Moon Landings - real or hoax?

[Kopite]

this was mentioned a while ago but i can't find the thread!!

 

Just watched one of those conspiracy programmes about this. i don't claim to know anythin about space or NASA etc and i deffo weren't around for the "moon landing" itself unlike a lot of you old farts

just goin off what the programme said, i seem to think it's more hoax than real but i'm always open minded.

 

a few things that stood out were:

 

lighting - shadows not bein parallel etc even though Nasa apparently confirm no additional lighting was used. this includes the astronauts being fully visible as they exited the lunar pod even though the sun was behind them. This resulted in a shadow of the pod being cast, as the astronaut jumped into the shadow, why was he clearly visible still?

 

Craters - as the pod landed using that much thrust, why didn't it even clear a little bit of moon surface to make a mini crater around the landing site?

 

Landscape

there are 2 clips of the astronauts from a later mission exploring the moon surface. NASA claimed that the 2 shots in question took place 2 and a half miles apart - if you look at them, the landscape down to even the little pieces of rock on the floor are identical

 

Wind

why was the american flag blowing if there's not meant to be any wind on the moon?

 

Area 51

satellite images show that there are craters in the Nevada desert at Area 51 that are idential to those from photos of the moon surface. People also say that this (and not the alien stuff) is the real reason that Area 51 is so heavily guarded.

 

Radiation

The Russians never sent anyone to space because they still believe there's no way of stoppin radiation from entering the vessels and poisoning everyone - none of the American astronauts suffered any illness afterwards.

 

Sceptics

10 astronauts who apparently "knew too much" died in freak accidents in which the causes were never found. The remains of the vessels are being stored by the military. This bloke who was a safety engineer for NASA and believed the whole Apollo missions were impossible to carry out wrote a 500 page report. He testified to Congress about this. 1 week later, his car with him and his family in it, ended up on train tracks and was struck. They all died and his report has never been found since.

 

These were just a few things i could remember, NASA has obviously dismissed the claims as ridiculous but they have not offered any explanations to contradict them (according to the show that it).

Personally, i believe the Americans would go to the trouble of pulling off a hoax as long as it meant beating other coutries (especially the Russians) to the moon. I also believe that they would kill any of their own in order to keep the hoax a secret.

I also believe that with a $40billion budget at the time, they had enough clever people to make it to the moon.

 

As i said, i'm not particulary interested in space etc but i do like conspiracy theories. Anyone got an opinion on this?

[Pete]

It's all a hoax. Google proved it's just made of cheese the other day, so how did they managed to find 'rocks' huh?

[Scoboblio]

Check out this site... i went looking for it when i saw the original topic and it explained a lot of the arguments used:

 

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

[magicmatty]

Never been convinced it was real, just all fabricated to "beat" the Russians in the space race.......

 

Gits

[Matt T]

Blatently real, anything with half an ounce of knowledge on space travel will know that

[John_M]

Check out this site... i went looking for it when i saw the original topic and it explained a lot of the arguments used:

 

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

 

Very interesting reading. I've always held a view that it could well have been a hoax but this link throws a new light on the evidence of the conspiracy theorists.

 

Who knows

 

How many missions have there been to the moon? I thought it was only the one but from the sounds of it there has been more.

[monkey76364]

Hoax definatley no more to be said lol !!

[Matt T]

How many missions have there been to the moon? I thought it was only the one but from the sounds of it there has been more.

There has been 6 successful Apollo manned missions

[AJI]

I think I've also seen those consipracy documentaries.... there are two programs which I've seen... one is a pro-conspiracy and the other is an anti-conspiracy.

After seeing both , I am inclided to believe the pro-conspiracy program.

 

The main points that stand out for me are the doctored photos which NASA released... why would they release photos which were obviously not created on the moon. I'm talking about the fact that the cross-hairs which appear at certain intervals on the camera and which should ALWAYS appear above the image,... well some of these cross-hairs are obscured by objects like rocks and astronaut equipment.

 

Another point was .... who the fook filmed the landing craft taking off from the moon. This is an obvious faked video. The film I'm on about here is the one where the 'eagle' blasts away from the moon and the camera follows the motion of the craft upwards.

NASA admits it wasn't controlled remotely... so how the hell was that achieved?

Did they leave somebody up there to do the videoing?

 

And yes.. the fact that all the astronauts which were supposed to have gone to the moon (bar one or two) are now dead..... and died through suspicious accidents.

