How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?

karaokeman

Firstly this is not a general topic, if you post you can simply state whether or not you believe the conspiracy theory as if it was a poll.

Most people I know think they were real, and from the arguments I've heard against the Hoax movement I can easily assume 98% of the world are probably convinced they were real.

As for me I am not sure whether the landings were real, but I am more sure they were real than I am that they were fake.

Jeboa Safari

but I am more sure they were real than I am that they were fake.

This would be my line of thinking also

MrStuffins

Of course they were real!

This is easily one of the more ridiculous Conspiracy Theories!

Well if you're on the fence ask this one question: Why didn't the Russians say anything?

TalkieWalkie

Why didn't you just start an actual poll ?


Fake, obviously.

justshane

The flag get's me, fake.

karaokeman

King Mob wrote: »

Well if you're on the fence ask this one question: Why didn't the Russians say anything?

Some people believe the Russians knew it was a hoax but didn't say anything because the US could have retaliated and spoiled the beans on some of their earlier space exploits (which some say were also fake).

Thanks for bringing it up though. I find the Russians silence as evidence that the Moon Landing was real. Its one of the prominent factors that kept me believing the landings were real.

MrStuffins

karaokeman wrote: »

Thanks for bringing it up though. I find the Russians silence as evidence that the Moon Landing was real. Its one of the prominent factors that kept me believing the landings were real.

Haha

This is one of the reasons i find this forum hilarious!

karaokeman

karaokeman wrote: »

Some people believe the Russians knew it was a hoax but didn't say anything because the US could have retaliated and spoiled the beans on some of their earlier space exploits (which some say were also fake).

Well some of that came out actually. Gagrin wasn't technically the first man into space because he had to eject from his capsule before it landed. That was covered up for years and eventually it came out.

By the time the Americans got to the moon the Russians where years behind, so calling fake would have certainly let them catch up and maybe win the space race.

The flag get's me, fake.

What about the flag exactly?

TalkieWalkie

MrStuffins wrote: »

Haha

This is one of the reasons i find this forum hilarious!

One of the reasons you find this forum hilarious because he thinks the Russians silence is evidence ?

TalkieWalkie

justshane wrote: »

The flag get's me, fake.

Another false flag

My name is URL

I believe the moon landings were real.. I can see why it's such a popular theory though

Lab_Mouse

My name is URL wrote: »

I can see why it's such a popular theory though

Yeah it would defo go down as one of the biggest con-jobs in history!!And would leave a lot of people feeling stupid:D

clarke1991

i think it was real. i don't really lerk around this form much, i just seen this on the home page thing. but why do people go on about the flag? go on google images, theres obviously a straight bar across the top to give the impression that it's waveing:rolleyes:

My name is URL

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

Yeah it would defo go down as one of the biggest con-jobs in history!!And would leave a lot of people feeling stupid:D

Not to mention all of the other theories it ties into in some way.. I think a lot of people base their belief on one thing on what they believe about another :P

Dues Bellator

clarke1991 wrote: »

i think it was real. i don't really lerk around this form much, i just seen this on the home page thing. but why do people go on about the flag? go on google images, theres obviously a straight bar across the top to give the impression that it's waveing:rolleyes:

i hear the flag was like that due to the fact of zero gravity, it was starched or something as they knew there was no wind.

clarke1991

almanu wrote: »

i hear the flag was like that due to the fact of zero gravity, it was starched or something as they knew there was no wind.

i think i heard that zero gravity thing before aswell. looks to be a bar or something in the pic tho:p

tallus

My name is URL wrote: »

I believe the moon landings were real.. I can see why it's such a popular theory though

Same here.
As much as I like the odd conspiracy theory, I think the landings actually happened.

TalkieWalkie

clarke1991 wrote: »

i think it was real. i don't really lerk around this form much, i just seen this on the home page thing.

Yah right, your always creeping around here. Your just afraid someone will think ur crazy

iPlop

1.38 seconds ,stagehand to the right:eek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFs-iNNfU1I

clarke1991

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yah right, your always creeping around here. Your just afraid someone will think ur crazy

you found me out:eek:

bytey

its 50/50

at least SOME of the missions DID go to the moon , the later ones ,
but ALL of the photo record is faked - there are many reasons as to why this was done
but its easy to see that fakery on a massive scale has taken place in the records .

im very convinced that appollo 11 and 12 and possibly 14 , are dubious as to whether they went to the moon .

im more convinced that 15 to 17 actually went .

there is a middle ground :pac:

muppet_man

Yes I think the landings were real.
Doubters should check out the mythbusters special on them, took most of their theories apart imho.
Although maybe their in on it too......(fade in theme music of twilight zone)

kilmuckridge

clarke1991 wrote: »

i think i heard that zero gravity thing before aswell. looks to be a bar or something in the pic tho:p

I think it's zero wind that gets most ct's going, as there is 1/6g on the moon, so the flag wouldn't flap in the wind, but as there is no atmosphere there would be nothing to stop the flag moving with whatever momentum it had, similar to a pendulum

TalkieWalkie

Wasn't the lack of stars in that picture an issue too, I mean, surely you would see stars in the background in space like, ya know like

namloc1980

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Wasn't the lack of stars in that picture an issue too, I mean, surely you would see stars in the background in space like, ya know like

It's been proven that stars would not be visible in these photos over and over and over and over and over and over

gizmo

How is the flag issue still even a question anymore given the blindingly obvious support poles being used and evident in the picture?

gbee

Now, we know more or less for a fact that Sam Peckinpah did film a Lunar Landing for Nasa and Nixon pre recorded a TV broadcast in the event of failure.

