Conspiracy theory - Did we (USA) land on the moon?

Jusr watched a program/conspiracy theory which basically said that we did not land on the moon.

Some of the evidence that showed was pretty interesting:

1. doctered photos - cross hairs (had to be on all photos) should go over the top of whatever picture is taken, but behind items in the picture

2. 2 separate locations (said by NASA) with the background and rock formations being the same

3. a radiation barrier that would pretty much have killed anyone, without a 6ft lead shield.

4. some interesting bits about some of the deaths surrounding NASA, etc.

Very very interest.... wheres google maps of the moon when you need it ??

So what do you think, really or the mot expnsve movie ever made??

Its impossible to go to the moon because of the radiation barrier. Its a few 1000 miles long and, as you said, you would need unbelievable shielding to pass through it.

The sad thing is we will never know the truth of what it was all about, if the government do come out over it, it will be years down the line.

one question i've had, and i may be wrong on this but has anyone ever been back?

they have only just landed a craft on mars, so if they had landed on the moon in what the 60's why has it taken 40 years to land on the next plant from us?

just seems very sus to me, intriguing none the less!

richie

one question i've had, and i may be wrong on this but has anyone ever been back?

 

they have only just landed a craft on mars, so if they had landed on the moon in what the 60's why has it taken 40 years to land on the next plant from us?

 

just seems very sus to me, intriguing none the less!

 

richie

apparently no one has gone back and there are no plans to go back either

apparently no one has gone back and there are no plans to go back either

You see to me that would suggest they have never been there:taped:

Not 100% sure myself.

What the space program needs is another world war.

Without the Nazi V1 and V2 rockets we would be years behind where we are now.

IMHO with costs involved, man going to the moon (again) or mars will never happen.

Its more likely other "beings" finds us than the other way around.

You see to me that would suggest they have never been there:taped:

happen to agree....

Not 100% sure myself.

 

What the space program needs is another world war.

Without the Nazi V1 and V2 rockets we would be years behind where we are now.

 

IMHO with costs involved, man going to the moon (again) or mars will never happen.

Its more likely other "beings" finds us than the other way around.

originally thought yes they went to the moon, no doubt, now I am just not sure... Doubt the world, well humanity at least, would survive another world war.

wars make money and allow things to progress a lot easier... this was discussed a few months ago.

Most answers to the 'hoax' theories may be found here

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

Frankly I am of the mind that these 'theories' rate up alondside that 'Bush brought down the twin towers for an excuse to invade Iraq' brigade

Whilst it is no doubt desirable to develop an open mind on most things the present (and fashionable) cynicism that appears to permeat every part of our society do more damage than good.

Sells loads of books mind you...

(oops - how cynical!)

one question i've had, and i may be wrong on this but has anyone ever been back?

 

they have only just landed a craft on mars, so if they had landed on the moon in what the 60's why has it taken 40 years to land on the next plant from us?

 

just seems very sus to me, intriguing none the less!

 

richie

Only just, you forget the Viking landers in the 1970s.

one question i've had, and i may be wrong on this but has anyone ever been back?

 

they have only just landed a craft on mars, so if they had landed on the moon in what the 60's why has it taken 40 years to land on the next plant from us?

 

just seems very sus to me, intriguing none the less!

 

richie

just tell the Americans there is oil on the moon, it might make a difference .

TBH only the thick as pigshit would think the moon landings were hoaxed.

The problem is now is that contries (ie USA) are spending far to much on weapons and warfare than space exploration (as you dont make money from exploring rocks on the moon). I agree with the world war statement, with every big war tech moves at a much faster pace. Personally I think they did do it.

TBH only the thick as pig$#@! would think the moon landings were hoaxed.

if i am reading that right then, your 100% certain that they did land on the moon, and you have hard evidence to prove that?

Explain your reasons to your statement, it will be interesting to hear another view.

richie

I can never get over this: to me, it's absolutely astonishing that anyone thinks the Moon landings were hoaxed. It's incredibly implausible and it's symptomatic of just how far the conspiracy mindset has gone.

This particularly hoax/conspiracy belief is one that's largely been propagated through (a) the internet and (b) a couple of sensationalist documentaries. It shows the weakness of the former in particular as a source of information: the internet makes everyone a publisher, with no need to satisfy even basic standards of accuracy. In terms of silliness, it's only one step up from the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

The actual arguments (e.g. "how can the flag wave when there isn't any air?" ) have been comprehensively dealt with over and over again; in fact, they are a staple item on several "bad science" and critical thinking websites. And yet the myth refuses to go away, maybe because it is an entertaining story that makes the believer feel that he/she is party to some secret knowledge that sets them apart from the brainwashed masses.

"Having an open mind" often translates to "accepting poorly thought out ideas uncritically". It's a bit like leaving a skip outside your house: if you don't keep an eye on it, you discover it's been filled up overnight with other people's rubbish.

hmmm might read into this and get back to you with my answer! lol

if i am reading that right then, your 100% certain that they did land on the moon, and you have hard evidence to prove that?

richie

Evidence usually works the other way round: the onus is on the person with the bizarre claim to support their assertions.

