Im not giving in just yet, I take back my words, Just in
Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations are claims that some or all elements of the Apollo Moon landings were faked by NASA and possibly members of other involved organizations. Some groups and individuals have advanced alternate historical narratives which tend, to varying degrees, to include the following common elements:
The Apollo Astronauts did not land on the Moon;
NASA and possibly others intentionally deceived the public into believing the landing(s) did occur by manufacturing, destroying, or tampering with evidence, including photos, telemetry tapes, transmissions, and rock samples;
NASA and possibly others continue to actively participate in the conspiracy to this day.
Enthusiasts of this theory claim that: The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation
The photos were altered: the Crosshairs on some photos appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be
The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.
There are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report seeing any stars from the capsule windows.
Identical backgrounds in photos that are listed as taken miles apart.
The moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.
No blast crater appeared from the landing
The launch rocket produced no visible flame.
The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon.
Many commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims. According to a 1999 poll conducted by the The Gallup Organization, what Gallup termed an "overwhelming majority" of the US public, some 89 percent, did not believe the landing was faked, while 6 percent did and 5 percent were undecided.
I don't think its a fake.......coz there is so much evidence that its so real ....... for example take the moons rocks if they say its from earths deep caves......I say why not compare them with the meteors rocks.....coz both of these rocks come from one place its outer space so they must have some similarity......
And even if we say its fake...so whats the point of spending that whole lot of money to just cover for some think even we cant make evidence to prove it....
so as the posters before me say its more likely a political think
well.. technically the moon landing ended the cold war, so it would be bad if it came out that it was a cover-up.
also, there is a big difference between space travel and actually landing on the moon. about 40 years later with some of the best technology we have and rovers still crash and burn when we try to send them to other planets.
Imma play devils advocate and try to help house argue his points
The moon lander that neil armstrong used, if you do look at the pictures, should have burn marks underneath it's landing spot from the propulsion used to slow it's decent(just like house was saying). Also the moon is covered with a thin layer of dust, yet from the landing none of it appears to be stirred up. Like house said there is a barrier of radiation surrounding our planet, and is supposedly lethal to travel through.
one thing I don't understand is why waste time with a space station in orbit when if landing on the moon is viable why not make one on it. It would be more efficient in the long run to do so.
the whole flag thing is explained by them sewing ripples into it, which they do explain during a documentary, they stated that it didn't look normal, which is their reason for doing it.
Last edited by RighteousRob; 12-24-2009 at 12:12 PM.
I don't know about the flag thing though, like rob said, even though there is a documentary, they could have made that up to cover up for the cover up. Interesting isn't it.
@ woods - I have to say just one thing, watch the anime "Welcome to the NHK" all the episodes and rethink about your theory please ^^
Well to be honest I dont know if its a conspiracy or an attention diverted, but considering the facts I know, I believe the moon landing was real. Russia and USA send many rockets to the moon after 1969 , so those explorations are the once that should claim weather the moon landing was real or not, we can make many theories but when we apply those to reality the result is not something we expect, even the slightest miscalculation cause massive miss understanding, so I believe what happened(according to media and people who take part in and saw the real thing) rather than what we imagine, lol
Ok, I said to myself that I wasnt going to come on during Christmas, but I simply love debating.
Rob - I challenge you to a duel =P
The moon lander that neil armstrong used, if you do look at the pictures, should have burn marks underneath it's landing spot from the propulsion used to slow it's decent(just like house was saying). Also the moon is covered with a thin layer of dust, yet from the landing none of it appears to be stirred up. Like house said there is a barrier of radiation surrounding our planet, and is supposedly lethal to travel through.
There is no 'barrier' surrounding Earth. What happens is, Solar Flares fromt he sun emit radiation such as X-Rays, Gamma Rays and UV Rays (although the latter are always constant).
As we know, Gamma are the most powerful penetrating rays that can travel through a vacuum and X-rays can be negated by simple lead.
What they space troppers (yes I know. very technical) used though, was a golden lining on their space suits to reduce any possible emission. And they were not subjected to radiation as we can predict almost to within weeks of when the sun will emit such a violent flare, otherwise these rays are always constant and therefore, with you and House defending this, all astronaughts should be subjected to them, which they are not.
The Earths magnetic poles (north and south) create a magnetic field which surrounds the earth, and thus protects us from all the harsher radiation. Because of this, they 'bounce' off the field and this is what causes the Aurora Effects (mind my spelling).
