Moon landing hoax

RustyBeanTin · 09-02-2010 12:35am #1

Now i am certainly not one for believeing all these conspiricy theroies but this caught my eye, watch it and decide for yourself, open your minds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0

Truthrevolution · 09-02-2010 12:39am

RustyBeanTin wrote: »

Now i am certainly not one for believeing all these conspiricy theroies but this caught my eye, watch it and decide for yourself, open your minds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0

Ha ha i was wondering when somebody was going to bring up the moon landing conspiracy

mcmoustache · 09-02-2010 3:55am

I've never heard of this moon landing conspiracy. Was OJ Simpson involved somehow?

Mahatma coat · 09-02-2010 5:24am

whats this particular conspiracy, I still dont have sound, and now I'm on the Lunchroom LinuxBox, which dosent do Youtube either

:(

Is it one we've had before or is it something new?

uprising2 · 09-02-2010 5:56am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

whats this particular conspiracy, I still dont have sound, and now I'm on the Lunchroom LinuxBox, which dosent do Youtube either :(

Is it one we've had before or is it something new?

Its where the lights fall down as neil armstrong is stepping onto the moon for the first take, it's as false as the real footage of them on the moon.

Here's a better documentary on the moon hoax:

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon

or

Did We Really Land Men On The Moon

Personally I don't believe man has ever left earth orbit, nevermind walked on the moon 40 years ago,

Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?
(And why haven't we been back to the moon in 41 years?)
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

Sorry about the video's mahatma, but maybe you'll learn not to drink and surf, its as bad as drink driving, sometimes even worse when you wake up next morning and see what you've wrote the night before, you can scrape a person off your car, but it's more difficult to erase what you wrote when some fukker has you quoted, almost happened me once or twice, till somebody advised me to "delete that post";)

Mahatma coat · 09-02-2010 7:39am

See I'm firmly in the -we Did GO to The moon, but what they tell us happened is utter bollox- Camp.

I believe that Humans have been to the moon, I believe that NASA are lyin their asses off about things that happened, I beleive that the Astronauts did encounter other Craft on the journey.

as for why didnt we go back, It always shocks ansd saddens me that people got bored of LIVE COLOUR Images being Transmitted from the Moon, but ultimatley

'Ya seen one earthrise ya Seen em All'

namloc1980 · 09-02-2010 10:28am

Funny video....but if you really want a laugh watch 'A funny thing happened on the way to the moon'. Bart Sibrel makes up some funny stuff in that. I'm amazed anyone actually still listens to Sibrel.

squod · 09-02-2010 5:00pm

Looks like this debate could start all over, feels like weeks since this was discussed. This vid still cracks me up, hillarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdqBL5pdRT8

fontanalis · 09-02-2010 5:09pm

Youtube, opening minds from virgins moms basements for thelast few years.

09-02-2010 5:16pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Youtube, opening minds from virgins moms basements for thelast few years.

You're just back from a two week ban, which was immediately preceded by a one week ban. One more trolling comment from you and you'll be banned for 6 months.

bytey · 11-02-2010 2:59pm

I also believe we have been on the moon, and possibly still are -
but we didnt do it using apollo

those astronauts boys are lying through their teeth , and the inconsistenecys in the photographic records speak for themselves.

people say " how could thousands of people keep this secret "

well, 130, 000 people kept the atomic bomb project secret til Hiroshima
with no problem.

people will do anything if

1/ they are paid off
2/ are told they will die if they say a word.

apollo was a hoax , and I pity the people who fall for it - thinking that the hoax believers are stupid - Im afraid you may need to look closer to home on that one .

blinding · 11-02-2010 3:26pm

So they went to the moon 40 years ago ? ? ?

Tell me something else that we could do 40 years ago but that we have great difficulty doing now (Particularly in the Technological field):D:D:D

robtri · 11-02-2010 3:51pm

RustyBeanTin wrote: »

Now i am certainly not one for believeing all these conspiricy theroies but this caught my eye, watch it and decide for yourself, open your minds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0

it did open my mind.... only to tht fact that some people actually believe that that video is supposed to be proof ...... very funny

humanji · 11-02-2010 4:51pm

blinding wrote: »

So they went to the moon 40 years ago ? ? ?

Tell me something else that we could do 40 years ago but that we have great difficulty doing now (Particularly in the Technological field):D:D:D

It's a hell of a lot easier to go to the moon now that it used to be. It's just more expensive and not a priority for any nations.

uprising2 · 11-02-2010 5:49pm

humanji wrote: »

It's a hell of a lot easier to go to the moon now that it used to be. It's just more expensive and not a priority for any nations.

