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

Tordelback · 26-08-2010 04:05PM

The picture should have looked like they were taken on another galaxy with unfamiliar 'star' patterns.

You have to love a forum where someone claims the constellations should look different from the moon. That's when you know that this isn't our puny Earth science at play.

gbee · 26-08-2010 04:14PM

yekahs wrote: »

Sorry, .

Apology accepted. Thanks. No harm done.

gbee · 26-08-2010 04:24PM

Tordelback wrote: »

You have to love a forum where someone claims the constellations should look different from the moon. That's when you know that this isn't our puny Earth science at play.

I don't believe I said anything about the constellations.

The problem is the film, if the film was exposed to radiation and especially exposed passing the Van Allan belts then evidence should be on the film. It has to be.

Some frames would be totally ruined as solar electromagnetism passed through ~ but others should display white dots that should look like stars, they have to be there.

Naturally we'd need the original films to see, they've probably decayed now anyway.

The CT's are right about the missing stars, but for the wrong reasons, and if we did see them they, because they'd not be real stars, would not look like the recognisable pattern of stars in our sky.

Some CT'ers already claim to see odd star formations and try to claim a fake, when in fact they are proving the opposite.

alastair · 26-08-2010 05:06PM

gbee wrote: »

The problem is the film, if the film was exposed to radiation and especially exposed passing the Van Allan belts then evidence should be on the film. It has to be.

Some frames would be totally ruined as solar electromagnetism passed through ~ but others should display white dots that should look like stars, they have to be there.

Wiki is a short google away:

Q. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.

A. The film was kept in metal containers that prevented radiation from fogging the film's emulsion. In addition, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 (which used on-board film development processes) was not fogged.

Tordelback · 26-08-2010 05:45PM

Ah, I see - I misunderstood you Gbee. Anyway...

gbee wrote: »

Naturally we'd need the original films to see, they've probably decayed now anyway.

I very much doubt it. Properly stored two-and-a-quarter inch square polyester-support negative film should last several centuries at least.

26-08-2010 10:45PM

gbee wrote: »

Well, they're all fake so then. Thanks. I didn't know this.

So you're willing to believe that every space mission is fake becasue you where told that they should show white specks?
Well some people would swallow anything it seems.

gbee wrote: »

I don't believe I said anything about the constellations.

Yea, you did.

gbee wrote: »

What should be the argument in the context of CT is that the landing took place somewhere else, because the star pattern was not right, instead we have no stars.

The picture should have looked like they were taken on another galaxy with unfamiliar 'star' patterns.

gbee wrote: »

The problem is the film, if the film was exposed to radiation and especially exposed passing the Van Allan belts then evidence should be on the film. It has to be.

Some frames would be totally ruined as solar electromagnetism passed through

Hang on....

gbee wrote: »

Oh no, film can survive in space but the missing stars are the clue, not that the film did not record any stars, but it should have looked like it did.

So which is it?
Or are you going to stick to moving the goalposts?

gbee wrote: »

~ but others should display white dots that should look like stars, they have to be there.

Says who?
Where are you getting this silly idea from?

gbee wrote: »

Naturally we'd need the original films to see, they've probably decayed now anyway.

So you haven't seen the films but are adamant they don't display any radiation effects...
How does that work?

gbee wrote: »

The CT's are right about the missing stars, but for the wrong reasons, and if we did see them they, because they'd not be real stars, would not look like the recognisable pattern of stars in our sky.

Some CT'ers already claim to see odd star formations and try to claim a fake, when in fact they are proving the opposite.

Care to show these pictures?
Or back up your nonsensical claims?

gbee · 27-08-2010 07:21PM

King Mob wrote: »

This is all great fun. But I'm working on a monotone utube exposé which will go into the minutia of detail.

I've become convinced that the 1969 Moon Landings were faked to some degree, to my eyes it so glaring, it's silly, but I don't want to insult anyone.

I was not actually aware that some of what I've said has not been investigated, I don't have time usually, I work in a field that gets me access to information that is not in the public domain, however, this has surprised me as I thought I was innocently posting already 'proven' subject matter, obviously not.

So I see an opportunity to make some money and I won't post further. Thanks all.

alastair · 27-08-2010 07:23PM

gbee wrote: »

So I see an opportunity to make some money and I won't post further. Thanks all.

I'll be first to buy some of your moon cheese. Put me down for a kilo.

27-08-2010 10:21PM

gbee wrote: »

I've become convinced that the 1969 Moon Landings were faked to some degree, to my eyes it so glaring, it's silly, but I don't want to insult anyone.

And yet you can't back up anything you claim, or point out any of the glaring obvious indications....
Why is that?

gbee wrote: »

I was not actually aware that some of what I've said has not been investigated, I don't have time usually, I work in a field that gets me access to information that is not in the public domain, however, this has surprised me as I thought I was innocently posting already 'proven' subject matter, obviously not.

So I see an opportunity to make some money and I won't post further. Thanks all.

And I bet you can't provide any evidence of this or explain any of the details either...
Almost exactly like you're making it up....

karaokeman · 03-12-2010 12:09AM

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.

