moon landing conspiracy

karlog

If the first apollo mission was a fake just to get the U.S ahead in the space race were all the other apollo missions a hoax also? Have we ever put a man on the moon?

JimmyFloyd

karlog wrote: »

If the first apollo mission was a fake just to get the U.S ahead in the space race were all the other apollo missions a hoax also? Have we ever put a man on the moon?

The first Moon Landing, and subsequent landings, were not faked!

karlog

Well they could of been look at all the evidence to suggest it was a hoax

karlog

karlog wrote: »

Well they could of been look at all the evidence to suggest it was a hoax

Have you looked at the evidence that shows it's not a hoax?

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

And if it was a hoax why didn't the Russians say anything?

JimmyFloyd

karlog wrote: »

Well they could of been look at all the evidence to suggest it was a hoax

In fairness, i've always just rejected any kind of "Evidence" in this case.

Can you tell me what kinda evidence exists?

karlog

Well they could of been convinced by it. maybe the amount of people that knew about the hoax were so few that they managed to keep it a secret from the russians. Not everyone in NASA that was involved in the moon landing operation had to be in on it.

karlog

karlog wrote: »

Well they could of been convinced by it. maybe the amount of people that knew about the hoax were so few that they managed to keep it a secret from the russians. Not everyone in NASA that was involved in the moon landing operation had to be in on it.

The Russians where tracking the mission's radio transmissions all the way.
They would analysed the photos and videos as well as any samples that where brought back they could get access too.
That's not mention the spies.
If one or two guys in their bedrooms spotted the hoax, the entire might of Russian intelligence would have.
If there was the slightest credible indication of a hoax wouldn't they announce it?

JimmyFloyd

Man, you are typing right now on a website, which is hosted on the internet, which is a mysterious web of interconnected computers spreading throughout the entire world enabling people to communicate instantly.

When you watch TV, the signal is (likely) coming from a satelite which is sitting in space, spacifically for that reason.


We have THAT technology, why is it hard to believe man landed on the moon?

karlog

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

In fairness, i've always just rejected any kind of "Evidence" in this case.

Can you tell me what kinda evidence exists?

The tv broadcast for starters:
Unparallel shadows on the moon surface (artificial lighting)
There are no stars in any of the photos
No crater shown where the craft landed on the moon

The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation

Also the Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

karlog

King Mob wrote: »

The Russians where tracking the mission's radio transmissions all the way.

the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly cancelled.

JimmyFloyd

karlog wrote: »

The tv broadcast for starters:
Unparallel shadows on the moon surface (artificial lighting)
There are no stars in any of the photos
No crater shown where the craft landed on the moon

The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation

Also the Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

Dude, seriously, read this http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

It was posted earier, i've just read it.

It explains everything

karlog

karlog wrote: »

The tv broadcast for starters:
Unparallel shadows on the moon surface (artificial lighting)

Uneven ground can make it seem like the shadows are not parallel.
Mythbusters demonstrated this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0

karlog wrote: »

There are no stars in any of the photos

The cameras where set for daylight exposure and the sun was up.

karlog wrote: »

No crater shown where the craft landed on the moon

There wouldn't have been a crater.

karlog wrote: »

The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation

This is simply not true.

karlog wrote: »

Also the Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

Also not true at all.

All these points are addressed in the link I posted.

karlog

karlog wrote: »

the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly cancelled.

That's not quite true.
Have you any evidence to back this up?

And what about the hundreds of amateurs who were tracking the missions?

And the photos?

And the samples of moon rock and soil?

karlog

The only way i'll believe if they were real if a probe or whatever is sent and pictures of the apollo 11 landing site are taken proving its there. have they done that?

JimmyFloyd

karlog wrote: »

The only way i'll believe if they were real if a probe or whatever is sent and pictures of the apollo 11 landing site are taken proving its there. have they done that?

Have you read the link?

I'm getting the feling that you are listening to one side of the story but not bothering with the other

karlog

karlog wrote: »

The only way i'll believe if they were real if a probe or whatever is sent and pictures of the apollo 11 landing site are taken proving its there. have they done that?