Now, I believe the landings did go ahead, but they did have communications failure and the TV pictures were interspersed with some of Sam's footage ~ I think that's pretty certain now.

So, I say, the first landing was maybe 50% successful and 50% pre-recorded film.

gbee

muppet_man wrote: »

Although maybe their in on it too......(fade in theme music of twilight zone)

Actually, they made more of a case for the fake landing. They did not approach the subject from a neutral point of view, they set up their experiments to give an answer, rather than setting up the experiment to see WHAT answer was there.

I was disappointed actually. After their show I have become a doubter.

gbee

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

Yeah it would defo go down as one of the biggest con-jobs in history!!And would leave a lot of people feeling stupid:D

Not going OT, But I'd throw in Pearl Harbour and The Twin Tower here too. The US has a history of making grandiose fakery.

Dues Bellator

gbee wrote: »

Not going OT, But I'd throw in Pearl Harbour and The Twin Tower here too. The US has a history of making grandiose fakery.

also the way they fake the fact there not very intrested in soccerball lol

gizmo

gbee wrote: »

Not going OT, But I'd throw in Pearl Harbour and The Twin Tower here too. The US has a history of making grandiose fakery.

You think Pearl Harbour was faked? :eek:

My name is URL

gizmo wrote: »

You think Pearl Harbour was faked? :eek:

I think he's referring to the theory about the US having some prior knowledge of the planned attack

gizmo

My name is URL wrote: »

I think he's referring to the theory about the US having some prior knowledge of the planned attack

Oh, at least that's mildly plausible. To suspect that they did it themselves would be pure crazy talk.

uprising2

gizmo wrote: »

Oh, at least that's mildly plausible. To suspect that they did it themselves would be pure crazy talk.

Yea and maybe a little background knowledge of CT's would help before jumping in head first to things you know nothing about.

The US knew there was a attack planned and did nothing to stop or prevent it, actually they provoked it, google it and read something up on it then come back when you get the gist of it.

EDIT:
Back on topic!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr_yNefhINw

The photo's were faked, video faked, a pre recorded message that the astronauts had died and yet nothing to hide some still believe........

gizmo

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea and maybe a little background knowledge of CT's would help before jumping in head first to things you know nothing about.

The US knew there was a attack planned and did nothing to stop or prevent it, actually they provoked it, google it and read something up on it then come back when you get the gist of it.

I have looked into it and while the government may have known about an impending attack and even forced Japan into a position where first strike was the only response, it still doesn't mean that they perpetrated the attack themselves which is what I referred to as "crazy talk".

Also, it would have been nice if the US didn't need to come up with a reason to enter the war but if they had done so otherwise there probably would have been mass protests against it. Without their aid, however, we'd be living in a very different world.

As for the first Banned In American video, I was under the impression that had already been debunked even in CT circles after the footage of the Earth they claimed was generated by pointing the camera out of the window while in low orbit, actually does match up with what the Earth would look like at the distance they say it was shot.

uprising2

gizmo wrote: »

I have looked into it and while the government may have known about an impending attack and even forced Japan into a position where first strike was the only response, it still doesn't mean that they perpetrated the attack themselves which is what I referred to as "crazy talk".

Also, it would have been nice if the US didn't need to come up with a reason to enter the war but if they had done so otherwise there probably would have been mass protests against it. Without their aid, however, we'd be living in a very different world.

As for the first Banned In American video, I was under the impression that had already been debunked even in CT circles after the footage of the Earth they claimed was generated by pointing the camera out of the window while in low orbit, actually does match up with what the Earth would look like at the distance they say it was shot.

Ok so you agree the US had foreknowledge of pearl harbour, pity the troops at the base didn't isn't it!, but hey!, he who sacrifices nothing gain's nothing.

As for the video, I've never seen it debunked, and an oblong earth just doesn't seem right.

But all in all I don't believe they went to the moon, I probably won't be getting involved in any discussion here as I've posted 1000's of post's on this subject over the years and in the end thought what a waste of time, so over and out, PROBABLY!

gbee

gizmo wrote: »

it still doesn't mean that they perpetrated the attack themselves

They sold the story of a sneak and unprovoked attack, make a new thread and I'll chat more on it. ')

gizmo

uprising2 wrote: »

Ok so you agree the US had foreknowledge of pearl harbour, pity the troops at the base didn't isn't it!, but hey!, he who sacrifices nothing gain's nothing.

