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

Phill Ewinn · 09-01-2011 06:10PM

already covered. Some time ago, wikileaks release secret files handled by hundreds of people everyday. N1 was only made public after a thirty year coverup. Of course I might as well have just written blah, blah, blah in response to your post. You're clearly not interested in the truth.

09-01-2011 06:20PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

already covered. Some time ago, wikileaks release secret files handled by hundreds of people everyday. N1 was only made public after a thirty year coverup. Of course I might as well have just written blah, blah, blah in response to your post. You're clearly not interested in the truth.

So again we're back to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have to keep a secret perfectly for 40 years.

Ah, but then you counter by saying that only a select few needed to know the truth.

But then for the last few pages you've been saying how every geologist in the world is in on it. As well as the thousands of people would would have had to work on the secret space program to place retroreflectors on the moon. And there's all the people working on projects that image the moon who have to alter the images when they come in. And then there's the Russians and all the current Nasa employees who would have figured it out...

So again we have hundreds of thousands of people you would need to bribe, and continue to bribe just to stay quiet, let alone fund their efforts to keep the hoax going.
It would have bee so much cheaper and easier just to go to the moon.

noel1717 · 09-01-2011 06:35PM

Back in the 80s a French spy satellite took pictures over area 52 in the US, they posted them, one of interest was a moon landing site with everything in detail, including the landing craft, a year later 1986 the US launched an attack on Tripoli, Libya, the Target was Gadaffi, although the French Embassy was some eight miles from there intended victim, an F-111Es diverted and made a strike, narrowly missing it,s intended Target, but I,m sure the message got across.

Phill Ewinn · 09-01-2011 07:04PM

King Mob wrote: »

So again we're back to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have to keep a secret perfectly for 40 years.

Ah, but then you counter by saying that only a select few needed to know the truth.

But then for the last few pages you've been saying how every geologist in the world is in on it. As well as the thousands of people would would have had to work on the secret space program to place retroreflectors on the moon. And there's all the people working on projects that image the moon who have to alter the images when they come in. And then there's the Russians and all the current Nasa employees who would have figured it out...

So again we have hundreds of thousands of people you would need to bribe, and continue to bribe just to stay quiet, let alone fund their efforts to keep the hoax going.
It would have bee so much cheaper and easier just to go to the moon.

No, what I've been saying is the only people keeping this thing going are hoax deniers like yourself. NASA aren't posting on message boards like these, people like you are. NASA are telling you about the scanned debris being different to the Apollo samples. NASA are telling you about the secondary radiation caused by aluminium shielding. NOAA are telling you about solar flare activity at the time of the landings etc. It's only people like you keeping this hoax going !

Latchy · 09-01-2011 07:09PM

As somebody who as a kid watched it all happen first time around, I have never doubted it and have no reason now to think otherwise .

namloc1980 · 09-01-2011 07:20PM

noel1717 wrote: »

Back in the 80s a French spy satellite took pictures over area 52 in the US, they posted them, one of interest was a moon landing site with everything in detail, including the landing craft, a year later 1986 the US launched an attack on Tripoli, Libya, the Target was Gadaffi, although the French Embassy was some eight miles from there intended victim, an F-111Es diverted and made a strike, narrowly missing it,s intended Target, but I,m sure the message got across.

I put "French spy satellite area 52 moon" into Google and the first result is this thread!!

So any source for this or maybe you could post the pictures?

09-01-2011 07:21PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No, what I've been saying is the only people keeping this thing going are hoax deniers like yourself. NASA aren't posting on message boards like these, people like you are.

So why do you think NASA is releasing this info in the first place if it disproves the moon landing?
Is it not possible that you are just misrepresenting these things to fit your predetermined conclusion.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

NASA are telling you about the scanned debris being different to the Apollo samples.

Again: How are they different and how does this prove the Apollo samples are fake?

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

NASA are telling you about the secondary radiation caused by aluminium shielding.

Yes it does. Now how much radiation would the astronauts be subject to on a trip to the moon and how much is a lethal dose?

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

NOAA are telling you about solar flare activity at the time of the landings etc. It's only people like you keeping this hoax going !

