Man on the moon? Nah...? Discuss!
13 March 2002, 08:23 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: www.karenphillips.co.uk
Posts: 3,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading the Pentagon plane strike conspiracy thread, I was reminded by johnfelstead of the whole Moon Landing conspiracy theories.
Myself? Well In the wake of all the evidence that I've now seen...I'd say I'm 50/50 on the issue.
Reasons:
Scientific evidence regarding damage to the body from passing through the the Van Allen (spelling?) Radiation belt.
Masses of Photographic evidence from NASA's own hand.
Expert evidence from rocket engineers vs. evidence seen at the landing sites.
Unusual circumstances surrounding the deaths of key figures. (Ooooh - Wonder if that includes JFK?!).
The existence of Area 57!! (Which intrigues me no end...)
The Russians were apparently more advanced than NASA and they failed in an attempt. (I believe a Russian module crashed on the moon - Someone wanna correct me?).
If any Americans read this, then please feel free to join in. I have friends in the States, but do I trust your (or any other)government? "Don't make me laugh"
What if it was a fabrication???!??? The consequences are interesting...
DISCUSS!
Myself? Well In the wake of all the evidence that I've now seen...I'd say I'm 50/50 on the issue.
Reasons:
Scientific evidence regarding damage to the body from passing through the the Van Allen (spelling?) Radiation belt.
Masses of Photographic evidence from NASA's own hand.
Expert evidence from rocket engineers vs. evidence seen at the landing sites.
Unusual circumstances surrounding the deaths of key figures. (Ooooh - Wonder if that includes JFK?!).
The existence of Area 57!! (Which intrigues me no end...)
The Russians were apparently more advanced than NASA and they failed in an attempt. (I believe a Russian module crashed on the moon - Someone wanna correct me?).
If any Americans read this, then please feel free to join in. I have friends in the States, but do I trust your (or any other)government? "Don't make me laugh"
What if it was a fabrication???!??? The consequences are interesting...
DISCUSS!
13 March 2002, 08:43 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When they went, they left strategically placed specially reflective boxes.
These reflectors are now being used in a scientific study to exactly measure the distance from the earth to the moon.
These reflectors are now being used in a scientific study to exactly measure the distance from the earth to the moon.
13 March 2002, 08:47 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: www.karenphillips.co.uk
Posts: 3,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah-ha.
Ok, Fosters...But surely those could have been deployed by un-manned missions. Unknown to the rest of us mortals?
(Devil's Advocate, here!)
It's my understanding that there are still no visual telescopes powerful enough to view detail of any lander remains or buggy remains on the surface.
I think the Japanese are planning to map the entire lunar surface with a new moon satellite...That could prove interesting...
Ok, Fosters...But surely those could have been deployed by un-manned missions. Unknown to the rest of us mortals?
(Devil's Advocate, here!)
It's my understanding that there are still no visual telescopes powerful enough to view detail of any lander remains or buggy remains on the surface.
I think the Japanese are planning to map the entire lunar surface with a new moon satellite...That could prove interesting...
13 March 2002, 08:52 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points Squizz,
Though now they've done it (i.e said they've been to the Moon). It's up to you to prove otherwise.
I think the only way we'll ever find out the 'real truth' is when moon landings recommence (modern amateur equipment well allow us to track) or after 99 years or whatever is the Americans policy is in releasing data about these projects.
Conspiracy Theory here we come!!!!
Though now they've done it (i.e said they've been to the Moon). It's up to you to prove otherwise.
I think the only way we'll ever find out the 'real truth' is when moon landings recommence (modern amateur equipment well allow us to track) or after 99 years or whatever is the Americans policy is in releasing data about these projects.
Conspiracy Theory here we come!!!!
13 March 2002, 09:58 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because you didn't personally see it happen doesn't mean that it was faked.
Doubting Thomases please read http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/.
Doubting Thomases please read http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/.
13 March 2002, 10:14 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that the Clementine mission viewed some of the Apollo landing sites. Or was it Lunar Prospector? Anyway, the photos should be on the NASA web site.