 

 

Things like lighting have been explained fully enough for me to accept them.... ambient light from surrounding rocks will indeed light up parts of astronauts and spacecraft. The fact that the material the flag was made from will indeed let light pass through it and therefore light up both sides of the flag.

 

The anti-conspiracy program tried to explain why the flag moved by itself ... claiming it was the flexing of the flag support material as the astronaut let go of the flag.... but there is footage which shows the flag clearly moving on its own when there isn't anybody near it.

 

 

If I was to place my entire mortgage on whether they went to the moon or not ... I'd say they DIDN'T.

Basically Kennedy told the world that they'd have a man on the moon by the end of the 60's...... so low and behold in 1969 NASA claimed to have had a landing on the moon. With that America could claim fame to space and have the phsycological edge on technology over the rest of the world.

[Matt T]

The anti-conspiracy program tried to explain why the flag moved by itself ... claiming it was the flexing of the flag support material as the astronaut let go of the flag.... but there is footage which shows the flag clearly moving on its own when there isn't anybody near it.

No atmosphere = no resistance to slow down moving objects.

 

After all the technological feats we have created, i find it hard people dont think its possible to land a human on the moons surface. Do you believe in space walks?

 

How did we set up the reflector on the Moons surface that is used to measure the distance of the Moon?

 

Where have the Moon rock samples come from?

[Jake]

The main points that stand out for me are the doctored photos which NASA released... why would they release photos which were obviously not created on the moon. I'm talking about the fact that the cross-hairs which appear at certain intervals on the camera and which should ALWAYS appear above the image,... well some of these cross-hairs are obscured by objects like rocks and astronaut equipment.

Not according to http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax

It says the cross hairs are only ever seen to disappear behind a bright white part.

Another point was .... who the fook filmed the landing craft taking off from the moon. This is an obvious faked video. The film I'm on about here is the one where the 'eagle' blasts away from the moon and the camera follows the motion of the craft upwards.

NASA admits it wasn't controlled remotely... so how the hell was that achieved?

Again http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Take_Off.htm says otherwise. I wasn't aware NASA have admitted the take off wasn't remotely filmed. Where did you get that info?

[Tannhauser]

Ro, it doesn't take much to find the other thread. Try typing 'Moon' and 'hoax' into the search...here you go: http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?t=43143

 

Come on guys, out of all the conspiracy theories you could believe in, this is the dumbest. The 'science' behind it was shown to be flawed years ago. The scale of the deception required is preposterous, because there is just so much evidence you would have to fake. If you take moon rock alone - you'd have to buy off the thousands of geologists who have investigated them....unless, of course, they were collected by robot landers [sigh].

 

This argument of 'we couldn't possibly have had the technology back then' has been applied before. In the 70s, it was 'we couldn't have built the pyramids, because we didn't have the technology'. That one has now been laid to rest; this one should be too.

 

Even though the silly hoax arguments are all comprehensively dismissed here or here , the best way of thinking about any conspiracy theory is using 'Occam's razor'. Science, a system of thinking which very obviously works (evidence: you can read what I'm typing on the Internet), uses Occam's razor all the time.

 

Occam's razor says,'if in doubt choosing between two theories, pick the one which (a) is simplest and (b) requires the existence of the least number of unobserved elements'.

 

For example, the hoax theory requires the assassination of talkative astronauts (and according to some, nosy journalists) through shadowy government operatives. So this is an additional postulate NOT required by the alternative theory (that we did go to the moon). This would propose astronauts tend to be drawn from a pool of people who are test pilots, live active and often danger-seeking lives and are statistically more likely to die young. The second draws on known phenomena, the first requires belief in something new.

 

History will write this one off as just a silliness of the period, the equivalent of belief in hobgoblins in the middle ages.

 

Edited for sense,hopefully

[Terminator]

It is amazing how this keeps coming up. Too many people with too much time on their hands.

[JohnA]

Conspiracy?

Why?

Would they ever lie to us? Techinally they are very competent, this we know as 35 years later they still struggle to send manned ships 200 miles up and bits fall off nevertheless.

 

C'mon people, have some faith....

[Tannhauser]

Conspiracy?

Why?

Would they ever lie to us? Techinally they are very competent, this we know as 35 years later they still struggle to send manned ships 200 miles up and bits fall off nevertheless.

