Lunar Landing hoax..

Take a look at this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748

...and comment away.

I think I've just lost what was left of my belief in a lunar landing...

you don't believe in the lunar landings? :p

Well, lets just say the linked movie / documentary is rather convincing in a serious way. The radiation issues alone would make it unlikely they ever succeeded.

Did you know they made a bomb explode in space to 'pave the way' for them to pass through the Van Allen's radiation areas?

There are a whole lot more excellent arguments in that movie though.

I would have to add that they may have been to the moon, but the footage NASA showed 'live' certainly must have been fake.

i didn't watch this movie but so far for every hoax argument there has been an even better counter argument.

i think a conspiracy of this size would be harder to pull-off than actually landing on the moon. why would everyone involved keep their mouths shut if they could get rich with their story?

currently the lunar reconnaissance orbiter takes pictures of the landing sites. of course they could be faked too.

from wikipedia:

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning). Some hoax theorists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

- The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray.[59] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[50], pp. 160–162 The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[60]

-The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[61] However, only twenty-four astronauts left earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.[62]

It's one thing to have suffered from radiation, it's a whole different things to die from it by direct exposure with insufficient shielding.

The movie here doesn't claim they haven't suffered from the radiation at all, it merely claims it would have been impossible to survive in outer space.

Also, and people climbing mountains will be familiar with this, remember how the astronauts on the moon didn't use their golden visors? That can't have been healthy at all.

I'm sure there are good counter arguments, but that has been mainly the whole idea behind starting the thread.

I'm not interested in one-sided views, I'm interested in those counter-arguments as well.

You know, just to restore my belief in the lunar landing. (Which probably did happen, but just wasn't broadcasted 'live'. )



Excellent point, then again NASA would have a huge motive if the lunar landing never occurred. Finding the landing sites, doesn't quite imply they must have been manned flights either, but I think you're making a good point here nevertheless.

For at least 20 years (i am now 56 years old and retired, so i have much time now) i have been looking at this and other things, and my own personal conclusion is that what we are presented is a hoax.

My main interest is where all the money goes, and i have realised that there is a secondary project that is highly secret. Now this sends shivers down my back, for anything kept secret from the people, has to be not very good.

This led me to realise the recurring catastrophes that happen on Earth, almost like clockwork. All older civilisations have recorded these recurring catastrophes, where ice blocks fall from the sky, animals and all sorts of things that one does not expect to be fallig from the sky. Then earthquakes, tsunamis adverse weather, you can read these things in all records of older civilisations. They all record the same things in their writings.

Then i discovered nibiru or planet x as nasa call it. This is highly disturbing that this would be kept from humankind. But my own personal research has convinced me that something is approaching the earth that is being kept secret from the mainstream.

All the underground bases being built, all the food and supplies that is stored at many places underground, whole cities underground, when one hears of these things singly, it does not make much sense and is easy to disregard. But put them all together and a story starts to emerge that is highly probable.

For those of you who are curious, there is masses of information available, some just too fantastic, others serious and factual, and it is up to you to decide for yourselves.

I remember when i first heard of these things, i was highly skeptical, but as time went on and i read more and more records of older civilisations, i realise NOTHING is what it seems to be, there is a great illusion being spun today and only a select few know the full truth of what is going on.

Sadly there is no comfort i can offer anybody, except to say try to enjoy your lives, for my research tells me that it will be bad.

But according to older writings, there have always been survivors, and will always be, else we would not have any knowledge of these things today.

Whether that is a blessing or curse, well its a blessing if something can be done to minimise the destruction and loss of life, but a curse if nothing can be done.

We all know that the so called elite will not have any problems with trying to save themselves, along with some others, for an elite cannot be an elite if there is no one else around for them to be elitist to.

How much DNA is being stored today, possibly for the re-seeding of Earth?
There are so many questions and so few answers, or so much deception. They are not many older people that have any faith in any governments, and increasingly many younger ones are losing this faith, if they ever had it.

Anyway, live your life to the full is all i can say to anyone, do the things that bring you joy, as long as you don't take joy from others. Dont get depressed, except to find yourself, (depression is where you take a good look at and meet yourself), then get on with YOUR life, not with the life that government and politics determine for you.

Be good.

Idk, the documentary looks like it is mostly speculation, notice the answers where never very certain.

My question about it being a hoax, is concerning the gravity. yes you can use a string pully system, or something to move the people, but look at the feet. when dirt is kicked into the air, it falls unusually slow. what type of technology back then could have been used to simulate that.

Not saying its not a hoax, or that it is, just wondering what people think, and if they have any ideas.

C'mon lostclimate, can you remember "The Bionic Man" on TV? The miracle of "slo-mo" technology...