And what exactly did they that specifically shows that the moon landing were not possible?

And you failed to address the point of my post.
That hundreds of thousands of people must be in on it, and that by imagining stuff like a secret space program to explain gaps in the hoax theory you negate the excuse that "only a few would have to know the truth."

You see these are very simple questions, why are you having difficulty answering them?
Particularly the radiation one. If you can't answer that one, how do you know that the radiation was lethal other than you simply believe what you are told by cranks?

Phill Ewinn · 09-01-2011 08:40PM

King Mob wrote: »

So why do you think NASA is releasing this info in the first place if it disproves the moon landing?
Is it not possible that you are just misrepresenting these things to fit your predetermined conclusion.

Again: How are they different and how does this prove the Apollo samples are fake?

Yes it does. Now how much radiation would the astronauts be subject to on a trip to the moon and how much is a lethal dose?

And what exactly did they that specifically shows that the moon landing were not possible?

And you failed to address the point of my post.
That hundreds of thousands of people must be in on it, and that by imagining stuff like a secret space program to explain gaps in the hoax theory you negate the excuse that "only a few would have to know the truth."

You see these are very simple questions, why are you having difficulty answering them?
Particularly the radiation one. If you can't answer that one, how do you know that the radiation was lethal other than you simply believe what you are told by cranks?

500 rad. The rest of your post is essentially the pot calling the kettle black. You've been shown up as a liar only a few posts back yet you expect people to take your opinions seriously. If anyone can go around calling people cranks it's not you.... Answer me this then. Why are you denying what NASA and NOAA are telling you?

noel1717 · 09-01-2011 08:46PM

King Mob wrote: »

So you mean the unmanned mission wasn't able to correctly position the reflector?
Could you tell us what happened to the only other unmanned reflector?

Yet the apollo ones have been used consistently for the last 40 years all over the world.

Nope you just declared it without evidence or support.

Yes a secret space program of highly advanced robotic probes sent to the moon and back to return more than a hundred times the amount of samples ever returned to earth previously or since, and for which there isn't a jot of evidence.
And yet you still claim that "only a few have to know"...

So beyond that it's an attempt to patch a giant hole in the moon hoax theory, what evidence do you have for this secret space program?

And I explained this to you. Which parts did you fail to understand?
Was it the part that the apollo samples are only a teeny tiny sample compared to readings of the entire moon?
Or was it the bit where I explained how radiation works and how that once the lunar rocks were no longer exposed to the bare solar radiation that they would slowly lose their own radioactivity?

So again Uprising for at least the fifth time, exactly how much radiation were the astronauts subject to and how much is a lethal dose?

And you do understand how you are dishonestly presenting that quote right?
Here's the important bit:

The person you are quoting clearly believes that the missions were real.

people like me! and the press plus a few scientist, but what are you by authority.

noel1717 · 09-01-2011 08:55PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

I put "French spy satellite area 52 moon" into Google and the first result is this thread!!

So any source for this or maybe you could post the pictures?

I refer you to this post http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=305794 as you can understand such evidence is erased over time, look at post 431 the french satellites are now under US jurisdiction. however if i come across the pics i will post them

09-01-2011 09:01PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

500 rad.

Ok what's your source for this number?
Is it the amount they received or a lethal dose?
Was it over the three days or per day?

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

The rest of your post is essentially the pot calling the kettle black. You've been shown up as a liar only a few posts back yet you expect people to take your opinions seriously. If anyone can go around calling people cranks it's not you....

Well I didn't lie, you're just misinterpreting what I said for some reason.
I apologise for thinking my meaning would be clear.

And again I haven't been asking anyone to simply take my word for anything, I'm just asking you simple questions which you are having trouble answering.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Answer me this then. Why are you denying what NASA and NOAA are telling you?

Because they simply aren't saying what you are telling us they are saying.

So please point out exactly what you think they say that make the moon landings impossible or a hoax.

09-01-2011 09:06PM

noel1717 wrote: »

people like me!and the press plus a few scientist, but what are you by authority.