Are you suggesting that Apollo 13 was faked too?
BTW the Russians never attempted any manned missions to the moon -- they did crash unmanned stuff (intentionally) into the surface and also did some automated soft landings. The Apollo astronauts IIRC walked/drove over to one of the Russian landers on the moon.
Are you suggesting that Apollo 13 was faked too?
BTW the Russians never attempted any manned missions to the moon -- they did crash unmanned stuff (intentionally) into the surface and also did some automated soft landings. The Apollo astronauts IIRC walked/drove over to one of the Russian landers on the moon.
13 March 2002, 10:30 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A land of lap-dancers and Lanson Black Label
Posts: 9,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK I admit it - it was me....
I got lost on the way back from Worcester after being on a drinking sesh..and ended up on the moon...me mate and I had a kebab each and the shiny boxes up there are just pieces of tin foil they were wrapped in...
OK serious post before I get flamed
How come the US flag was "flying" when theres no atmosphere??
I got lost on the way back from Worcester after being on a drinking sesh..and ended up on the moon...me mate and I had a kebab each and the shiny boxes up there are just pieces of tin foil they were wrapped in...
OK serious post before I get flamed
How come the US flag was "flying" when theres no atmosphere??
Trending Topics
13 March 2002, 10:47 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok - how about these....
Footprints in the lunar surface apparently points to humidity being present - which ought not to be possible in a vacuum?
Evidence of more than one light source (ie not just the sun) in many of the photos.
The 'high quality' and 'near perfect framing' of many of the pictures, which were taken with a camera strapped to the front of a spacesuit and with no viewfinding equipment.
The lack of any surface disturbance under the lunar lander. Surely the surface would have been kicked about when the landing rockets were fired?
The strange lighting of items like the US flag on the side of the lander, which appear to be lit from the front, despite the sun being behind the object.
Shot on a studio set - I reckon. I once read somewhere "we may have been to the moon, but these certainly aren't the real pictures of it"
Andrew
Footprints in the lunar surface apparently points to humidity being present - which ought not to be possible in a vacuum?
Evidence of more than one light source (ie not just the sun) in many of the photos.
The 'high quality' and 'near perfect framing' of many of the pictures, which were taken with a camera strapped to the front of a spacesuit and with no viewfinding equipment.
The lack of any surface disturbance under the lunar lander. Surely the surface would have been kicked about when the landing rockets were fired?
The strange lighting of items like the US flag on the side of the lander, which appear to be lit from the front, despite the sun being behind the object.
Shot on a studio set - I reckon. I once read somewhere "we may have been to the moon, but these certainly aren't the real pictures of it"
Andrew
13 March 2002, 10:49 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: www.karenphillips.co.uk
Posts: 3,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DavidRB is spot on with his moonhoax URL link. That's an excellent site with scientifically based proof that I'm sure disproves a lot of the conspiracy theories.
Apart from the keebab...
Apart from the keebab...
13 March 2002, 10:53 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it 'Capricorn One' was your favourite film then? 
In all honesty though, I believe it did take place.(And will be one of the first to hold my hand up if I have been 'duped')
Yes there is evidence to the contrary but it's not a one off hoax we are talking about. With everytime a lunar landing took place you increase the risk of getting caught short if it has been fabricated.
In all honesty though, I believe it did take place.(And will be one of the first to hold my hand up if I have been 'duped')
Yes there is evidence to the contrary but it's not a one off hoax we are talking about. With everytime a lunar landing took place you increase the risk of getting caught short if it has been fabricated.
13 March 2002, 10:53 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: www.karenphillips.co.uk
Posts: 3,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flag does bug me. Although the moonhoax URL says it was vibration, etc... It's still moving way too much.
BUT
If you were filming something like that in Studio-like conditions, would you have such a breeze about in case it disturbed fake-dust, etc, etc? [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
BUT
If you were filming something like that in Studio-like conditions, would you have such a breeze about in case it disturbed fake-dust, etc, etc? [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
13 March 2002, 11:33 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
these conspiracy things always bug me they are always based on second hand supposedly "expert" information or dodgy internet sites
The question has already been asked and i'll ask it again WHY the **** spend millions faking them and apollo 13 and presumably challenger as well ????.