Personally, I believe there was a landing, even if the film footage WAS faked, that I dont believe either.

The fast falling dirt would work the same way in a vacuum chamber.

But I dont think of hoax. Its just a typical conspiracy pick-the-parts-we-like documentary.
The radiation would not have been enough to cause direct harm.

Also: only the gamma-rays could have had any effect. Alpha and beta
rays where shielded for easily. (just saw a show about
nuclear plant workers, and they where entering conterminated areas
with higher radiation counts than the astronauts, in much
thinner suits)

The other parts is just about the russian mission.
Of course they used some filmsamples in an uneven order.
Noone would have allowed the filmcamera (cockpitshots) inside
the craft right before that important launch. (Gagarin)
They had better things to do. So they just used a testshot before the mission - no point to complain really, proves just
that propaganda films try to have a nice flow.

People's psychology works in a strange way: For some reason, we like to assume that the world is not what it seems, but has some hidden reality, which is covered through conspiracies. Sometimes this is even true.

In the case of the lunar landings however, the matter is easily solved. They left many artifacts on the moon, which would be sort of difficult if they weren't there. They left a laser reflector for measuring from earth the rate of the moon orbit increase. This reflector is still in use today and can be detected with a relatively weak laser ray from any place and lab on earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment

The problem with conspiracies is: If they are real and more than 3 people are involved, they always go public. You can safely assume that no real conspiracy would be likely to survive more than 10 or 15 years.

That might be very true, but at the same time it does bring up some interesting arguments.



Why would NASA then try to blow it apart for safe passage? It's clearly harmful.

The documentary's argument was that there would be direct harm because of the hugely intense Van Allen belts of radiation and more importantly lack of sufficient shielding material.

I'm sure the radiation in those belts is a whole lot higher than the people in nuclear plants would ever be subjected to.



Yes, but it does make it a whole lot more plausible that if the Russians did that, the Americans could have done so too.

In fact, there's more to that story than just Gagarin would might not have been the first person in space (there's this vague (as in speculation I guess) story of a switch going on previous to launch).

It goes even further in comparing the space programs and how the Russians didn't even bother to go to the moon. Or did they?

Anyways, I must agree with JCL here, it's easy to change one's opinion after having seen such movies with a rather controversial but exciting point of view, but it says little about truth.

The russians where actually planning a moon mission too.
They even had a Lunar Lander.
But the program was aborted after the Americans where first.

It would have thaken the russians to the mid 70s to be ready.
So there was not point progressing that mission.

(the lunar landigs are a pure tech-competition thing,
they where not done for scientific purposes)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Moonshot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_Lander

The whole conspiracy business is not really about facts or issues like radiation it is most of the time in its core anti-american or anti-zionist. Nobody talks about the robot mission of the russians to the moon which also brought back material, in the case of the moon landing it isn't so sinister but there are other conspiracies like the 9/11 one which try to undermine the very bases of our democracies.

I was ones also into these theories especially the 9/11 one, but when you realize that behind most of those theories there are people who are antisemitic and also terrorists supporters who have no other goal than to destroy western culture you really get to the real issues. The USA is a major success story and it became the most powerful nation on earth and thats what all those conspiracies really try to destroy..

And the thing that is really worrying that this anti-american and anti-zionists propaganda is going around the middle east for quite a long time now. Blaming the United States for all the evil in the world has become a major business not just of terrorists but also western conspiracy nuts.

You have a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories..

No all Iam saying a could back up with evidence, you look at for example the Bin Laden videos, arab television for the middle east section. And for the western nuts well I think we all know the website were they meet and what they are talking about.

The only theory I presented is that the goal could be to undermine western democracy, I think there can be no doubt that terrorists have that goal, for western conspiracy nuts what is there goal ? What is the goal of saying the USA faked the moonlanding, was responsible for 9/11 aso. ?

4chan?

I agree, but that's the story according to US propaganda. The Russians never officially explained why they lost their interest in landing on the moon.



Not quite when you know the Russians took the most pieces of moon rock back to earth. Of course, they didn't need manned flights for that.

I did not read the whole tread but, this is what i know.

They went to moon, the live landing was studio,
because NASA didn't want to show all the UFO flying in the moon, that would be visible in camera live, and impossible to "retouch" so they did a studio one.

your explantation mmike is really cool xD

here you go: [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JbaM1xNIis[/video]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0[/video]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y[/video]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8[/video]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4w2MIYhC4[/video]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA[/video]

and just for good measure: [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKedyQQkZQ[/video]

the moon landing happened. you can believe it or not, but it did. there is enough evidence for that.
whatever this video i havent been watching shows, is probably just speculation and wrong assumptions. like most mike moore movies. entertaining but hardly educational...