The current Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will be able to image the landing sites.
No word on when or if then are going to do it.
Hopefully they'll have the pictures for the 40th anniversary.

Have you actually read the link I gave you at the start.
It kinda shows that the points you raised are wrong.

Undergod

karlog wrote: »

The only way i'll believe if they were real if a probe or whatever is sent and pictures of the apollo 11 landing site are taken proving its there. have they done that?

Which they? You couldn't trust NASA to provide photos of the landing site, if they had faked it in the first place.

karlog

That link says nothing about Photos taken of the lunar landing site after the apollo missions

karlog

Undergod wrote: »

Which they? You couldn't trust NASA to provide photos of the landing site, if they had faked it in the first place.

Your right the only people you could trust is the Russians in my case. If they confirmed photos taken by one of their own telescopes then that would shut me up for good.

karlog

karlog wrote: »

That link says nothing about Photos taken of the lunar landing site after the apollo missions

That essay was written a few years ago.
The LRO was only just launched.

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

It does however address your other points.

karlog

karlog wrote: »

Your right the only people you could trust is the Russians in my case. If they confirmed photos taken by one of their own telescopes then that would shut me up for good.

So why haven't they spoken out about the other stuff?

karlog

King Mob wrote: »

So why haven't they spoken out about the other stuff?

I guess because they cant prove it

Maybe the only way they can prove it is if they take pictures of the landing site themselves, which they have not done yet so im still not convinced.

karlog

karlog wrote: »

I guess because they cant prove it

Maybe the only way they can prove it is if they take pictures of the landing site themselves, which they have not done yet so im still not convinced.

So why are you so convinced that they where faked?

Why didn't they present the same evidence that convinced you?

Why won't the pictures from the LRO convince you?

Mahatma coat

Here, Get a Telescope, get a Lazer pointer, better stipp go to an observvatory and ask them to let you use theitr much more powerful gizmos
Point the Lazerthingy at one of the red or green dots in this photo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_landing_map.jpg


Te appollo ones and the Luna ones have Reflectors - which will bounce the lazer back to earth, these things had to be put there by someone. so yep we went to the moon.

I still think NASA are covering up something else about the trips, but they went.

karlog

King Mob wrote: »

So why are you so convinced that they where faked?

Why didn't they present the same evidence that convinced you?

Why won't the pictures from the LRO convince you?

I'm convinced because i believe the U.S were afraid they would'nt be able to land on the moon before the russians and that they would go to any length to win the space race

They did'nt present the same evidence because i guess it isn't concrete evidence so to speak but i believe it and thats my opinion

The pictures from the LRO wont convince me because the same people who i believe faked the landing will be able to fake the pictures

karlog

karlog wrote: »

I'm convinced because i believe the U.S were afraid they would'nt be able to land on the moon before the russians and that they would go to any length to win the space race

But Motive isn't proof.
What evidence specifically lead you to your conclusion.

karlog wrote: »

They did'nt present the same evidence because i guess it isn't concrete evidence so to speak but i believe it and thats my opinion

But if this evidence isn't concrete why believe it?
Have you looked and the page I linked?

karlog wrote: »

The pictures from the LRO wont convince me because the same people who i believe faked the landing will be able to fake the pictures

So you're just assuming they are faked without any actual evidence?

If they were faked wouldn't the Russians come out and say it then?

JimmyFloyd

karlog wrote: »

I'm convinced because i believe the U.S were afraid they would'nt be able to land on the moon before the russians and that they would go to any length to win the space race

They did'nt present the same evidence because i guess it isn't concrete evidence so to speak but i believe it and thats my opinion

The pictures from the LRO wont convince me because the same people who i believe faked the landing will be able to fake the pictures

I really hope you never get called up for jury duty!

ollieo

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

The first Moon Landing, and subsequent landings, were not faked!

What subsequent landings? There has only been "one manned moon landing", this took place in 1969.

If they really did go to the moon why have NASA or Russia not sent another manned mission to land on the moon?

In 40 years there have been no more successful manned landings on the moon.

This fact alone proves that the "moon landing" was faked!!!

