Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
In 1959 Bill Kaysing predicted that at that time, the chances of getting a man to the moon and back alive were 0.0014%, taking into account radiation and micro meteors.
Just 2 years later US president J.F.Kennedy made his famous speech.
“I believe that this nation should commit itself. To achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of Space.”
Eight years later in on the 16th of July 1969, Apollo 11 was launched on a mission to the moon and back, carrying three people. On the 20th of July Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Neil Armstrong stepped out of the Lunar Module (LM) in front of a watching world, climbed down the ladder and said those famous words.
“One small step for man one giant leap for mankind”
And in doing so, Neil Armstrong won the moon race against Russia for America, and proved to an entire world that the sky isn’t the only limit.
Or so NASA said!
Ever since 1969, a small but loud crowd of people have doubted that America did send a man to the moon, and the Apollo Hoax was born.
There are three basic kinds of arguments for this hoax: Photographic, video, and scientific.
Popularity: 100%
RSS feed for comments on this post
April 30, 2006at 3:01 pm
Photographs are the main argument for the conspiracy believers, as there are thousands of photographs that have anomalies on them. (i.e.: different directions on shadows, things ‘highlighted’.) Because of these anomalies, the photos are believed fake by the conspiracy followers. These people reason “why create fake photos of something that really happened?”
April 30, 2006at 3:15 pm
Another problem with the photos can be seen in the next two images below.
Several astronauts seem to be lit up, as if they were standing in a spot light, even though they are in a large shadow!
Many hoax debunking theories have been made to explain this. The most popular explanation is the Earth gives off its own light that highlights the astronauts. But if the Earth gave off that much light, then a shadow would appear behind each person, and there would be multiple shadows in every moon photo.
April 30, 2006at 3:30 pm
On all of the cameras there is a + in the middle of the lens to help with distance but on some of the pictures objects overlap the plus. This suggests that the plus was added later.
But the answer for this is simple. If you notice, all of the overlapping objects are bright and white. Because of this, the colour background bleeds into the thin cross, making the cross fade/disappear.
April 30, 2006at 4:00 pm
The most consistently seen argument of moon hoax believers, is why, in a land with no air, the American flag stands up and waves, instead of falling down to the ground? And yes, if you look closely at the moon flag video clip, (Realtime player required.) it does appear as if Neil is fighting with the USA flag. But, if you look even closer, you can see that the flag is only flapping when Neil is holding it, and trying to twist the flag into the ground. (You can’t see this that well because of convenient editing.). Because of this the flag waving can be accounted for by Neil twisting the pole.
April 30, 2006at 4:30 pm
Radiation would kill the astronauts
Many conspiracists believe that NASA never left the Earth’s atmosphere, because of the amount of radiation in The Van Allen radiation belt would kill an astronaut. But with help from other sources (thanks clavius moon base) We can determine if this is true. The American legal radiation limit below are a helpful.
April 30, 2006at 5:00 pm
Wether the conspiracy was possible or if there was a motive for faking the landings, is a big part of the moon hoax.
Many conspiracy debunkers say that there was no reason for the US to fake the moon landings.
This is false, as at the time America was publicly losing the space race, as Russia had put the:
First man/woman in space.
First animal in space.
First three person mission in space.
And the first space station in orbit.
May 7, 2006at 1:59 pm
In the movie Casino Royale James Bond crashes into a dome. Inside are 2 men in astronaut gear ‘floating’ around as if they were in the moon’s atmosphere, weightless. The ceiling of the inside of the dome is painted to look as if it were black space, with stars, earth, etc. Bond isn’t affected by lack of gravity, since there is no lack of it, and steals the moon vehicle and crashes out of the dome into a parking lot and escapes. This book, as were all the first 007 books, was written by Ian Fleming, who had been in British intelligence before the James Bond books. The dome is owned by Willard White, a rich industralist of some type who lives in the top of a motel in Vegas, and hasn’t been seen in 3 years. The major plot of the movie is White has been kidnapped. Sounds like Howard Hughes. Hughes was credited for cooperating with the CIA in building a boat to recover a lost Soviet sub. Maybe Ian Fleming was giving us a hint.
September 8, 2006at 10:26 am
if others dont believe the stepping up of man on to the moon then why dont nasa can prepare other project and send one more person to prove that they are right.
September 30, 2006at 11:47 am
a.navaneethakrishnan wrote:
if others dont believe the stepping up of man on to the moon then why dont nasa can prepare other project and send one more person to prove that they are right.
——————————————————-
The answer to that question is another question: Why bother?
Just to go up there and prove it can be done is silly, since we are talking about risking a persons life just to go “I told you so”. It also wouldn’t prove anything since the conspiracy theorists would still say they didn’t do it in 1969, and we only just had the technology to go up to the moon, AKA: The conspiracy is still possibly valid.
There are only two real reason for continuing the moon landings:
1: The moon is mineral rich. If a technique can be devised for getting the minerals off the moon and onto earth, it would make whatever country who did it very rich.
