thebattler36 wrote: | | Quote: | | Secondly, the interior of the shopping basket can clearly be seen when all areas in shadow should be pitch black due to the absence of air molecules. |
something for you to use some thought about above, if people were to believe this (and believe me, some will) shouldn't the earth be eternally dark? and that would also mean that there would be no stars, no life at all Klness |
Why? Not all of the Earth is in shadow during the day. The point in the spoof is that with no secondary light source the shadow should be fairly 'pitch black'. |
not so, EVERYTHING made of matter reflects light, it doesnt matter what it is, it reflects light. That is why on earth we never have "true" darkness, there is always something, the same goes for the moon as well, the shadows shouldn't be pitch dark but probably the same depth and density as those on earth. | Teezgaff wrote: |
Here's 1 for you.....
You know how you can buy acres of the moon? (can't remember the company "moonrealestate" or something).
A. If you own the plot that the moon rovers are parked on can you charge america for 40 years of parking fees?
B. If the US start mining on the moon in the area owned by you can you claim some of the profits?
Just a thought.. |
I would imagine the same way you can buy airspace | Quote: |
| not so, EVERYTHING made of matter reflects light, it doesnt matter what it is, it reflects light. That is why on earth we never have "true" darkness, there is always something, the same goes for the moon as well, the shadows shouldn't be pitch dark but probably the same depth and density as those on earth. |
I did say 'fairly'. 
I take the point of course. | Bikerman wrote: |
Oh dear. Just when I thought it was safe to ignore this thread we have another loony conspiracy.
Hoagland is a loony (sorry to use such inexact terminology - I am not qualified to say exactly whether he is paranoid, schizophrenic, manic etc).
He is an unqualified nut with a theory and should be given no consideration, apart from that which is necessary to lob his book in the nearest bin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland |
i think this has to be the bloody funniest thing i ever read:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland wrote: |
On April 5, 1998, the Mars Global Surveyor probe sent back better images of the Cydonia region [17] that seemed to suggest that the "face" was nothing more than an irregular shaped mountain. Hoagland contends these images were deliberately downgraded (run through multiple filters that degraded the original image) in quality to give a "catbox" appearance in order to hide what is really on Mars.[18]
When, on April 8, 2001, enhanced images[19] showed that the feature was not symmetrical, he wrote that the "face" was actually half hominid (left side) and half feline (right side).[20]
Even when, on September 21, 2006, several new 3D views [21][22] derived from the high-resolution stereo camera on the European Space Agency's Mars Express orbiter were released, Hoagland remained unconvinced. "Science is not about what you can see. It's about what you can measure", he remarked. |
wow this is nice. Its so funny what was possible even back then
I think we are wasting time discussing once again about this. So many issues and so many mighty theories have been made about it. They are just what they are, theories. Unproven and not possible. There have been thousands of people who have been listening in on the radio of the astronauts when it really happened. I do not think it is possible to cheat all the people and all the time too.
And the theories on UFO is the ultimate! Good imagination really! May be they should right only fiction novels and not factual books.
| websurfer80 wrote: |
| this is al bull..... |
Any relation to Al Gore? (ouch)haha very funny
but not convincing enough 
Its funny - there is more scientific proof in these images than all of the hoax theories put together. Yet some people will believe anything I suppose. Someone once got to the point of shouting at me beause he insisted Canada was not a country in North America because Americans hate Canadians. Not related but I found it funny lol.
cant they just ask the russians to take a photo of nasa landing zone on the moon and then send the pics to nasa
| Bannik wrote: |
| cant they just ask the russians to take a photo of nasa landing zone on the moon and then send the pics to nasa |
Why the Russians? There are no Earth telescopes with sufficient resolution to show the landing zones. There is a moon satellite planned (for around 2010 I think) which WILL have sufficient resolution to show that landing sites on the moon, so we will then have final conclusive proof to back up all the other conclusive proof we already have. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bannik wrote: | | cant they just ask the russians to take a photo of nasa landing zone on the moon and then send the pics to nasa |
Why the Russians? There are no Earth telescopes with sufficient resolution to show the landing zones. There is a moon satellite planned (for around 2010 I think) which WILL have sufficient resolution to show that landing sites on the moon, so we will then have final conclusive proof to back up all the other conclusive proof we already have. |
You know as well as I do that that won't stop the theories. People are very good at deluding themselves and if they have got it into their head that there was no Moon landing then nothing will convince them otherwise. Even if you were to take them to the Moon themselves they would still come up with theories on how you had drugged them and hypnotised them or used some advanced memory creating computer device etc etc etc.