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

Weird.

This is the show that got me into the Moon Landing conspiracy also.

Its convincing enough, but the editing was brutal.

They took Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene, Brian O' Leary and David Percy all out of context in both their interviews and the introduction to their characters.

furiousox · 03-12-2010 12:19AM

Ever heard of Bart Sibrel?
Doorstepped Buzz Aldrin and got a punch in the face for his troubles.
Good enough for me...go Buzz!

Bart SibrelMost astronauts have refused to grant him interviews due to his attempts to obtain footage that would make them admit being conspirators in a hoax. The most infamous incident involved Apollo 11 crew member Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. According to Aldrin, he was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel under the pretext of an interview on space for a Japanese children's television show. When he arrived, Aldrin claims Sibrel was there demanding that he swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon.
When Aldrin refused, Sibrel called him a coward, a liar, and a thief.[1] An exasperated Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw, which was recorded. Sibrel later attempted to use the tape to convince police and prosecutors that he was the victim of an assault. However, it was decided that Aldrin had been provoked, and (based on Sibrel's unfazed, nearly instant reaction to his camera man) did not actually injure Sibrel, and no charges were filed. Many talk show hosts aired the clip, making Sibrel the butt of jokes.

karaokeman · 03-12-2010 12:32AM

furiousox wrote: »

Ever heard of Bart Sibrel?
Doorstepped Buzz Aldrin and got a punch in the face for his troubles.
Good enough for me...go Buzz!

Bart SibrelMost astronauts have refused to grant him interviews due to his attempts to obtain footage that would make them admit being conspirators in a hoax. The most infamous incident involved Apollo 11 crew member Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. According to Aldrin, he was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel under the pretext of an interview on space for a Japanese children's television show. When he arrived, Aldrin claims Sibrel was there demanding that he swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon.
When Aldrin refused, Sibrel called him a coward, a liar, and a thief.[1] An exasperated Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw, which was recorded. Sibrel later attempted to use the tape to convince police and prosecutors that he was the victim of an assault. However, it was decided that Aldrin had been provoked, and (based on Sibrel's unfazed, nearly instant reaction to his camera man) did not actually injure Sibrel, and no charges were filed. Many talk show hosts aired the clip, making Sibrel the butt of jokes.

I didn't think it was right that Sibrel was called an 'astronaut stalker' because of that incident.

But I do think he went too far when he tried to force Aldrin to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon.

Divorce Referendum · 03-12-2010 12:32AM

furiousox wrote: »

Ever heard of Bart Sibrel?
Doorstepped Buzz Aldrin and got a punch in the face for his troubles.
Good enough for me...go Buzz!

Bart SibrelMost astronauts have refused to grant him interviews due to his attempts to obtain footage that would make them admit being conspirators in a hoax. The most infamous incident involved Apollo 11 crew member Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. According to Aldrin, he was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel under the pretext of an interview on space for a Japanese children's television show. When he arrived, Aldrin claims Sibrel was there demanding that he swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon.
When Aldrin refused, Sibrel called him a coward, a liar, and a thief.[1] An exasperated Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw, which was recorded. Sibrel later attempted to use the tape to convince police and prosecutors that he was the victim of an assault. However, it was decided that Aldrin had been provoked, and (based on Sibrel's unfazed, nearly instant reaction to his camera man) did not actually injure Sibrel, and no charges were filed. Many talk show hosts aired the clip, making Sibrel the butt of jokes.

Good man Buzz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU

Divorce Referendum · 03-12-2010 12:42AM

I have to say the moonlandings is one conspiracy theory that does raise a number of questions. I found this documentary very good however analysing some of those theories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGfdbvHuC6Y

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntax5zSOnP8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYjnOPk0Qjc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a45wDyxnM8M

shedweller · 04-12-2010 10:28PM

One of my favorite moon videos is one taken from inside the lander as it launched off the moon. As it rises you can see mylar blowing across the surface after it was blown off the descent stage by the ascent stages engine. The thing is, the mylar kept spinning as it sped over the surface for what i guess is maybe 100 metres. It wouldn't do that in air, would it. Mylar is very thin, light and flexible. If it was flying through air it would just buckle and bend and stop flying due to the air pressure against it.
The moon landing CT is such a load of crap.
I have to wonder why it keeps coming back for an a$$ wupping!:pac:
Bring it on a-h0les!!

squod · 05-12-2010 06:09PM

Post up a vdeo, then gives us your explanation of how the yoke is spinning etc.

shedweller · 05-12-2010 07:01PM

squod wrote: »

Post up a vdeo, then gives us your explanation of how the yoke is spinning etc.

