moon landings

Our man in Havana

Who else thinks the yanks faked the whole thing and fooled the world?

I reckon the the tv broadcast had copyright 1969 universal studios on it.

any thoughts?

chern0byl

Its probably the only conspiracy theory i believe. There is a bundle of evidence to support it. I wont state any reasons, but do some research and read and see the facts for yourself. It will certainly make you think.

R0ot

I believe they faked the moon landing to beat the russians in the PR war, but they've definatley gone to the moon since.

Capt'n Midnight

Been done to death.

Since the Russians haven't accused the Yanks of fakery any time over the last four decades you have to accept it happened.
NASA were spending several % of GDP for over a decade, they had the Means , Motive and Opportunity to do it.

Stick to plausible conspiraciries like the fact that the Titanic didn't sink and the whole thing was an insurance job.

Drag00n79

There are lots of moon hoax landings sites out there. This one has plenty of photos to look at.

Our man in Havana

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Been done to death.

Since the Russians haven't accused the Yanks of fakery any time over the last four decades you have to accept it happened.
NASA were spending several % of GDP for over a decade, they had the Means , Motive and Opportunity to do it.

Stick to plausible conspiraciries like the fact that the Titanic didn't sink and the whole thing was an insurance job.

prehaps the russians were in on it also? Were they bunged aload of dosh to stay quiet?

angry_fox

Bond-007 wrote:

prehaps the russians were in on it also? Were they bunged aload of dosh to stay quiet?

If the russians were in on it they would have wanted access to some of Americas secrets not cash. Read so much about it, but im still not sure if they really landed on the moon.
Shamrok in that link you posted, earth is also another light source which might explain somethings in the photographs, but not all

SOL

Get a telescope and have a look, they leftthings up their....

OFDM

SOL wrote:

Get a telescope and have a look, they leftthings up their....

No telescope on Earth is powerful enough to see whatever was left up there.

Pet

Yeah, it's one of the conspiracy theories I believe too. I'm sure they've gone there since, but the original was, in my opinion, a psyche-out for the Russians' benefit. I don't think their technology would have been up to it in those days.

Call Me Jimmy

Moderator, need to move this to humour, unless of course you guys aren't joking in which case I apologise. I sincerely hope you are

OFDM

Shamrok wrote:

There are lots of moon hoax landings sites out there. This one has plenty of photos to look at.

I have to laugh at that website:
"The apparent single light source can be seen reflecting in the visor of the astronaut, but yet the shadows from the objects are not in parallel lines, as we would expect to see from a distant light source, such as the sun."

Of course the shadows don't appear parallel in the photo - it called perspective, that's why they appear to converge at a distant point, as do the with parallel train tracks. In fact all shadows will always appear to converge to a point if the viewer is between the light source and the objects casting the shadows, no matter how far behind the viewer the light source is.

That's my biggest problem with these sites that "analyse" the moon landing photos. They're done by people without a basic grasp of physics.

[edit]Here's a good site I found that debunks the pseudo-science fake photos ramblings:
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm[/edit]

[edit2]Here's a link to thousands of Apollo missions photos:
http://www.apolloarchive.com[/edit2]

billy the squid

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

Moderator, need to move this to humour, unless of course you guys aren't joking in which case I apologise. I sincerely hope you are

Offer valid debate if you wish, Call Me Jimmy, otherwise stop insulting the other users on this board.

weeder

hmm 2 things to take into consideration...no matter what niel armstrong was NOT first man on the moon because someone had to be holding the camera where it showed hiim getting out also the US flag blows even thought there is no wind on the moon

randomhuman

weeder wrote:

hmm 2 things to take into consideration...no matter what niel armstrong was NOT first man on the moon because someone had to be holding the camera where it showed hiim getting out also the US flag blows even thought there is no wind on the moon

The flag doesn't blow, it's rigid. Armstrong could easily have repeated his "first steps" for the camera, or it could have been Armstrong with the camera shooting Aldrin leaving the lander. Who could tell with those suits?