Also, with the burn marks. Its not because of propulsion, its because of high speeds creating friction with all the particles in our atmosphere. As such, this creates friction heat, but does not cause any charcoal burns (blackening is a result of imcomplete combustion when the Carbons dont completely combust). It may cause heat, sure, and damage as a result, but no incomplete combustion as there is no high octane level (what fuel is made of) to cause any burns, simply fine particles of dust for example.
Space stations Orbit the earth. If a space station or Rover were to be on the moon in one set position, we could not get information 24/7 as it revolves around us. As you should know, it takes about 4 weeks for the moon to completely spin on its axis, as opposed to us taking 24 hours.
Also remember that as we orbit the sun, the moon orbits us, so on paper, we have to take in accoutn 3 whole revolutions of spinning all at different times. As orbiting space stations around earth, all they need to account for is our 24 hour period of rotation.
the whole flag thing is explained by them sewing ripples into it, which they do explain during a documentary, they stated that it didn't look normal, which is their reason for doing it.
You can sew ripples into a flag?
As tests have debunked this theory many times, the flag will always be controlled like this in a vacuum, which again, helps support the non-moving dust theory.
There was minimal amount of Dust being disturbed as it space is a vacuum, and the moon is not 100% dust.
As you said, there was a thin layer of dust. We would not note any small disturbances (due to the vacuum) on such a thin surface.
Also, with the burn marks. Its not because of propulsion, its because of high speeds creating friction with all the particles in our atmosphere. As such, this creates friction heat, but does not cause any charcoal burns (blackening is a result of imcomplete combustion when the Carbons dont completely combust). It may cause heat, sure, and damage as a result, but no incomplete combustion as there is no high octane level (what fuel is made of) to cause any burns, simply fine particles of dust for example.
You can sew ripples into a flag?
As tests have debunked this theory many times, the flag will always be controlled like this in a vacuum, which again, helps support the non-moving dust theory.
There was minimal amount of Dust being disturbed as it space is a vacuum, and the moon is not 100% dust.
As you said, there was a thin layer of dust. We would not note any small disturbances (due to the vacuum) on such a thin surface.
Ok, the radiation and space station make sense, Still I think a station on the moon would be beneficial since the original mission for the space station was to do low gravity testing i believe.
anyways the moon lacks an atmosphere, they had to use propulsion in order to land safely on the moon. The lander they used was the first of it's kind developed by nasa in order to accomplish this task, and the way it worked was extremely sketchy. It is said to have been one of the hardest crafts to navigate ever. (neil armstrongs words, as well as others, not mine) the burn marks I was referring to missing are the ones from the pictures of the lander and neil on the moon. They explain it by the dust settling and covering it back up.
I don't know about sewing up the flag, that was what came out of Neil armstrongs mouth. They said "the flag just hung there so we decided to sew it to make it look more american" or something along those lines. If it wasn't necessary I don't know why they would lie about it. maybe they didn't find out the truth til later when we actually made it to the moon :D
anyone see anything wrong in this pic?
I very much see the shadows wrong with this.
This indicates that the image is probably composed of several images taken at different times and joined together using advanced technology NASA always denies existed at the time.
whats wrong with this one you may ask?
two things indeed, first despite, the absence of no atmosphere
no stars are seen in the picture. Second the inside of the basket
can be seen when all areas in shadow should be completely black due
to absence of air molecules.
Just way too many things wrong with this picture!
Notice the absence of stars again.
The arrows indicate the various directions in which shadows are falling, again showing evidence of inconsistent scene illumination. Yet there is something even more obviously wrong with this picture.
If the length of the lower support column of the lunar lander was 4 feet tall, this would indicate that the astronaut was over 8 feet tall, which none of the astronauts were.
now for the fourth pic
it's all very well adding stars on this picture just to make us realize how wrong we have been. We are not fooled so easily!
If we look a bit more closely, we spot the constellation of Pegasus with the planet Saturn (marked S1) clearly visible in the top left corner. Yet at the time of the mission, although Saturn appeared to be near Pegasus from Earth, from the Moon it would have appeared to be in a completely different position (marked S2).
last image
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?
Woods, I honestly think you need to look at those pictures properly.
I laugh at anyone who believes they are real of faked photos of people on the moon. THey more or less look like craft photos that someone made for an assignment.
Married to: ..........
Makise Kurisu
Originally Posted by Yiew
Bookmarks