Sure thing. Here you go:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbOq-fRp5YI&feature=related
At the 26 second mark you will see two large pieces of mylar spinning into the distance.

squod · 06-12-2010 01:55AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QdsEvZ3wSY

Can't say it's retaining its shape that well really. It's also travelling at an angle perpendicular to it's original location (like a frisbee). It also could be bonded to something, frame rates on the clips aren't great. It's a gold, silver, black, grey mess travelling away from the camera at speed.

shedweller · 06-12-2010 11:06AM

Considering its a very thin sheet of mylar after being pushed by rocket engine exhaust, i'd say it is holding its shape very well.
The fact that its perpendicular to its original location is because it came from the descent stage. The smaller piece to its left is also leaving the descent stage and therefore is spreading out in a radial fashion, from the descent stage.
You can see at about 35 to 40 seconds on the video i posted, that the mylar went almost as far past the group of experiments as the lander was from the experiments themselves. The ALSEP experiments were 110 metres from apollo 15 as is mentioned here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_15_ALSEP.svg

So i would guess that the mylar in question went at least 150 metres, before it landed.
If it was weighted with something to that far in air, then it wouldnt stop so quick when it contacted the ground.

I still can't believe so many people devote so much time to this nonsense when the IMF and their ilk are stealing our future out of our hands. If CTers devoted as much time to sacking corrupt politicians etc, this would be a great country.:mad:

meglome · 06-12-2010 02:21PM

shedweller wrote: »

I still can't believe so many people devote so much time to this nonsense when the IMF and their ilk are stealing our future out of our hands. If CTers devoted as much time to sacking corrupt politicians etc, this would be a great country.:mad:

I think you'll find the IMF have come to save us from ourselves. Sad yet true.

My name is URL · 06-12-2010 03:00PM

meglome wrote: »

I think you'll find the IMF have come to save us from ourselves. Sad yet true.

You never tire of that line do you? I can't speak for everyone else (and neither can you btw) but I never needed saving from myself. The IMF are handing us a debt which we are unlikely to be able to sustain. Just the same as what banks here were doing during the boom years.

/sorry for staying off-topic

meglome · 06-12-2010 03:33PM

My name is URL wrote: »

You never tire of that line do you? I can't speak for everyone else (and neither can you btw) but I never needed saving from myself. The IMF are handing us a debt which we are unlikely to be able to sustain. Just the same as what banks here were doing during the boom years.

/sorry for staying off-topic

Nope I don't... Every single day I see at least one person on boards.ie blaming our mess on the EU, the Lisbon treaty, the IMF, the ECB etc etc. We are not all as responsible as each other but if we don't stop pointing the finger of blame away from where it should be and taking some personal responsibility nothing will change. We badly need change.

Can someone explain to me how the dust falls in all the moon landing footage could be faked?

squod · 06-12-2010 07:47PM

meglome wrote: »

Nope I don't... Every single day I see at least one person on boards.ie blaming our mess on the EU, the Lisbon treaty, the IMF, the ECB etc etc. We are not all as responsible as each other but if we don't stop pointing the finger of blame away from where it should be and taking some personal responsibility nothing will change. We badly need change.

We don't have personal responsibly and there's still (relatively) small figures associated with mortgage default. It's personal debt from gamblers and developers gotten from private banks that need paying back. Hence banksters need to talk to the those gamblers and developers.

Again.

Let me quote Mr Rehn's admirably frank reminder: "We need to recall that sovereign debt has not been at the origin of the crisis. Rather, private debt has become public debt. The financial sector has misallocated resources in the economy and then stopped working."

meglome wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how the dust falls in all the moon landing footage could be faked?

We've already seen dust falling at different speeds than the aastronaughts while travelling towards the surface of the moon.

squod · 06-12-2010 07:55PM

shedweller wrote: »

So i would guess that the mylar in question went at least 150 metres, before it landed.
If it was weighted with something to that far in air, then it wouldnt stop so quick when it contacted the ground.

What did it weigh, what size was it and what forces were acting upon it?

namloc1980 · 06-12-2010 08:52PM

shedweller wrote: »

Sure thing. Here you go:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbOq-fRp5YI&feature=related
At the 26 second mark you will see two large pieces of mylar spinning into the distance.

I'm curious, where do the hoax believers think this sequence of video was actually taken??

joebucks · 07-12-2010 01:33AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

I'm curious, where do the hoax believers think this sequence of video was actually taken??

London. One theory is that Kubrick filmed it in the same studio and with the same equipment that he filmed 2001 A Space Odyssey.

07-12-2010 01:47AM

joebucks wrote: »

London. One theory is that Kubrick filmed it in the same studio and with the same equipment that he filmed 2001 A Space Odyssey.

So all those civilian workers in the studio were in on it too?

What evidence is there to suggest that Kubrick was involved?

joebucks · 07-12-2010 01:59AM

King Mob wrote: »

So all those civilian workers in the studio were in on it too?

No they all had "accident's" after the shoot.

What evidence is there to suggest that Kubrick was involved?

See The Shining

07-12-2010 02:08AM

joebucks wrote: »

No they all had "accident's" after the shoot.

See The Shining

Now you see the thing with conspiracy theories is it's hard to tell when people are taking the piss, as people often believe things as silly as this.

joebucks · 07-12-2010 12:56PM

King Mob wrote: »

Now you see the thing with conspiracy theories is it's hard to tell when people are taking the piss, as people often believe things as silly as this.

You see the thing about skeptics is that when they hear people discussing a particular theory, they often assume that those discussing the theory believe everything about that theory and are nutjobs.

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

Comments