OFDM

weeder wrote:

hmm 2 things to take into consideration...no matter what niel armstrong was NOT first man on the moon because someone had to be holding the camera where it showed hiim getting out also the US flag blows even thought there is no wind on the moon

The video of Armstrong descending from the moon lander was from a camera which was automatically deployed from the exterior of the moon lander.

The flags "blows" because there was a wire mesh passing through it to give the effect of it blowing in the wind - you'll notice it looks exactly the same in all the photos:

weeder

thats another possibility but not proven

Capt'n Midnight

SOL wrote:

Get a telescope and have a look, they leftthings up their....

They left mirrors, the distance to the moon can be determined by how long it takes laser light to bounce back.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment
http://www.obs-azur.fr/cerga/laser/laslune/llr.htm

Mucco

Yeah, those Mars explorer thingys are actually in the desert in Morocco, I've seem 'em there.

M

weeder

all nasa is running of is i386 machines but if they upgraded to say AMD64 units they might get a lot further in space(completley unrelated i know but i thought i might say)

billy the squid

Mucco wrote:

Yeah, those Mars explorer thingys are actually in the desert in Morocco, I've seem 'em there.

M

be respectful of those who wish to discuss this issue or go away.

Undergod

hmm 2 things to take into consideration...no matter what niel armstrong was NOT first man on the moon because someone had to be holding the camera where it showed hiim getting out also the US flag blows even thought there is no wind on the moon

The camera could obviously have been automated or somesuch. There's an article on this on a Focus magazine from years ago, in issue 123. Most of the evidence given by the 'faked' side can be explained away. NASA would not be stupid enough to fake a moon landing with a flag blowing in the desert wind.

I don't really think there's much to this theory.

Edit: Yes, according to that issue of Focus (Feb. 2003) the Very Large Telescope in Chile will soon be ready and able to see the Lunar Module.

angry_fox

Heres a picture of the Apollo 15 landing site

galactus

Let me guess...Arts graduate?

This has been done to death. Check badastronomy.com/ for the details.

Zapho

Is it true that Nasa or Esa are sending up a satellite to take readings from the moon, and in the process will photograph the landing sites for proof of the landings? I think I read that on BBC.co.uk . By the way I'm the worlds worst person for referencing, I always remember the article, I just can't remember who wrote it, or where it came from!

dullfig

the more you know of the details of the apollo missions, the less you believe it was faked. For example, the on-board computer was built at that time for an enourmous amount of money, using components that had to be pretty much invented for the purpose. This was totally un-necesary, since most rockets of the day where flying by transmitting the telemetry from the ground. The reason NASA wanted an onboard computer, is they where afraid Russia would jam the telemetry signals to doom the mission. None of this would have been a concern if they were faking the whole thing.

Like I always say: all of the hardware produced during the Apollo program was actually capable of flying to the moon. Why not go then? Why would you fake it, if you could just as easily go instead? makes no sense.

And another thing: when that rocket took off, you can bet every dollar you have that Russia was tracking it. they would have KNOWN if something was fishy. It would have been VERY easy to verify that the astronaut's transmissions where coming from "out there": you need a dish antenna pointed out into space to hear them. That could not have been faked. Russia HAD to have been monitoring everything they could about the mission, and they never ONCE said the whole thing was faked. And to say that russia was "in" on it, is to forget that Nikita Kruschev said "we will bury you"! THey hated our guts. they had no interest whatsoever in the USA beating them to the moon.

Dan

Capt'n Midnight

Bond-007 wrote:

I reckon the the tv broadcast had copyright 1969 universal studios on it.

any thoughts?

Yeah - the copyright expires in 2019.

Seriously if you are suggesting Hollywood involvement then you are forgetting that with very few exceptions ( Sneakers ) Hollywood consistantly gets the technology/science/physics so wrong that it's laughable. The scripts and special effects are also consistantly wrong.