If it's so easy why don't they have a platform there for further space exploration instead of the ISS which is closer to earth than Derry is to Cork, the ISS floats about 200 miles above us while the moon is roughly 250,000 miles away, then there's the van allen belt, solar radiation etc, these little obstacles have never been explained properly.

I can guarantee you that if you took your Hassleblad and a roll of kodak film to the moon, you won't get any images.

humanji · 11-02-2010 6:09pm

They don't use the moon for launching missions as it'd cost too much. Solar radiation and the van allen belt have been explained many times. And they got photos of the moon before, so I can't see them having a problem with doing it again.

Captain Chaos · 11-02-2010 6:16pm

humanji wrote: »

They don't use the moon for launching missions as it'd cost too much.

It would actually cost alot less and you could go alot further. Moon has 1/3 of Earths gravity = 2/3s less energy and fuel required to get into space, plus the Moon has no significant atmosphere, again less energy required.

The Moon is the ideal launch pad to travel farther into the solar system.

uprising2 · 11-02-2010 6:23pm

humanji wrote: »

They don't use the moon for launching missions as it'd cost too much. Solar radiation and the van allen belt have been explained many times. And they got photos of the moon before, so I can't see them having a problem with doing it again.

Moon Poses Radiation Risk to Future Travelers
Future lunar explorers counting on the moon to shield themselves from galactic cosmic rays might want to think about Plan B.
In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.
http://news.discovery.com/space/moon-radiation-gamma-rays.html

Baggage X-ray Scanning Effects on Film

Updated April 8, 2003
Airport Baggage Scanning Equipment Can Jeopardize Your Unprocessed Film

Because your pictures are important to you, this information is presented as an alert to travelers carrying unprocessed film. New FAA-certified (Federal Aviation Administration) explosive detection systems are being used in U.S. airports to scan (x-ray) checked baggage. This stronger scanning equipment is also being used in many non-US airports. The new equipment will fog any unprocessed film that passes through the scanner.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

RoboClam · 11-02-2010 6:37pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

It would actually cost alot less and you could go alot further. Moon has 1/3 of Earths gravity = 2/3s less energy and fuel required to get into space, plus the Moon has no significant atmosphere, again less energy required.

The Moon is the ideal launch pad to travel farther into the solar system.

The actual cost of transporting materials and water to the moon currently outweighs the gains which would come from the reduced gravity. The recent discovery of water on the moon may help to solve what is currently one of the biggest obstacles for a moon base.

humanji · 11-02-2010 7:07pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

It would actually cost alot less and you could go alot further. Moon has 1/3 of Earths gravity = 2/3s less energy and fuel required to get into space, plus the Moon has no significant atmosphere, again less energy required.

The Moon is the ideal launch pad to travel farther into the solar system.

The cost of sending craft form the moon would be less. But the cost of research and developing the whole project, the building of the project and upkeep of the project would bankrupt most nations. So who in their right mind would commit to such a project during a global recession when there's f*ck all to be benefited by it in the short term?

uprising2 wrote: »

Moon Poses Radiation Risk to Future Travelers
Future lunar explorers counting on the moon to shield themselves from galactic cosmic rays might want to think about Plan B.
In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.
http://news.discovery.com/space/moon-radiation-gamma-rays.html

Baggage X-ray Scanning Effects on Film

Updated April 8, 2003
Airport Baggage Scanning Equipment Can Jeopardize Your Unprocessed Film

Because your pictures are important to you, this information is presented as an alert to travelers carrying unprocessed film. New FAA-certified (Federal Aviation Administration) explosive detection systems are being used in U.S. airports to scan (x-ray) checked baggage. This stronger scanning equipment is also being used in many non-US airports. The new equipment will fog any unprocessed film that passes through the scanner.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

And it's the exact same x-ray waves that are found on the moon, is it? Or are you saying astronauts put their camera through an airport scanner before they went to the moon?

uprising2 · 11-02-2010 7:18pm

humanji wrote: »

And it's the exact same x-ray waves that are found on the moon, is it? Or are you saying astronauts put their camera through an airport scanner before they went to the moon?