If they could do it 40 years ago why have NASA never sent another manned mission to the moon?

Why have Russia never joined NASA in sending a manned mission to land on the moon?

karlog

King Mob wrote: »

But Motive isn't proof.
What evidence specifically lead you to your conclusion.


But if this evidence isn't concrete why believe it?
Have you looked and the page I linked?



So you're just assuming they are faked without any actual evidence?

If they were faked wouldn't the Russians come out and say it then?

It's a conspiracy theory so of course there isn't any concrete evidence if people only believed in concrete evidence then there would be no conspiracy theories. I dont think the russians would risk coming out and saying it, a goverment backing up a conspiracy theory wouldn'nt look good (especially if it was poven wrong).

There is no concrete evidence but i believe there was a cover up and NASA was very good in doing so but they made mistakes which led to this theory. Thats what i believe.

please tell me that answers your question

also there have been many conspiracy theories that turned out to be true so saying the moon landings were not faked is your opinion

ollieo

ollieo wrote: »

What subsequent landings? There has only been "one manned moon landing", this took place in 1969.

There were 5 more successful missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17

ollieo wrote: »

If they really did go to the moon why have NASA or Russia not sent another manned mission to land on the moon?

In 40 years there have been no more successful manned landings on the moon.

Because it was really expensive and there wasn't much public or political support after the last mission.

ollieo wrote: »

This fact alone proves that the "moon landing" was faked!!!

No it doesn't.
There's still a ton of evidence showing that they landed.

ollieo wrote: »

If they could do it 40 years ago why have NASA never sent another manned mission to the moon?

See above.
Also there was more focus placed on the Shuttle plan and getting a permanent space station up and running.

ollieo wrote: »

Why have Russia never joined NASA in sending a manned mission to land on the moon?

Because they were fighting the Cold War?
Because after the Cold War Russia didn't have the resources?

Mahatma coat

ollieo wrote: »

What subsequent landings? There has only been "one manned moon landing", this took place in 1969.

Wrong wrong wrong on so many levels or wrongness

<yes I did consider putting in a picture of Dr Cox right here, but that would be Humor, und Humor ist Verboten>

Read up about teh Apollo missions, they brought little carts and everything.

and those were the public missions

If they really did go to the moon why have NASA or Russia not sent another manned mission to land on the moon?

Oddly enough people got Bored with the concept of Live (well, slightly delayed) colour Images being beamed directly to their tellys from the Fvckin Surface of the moon, We are a fickle and shallow society

In 40 years there have been no more successful manned landings on the moon.

Plenty of things have been succesfully Landed on the moon, and plent more things have Crashed or 'beencrashed' into it.

This fact alone proves that the "moon landing" was faked!!!

ah no, no it dosent

If they could do it 40 years ago why have NASA never sent another manned mission to the moon?

like I said the public got bored with it, I think its time we sent more people up there meself.

Why have Russia never joined NASA in sending a manned mission to land on the moon?

Russians do some things very well, want to lift a humongous payload into Orbit ask the Russians to do it for you, want to land something on the moon, well lets say there record of succesfully landin things on the moon would not inspire me with the confidence required to go on a Russian Lunar Mission

karlog

karlog wrote: »

It's a conspiracy theory so of course there isn't any concrete evidence if people only believed in concrete evidence then there would be no conspiracy theories. I dont think the russians would risk coming out and saying it, a goverment backing up a conspiracy theory wouldn'nt look good (especially if it was poven wrong).

There is no concrete evidence but i believe there was a cover up and NASA was very good in doing so but they made mistakes which led to this theory. Thats what i believe.

please tell me that answers your question

Not really cause I'm looking for those specific mistakes.

Many of those "mistakes" aren't evidence of a fake at all when you examine them critically.
The ones you pointed out earlier have been addressed on the site I linked.
Have you read it?

JimmyFloyd

ollieo wrote: »

In 40 years there have been no more successful manned landings on the moon.

This fact alone proves that the "moon landing" was faked!!!

:rolleyes:

England won the World Cup in 1966

But they havent won it since

That proves that England winning the World Cup in 1966 was faked!

