Jump to content
The mkiv Supra Owners Club

Moon Landings - real or hoax?


Kopite

Recommended Posts

Sorry about the hijack re the moon buggy - couldn't resist!

 

 

 

Surely if it was a hoax they would only have done it once? Or twice at the most? Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to repeating it, what, 6 times? Every time they did it would have opened up more risk of discovery.

 

Also, there was that Apollo 13 explosion wasn't there? That would have taken some planning!

 

A friend of mine worked on some of the Apollo hardware for a subcontractor - he's not in any doubt!

 

Just some thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there is another theory ( :rolleyes: ) that Apollo 11 was faked in order to meet JFKs 'by the end of the decade' requirement (although quite why they made such a big deal out of this after the guy had been dead for 8 years is another question - would anyone have been that bothered if they had waited a couple of years? (was anyone really insisting they keep to JFKs request?))), they then did Apollo 12 because they had to because it was scheduled, then Apollo 13 was the first real attempt and it went wrong, and then Apollo 14 was the first 'real' landing!

 

But you're right - if they are ALL fake then it seems mad that they risked the hoax so many times. More for my 'it requires too many people to stay silent' argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC the Japanese are planning to send up a lunar orbiter either this year or next which, among other things, will photograph the Apollo landing site(s). That should prove things once and for all (unless they're in on the conspiracy too I guess!)

 

:looney:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a website for years pointing out the NASA 'counter-arguments', quite convincingly too.

It is called Bad-Astronomy or something.

 

I guess that clear pictures from the Jap lunar orbiter will help towards dispelling the concpirancy theories, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, haven't read all the posts, just the first page.

 

But surely "moon rock" as it is described is easily counterfeitable, so to speak, as if memory serves me well, books from primary/secondary school describe the moon as being a chunk of earth broken off after an asteroid collision!

So surely the moon and earth have similar if not identical chemical properties.

 

If that were the case? except of course for lack of atmosphere and the occasional bump by a piece of space rock! then surely placing a piece of very absorbent rock, i.e heavily oxygonised - such as your average pummy stone, into a vacuum, would produce the same effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above picture is bona-fide, not doctored.

These are real astronauts, too.

It was taken during tests of various moon-rover prototypes somewhere in Nevada.

 

I just find it very funny, taken into context of the question marks raised 3 odd decades later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. You might also be interested in our Guidelines, Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.