[video:yahoo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svoRhQfQqp4[/video]
THE LUNAR AND UFO on SURFACE of MOON, and MARs Piramids.

Saint Lucia from fatima , portugal, reportss that the 3rd secret is the end of the world, and she could not understand at that time, but what she saw on the vision, by their words the soo caled trees in the moon, are actually the ruins of the dark side of the moon. where a alien lab took place but destroyed by other galactic civilization.

Fun fact: It seems that one of the moon rocks contributed to a museum in the Netherlands now turns out to be simple fossil wood. Quite something for an attraction insured for like half a million €...

It was the result of an examination by the "Vrijen Universiteit" in Amsterdam...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

Yes, but we've probably simply been robbed years ago, as the real moon rocks are worth millions of euros on the black market.

It's quite easy to distinguish moon rock from fossil wood, even just from it's external appearance, so it's pretty strange this wasn't discovered earlier.

Interesting nevertheless.

its all greed.
makes people blind.

Thats why used-car dealers will allways tell you
"oh, I have another customer who WILL buy this car for this price, but I cant wait until tomorow when he comes here"

..to make you purchase stuff quickly without testing

I don't think greed had much to do with it, this specific moon rock was given to our prime-minister back in 1969 by the American president.

The fact that it's fake can mean several things, one of them being that it was switched with a fake at some point in time. I did hear Armstrong say something about fake moon rocks though, as he said something about the amount of moon rocks they took not being all that much.

Still funny that Holland has a fossilized Tree, and did not noticed it for so long

Just out of curiosity where do you guys think the USSR was while the USA was faking this? Don't you think they'd have had a field day pointing out the hoax when it happened? Anyone with decent radio equipment could have figured out where the signal was coming from and the Soviets certainly could have proved it if we were relaying the signals from another source as could almost every country with any kind of radio technology at all.

Get real.

Conspiracy theories are entertainment for the masses.
So everyone can feel like an expert (after seeing a
Michael Moore film for example)

Its not about the truth in the facts, it about
entertainment and selfdefinition.

Just like defineing oneself with clothes, fahsion, music.styles etc.

True, but you could also look at it from yet another different angle though, as the USA always made it look like it was an actual race. Why didn't the USSR go to the moon when the USA already succeeded? I'm thinking there are a whole bunch of reasons why they didn't.



I'm also sure they did check all known data and pictures and examined the 'success'. Guess they figured the USA really did land there indeed, but it's not like it would have any true benefit for them to make the space programs look even closer to impossible.

I'm not so sure if it would be all over the state controlled news even if they would have concluded such.



It's perhaps not quite that easy. You can do pretty cool things bouncing signals that would also clearly seem to have 'come from' the moon.



Yes I agree, but it's also a fossil that hasn't moved it's place in many many years. It's not that crazy to think the moon rock was switched (stolen) years ago, but I think it was Armstrong who not that long ago said something about many 'moon rocks' being fakes. I guess that's why they were investigated in the first place.

Apparently it is not as if they have not gone to the moon since,
the problem was that the first one was (supposedly) faked to be able to win the race with the Russians.

Lately we got gist on the mills of the hoax theories again:
That Indian probe that crashed / malfunctioned under strange conditions still could deliver some interesting data before going offline. The moon seems to have "high" amounts of water & ice. Currently it's said that in 1 m³ of "moon dust" you can find about 1 liter of water...

That's quite something as for NASA and its decades of moon research there simply is nothing like that...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

The collected moon rocks where not fully sealed after beeing probed.
Thats why scientists could not assign the water vapor
as part of the rock, as they just did not know if it was
from handeling it on earth or from the actual probe.

So there could not have been provable statements about water
(regarding the collected rocks)

Yeah that's the official explanation but does anyone here have some indepth-facts about this. Or in other words: Lead the water to the assumption that the containers were leaking?

Everything I read explained it in a way saying: "Oh we've got water in there - this can't be. Ergo: The containers had to be leaking"...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

If the stones where not vacuum sealed right away, but
only put into a box during the mission,
any gas / vapor components are inconclusive.

Here a picture of the sameple box
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/tools/tools48.jpg




also, if moon would have 1 liter water per 1 cubicmeter of soil
that woul be 0,1% of the soil beeing water.
And thats too much to be belivable...

The question simply is : Did the scientists say "Oh we found water - those containers had to have a leakage!" or did they say upon opening things "Oh we didn't have a vacuum!". In every report I read it was phrased like the first way is the way it was but I now would like some actual evidence for that...


Why isn't that believable? Here a quote from here:
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/mondforschung100.html

I now of course don't know what exactly "the moon is made of" so I can't really tell if this 1t <-> 1m³ is a right conversion...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

Even if there is water on the moon,
the samples could not have contained any.

They where taken from the very surface.