Mahatma coat

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

:rolleyes:

England won the World Cup in 1966

But they havent won it since

That proves that England winning the World Cup in 1966 was faked!

Rigged, I think is the word you are lookin for there :D:D

JimmyFloyd

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Rigged, I think is the word you are lookin for there :D:D

Wait.. you might be onto something....

.. that dodgy goal that never was... the lineman was RUSSIAN!!!! :eek:

:pac:

karlog

King Mob wrote: »

Not really cause I'm looking for those specific mistakes.

Many of those "mistakes" aren't evidence of a fake at all when you examine them critically.
The ones you pointed out earlier have been addressed on the site I linked.
Have you read it?

I have read it

You keep saying evidence if your looking for evidence then i think your in the wrong forum this is a conspiracy theory. Did you see how much i stressed 'I believe' in my post. I dont care about real evidence and all those mistakes that have been examined critically what makes it true for e.g

Let me examine one mistake critically THE SHADOWS in the picture there unparallel. NASA says its because the surface of the moon is uneven. Thats a good explanation but it doesn't rule out that the uneven shadows could of been caused by multiple light sources on a set.

Believing everything NASA says is going in favour of them. I dont believe everything they say and i DONT BELIEVE they went to the moon.

I really hope this theory is proven one day. Goodbye im done with this thread.

karlog

karlog wrote: »

I have read it

You keep saying evidence if your looking for evidence then i think your in the wrong forum this is a conspiracy theory. Did you see how much i stressed 'I believe' in my post. I dont care about real evidence and all those mistakes that have been examined critically what makes it true for e.g

But if you're not examining the evidence why do you believe the conspiracy theory?

karlog wrote: »

Let me examine one mistake critically THE SHADOWS in the picture there unparallel. NASA says its because the surface of the moon is uneven. Thats a good explanation but it doesn't rule out that the uneven shadows could of been caused by multiple light sources on a set.

Well no.
The reasoning is "the shadows are not parallel, therefore the only explanation is there are two sources of light. therefore it must have been filmed on a set with two lights."

However it is not the only explanation as has been shown.

It also leads to the question: "If NASA where working on this elaborate hoax, wouldn;t they turn off the second light?"

Many of the other "mistakes" are of a similar nature.

karlog wrote: »

Believing everything NASA says is going in favour of them. I dont believe everything they say and i DONT BELIEVE they went to the moon.

I really hope this theory is proven one day. Goodbye im done with this thread.

But believing everything conspiracy theorists say is the way to go?

JimmyFloyd

karlog wrote: »

...........I dont care about real evidence....

:rolleyes:

karlog

King Mob wrote: »

But if you're not examining the evidence why do you believe the conspiracy theory?

Well no.
The reasoning is "the shadows are not parallel, therefore the only explanation is there are two sources of light. therefore it must have been filmed on a set with two lights."

However it is not the only explanation as has been shown.

It also leads to the question: "If NASA where working on this elaborate hoax, wouldn;t they turn off the second light?"

Many of the other "mistakes" are of a similar nature.

But believing everything conspiracy theorists say is the way to go?

I cant really explain it, are these mistakes that conspiracy theorists say evidence or is what NASA says in response to them evidence. If what the theorists are saying is called evidence then yeah i guess i am examining the evidence

'Why didnt they turn off the second light' thats your opinion maybe they got careless maybe having a single light source that would appear to light a whole surface from a distance wasn't possible or was possible but it didn't work out in the studio

I never said i believed everything conspiracy theorists say is the way to go but i do take into account some of things they say because im convinced by it. Thats just me, some people are different but i am truly convinced by what they say about the moon landings.

karlog

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Could you elaborate?[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif]I refuse to accept even the most convincing evidence because i dare not admit that i have been lied to by people whom i placed my trust
[/FONT]

JimmyFloyd

OP, have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

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

Tonight i could've written a thesis on you

karlog

karlog wrote: »

I cant really explain it, are these mistakes that conspiracy theorists say evidence or is what NASA says in response to them evidence. If what the theorists are saying is called evidence then yeah i guess i am examining the evidence

And have you actually examined the claims the theorists put forward?