There is an argument that it was too unsafe to send real people to the moon. But 3 astronauts were burnt to death early in the Apollo program. And the death rate amongst carrier pilots in the 50's was far far worse. During the Vietnam war they had heart rate monitors on the pilots and actual combat was less stressful than landing on a carrier at night. Oh did I mention Vietnam ? - lots of Americans getting killed and millions of vietnamese as part of the Cold War, so no problem risking three more lives.

JimmySmith

Shamrok wrote:

There are lots of moon hoax landings sites out there. This one has plenty of photos to look at.

I always find it funny how people are more prepared to believe that the entire moon program was faked due to evidence from photographs (which if you know anything about physics or photography can be explained) rathe than suspect it might be just photos that were faked

But faked photos to disprove the moon landings arent as much fun as a faked moon landing i guess

Kernel

Here's one of the old pruned theads:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-308287.html

I think threads get pruned too quickly on this forum.

billy the squid

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=308287

what do you mean by pruned? just because it shows up in boards.ie/archive does not mean it has been pruned.

Kernel

billy the squid wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=308287

what do you mean by pruned? just because it shows up in boards.ie/archive does not mean it has been pruned.

It doesn't show up in this forum, like many other old threads. Is that not forum pruning in vBulletin?

Sam Vimes

Undergod wrote:

The camera could obviously have been automated or somesuch. There's an article on this on a Focus magazine from years ago, in issue 123. Most of the evidence given by the 'faked' side can be explained away. NASA would not be stupid enough to fake a moon landing with a flag blowing in the desert wind.

I don't really think there's much to this theory.

Edit: Yes, according to that issue of Focus (Feb. 2003) the Very Large Telescope in Chile will soon be ready and able to see the Lunar Module.

isn't the appollo 11 module on the far side of the moon? the side that never faces earth?

Undergod

Possibly, but I doubt all of the landings were there. Especially as that mirror has been used in several experiments.

galactus

Commander Vimes wrote:

isn't the appollo 11 module on the far side of the moon? the side that never faces earth?

No. Apollo 11 landed on the Sea of Tranquility

As i've said in an earlier post, this has been done to death. It makes a great movie though: watch Capricorn One if you get a chance.

The Real B-man

fake

Undergod

Oh, well that settles it

Capt'n Midnight

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Moon_hoax

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Moonulation_copy.jpg
Apollo 13 leaving the Moon shortly before the disaster.

Our man in Havana

That is a class site uncyclopedia.org

murphaph

weeder wrote:

...no matter what niel armstrong was NOT first man on the moon...

You're absolutely right, he wasn't, but this guy was

weeder wrote:

...also the US flag blows even thought there is no wind on the moon...

The flagstaff was an inverted L-shaped piece of tubular aluminium (obviously lightweight materials were used wherever possible) which was very flexible and 'springy' and given that there is no atmosphere on the moon then there was no air-friction to stop any oscillations, only the moon's gravity brought oscillations to a stop and that took ages because the moon's gravity is 1/6th of that on the earth. This oscillation has been given as grounds for the apparent wave of the flag in some of the images. The flag itself had a wire mesh to give it form.

Capt'n Midnight

Commander Vimes wrote:

isn't the appollo 11 module on the far side of the moon? the side that never faces earth?

All the manned landings were on this side.

Just here

I totally agree 100% that they never went to the moon in 1969 and that they haven't been since because the technology they have is illegal and this is why they can't take it out past a certain point because they would be breaking Universal Laws and become accountable for this illegal Alien technology.

If this wasn't true, don't you think Bush and his cronies would love to be going to the moon to distract everybody's focus from the 9-11 lies and his war on terror.

Capt'n Midnight

Just here wrote:

I totally agree 100% that they never went to the moon in 1969

Something did - http://c2.com/optic/

Just here wrote:

and that they haven't been since because the technology they have is illegal and this is why they can't take it out past a certain point because they would be breaking Universal Laws and become accountable for this illegal Alien technology.