 

C'mon people, have some faith....

 

Struggle in what sense? Astronauts have been routinely put into orbit for the last forty-four years. Some cosmonauts have spent over a year in space, making 7000 orbits before returning home. Around 400 astronauts and cosmonauts have been into space.

 

It's not surprising that there are failures or "bits falling off" given the extreme nature of the forces and the environment. But that doesn't mean that it's the limit of our current ability. That's like suggesting that we 'struggle' to fly because some planes crash.

 

Of course governments lie, but here are some reasons why they didn't in this instance:

 

1. The costs of being found out would have been incalculable. America would have been defrocked in front of the entire world.

2. If it had been a hoax, the Russians would certainly have denounced it as such. It would have been the greatest gift they could have ever hoped for. But they didn't. Maybe they just got sucked in and fooled? If this is true, it means that the rank amateurs who started all this, like William Kaysing (BA in English, not a scientist) or David Percy (self taught) have spotted things that the best and brightest soviet minds missed.

3. If they expended all that effort on faking it, why are there so many 'obvious blunders'? How could they be so stupid as to miss, for example, 'the waving flag'? Either you have to believe that they just didn't think of it, and then had to think up a sneaky post-hoc argument when someone spotted it OR you believe that flags can wave on the moon due to lack of air resistance to damp down movements. Occam's razor again.

 

Regards

 

Cliff

[JohnA]

1. The costs of being found out would have been incalculable. America would have been defrocked in front of the entire world.

corruption is a cruel mistress.

if several billions have been 'diverted' then it's hard to go back.

If that was what happened, it must have been on far larger scale than the 'star wars' fiasco.

2. If it had been a hoax, the Russians would certainly have denounced it as such.

not if the Russians were in the same game though.

They were skimming their own taxpayers of ludicrous amounts as well. In fact they did a better job in some ways, as they managed to bankrupt the USSR, lol...

This 'Russia' argument is the main argument of NASA nowadays.

I don't buy it, same as I don't buy the 'cold war' malarky. Lots of people made lots of money on the back of it, a lot of it through 'black' accounts, top secret. Hmmm....

 

3. If they expended all that effort on faking it, why are there so many 'obvious blunders'?

I don't believe any of the 'crater' or 'waving' flag stories, NASA's explanations of those are quite reasonable. Same as the 'missing sky'. Well it would be impossible to recreate accurately the position of the stars from the moon's point of view. Impossible without today's computers, and discrepancies would be found years later. So the sky had to be black anyway. Maybe that's how it is, how could we tell, we've never been to space ourselves, have we?

 

And who would be able to direct this whole 'show' convincingly? Who would be meticulous enough and experienced enough to pull it through, yet secretive enough to keep his mouth shut forever?

I can only think of one man, American who right after the landings moved to England where he died peacefully a few years ago. We may never know if he was the ONE. We know who 'deep throat' was, so there's always hope...

 

Then again, this cannot just be a secret in a single person's mind, dozens of people(at the very least) would have to be 'in' the know. Not easy to keep it a secret for ever.

There is no secret under the sun, as the ancient Greeks used to say.

 

So maybe NASA is telling the truth.

 

(note: all the contents of this post and thread are totally fictional, utter bollox, products of fertile imaginations and hyped up misanthropes)

[martynb]

Someone please tell me this entire thread is a hoax

[Kopite]

Ro, it doesn't take much to find the other thread. Try typing 'Moon' and 'hoax' into the search...here you go: http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?t=43143

 

cheers but i don't think that's the one i was thinkin of to be honest, but you're right it is discussed in there too

 

and EDIT - i'm not sayin it was a hoax, i don't know either way because it's never really interested me before, just interested in other people's opinions "for and against" the hoax idea.....

[Tannhauser]

cheers but i don't think that's the one i was thinkin of to be honest, but you're right it is discussed in there too

 

Sorry. I just assumed that was the one seeing as it was so recent.

[paul_y3k]

hmmm well i know that certain instituations 'tune in' their radar telescopes by pointing them at the moon and that they are always saying how un-tidy the astronauts were up there...