Especially when every **** eyed theory about fake photos have already been disproved
The question has already been asked and i'll ask it again WHY the **** spend millions faking them and apollo 13 and presumably challenger as well ????.
Especially when every **** eyed theory about fake photos have already been disproved
13 March 2002, 12:58 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: www.karenphillips.co.uk
Posts: 3,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"... Do you believe everything you read or hear?
Scepticism is healthy.
My assumption is that they were real, and that all this stuff is sensationalist ****e...But you have to question these things. If we weren't inquisitive as a species, then we'd never have developed much further than eating bananas - Let alone have walked upon the surface of the moon.
We KNOW that the American government were using the Moon attempts to galvanise the nation, etc. But they had a dual-purpose of being important in gaining a tangible tactical advantage over the Russians during the Cold-War. I'm sure there's a lot more hardware up there and much more interesting stuff in Area 57, etc than we'll ever become aware of...
Scepticism is healthy.
My assumption is that they were real, and that all this stuff is sensationalist ****e...But you have to question these things. If we weren't inquisitive as a species, then we'd never have developed much further than eating bananas - Let alone have walked upon the surface of the moon.
We KNOW that the American government were using the Moon attempts to galvanise the nation, etc. But they had a dual-purpose of being important in gaining a tangible tactical advantage over the Russians during the Cold-War. I'm sure there's a lot more hardware up there and much more interesting stuff in Area 57, etc than we'll ever become aware of...
13 March 2002, 01:09 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
andrew6321, from http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/:
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonh...tml#Footprints
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/shadows.html
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonh...aphy.html#good
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonh...er.html#crater
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/shadows.html
Can't find the quote I'm after, but NASA had a moon set that looked as real as possible built for training purposes. Many photos were taken during training and some of them have gone into circulation and people mistake them for the real moon photos.
Remember, back in the 1960's when all this was happening, the USSR hated America and would have jumped at any opportunity to discredit them. The USSR was at its peak, with lots of money and equivalent technological capabilities. They were perfectly capable of tracking all the Apollo missions and would have told the whole world if they had even the slightestevidence that they were faked.
Secondly, during the 1960's, the moon landings were the technological challenge to work on and it attracted the best of the best of the best in every single field from science, engineering, maths, etc.. There is no way that they would have all played along and kept their mouths shut if it wasn't for real.
Like most US conspiracy theories, the faked moon landings theory relies on the fundamental assumption that only America was capable of getting to the moon and that no other country had the technology to discover whether the Apollo missions actually went to the moon or not.
Like Squizz says, we're more likely to find out that NASA was doing more on the moon than we think, rather than less...
Footprints in the lunar surface apparently points to humidity being present - which ought not to be possible in a vacuum?
Evidence of more than one light source (ie not just the sun) in many of the photos.
The 'high quality' and 'near perfect framing' of many of the pictures, which were taken with a camera strapped to the front of a spacesuit and with no viewfinding equipment.
The lack of any surface disturbance under the lunar lander. Surely the surface would have been kicked about when the landing rockets were fired?
The strange lighting of items like the US flag on the side of the lander, which appear to be lit from the front, despite the sun being behind the object.
Shot on a studio set - I reckon. I once read somewhere "we may have been to the moon, but these certainly aren't the real pictures of it"
Remember, back in the 1960's when all this was happening, the USSR hated America and would have jumped at any opportunity to discredit them. The USSR was at its peak, with lots of money and equivalent technological capabilities. They were perfectly capable of tracking all the Apollo missions and would have told the whole world if they had even the slightestevidence that they were faked.
Secondly, during the 1960's, the moon landings were the technological challenge to work on and it attracted the best of the best of the best in every single field from science, engineering, maths, etc.. There is no way that they would have all played along and kept their mouths shut if it wasn't for real.
