Very good Read - First Man on the Moon ? pah !

bubbles

Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks
David Milne?

The great lunar lie.

In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video
footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the
mind of Ralph Rene. "How can the flag be fluttering," the 47 year old
American kept asking himself, "when there's no wind on the atmosphere-free
Moon?"
That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the
self-taught engineer from New Jersey.
He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film,
photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an
awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap
for mankind was fake. It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all
conspiracy theories.
But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA
Mooned America.
Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling
read.
The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space,
leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency
meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put
a man on the Moon.
With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion
dollars.
And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to
agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and 1972, seven
Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill
fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway - being the
only casualties. But with the exception of the known rocks, which could
have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are
the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake.
For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to
watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts gambol through rocks and
dust.
Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no
direct link up.
So networks actually had to film "man's greatest achievement" from a TV
screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could
properly examine it.
By contrast, the still photos were stunning.
Yet that's just the problem.
The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and
sharply focused.
Not one was badly composed or even blurred.
As Rene points out, that's not all:
* The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts
achieved this feat without being able to see what they were doing.
* Their film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful
cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless.
* They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters
in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible without the use
of their fingers.

Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the
pictures are fake.
His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on
these pages, but the basic points are as follows:
* The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources
and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the
Moon was the sun.
* The American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly
lit, even when everything around is in shadow.
* Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both
were shot at the same time.
* The pictures are so perfect each one would have taken a slick
advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it
repeatedly.

David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by
"whistle blowers", who were keen for the truth to one day get out. If
Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that
man ever went to the Moon.
And, asks Rene, why would anyone fake pictures of an event that
actually happened?
The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly
radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard
astronauts orbiting Earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the
Hubble telescope, are protected by the Earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon
is 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the
Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such
flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at
least two meters thick would be needed.
Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers, which took astronauts from the
spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, "about the thickness of
heavy duty aluminum foil".
How could that stop this deadly radiation?
And if the astronauts were protected by their space
suits, why
didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl
meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose Astronauts would
encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the
Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started.
"They should have been fried," says Rene.
Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11
(the first to the
Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the
exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem
on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole
thing. "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the
co-pilot," says Rene.
Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin
"the second man on the Moon" - was asked at a banquet what it felt like to
step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room
crying uncontrollably.
It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's
suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may
also fear for his life.
Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was
due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he
hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called
lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the
space program, it's likely to be me."
Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he
and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their
capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded. Scientists
couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even chemistry students in high
school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before
the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11
would-be astronauts were dead.
Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane
crashes and one in a car smash.
Now this is a spectacular accident rate. "One wonders if these
'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of
saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they
were looking for."
NASA won't respond to any of these claims, their press office will
only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a
NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests
at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape.
It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what
NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape.
"The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to
indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point
of deception."
He then invited his audience to "come to your own decision about
whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon".
A sudden attack of honesty?
You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing
about the Apollo
missions were the lift offs.
The astronauts simply have to be on board, he says, in case the
rocket exploded.
"It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three
astronauts who ought to be dead," he claims, adding that they came down a
day or so later, out of the public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it
is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to
prepare for the big day a week later.
And now NASA is planning another giant step - project Outreach, a 1
trillion dollar manned mission to Mars.
"Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer
graphics," says Rene chillingly.
"Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s.
This time round we will have no way of determining the truth."
Space oddities:
* Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front
of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the
ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball.
The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
* A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting
off the Moon. Who did the filming?
* One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong
about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been
lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon,
then who took the shot?
* The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football.
The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man,
but were seen freely bending their joints.
* The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America
make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have
been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
* Text from pictures in the article. Only two men walked on the Moon
during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has
no camera. Who took the shot?
* The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line
in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower
right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow?
* And why is the flag fluttering?

Winning Hand

Saw that before on Clarkson where he actually had the pictures on hand. Wether or not its true it IS a convincing arguement.
Personally i always did wonder who filmed Neil Armstrong.
At least we know the commies made it.

Blitzkrieger

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Winning Hand:

Personally i always did wonder who filmed Neil Armstrong.</font>

For this and the "lift off" shot it could have been a camera on the base of the lander - though very unlikely. The whole thing just looks fake - ever see the footage where the guy falls over? No way is that in low gravity

amp

Well the obvious answer to all this is, can we still see the Eagle lander module and all the other various bits left on the moon using high powered telescopes?

And if landing on the moon was a fake, is there still a possiblity that it is not in fact made up of volcanic rock, but rather of green cheese?

And if THAT'S true then my bet is that the 2% or so of the American population that the believe the world is flat could well be right.