So Nuking Japan is legal under universal law ?
Actually its a very geocentric view to take, because what is this certain point ,since the earth orbits the Sun it's actually a torus (donut) shaped region of space. ?
Or it's gotta be past the orbit of Pluto because voyager's already got that far.

Just here wrote:

If this wasn't true, don't you think Bush and his cronies would love to be going to the moon to distract everybody's focus from the 9-11 lies and his war on terror.

If you haven't heard Bush & soundbites about manned mission to mars then you really must be from a different planet.

Undergod

Just here wrote:

I totally agree 100% that they never went to the moon in 1969 and that they haven't been since because the technology they have is illegal and this is why they can't take it out past a certain point because they would be breaking Universal Laws and become accountable for this illegal Alien technology.

If this wasn't true, don't you think Bush and his cronies would love to be going to the moon to distract everybody's focus from the 9-11 lies and his war on terror.

They used illegal alien technology to not go to the moon?


Right so.

dr zoidberg

Just here wrote:

...the technology they have is illegal and this is why they can't take it out past a certain point because they would be breaking Universal Laws and become accountable for this illegal Alien technology.

Care to elaborate?



I must have missed the news when the DOOP charter was published :rolleyes:


DOOP= Democratic Order of Planets in Futurama

Just here

If we look at the logic, if we had the technology to go to the moon in ’69 surely it would be much simpler now with all their advanced technology.

Or am I correct that this technology is illegal which would make our Alien friends and those of us using it accountable for their act because, as we have Laws to govern us, surely then they would most definitely have Higher Laws and Authority, which they would have to abide by and answer to.

Capt'n Midnight

Just here wrote:

If we look at the logic, if we had the technology to go to the moon in ’69 surely it would be much simpler now with all their advanced technology.

Why don't we build Egyptian pyramids anymore ?

a - we've don't have bronze age technology anymore :rolleyes:

b - it's bloody expensive and the people with the purses couldn't be arsed.

Just here wrote:

Or am I correct that this technology is illegal which would make our Alien friends and those of us using it accountable for their act because, as we have Laws to govern us, surely then they would most definitely have Higher Laws and Authority, which they would have to abide by and answer to.

How can it be illegal ?
The plain people of Ireland haven't voted on a referedum to allow alien law.

As to who you think is breaking which law , please reword the paragraoh ..

Moon landings are for real man.would arstrong really fluster his quote on purpose?

Esel

SOL wrote:

Get a telescope and have a look, they leftthings up their....

Soz for sloooow reply, . . . . but up their ....what?

Undergod

Just here wrote:

If we look at the logic, if we had the technology to go to the moon in ’69 surely it would be much simpler now with all their advanced technology.

Or am I correct that this technology is illegal which would make our Alien friends and those of us using it accountable for their act because, as we have Laws to govern us, surely then they would most definitely have Higher Laws and Authority, which they would have to abide by and answer to.

All whose advanced technology? Rocketry hasn't progressed much in the past three decades.

As for the laws, why would they necessarily have laws? We have no idea how alien societies would operate. Flawed and speciocentric logic, I'm afraid.

miju

can you please back up your claim that this technology is illegal, such as links?

why would the technology be illegal, is it dangerous????? who decreed it illegal and so forth,

if your going to make claims as such at least be prepared to back them up [particularly on this forum of all forums :-) ]

Capt'n Midnight

Undergod wrote:

All whose advanced technology? Rocketry hasn't progressed much in the past three decades.

Yeah the last big improvement was the Russians diverting the exhaust from the turbopumps. Warehouse full of them , they haven't been made in decades. So execpting that one rocket motor, there has been no major improvement in launch vehicles since the first two stage liquid fueld rocket that used gimbals instead of vanes for steering.
So its more like 6 or 7 decades.

Almost every other improvement has been got through weight reduction, and using bigger rockets/more stages. Compared to the mpg improvement in cars nothing much has happened in rocketry for ages.