I think when normal, educated people stop giving them any attention then they'll move on and hopefully will find something more productive to do... although it could be argued that modern societies need the sort of people that question everything from that perspective to keep the governments mostly on the right path.
| Quote: |
| Is this for real? In this famous photo the Eagle Lander is shown returning to the Command Module, but the biggest question about the event is left hanging. Who took the photo? |
This is unbelievable.......!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????? Why should they do like this...????And why did they do like this...???????????What's the problem?
You can clearly see the lander taking off. Are you saying that the photo is not authentic? It seems clear to me that it is genuine - you can clearly see Major Clanger giving the signal for full rocket burn, and Mother Clanger's eyes are obviously following the progress of the lander as it ascends. Both Tiny and Baby Clanger are also clearly in shot, so I don't think there is any question that this is a genuine image.
The only question is - who took the picture? Clearly there is some doubt about this, and moon-hoax proponents might use this as evidence that the picture is a fake. I think, however, that the explanation is fairly straightforward - clearly it was the Soup-Dragon that took the shot.
Some critics have, rightly, pointed out that the Clangers don't actually live on the moon, which is, at first sight, a pretty strong argument. There is, however, good evidence to support the notion that the Clangers were on their annual holiday during the Apollo landing in question here. It is well known amongst Clanger-ethnologists that the Moon is a preferred holiday destination, so it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Clangers just happened to be on the moon at this time.
Other critics have pointed out that there is clearly a ringed-planet visible to the lower right, behind the lander. Close examination reveals, however, that this is a very small Clanger in a hamster-wheel.
http://www.clangers.co.uk/ There is no gravity on the moon, yet those Clangers are standing and jumping around like they were pulled down by some strange force. It is obviously a fake picture.
| Insanity wrote: |
| There is no gravity on the moon, yet those Clangers are standing and jumping around like they were pulled down by some strange force. It is obviously a fake picture. |
No gravity? Really? How odd. | Insanity wrote: |
| There is no gravity on the moon. |
Please tell me you are joking. | jeremyp wrote: |
| Insanity wrote: | | There is no gravity on the moon. |
Please tell me you are joking. |
Well, given the tone of the thread and my previous contributions I sort of assumed he was.
He must have been........surely.......Funny how they breathe like they would breathe on Earth too, in their little suspenders
And the launch pad happens to be made of popsicle sticks.
But then again, who says there's no oxygen on the moon? | Bikerman wrote: |
| jeremyp wrote: | | Insanity wrote: | | There is no gravity on the moon. |
Please tell me you are joking. |
Well, given the tone of the thread and my previous contributions I sort of assumed he was.
He must have been........surely....... |
I fail at being funny. 
| Insanity wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | jeremyp wrote: | | Insanity wrote: | | There is no gravity on the moon. |
Please tell me you are joking. |
Well, given the tone of the thread and my previous contributions I sort of assumed he was.
He must have been........surely....... |
I fail at being funny. |
All the very best to every one who is trying to prove it is fantasy! | Bikerman wrote: |
There is one piece of evidence which is incontravertible and blows all conspiracy theory out of the water.
The astronauts on Apollo 11 set up a small reflector on the moon at a precise angle, designed to reflect laser beams back to Earth.
This reflector is still used today in order to measure the distance to the moon very accurately.
Case closed. |
I disagree because the reflectors could easily have been placed there by machine.
We could spend all day picking over the points in this article. BadAstronomy.com have an agenda to debunk. They state as fact arguements without any proof to this.
| For example wrote: |
Bad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.
Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''
This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. |
The author states "the spaceship travelled <edit for spelling> through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation."
Following the links backing this theory up it is obvious that we can take any set of data and play with until it is presentable with the results we require. IE in this case the radiation belts were not a problem.