I'll at least entertain the idea in the spirit of a CT forum. Suggesting they carried out the attack themselves, as I initially interpreted for the post above however, does not merit discussion.

uprising2 wrote: »

As for the video, I've never seen it debunked, and an oblong earth just doesn't seem right.

I can't find the article which dealt with this video itself but even looking at it now, jump from 5:20 to 6:00 and back again. The "porthole image" at around the 5min mark looks remarkably like the Earths' terminator line except rotated so that it is horizontal instead of vertical. The cloud patterns also look wrong for the same reasons. If you flick to 6mins then you see the terminator line in the correct place and the cloud patterns look normal again.

As for some of the other theories proposed, I found this NG video interesting at least.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqlo_spATEM

El Guapo!

This is the original documentary that I watched which made me question the legitimacy of the moon landing. I know there's 5 parts but its well worth the watch if you have the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5MVVtFYTSo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b309_YspwMk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwELkMitta4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei-0X9SYA6M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiCKy41zZMU

meglome

Dean09 wrote: »

This is the original documentary that I watched which made me question the legitimacy of the moon landing. I know there's 5 parts but its well worth the watch if you have the time.

I've read a lot about this topic and other than some photo anomalies (which I've since had explained in detail) I didn't see a problem. I also saw two good shows, Mythbusters and another documentary. Both used real experiments and both found the moon landings to be real. And there are reflectors up there to this day that anyone with the correct equipment can check.

What are the main points against?

Dean09

Dean09 wrote: »

This is the original documentary that I watched which made me question the legitimacy of the moon landing. I know there's 5 parts but its well worth the watch if you have the time.

I've seen it before, it's not worth the watch.
Same tried old crap thats been debunked for years regurgitated...

Actually it was a debunking of the nonsense in this "documentary" that lead me to believe that the moon lands happened beyond a shadow of a doubt.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Each and every point in that show is easily torn apart by basic research into the topic.

El Guapo!

meglome wrote: »

I've read a lot about this topic and other than some photo anomalies (which I've since had explained in detail) I didn't see a problem. I also saw two good shows, Mythbusters and another documentary. Both used real experiments and both found the moon landings to be real. And there are reflectors up there to this day that anyone with the correct equipment can check.

What are the main points against?

I prob should've said in my post that I also have seen the mythbusters moon landing episode and it explained some of the points but didn't fully convince me. At the moment I'm kind of on the fence.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all by the way. The only ones that interest me are the moon landings and the 911 ones. TBH I think most of the others are pure shíte about lizards and all that stuff. :pac:

squod

Off to watch Jas Whites new Vids. The debunking videos are as senseless as watching the original faked NASA stuff. Still a huge marked for crap like mythbusters.

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

Off to watch Jas Whites new Vids. The debunking videos are as senseless as watching the original faked NASA stuff. Still a huge marked for crap like mythbusters.

Is that the guy with the INCREDIBLY annoying accent who makes stuff up, jumps to conclusions and generally has no clue about science or how things work (such as the Apollo spacecraft)? And you watch his stuff?? .....crikey looks like there is still a huge market for crap like that.

bytey

namloc1980 wrote: »

Is that the guy with the INCREDIBLY annoying accent who makes stuff up, jumps to conclusions and generally has no clue about science or how things work (such as the Apollo spacecraft)? And you watch his stuff?? .....crikey looks like there is still a huge market for crap like that.

actually he presents very well researched and very comprehensive evidence
he does a very good job, and does none of the above that you pointed out, and bringing his accent into it makes you look like an idiot.

meglome

squod wrote: »

Off to watch Jas Whites new Vids. The debunking videos are as senseless as watching the original faked NASA stuff. Still a huge marked for crap like mythbusters.

Mythbusters is an entertainment show however they've shown a willingness to actually try out theory's with real experimentation. I see a lot of things on CT sites but usually no experiments whatsoever. Mythbusters were easily able to debunk the CT's on the moon landing. The simple thing would be for CT'ers to recreate the experiments and show them to be wrong but that won't happen.

squod

meglome wrote: »

I see a lot of things on CT sites but usually no experiments whatsoever.

Obviously then you have no interest in the ''CTers'' that have.

meglome wrote: »

Mythbusters were easily able to debunk the CT's on the moon landing.

That's hillarious.

meglome

squod wrote: »

Obviously then you have no interest in the ''CTers'' that have.

That's hillarious.

Just link me to the experiments they carried out and I'll read with interest.

namloc1980

bytey wrote: »

actually he presents very well researched and very comprehensive evidence
he does a very good job, and does none of the above at you pointed out, and bringing his accent into it makes you look like an idiot.

No he just makes stuff up and jumps to conclusions (conclusions that are in line with his own agenda). Watched his videos and he just rehashes the same old rubbish that has been debunked many many times over.

squod

namloc1980 wrote: »

No he just makes stuff up and jumps to conclusions (conclusions that are in line with his own agenda). Watched his videos and he just rehashes the same old rubbish that has been debunked many many times over.

As a matter of interest what's your take on the alleged moon landings?