Many of them are simply not based in any facts.
Like the claim that the radiation in the Van Allen Belt would have killed the astronauts.
Have you ever seen any independant evidence to back this up?

I haven't.
I have seen alot of evidence that shows this to be false.

karlog wrote: »

'Why didnt they turn off the second light' thats your opinion maybe they got careless maybe having a single light source that would appear to light a whole surface from a distance wasn't possible or was possible but it didn't work out in the studio

And they wouldn't hire people to check for stuff like this?

But you see how the argument "two light sources is the only explaination" doesn't work?

And how about the evidence against there being two light sources.
For instance, the fact that if there were two sources of light there would be two sets of shadows.

karlog wrote: »

I never said i believed everything conspiracy theorists say is the way to go but i do take into account some of things they say because im convinced by it. Thats just me, some people are different but i am truly convinced by what they say about the moon landings.

But you haven't looked into the claims critically. How can you be sure that they are right? Couldn't they be mistaken? Or deliberately lying like you think NASA is?

JimmyFloyd

karlog wrote: »

Could you elaborate?[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif]I refuse to accept even the most convincing evidence because i dare not admit that i have been lied to by people whom i placed my trust[/font]

So, you say that even if you are shown stone cold evidence and it is proven to you, you wouldn't believe it?

That's utterly ridiculous and frankly, there's no point in me or anyone talking to you anymore.

Ever heard the expression "you wouldn't know one if it hit you in the face"?

karlog

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

So, you say that even if you are shown stone cold evidence and it is proven to you, you wouldn't believe it?

That's utterly ridiculous and frankly, there's no point in me or anyone talking to you anymore.

Ever heard the expression "you wouldn't know one if it hit you in the face"?

Not the so called convincing evidence of the moon landings which i dont believe is evidence at all

JimmyFloyd

karlog wrote: »

Not the so called convincing evidence of the moon landings which i dont believe is evidence at all

So basically nothing is going to change your mind, not even evidence?

karlog

King Mob wrote: »

And have you actually examined the claims the theorists put forward?

Many of them are simply not based in any facts.
Like the claim that the radiation in the Van Allen Belt would have killed the astronauts.
Have you ever seen any independant evidence to back this up?

I haven't.
I have seen alot of evidence that shows this to be false.
And they wouldn't hire people to check for stuff like this?

But you see how the argument "two light sources is the only explaination" doesn't work?

And how about the evidence against there being two light sources.
For instance, the fact that if there were two sources of light there would be two sets of shadows.

But you haven't looked into the claims critically. How can you be sure that they are right? Couldn't they be mistaken? Or deliberately lying like you think NASA is?

Heres one claim that you should consider in one of the apollo mission videos what looks to be a wire can be seen for a second. Could be anything but its seen protruding from one of the astronauts going directly up in the air.

karlog

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

So basically nothing is going to change your mind, not even evidence?

Yes evidence from a russian telescope with photographs of the apollo landing.

That type of evidence or something on that line will change my mind

JimmyFloyd

How about an impartial 3rd party?

if i had proof, would you believe it? The same proof the Russians could give you

karlog

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

How about an impartial 3rd party?

if i had proof, would you believe it? The same proof the Russians could give you

How would i know you weren't conspiring with NASA or the U.S government. The only people i could think of that would love to debunk the moon landing (more than conspiracy theorists) is the russians.

JimmyFloyd

karlog wrote: »

How would i know you weren't conspiring with NASA or the U.S government. The only people i could think of that would love to debunk the moon landing (more than conspiracy theorists) is the russians.

See, that is typical of people like you.

Tell me this, how do you know the Russians wouldnt want to feed you lies too?

You sir, are an idiot!

karlog

JimmyFloyd wrote: »

See, that is typical of people like you.

Tell me this, how do you know the Russians wouldnt want to feed you lies too?

You sir, are an idiot!

Well why would the russians feed lies about the moon landings also. After all it was the U.S who embarrassed them and won the space race. A chance to prove they were fake. Imagine to propaganda.