A lot of information from a non-debunking perspective can be found here http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html and on that page we can read the following
"One For The Sceptics
Over the past few years I have been in constant debate with several members of the 'Bad Astronomy' website and Apollo believers who visit this site. Bad Astronomy is a website that is a general meeting place for people who think that they can explain the hoax theories concerning the Apollo program and the site goes into detail on other anomalies that appear on space footage. During my time debating on the site, I was issued several challenges by sceptics who said that if I could show 'official NASA footage' showing certain anomalies, then that evidence MAY make them think that something is definitely amiss with the NASA Apollo footage. Needless to say, as at the time of writing, none of them have come forward and changed their stance.
The three main challenges were
1. Produce pictures showing stars that are taken on the Moons surface. They say because of the very bright conditions on the Moon, stars would not be visible from its surface!
2. Show an example of Movie footage that was taken aboard the Lunar Rover whilst it is in motion. (I asked the site how could the satellite dish at the front of the rover relay the video signal to a satellite or Houston if it was moving all over the place?). I was even told that this footage does not exist?... see below
3. If I could provide film footage of the LEM producing a flame on the Moons surface (This would prove that the movie was not taken on the Moon because the Moons atmosphere and vacuum would prevent such a flame).
That was the challenge... and here is the evidence... Enjoy ;o) "
From the same site
" Here's 33 things that need to be answered!
1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?
3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?
4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)
5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.
7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?
Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).
9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?
10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.
12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.
15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.
16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?
17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.
1 The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.
21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.
22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.
23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?
24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.
25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!
26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!
27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."
2 In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?
30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.
31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, showing the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!". and appears above in the 'Why Did Apollo 11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?' section.
32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?
33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?"
I think people have in their own minds a conclusion whether we did or did not go to the moon. I think we did not and others have the opinion that we did. People, quite rightly, have the right to think or believe anything they want. | loonix wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | There is one piece of evidence which is incontravertible and blows all conspiracy theory out of the water.
The astronauts on Apollo 11 set up a small reflector on the moon at a precise angle, designed to reflect laser beams back to Earth.
This reflector is still used today in order to measure the distance to the moon very accurately.
Case closed. |
I disagree because the reflectors could easily have been placed there by machine. |
Nonsense. The reflectors needed fairly careful alignment. If you know of a machine landing technology that could do that then I suggest you apply to NASA for a job. | Quote: |
| Following the links backing this theory up it is obvious that we can take any set of data and play with until it is presentable with the results we require. IE in this case the radiation belts were not a problem. |
No - you can only play with the data if you know what you are talking about - you don't.
I'm not going to waste time refuting the 33 points one by one - mainly because it's already been done many times over. Also because constantly repeating the same old stuff merely encourages the cranks - they think all they have to do is dream up a new question and people will devote serious time to answering that question and that, presumably, gives them some sense of importance. Many of the 33 questions posed are actually ridiculous (almost hillariously so), some are just plain wrong, and the rest of them are based on a poor understanding of the basic science - all of them have been dealt with. Anyone who would even ask many of those questions is, I'm sorry to say, pretty ignorant of basic science. Whilst I am happy to help with science education, dealing with this sort of nonsense is simply repeating the obvious, and there are better things to do.
The fact is that the moon landings happened - deal with it. The moon hoax theory is supported by a few cranks and given credence by the gullible (normally because they have another agenda). There is no scientific validity to the claims, and such claims that have been made have been comprehensively refuted many times.
I'll tell you what, pick your top 3 claims and I'll refute them in detail, one by one. I haven't got time to do all 33 (they've been done before anyway). Pick the strongest 3 and I'll demolish them - can't say fairer than that!
(I'll probably regret it - since I can predict in advance what will happen. "You've not answered point 4" or "I've just thought of another reason" or "I know a guy who knows a scientist and he said...". Still, it's the best offer you are going to get so go for it )
PS - Here's a bonus for you.
Question 2 - the original leatherette covering of the cameras was removed before the mission. The cameras had a chromium plated finish (which is inert in a pure oxygen environ)...
Over to you - I do hope you pick ones with some interesting physics and not the moronic ones....
PPS - when copying big chunks from another site (even one as moronic as the one you chose) then it is normal to include the text in quote tags.
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:45 am; edited 10 times in totalAnd either way - if you choose not to believe it, and go along with the hoax theories, NASA still landed sooner or later.