AUSTRALIA IS MERELY A LARGE STUDIO IN AREA 51!!!

---

Lunacy Abounds! Play GLminesweeper!

[IAR]Nevermind

lol what shíte

Manach

Did a geology degree.
Handled Moon-Rock - verified by Prof. to be of ET-origin.

Although in the spirit of compromise I am willing to believe that Australia is a figment of the imagination. That does make sense, I mean kangaroos ???.

Baz_

lol kangaroos!!
I always thought koalas were a bit evil meself

[IAR]Nevermind

i used to collect a magazine about aliens .... it had sumtin like that on it like oh theres a piece of paper on the ground and oh look at the reflection in the guys helmet u can see a guys head it had a pics and stuff pretty cool at that time i belived it but...

Mills

I think the magazine you;re talking about is X-factor, I bought a few issues of it myself and can remember an interesting article on this. It analyzed the photographs and pointed out some errors, I think one of them was about some piece of debris on the ground and another was that you could see something resembling a lighting rig in the reflection from his Helmet. Very interesting stuff, but I'd still say that they really did land on the moon. I'd like to see amp's idea carried out, it's the only way to be sure

neuro-praxis

GEOLOGY ROCKS!!

Geddit?

anyhoo, I own a piece of moon rock and if I were ever to discover that is wasn't bone fide I think my whole world might crumble down around my shoulders...

---

Do your limbs ever get tingly, eh? eh?

Blitzkrieger

ummm, no. To build on the moon you would have to "land" the pieces again, it's further away(more rocket fuel) and they want to do experiments in zero-g not low g.


That your professor says something is true doesn't mean it is. Maybe it's a rare kind of rock you're unlikely to find in your professional career. Maybe it's a meteor fragment. What's the difference between a moon rock and a normal rock? Who told you what the differences are? Are you paranoid yet? Maybe the "moon rock" you saw is real, but that doesn't mean a man landed on the moon to get it.

Hobbes

fake or not... the big question is. Why hasn't anyone gone back? Wouldn't of been easier to build a moonbase then a space station?

Baz_

okay...... you crazy ****, how else might it have been obtained??

Blitzkrieger

a robot lander? If it wasn't a man what did you think I meant - aliens?

Baz_

So why can a robot lander get to the moon take a piece of rock get back to earth, and it can't get to the moon take a picture of the landing and just stay there.

Blitzkrieger

I'm not sure what your point is but that would prove that NASA were lying - they never said the pics were taken by a robot.

Mythago

Wasn't there a film about the landings being faked.. OJ Simpson was in it, think it was called capricorn 1 or something. But when u think about NASA got several missions to the moon on the power of a pocket calculator & yet still manages yrs later to put a short sighted telescope into space!? And the pics from the moon seem to be as good as those from the mars rover!
http://www.forteantimes.com/artic/94/moon.html has some stuff & relatives links on the subject.

[This message has been edited by Mythago (edited 11-01-2001).]

the fnj

The whole moon thing is fake it's a giant TV screen they hang above the earth. Which is flat by the way. NASA is not involved it is all orgainsed by aliens who have nothing better to do than sit back and fool us all. Quake 3 was put on the planet to find which humans have the best reactions so we can fly their space ships. Also Sam is actually an alien which is wht his rail is that good. They are watching you. The truth is out there. All of this is true none of this is real!

---

Clan Acid

woolymammoth

came across these
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/video11.html
and these
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/images11.html ....

just incase anybody's interested in looking for themselves...

ykt0di9url7bc3

David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers", who were keen for the truth to one day get out. If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon

hahahahahahaha

[HYPO-FREAKIN-THETICAL]
So i'm in charge of NASA for the fake Apollo moon landings....
I organise the live broadcast set (piano wires and lighting etc)
I organise for the capsule to be dropped into the ocean
I give some volcanic rocks and sand from metoer craters to American geologists!
I take a few pictures on the set of neil or buzz hanging around by the flag BUT I DONT BOTHER MY ARSE TO SCREEN THEM FOR EXTRA SET LIGHT SOURCING INTERFERENCE AND I HAND THEM OVER TO THE WORLD PRESS!
[/HYPO-FREAKIN-THETICAL]

Can a multi-million dollar cover-up can resort to that stupidity or is there a simpler explanation!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

Originally posted by Mythago
Wasn't there a film about the landings being faked.. OJ Simpson was in it, think it was called capricorn 1 or something.

Mars landings that'd be.

On the main post
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/moon_flag.html

I'm not posting that to start an actual argument as it would make for a pretty silly "but but" thread. It does explain the picture of Armstrong stepping out on the suface though.

MiCr0

how many times can this come up????

daveirl

This post has been deleted.