For example, if thousands of geologists from hundreds of laboratories around the world have examined the rock samples and state that they are distinct from rocks from earth, including meteor rock (as indeed they have), then the onus is on the conspiracy claimant to produce a credible witness with evidence to the contrary.

To take another example, if the moon landings were filmed in a studio, then the onus is on the conspiracy theorists to produce a credible witness to this filming. Of course, conspiracy theorists would claim that there are no witnesses, because NASA was so careful (or maybe the witnesses were assassinated). This logic makes conspiracy theories "unfalsifiable", in the same way that horoscopes, Freudian theory and creationist arguments often are.

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/fake5.jpg

have a look at the shadow...

isnt the moon meant to be like -500 which is like the same as liquid nitrogen? also on the moon if in direct sunlight it is meant to be +500 degree's? which again if true would be impossbile for the suits to take, they would need a aircon unit the size of a house and factor 1000 sun screen.

if i am reading that right then, your 100% certain that they did land on the moon, and you have hard evidence to prove that?

 

Explain your reasons to your statement, it will be interesting to hear another view.

 

richie

Other than the 300lbs of rock they brought back (and gave some to the Russians) or that you can see the landing site with a decent telescope, or that the Russians tracked all the Apollo missions? There is also a mirror left behind that scientists have been bouncing light off for decades (it also revealed the moon is getting closer).

Out of interest, if it was a hoax, how would the US government keep 300,000 Nasa employees quiet for 40 years- never mind the TV stations, live audiance of the launch and other countries tracking the space craft, specificaly the Russians???

The simplist answer is usually the correct one, and it's a damn sight easier puting three men on the moon than it is to keep the employees and ex employees along with their families to play your game of fairy tales.

i like, 2 people on the same moon at the same time yet there shadows are totally different,

just been outside and tried this (its sunny here) if me and jen stand about the same distance apart as these 2 are (about what 13/14 feet) and the sun is casting my shadow on the ground, then jens is exactly the same angle and no where near the angle of the second one.

now, surely for the second one to be so different from the first the guy would have to be illuminated from a different angle, (studio lighting)!!

again just a thought, i appreciate the that the pic may have been doctored but then it may not have been.

richie

Other than the 300lbs of rock they brought back (and gave some to the Russians) or that you can see the landing site with a decent telescope, or that the Russians tracked all the Apollo missions? There is also a mirror left behind that scientists have been bouncing light off for decades (it also revealed the moon is getting closer).

 

Out of interest, if it was a hoax, how would the US government keep 300,000 Nasa employees quiet for 40 years- never mind the TV stations, live audiance of the launch and other countries tracking the space craft, specificaly the Russians???

 

The simplist answer is usually the correct one, and it's a damn sight easier puting three men on the moon than it is to keep the employees and ex employees along with their families to play your game of fairy tales.

If it is visable wth a decent telescope, surely there are some pics of it??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

So you think that sending people 384,403 km to the moon and landing a space ship there is a simpler answer than it was faked? Interesting....

i like, 2 people on the same moon at the same time yet there shadows are totally different,

 

just been outside and tried this (its sunny here) if me and jen stand about the same distance apart as these 2 are (about what 13/14 feet) and the sun is casting my shadow on the ground, then jens is exactly the same angle and no where near the angle of the second one.

 

now, surely for the second one to be so different from the first the guy would have to be illuminated from a different angle, (studio lighting)!!

 

again just a thought, i appreciate the that the pic may have been doctored but then it may not have been.

 

richie

The official explanation was the type of camera used.

The official explanation was the type of camera used.

You see to me, that does not ring true, i am not a photographer but how can a camera change the angle of a shadow on the ground, and lengthen it at the same time does not make sense to me.

definatley with you on this one, open to the idea its a hoax.

richie

... or that you can see the landing site with a decent telescope, or that the Russians tracked all the Apollo missions? There is also a mirror left behind that scientists have been bouncing light off for decades (it also revealed the moon is getting closer)....

Large telescopes and the Moon hoax

Another component of the moon hoax theory is based on the argument that professional observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope should be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. The argument runs that if telescopes can "see to the edge of the universe" then they ought to be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. This implies that the world's major observatories (as well as the Hubble Program) are complicit in the moon landing hoax by refusing to take pictures of the landing sites.

 

To see the 1.2 meter long flag left on the Moon, an Earth-based telescope would have to be 200 meters wide, whereas the largest telescope on Earth is only about 10 meters across. Furthermore, such a telescope would have to mitigate against the effects of seeing, beyond what is currently possible with adaptive optics. The Hubble Space Telescope can only see objects on the Moon as small as 60 meters across.[104][105]

so you cannot see it....

I've always wondered why in other photos you can't see stars in the background "sky".