Okay you make many valid points =) I had attempted, and failed quite comprehensively I must add, to show that people have their own view regarding did we or didn't we land men on the moon, and we can draw easily upon sources that back up our own point of view. Its the kind of subject that you, I and others will not alter our view of by again going over all aspects of the hoax theory and you are quite right its all been done over and over many times elsewhere.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The fact is that the moon landings happened - deal with it. |
I disagree but then thats my right to do so. This is the point that I post - The fact is the moon landings didn't happen - deal with it =) we could keep this up for 400 posts and our veiwpoints will not have changed
| Bikerman wrote: |
| PPS - when copying big chunks from another site (even one as moronic as the one you chose) then it is normal to include the text in quote tags. |
- Thanks for the heads up =)
Regards Well, of course you have the right to a point of view. That doesn't of course mean that it has any validity. You can believe in the tooth fairy, elves and Santa Claus as well, if you like - that is, as you say, your right. The thing is, though, this is a science board. In science when you propose a hypothesis and it is shown to be wrong then the hypothesis falls. I've offered to demonstrate the fallacy in any of your proposed 'evidence' - an offer which is still open. Once such 'evidence' is discredited then the correct thing to do is reconsider the hypothesis. Refusing to do so takes the discussion out of the realms of science and into the realms of faith and religion. Such a discussion would, therefore, be more suited to the religion board.
Seriously though, It is no surprise that people wonder considering the USA was losing the space race to the USSR. I mean come on they had a tin can that beeped and then all of the sudden we were on the moon. It really does make you wonder.
| brokenadvice wrote: |
| Seriously though, It is no surprise that people wonder considering the USA was losing the space race to the USSR. I mean come on they had a tin can that beeped and then all of the sudden we were on the moon. It really does make you wonder. |
Does it? The answer seems pretty obvious to me.
Maybe it's that most people aren't aware of just how rich the US is, compared to the rest of the world. Granted, the difference wasn't quite so wildly apparently in the 60s as it is now (and now, because of the long-running US recession, it's again not nearly as blatant), but even in the 60s the US was way richer than the USSR. After the fall of the red curtain, it was pretty shocking how big the difference between the imagined Soviet threat and the actual Soviet threat were.
On top of that, the US goal was "we choose to go to the Moon" (Kennedy), whereas the Russian's goal was to establish a long-term presence in space. While NASA was shooting rockets at the Moon for publicity, the Russians were building the first space stations for scientific and technological superiority in space (they were also waaaay ahead on exploration of space, in that they had sent probes to the inner planets already). From a certain point of view, the Russians got to the Moon first - flew over it taking pictures - saw there was nothing interesting - and then went about building Mir (and the Salyut series before that).
Think about it. NASA went to the Moon... so what? ^_^; Seriously - what did they gain by that accomplishment, other than bragging rights? Why isn't anyone interested in going back? Because there's nothing there. Scientifically, it really wasn't worth the effort.
The Russians, on the other hand, spent that time exploring Mars, Venus and the Moon by probe (including automated probes that brought samples back!), building a series of space stations (leading up to the first permanent one!), and mastering the art of living and working in space (performing space walks, crew transfers and so on before the ideas even occurred to NASA!).
The Russians had far less coin to toss away on their space program... but in my opinion, they spent it a hell of a lot better, from a scientific perspective.
On the other hand, even in the Soviet Union, the Apollo 11 landing on the Moon was - culturally - one of the most significant moments in the 20th century. Sputnik, Vostok, Salyut and Mir - as incredible as they were - pale in comparison to that classic, grainy "One small step" scene seen around the world. Arguably, it changed us into a technological culture, sweeping out the hippie mysticism of the 60s in favour of the dawn of the computer age in the 70s. And, at the same time, it opened our eyes to a new sense of scale - with the first shots of Earth from the surface of the Moon giving birth to the environmental movement. Certainly it's been done many times that celebrities ranging from Stephen Hawking to William Shatner have been asked, "Where were you when Armstrong made that step, and how did it effect you?", and have been able to recollect it in great detail.
So... on the one hand, there wasn't much scientific advantage to Apollo... but on the other hand, it was a momentous cultural change. So, who took the smarter road, the Soviets or the Americans? *shrug* You decide.