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

I don't have any authority, nor am I relying on any, despite the far greater number of press people and scientists who believe the conspiracy theory is ridiculous.

I'm just asking simple questions about the conspiracy which you guys can't seem to answer.

Have you asked yourself the question about the radiation?
Do you know how much they received and how much is a lethal dose?

namloc1980 · 09-01-2011 09:15PM

noel1717 wrote: »

I refer you to this post http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=305794 as you can understand such evidence is erased over time, look at post 431 the french satellites are now under US jurisdiction. however if i come across the pics i will post them

Huh???? There's only 47 posts in that thread?

noel1717 · 09-01-2011 09:39PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Huh???? There's only 47 posts in that thread?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

noel1717 · 09-01-2011 09:40PM

King Mob wrote: »

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

I don't have any authority, nor am I relying on any, despite the far greater number of press people and scientists who believe the conspiracy theory is ridiculous.

I'm just asking simple questions about the conspiracy which you guys can't seem to answer.

Have you asked yourself the question about the radiation?
Do you know how much they received and how much is a lethal dose?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

09-01-2011 09:48PM

noel1717 wrote: »

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

And precisely none of that gives any figure for the amount of radiation.

So again the question stands.

Do you know how much they received and how much is a lethal dose?

namloc1980 · 09-01-2011 11:32PM

noel1717 wrote: »

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

Don't see any mention of Area 51 or French satellites taking pictures of alleged moon sets in Area 51 on that website. What was the point in posting that link?

Divorce Referendum · 09-01-2011 11:55PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

500 rad. The rest of your post is essentially the pot calling the kettle black. You've been shown up as a liar only a few posts back yet you expect people to take your opinions seriously. If anyone can go around calling people cranks it's not you.... Answer me this then. Why are you denying what NASA and NOAA are telling you?

Phill perhaps you should look at this guys videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/philwebb59#p/u/4/lGzaqMlk-rA

He debunks without much effort some of the supposed 'evidence' that jarrah white presents to the moon landing conspiracy. Alot of the stuff jarrah presents is similar to what you are saying ....

squod · 10-01-2011 12:45AM

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101021-science-space-moon-crash-water-silver-mercury-nasa-lcross/

In addition to water, a NASA probe that crashed into a lunar crater last year churned up unexpected concentrations of silver and mercury, aka quicksilver, a new study says.

The metals had been found before in moon rocks brought back by Apollo astronauts, but the elements had appeared in only trace amounts. (Also see "Water Found in Apollo Moon Rocks.")

Water just turned up in moon rocks, all of a sudden. Jaysus, and they weren't from the polar regions.

10-01-2011 12:59AM

squod wrote: »

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101021-science-space-moon-crash-water-silver-mercury-nasa-lcross/

Water just turned up in moon rocks, all of a sudden. Jaysus, and they weren't from the polar regions.

1. LCROSS blasted a crater in the south pole of the moon. The Apollo missions where nearer the equator.
2. LCROSS blasted a really deep creator. The Apollo mission could only take surface samples.

3. If you actually read the article beyond the headline you will find this:

The surprising find hints at out how water may have arrived on the moon and why it become concentrated at the poles, astronomers say.

When impactors strike the lunar surface, the moon's easily vaporized metals, such as mercury and silver, tend to migrate—atom by atom—toward the cooler poles, much as water vapor in Earth's atmosphere condenses on cold surfaces.

Water and other volatile compounds brought in by asteroids and comets would similarly experience this "cold sink" effect.

So we can see that the sample tested here might be different to the samples collected by Apollo.

So let's pretend that this wasn't the case. What exactly does this prove about the Moon landings? Why did NASA release this information if it showed a hoax?

namloc1980 · 10-01-2011 01:17AM

squod wrote: »

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101021-science-space-moon-crash-water-silver-mercury-nasa-lcross/

Water just turned up in moon rocks, all of a sudden. Jaysus, and they weren't from the polar regions.

You left this bit out:

The water levels detected in Apollo moon rocks and volcanic glasses are in the thousands of parts per million, at most—which explains why analyses of the samples in the late 1960s and early 1970s concluded that the moon was absolutely arid.