Like most US conspiracy theories, the faked moon landings theory relies on the fundamental assumption that only America was capable of getting to the moon and that no other country had the technology to discover whether the Apollo missions actually went to the moon or not.
Like Squizz says, we're more likely to find out that NASA was doing more on the moon than we think, rather than less...
13 March 2002, 01:12 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
My biggest problem with the whole landing thing is that dust thrown up from the landing would cause huge clouds of it which would not disappear for a very long time with no wind/gravity etc yet they have crystal clear photos right next to the landing craft. I always believed it till someone mentioned the dust clouds etc.
13 March 2002, 01:32 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: www.karenphillips.co.uk
Posts: 3,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm really hacked off that I haven't got a decent image package here at work...So...
Imagine a Lunar scene, with an Orange Lotus Elise...And a Keebab!
(Obviously, I'd have cross-hairs partly obscured, and conflicting shadows!! Oh yeah, and a ginger astronaut )
Imagine a Lunar scene, with an Orange Lotus Elise...And a Keebab!
(Obviously, I'd have cross-hairs partly obscured, and conflicting shadows!! Oh yeah, and a ginger astronaut
)
13 March 2002, 01:36 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'No gravity' 
This is the Moon we're talking about -- gravity about 1/6th of that on Earth. In the absence of air, dust would fall at the same rate as anything else (Galileo -- drop a cannon ball and a feather from the same height in vacuo and they'll fall at the same rate).
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/dust.html
Not a personal dig, Bravo-2-0, but people really should have a decent grasp of Newtonian mechanics (it's been around for 400 years....) before they start trying to debunk NASA.
[Edited by carl - 3/13/2002 1:37:57 PM]
This is the Moon we're talking about -- gravity about 1/6th of that on Earth. In the absence of air, dust would fall at the same rate as anything else (Galileo -- drop a cannon ball and a feather from the same height in vacuo and they'll fall at the same rate).
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/dust.html
Not a personal dig, Bravo-2-0, but people really should have a decent grasp of Newtonian mechanics (it's been around for 400 years....) before they start trying to debunk NASA.
[Edited by carl - 3/13/2002 1:37:57 PM]
13 March 2002, 01:41 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David RB,
I know which photos I'm referring to and they're not the 'practice' ones...
I did check the link you provided, but in my opinion, the explanations given are not convincing enough.
Neil Armstrong (the man himself) frequently avoids answering direct questions like "did you really walk on the moon" with answers like "ask NASA"...why would he do that?
Suggested next topics: 1. Authenticity of the 'face on Mars' and 2. Roswell
Andrew
I know which photos I'm referring to and they're not the 'practice' ones...
I did check the link you provided, but in my opinion, the explanations given are not convincing enough.
Neil Armstrong (the man himself) frequently avoids answering direct questions like "did you really walk on the moon" with answers like "ask NASA"...why would he do that?
Suggested next topics: 1. Authenticity of the 'face on Mars' and 2. Roswell
Andrew
13 March 2002, 01:42 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A land of lap-dancers and Lanson Black Label
Posts: 9,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm really hacked off that I haven't got a decent image package here at work...So...
Imagine a Lunar scene, with an Orange Lotus Elise...And a Keebab!
(Obviously, I'd have cross-hairs partly obscured, and conflicting shadows!! Oh yeah, and a ginger astronaut )
Imagine a Lunar scene, with an Orange Lotus Elise...And a Keebab!
(Obviously, I'd have cross-hairs partly obscured, and conflicting shadows!! Oh yeah, and a ginger astronaut )
GIT
13 March 2002, 01:44 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly OT -- anyone seen Neil Armstrongs 'First Flights' programme on Discovery? There was one where an (amateur) designer of an aircraft said to Neil "and of course because of its speed and manoeuvrability it's far better than anything you've ever flown". The arrogance of the man! Not only did Armstrong fly the LEM, but also the X-15 (admittedly not the most manoeuvrable of aircraft) and was an extraordinary test pilot.