Radiation on the moon is much stronger than an x-ray, I've done photography for almost 20 years and I can assure you film would not produce an image after being exposed to radiation on the moon, you may say they already took them and the proof is there, I can assure you and if need be prove that levels of radiation present now, 40 years ago or 40 years time on the moon would fog negative film, if not actually fry it altogether.

thecommander · 11-02-2010 7:23pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Radiation on the moon is much stronger than an x-ray, I've done photography for almost 20 years and I can assure you film would not produce an image after being exposed to radiation on the moon, you may say they already took them and the proof is there, I can assure you and if need be prove that levels of radiation present now, 40 years ago or 40 years time on the moon would fog negative film, if not actually fry it altogether.

So all photography from the moon is false?

namloc1980 · 11-02-2010 7:24pm

What I want to know is why the Russians/Soviets didn't say anything and expose the 'hoax'???? They could have made a laughing stock of the Americans but they didn't!! Why??

uprising2 · 11-02-2010 7:35pm

thecommander wrote: »

So all photography from the moon is false?

All photoraphs taken with negative film is impossible, I think the moving images were taken with cine 8 which also would fog, as for the "live" feed I don't know what format was used.

humanji · 11-02-2010 7:39pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Radiation on the moon is much stronger than an x-ray, I've done photography for almost 20 years and I can assure you film would not produce an image after being exposed to radiation on the moon, you may say they already took them and the proof is there, I can assure you and if need be prove that levels of radiation present now, 40 years ago or 40 years time on the moon would fog negative film, if not actually fry it altogether.

It's a different radiation. It reacts differently. If you can sort out an experiment that proves that the radiation spoken of in the article is the same or even more detrimental to the act of photography then please do. But right now, you're comparing apples and oranges.

uprising2 · 11-02-2010 7:45pm

namloc1980 wrote: »

What I want to know is why the Russians/Soviets didn't say anything and expose the 'hoax'???? They could have made a laughing stock of the Americans but they didn't!! Why??

Ok watch the first 3 minutes of
THIS

Check This to see just who this crazy story man is
Anthony C Sutton

Now I hope that answer's your question.

Antony Cyril Sutton (February 14, 1925 - June 17, 2002) was a British-born economist, historian, and writer. He studied at the universities of London, Goettingen and California and received his D.Sc. degree from University of Southampton, England. He was an economics professor at California State University Los Angeles and a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution from 1968 to 1973. During his time at the Hoover Institute he wrote the major study Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (in three volumes), detailing how the West played a major role in developing Soviet Union from its very beginnings up until the present time (1970). In 1973 he published a popularized, condensed version of the three volumes called National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and was thereby forced out of the Hoover Institution.

uprising2 · 11-02-2010 8:53pm

humanji wrote: »

It's a different radiation. It reacts differently. If you can sort out an experiment that proves that the radiation spoken of in the article is the same or even more detrimental to the act of photography then please do. But right now, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Yea I'll just hop into my rocket when I finish my tea and go do an experiment:rolleyes:

But seriously are NASA so incompetent as to lose the Apollo 11 original tapes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

humanji · 11-02-2010 9:54pm

I saw a documentary a while back that addresses that photo specifically, but so far can't find it. But here's a clip from Mythbusters about multiple lightsources on the moon:

Now this isn't proof that the landings weren't faked, but shows that it's possible for it to seem like there's a second lightsource.

I'll keep looking for the other documetary when I can (and I'll try and put all of these for and against the conspiracy up on the links thread too, but that's more of a note to myself.

).

Here's an article explaining the radiation and critiques David Groves explanation and tests: http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html

I've to run off, so hopefully I'll get a change to post some more on this tomorrow.

squod · 11-02-2010 10:29pm

humanji wrote: »

I saw a documentary a while back that addresses that photo specifically, but so far can't find it. But here's a clip from Mythbusters about multiple lightsources on the moon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0

Now this isn't proof that the landings weren't faked, but shows that it's possible for it to seem like there's a second lightsource.

I'll keep looking for the other documetary when I can (and I'll try and put all of these for and against the conspiracy up on the links thread too, but that's more of a note to myself. ).

Here's an article explaining the radiation and critiques David Groves explanation and tests: http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html

I've to run off, so hopefully I'll get a change to post some more on this tomorrow.

Article writen in 2006, there has been two probes sent to the moon since then and another to be sent. What we have here is speculation. We'll find out which camera works on the moon when people do land there in another nine years.
EDIT: the video above (and part 2) address nothing posted in the previous videos.

bonkey · 11-02-2010 11:08pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea I'll just hop into my rocket when I finish my tea and go do an experiment:rolleyes:

Makes one wonder how you can guarantee effects, or state the nature or strength of radiation on the moon as fact...

Abelloid · 11-02-2010 11:13pm

No oil up there, no reason to go back.

Moon landing hoax

Comments