The ground was heated up a lot (it was day on Moon during the
whole mission).
And water quickly evaporates in vacuum.

So there is no chance that surface rocks contain water.
The surface must be very dry anyhow.

If there is water, its below the surface, where it can not
exit quickly.

----

I would also not expect any minerals formed under water,
as this needs liquid water.
But the moon is either too cold or to hot for liquid water.
I guess its more comet remains (durty ice) lying sub-surface.

but is it true that moon heat up?? i mean its not vulcaninc activity. there is no ozone layer that causes warming up... the heat is related to particle cinetic movement, and moon is nothing but dust, a already combusted form of particles, though they should be already resistant to burning, so i think they dont heat up.

Oh and the moon is gray, so it should reflect alot of its light radiation...

I think moon does not heat up that much, other wise, austronauts would melt on its surface.

Well ozone layer etc. does not have that much to do with heating things up...
The moon simply gets hit by all of what our good old sun sends out without any resistance etc. from an atmosphere (at least of one that is mentionable - there probably is something extremely thin floating above the surface). That's why things can get pretty hot on the moon. Should be something between 150-180°C on a day afaik...

The results of the latest probes show though that there seems to be a thin "coating" of water pretty much everywhere - so the moon's surface isn't just some dry dust. There already seem to be explanations for that but no article I read really goes into detail here...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

the whole trip to the moon is false! I dont care how many rockets you have!

We've got enough rockets to prove the moon exists, so... to make that point, lets blow it away!

Here some pictures of the Lunar Landers (landing modules)

and some footprints

Can you give the source for those pictures and maybe some comments about them really showing the respective spots (like is there an open "library" you can search via coordinates)?

Enjoy your meal
Toast

We are all idiots for even participating in this conversation.
1. none of us have been to the moon to know anything for sure.
2. water can survive just fine inside a vacuum, we call it ice.
3. we can't blow up the moon with our fancy rockets, since those don't exist either.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369443main_lroc_apollo16_lrg.jpg

http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery.html

here another one from apollo16

Its from Nasa. (Lunar reconnicance Orbiter)
The landing position you can google up

Those photographs aren't very convincing at all, can you make out a flag in that one photo graph with 'details', heck no.

To be honest, I do believe NASA landed on the moon, but they should make sure those photographs actually show something.

It shows footprints/track, how more convincing can that be.
The pirctures are not taken to disproove any stupid theories,
but to test the Sattlites camera.

Which one? I only see photographs with pointers stating there should be a flag where none can be seen. Alas, why I said they weren't very convincing, they aren't exactly made zoomed down to the details.

I wouldn't wonder so much about what is said to be the "footprints" but rather the lack thereof in the other Apollo pictures. It sure is a bit dissapointing - Google earth shows you high zoom levels but the latest tech Nasa satellite just gives an overview. I did expect way more...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

Btw , mythbusters busted a bunch of the myths surrounding the landing , they tested the shadows , foot prints , flag ect..., and they all got busted.

Google Earth: any high resolution Picture seen there
is actually from Airplane pictures.
Only the raw, big scale pictures are from Sattelites,
thats why there is only high.res material for popular areas.

Given that, the sattelite in Moon orbit is actually quite high-res.

Well I don't know too much about the LRO's equipment but with a height of just 50km it actually was flying really low (still higher than planes but not THAT much higher). That's why I'm a bit disappointed as you'd think that they would integrate optics way superior to what airplanes carry around (considering the budget of the entire project)...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

Well, to be honest, they showed how you can get the shadows that are wrong according to the people that believe it didn't happen, but they also admitted there's no way to prove the shadows are correct or fake. You can get the shadows by a variation in height, but it could also be an error.

Then again from that test it looked pretty possible to fake the entire picture with models and all that actually.

I have to say though, that it's a bit nuts to believe they didn't land on the moon.

The mythbusters also had a huge flaw anyway when they did those photo-comparisons. They did such a nice job of getting a ground that reflects about as much as the moon's surface and got this original camera thing. But then they used a digital camera for their photos pretty much ruining lots of the "validity". This video pretty much describes why it was such a sad decision to use a digital camera instead of a comparable film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBxOmKQwAUI&annotation_id=annotation_828743&feature=iv

When it comes to do you believe the moon landing was real or not I don't really have an answer yet. There are certain things that are very strange (and I'm not talking about some stupid flag waving which literally gets busted everytime someone approaches this topic to make the hoax theory look stupid) and so I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that at least the first mission(s) didn't happen but were just media events. Also things like the laser reflector on the moon are no evidence for the landing to happen as said. I don't doubt the equipment is there but it needn't get put there by a human - e.g. look at Russia and their reflector thingy or whatever it was. They put it there remotely...

Enjoy your meal
Toast