"Only in the last decade have instruments become sensitive enough to even analyze water at those kinds of concentrations," said Gary Lofgren, the lunar curator at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

squod · 10-01-2011 01:31AM

Only in the last decade. Not last year lol.

namloc1980 · 10-01-2011 01:50AM

squod wrote: »

Only in the last decade. Not last year lol.

What's your point

July 9, 2008 -- A new analysis of Apollo 15 moon rocks has for the first time uncovered water locked up inside.

It's just a miniscule amount of the wet stuff -- not enough to sustain even a lunar cactus or to power any hydrogen jetpacks -- but the discovery does bolster hopes that there has always been water in moon rocks and perhaps some locked away as ice in the dark crannies of polar craters.
The discovery also overturns 40 years of studies which had failed to find the water and which led to the conclusion, drawn by most planetary scientists, that moon rocks must be all dry.
"Folks said it was a waste of time," said lead researcher Alberto Saal of Brown University, regarding their proposal to look at the moon rocks one more time. "It took us three years to get it funded."
Still, using a refinement of a method called secondary mass spectrometry, Saal and his colleagues eventually were able to count molecules two orders of magnitude lower than in the past -- down to just four or five of water molecules per million. As it turned out, they found up to 46 parts per million in tiny volcanic glass balls brought back from the moon.
What really makes the case that this is truly old lunar water -- and not water made from hydrogen blasted from the sun into the moon rocks -- is the manner water is distributed inside the volcanic glass balls. Saal and his team found more water in the middle and less nearer the rims of the balls.
The only way for that to happen is if the water was in the rocks when they originally flowed out of lunar volcanoes and has been gradually diffusing away -- and perhaps some settling in cold dark craters -- over the billions of years since the rocks solidified.

Link

So that's hardly "last year". This is the fascinating thing about science....things change based on new research and evidence. Unlike conspiracies where conclusions are drawn and no amount of evidence will change the CTers biased point of view.

10-01-2011 01:56AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

July 9, 2008 -- A new analysis of Apollo 15 moon rocks has for the first time uncovered water locked up inside.

And before there's silly accusation of this paper being used to cover up the difference between the Apollo rocks and the LCROSS results, this paper was published much more than a year before the LCROSS mission hit the moon. and then it still took quite a lot of time for them to analyse the data from LCROSS.

So to those still harping on about the "differences" in the samples, would you like to explain how it's evidence of a hoax?

squod · 10-01-2011 02:02AM

The discovery was made of possible water in the polar regions by a lunar orbiter before that! That piece is whats called hedging your bets.

KM still knows he's on the ignore list, or is he responding to someone else?

10-01-2011 02:07AM

squod wrote: »

The discovery was made of possible water in the polar regions by a lunar orbiter before that! That piece is whats called hedging your bets.

So which study are you claiming to be faked exactly?
The one analysing the Apollo 15 rocks?

Why didn't they just falsify the LCROSS data when it apparently showed a difference to their Apollo sample?

What exactly is your point here other than a desperate attempt to find and inconsistency that really isn't there?

namloc1980 · 10-01-2011 10:59AM

squod wrote: »

The discovery was made of possible water in the polar regions by a lunar orbiter before that! That piece is whats called hedging your bets.

KM still knows he's on the ignore list, or is he responding to someone else?

So academics in Brown University are in on it as well?? And what about another group of researchers in Wesleyan University who also confirmed the presence of water in Apollo rocks in 2010. Are they in on it too?

squod · 10-01-2011 11:11AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

So academics in Brown University are in on it as well?? And what about another group of researchers in Wesleyan University who also confirmed the presence of water in Apollo rocks in 2010. Are they in on it too?

Where are you getting this idea from. Making assumptions again I see.

namloc1980 · 10-01-2011 11:42AM

squod wrote: »

Where are you getting this idea from. Making assumptions again I see.

So do you accept that water has been found by two separate research teams in rocks brought back by the Apollo missions?

squod · 10-01-2011 02:47PM

I'm the one who brought it up :rolleyes:

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

Comments