 

cause they could be in on it ... i mean one of them even drives a brand new focus, and I'd love to know how he got the money for that hmmmmmm ;)

[Aerotop Dave]

It requires too many people to be in on the secret. The astronauts, the cameramen, the lighting people, the directors, the people who built the set, the people who built the lander props, the mission control staff, lots of people in NASA... the list of people who would need to be involved in the hoax is massive. For all those people to keep silent for 36 years just doesn't seem possible, particularly when you bear in mind that this would be THE biggest news story EVER. And the icing on the cake for me is that the Russians have never made any attempt to debunk the landings (as far as I know). Think about how the Russians would gain hugely from exposing it as a fake - the utter, utter humiliation of the USA. They were in on it? Hmmm - so if they support the hoax how does that support their funding? 'The moon has been landed on but we still need millions to achieve...' What? Surely their interests would be better served by exposing the hoax or saying 'We believe this is a hoax so we still need the millions for space research'. Once the landings had been achieved there was probably pressure on the Russian space agency to reduce funding, not maintain or increase it (witness American apathy for space flight after the first 2 landings). It makes no sense for the Russians to support the hoax.

 

Flag blowing in the wind? So they managed to arrange this whole hoax and forgot to turn a fan off or close a window?

 

 

Too many people would need to have been kept silent for too many years. Exposing it would be the biggest story ever, and I can't believe that one of the huge number of people who would have had to be in on it has never thought 'This is so wrong to decieve the world like this and I could make my fortune if I exposed it'. It's human nature.

[Heyrick]

Must be a hoax, otherwise how would anyone have done this?

[JohnA]

I smell a conspiracy trying to ridicule this thread...

[Kopite]

It requires too many people to be in on the secret. The astronauts, the cameramen, the lighting people, the directors, the people who built the set, the people who built the lander props, the mission control staff, lots of people in NASA... the list of people who would need to be involved in the hoax is massive. For all those people to keep silent for 36 years just doesn't seem possible, particularly when you bear in mind that this would be THE biggest news story EVER. And the icing on the cake for me is that the Russians have never made any attempt to debunk the landings (as far as I know). Think about how the Russians would gain hugely from exposing it as a fake - the utter, utter humiliation of the USA. They were in on it? Hmmm - so if they support the hoax how does that support their funding? 'The moon has been landed on but we still need millions to achieve...' What? Surely their interests would be better served by exposing the hoax or saying 'We believe this is a hoax so we still need the millions for space research'. Once the landings had been achieved there was probably pressure on the Russian space agency to reduce funding, not maintain or increase it (witness American apathy for space flight after the first 2 landings). It makes no sense for the Russians to support the hoax.

 

Flag blowing in the wind? So they managed to arrange this whole hoax and forgot to turn a fan off or close a window?

 

 

Too many people would need to have been kept silent for too many years. Exposing it would be the biggest story ever, and I can't believe that one of the huge number of people who would have had to be in on it has never thought 'This is so wrong to decieve the world like this and I could make my fortune if I exposed it'. It's human nature.

 

An argument the conspiracists (not me!) made about the above was this:

only a handful of people who knew everything that was going on, a lot of the people in the control room didn't have a clue that it was a "hoax" as top officials at NASA let them to believe that they were actually going to space.

A few Russians have tried to denounce the landing, but i agree that they would of made a much bigger fuss then they did if they were sure it didn't happen.

The thing about the flag in the wind is because they reckon that took place on the craters at Area 51.

 

Again, the above is not my own opinion because i don't have one on this, hence why i'm askin what others think

[Aerotop Dave]

But the problem is it requires more than just a handful of people to orchestrate it. Think about someone building a lunar lander prop, or setting up the data that gets sent to the mission control equipment (where does all that data come from? Imagine trying to make all the data look believable, that's a massive job in itself). You could imagine only a handful of people having the full picture, but surely someone would come forward and say 'In 1969 I was contracted to produce a complete set of data for the battery drain that would occur over a 6 day mission to the moon and back and was provided with a complete set of information as to what the battery drain was from all the systems on a lunar lander'. Maybe they were told that it was simply a battery drain from x number of systems and could they devise what the data would look like, but bearing in mind it would need someone with a good amount of knowledge then surely they could have a think and make a guess as to what it could be used for. I've just used an example of the battery drain... now think about all the other systems that would need to be devised in this way. And a method of sending the data to the terminals in mission control (bearing in mind that the people manning them are experts and know exactly what should happen and could notice anything odd in the data).

 

 

Craters at Area 51? So it was filmed outside? With all the variations in light, wind, noise, dust blowing past the screen, etc, etc?