13 March 2002, 01:45 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: www.karenphillips.co.uk
Posts: 3,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to Andrews comment.
What about all the unexplained phenomena Astronauts have seen from their modules whilst in orbit, and have been told not to discuss and photographs of which have been retained by NASA.
I really must get around to reading Jim Lovell's own account of the Apollo 13 mission. Now there's a hero...
What about all the unexplained phenomena Astronauts have seen from their modules whilst in orbit, and have been told not to discuss and photographs of which have been retained by NASA.
I really must get around to reading Jim Lovell's own account of the Apollo 13 mission. Now there's a hero...
13 March 2002, 01:47 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
squizz -- I've also not read Lovell's book, but I can thoroughly recommend Andrew Chaikin's "A Man on the Moon" and Gene Kranz's "Failure Is Not An Option" -- Kranz was one of flight directors (white team) on Apollos 11 and 13 (amongst others).
I think the unexplained phenomena (which I believe they were too embarassed to report in case NASA thought they were nuts and took them off flight status, rather than being told not to report) were what we now call 'sprites' which occur in the upper atmosphere.
[Edited by carl - 3/13/2002 1:49:01 PM]
I think the unexplained phenomena (which I believe they were too embarassed to report in case NASA thought they were nuts and took them off flight status, rather than being told not to report) were what we now call 'sprites' which occur in the upper atmosphere.
[Edited by carl - 3/13/2002 1:49:01 PM]
13 March 2002, 01:48 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
didn't you read that site?!
the dust fell to the ground because there is gravity. on earth dust hangs around in the air. on the moon there isn't any air, so the dust falls like rocks do, except slower due to the lower gravity.
There's no dust on the lem because the rockets blew it away and due to the lack of air, there was no billowing like you'd get on earth - the dust just goes downward and outward!
Makes sense to me.
the dust fell to the ground because there is gravity. on earth dust hangs around in the air. on the moon there isn't any air, so the dust falls like rocks do, except slower due to the lower gravity.
There's no dust on the lem because the rockets blew it away and due to the lack of air, there was no billowing like you'd get on earth - the dust just goes downward and outward!
Makes sense to me.
13 March 2002, 01:55 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: www.karenphillips.co.uk
Posts: 3,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carl, Gene Kranz was mr.waist-coat (or Ed Harris to the likes of me ).
I also enjoyed watching the TV re-creation of the Lunar Missions produced by Tom Hanks. They were shown on C4 last year somtime on a Saturday lunchtime. All the detail of the Apollo 13 film, but obviously extended!!
"I want to be an Astronaut. I wanna go places no-ones ever gone before."
"Look, you're British. Scale it down..."
"Ok, I wanna sell shoes. I wanna sell shoes no-ones ever sold before."
"Look, you're British. Scale it down..."
.
etc
.
(Eddie Izzard)
). I also enjoyed watching the TV re-creation of the Lunar Missions produced by Tom Hanks. They were shown on C4 last year somtime on a Saturday lunchtime. All the detail of the Apollo 13 film, but obviously extended!!
"I want to be an Astronaut. I wanna go places no-ones ever gone before."
"Look, you're British. Scale it down..."
"Ok, I wanna sell shoes. I wanna sell shoes no-ones ever sold before."
"Look, you're British. Scale it down..."
.
etc
.
(Eddie Izzard)
13 March 2002, 01:58 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squizz -- indeed he was. His wife made them all for him. Not only that, but he was/is 'Captain America' -- he used to play Sousa marches in his office before starting work for the day. I forget the number, but in his book he says he has something like 50 versions of the same march!
Of course you never know its relation to reality, but I thought the two who came across best in the film were Kranz and Mattingley. Also the real Jim Lovell is in it at the end. I must have missed the C4 series tho'
[Edited by carl - 3/13/2002 1:59:18 PM]
Of course you never know its relation to reality, but I thought the two who came across best in the film were Kranz and Mattingley. Also the real Jim Lovell is in it at the end. I must have missed the C4 series tho'
[Edited by carl - 3/13/2002 1:59:18 PM]