2: Exploration of Mars. Making a moon base would knock three days off of the journey, making the trips a lot less expensive. Also the lower gravity would mean less take off fuel is needed, again less money spent. Also making a moon base would be a better testing ground then a Mars base. Since the moon is closer to the earth and can be change faster if needed.
October 13, 2006at 8:33 pm
A recent satalite has orbited and took detailed pictures of the moon ie like google earth but for some strange reason no pictures have returned or been on the news to show apollo landing sites thus proving one way or the other the conspiracy theory I WONDER WHY !!!!!
November 6, 2006at 11:11 pm
it was,nt a hoax you morons.
you might aswell say that nobody has ever been to the north pole..and so on
if you dont think anything is true then you need help..now shut up going on about it and get a life
February 24, 2007at 1:23 pm
you are all nerds with nothing better to do than make up bullshit about the american governent. they may suck but they don’t fake moon landings and blow up their own buildings.
while you were making up this crap, other NORMAL people were with their GIRLFRIENDS which i doubt any of you have ever had. and you are all probably 40-something and still living with your parents playing World of Warcraft all day.
GET LIVES YOU STUPID NERDS!!!!!!
March 6, 2007at 11:35 pm
Hey Joe why waste your time reading stuff on the internet looking for people to argue with, go get a life. or better yet an education
I don’t believe that NASA landed on the moon. That doesn’t make me a “conspiracy theorist” or a “hoax believer,” just a serious skeptic who finds the evidence contrary. Hoax-debunkers miss the point: the burden of proof is on NASA. They say things like, the flags motion could have been harmonic motion caused by Armstrong moving it (I’ve run the video over and over and I don’t think that fits). They say photographic anomalies could have been caused by earth light or color bleeding. These are weak rebuttals because they are possibilities, not certainties.
It’s not incumbent on the unbeliever to prove anything, simply to keep an open mind to the most convincing evidence. I am not convinced.
I certainly believe the government could pull off such a hoax, especially compartmentalized as it is. Big scandals like Watergate, Iran-contra, and the small number of people who admitted to knowing about them - even when they were uncovered and prosecuted - convince me it’s possible. NASA hasn’t shown it impossible just yet, and seems arrogant to not even be trying. Its attitude seems to be that anyone who mistrusts the government is a moron. Rather, anyone who trusts the government implicitly is naive.
March 14, 2007at 10:01 am
I’m sure we have all seen the evidence and, like me, are convinced it was all a bunch of bad fakery….
Here is the latest proof for ya…
They have excuse after excuse why we can’t see the hardware at the landing sites on the moon…even with hubble.
hmmm…for some reason land based and hubble can see the hardware from “opportunity” landing on Mars….Mars is a little further than the moon.
So…do some browsing and try to disprove this one too.
March 15, 2007at 12:17 am
Hey Kozz, why do you think that it is up to NASA to prove something you would think has conclusive proof, in the form of thousands of hours of footage and stills, independantly varified telemetry and Lunar samples? Don’t you think the burden of proof would lie with those who are in effect saying “ok, well APART from all that, what evidence do you have?”
This is the one popular idea that just flummoxes me: every time I see these arguements, I ask - what about the fricken rocks man? They cannot be faked, they could not be picked up by a remote rover. One of them is the size of your head. It’s just ludicrous.
Oh and Mike B: That is not proof. That is called ignorance. They have not imaged the rovers with Hubble, those images are from orbiting satellites. Orbiting mars, that is.
March 15, 2007at 9:44 am
ignorance is not knowing that meteors can hit the moon, eject rocks from the moon, moon rocks land on earth and are sorted out from other “meteors” that have come to earth. And anyways I have rocks in my back yard that look exactly like those “moon” rocks…
Yes i don’t want to believe in this hoax junk either…but I am also in touch with reality as well…just as science has killed alot of my religous beliefs.
The truth is depressing….but I’d rather not live in la la land either.
March 23, 2007at 1:33 pm
The first man on the moon was a fake because in the picture the flag is blowing in the wind and everybody knows there is no wind on the moon.
March 25, 2007at 4:37 am
I think I heard someone say it was impossible because of the landing and that it was impossible to land with the technology they had then. Another point they raised was the fuel source and their lack of it. It would be diffucult to get enough fuel to go there and back unless they had a station there which they didn’t.
and by the way, I think fred and joe are retards.
March 30, 2007at 11:38 pm
this websites evidence is wrong coz i have a picture that has neil armsrong on the moon about a metre away from the flag and its waving
March 31, 2007at 7:14 am
A couple of people have asked the same question a couple of times:
Why is the flag waving while Neil Armstrong is stood away from it?
As i said before
http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-video-evidence.html
But the conspiracists also say that there are at least one photo, where the flag is flapping and the astronauts are no where near the flag. The explanation for this is simple. NASA’s flag was on an antenna, connected to the pole which pulled out like a radio receiver. At Apollo 11, the antenna wouldn’t pull out all of the way, causing a ripple which looks like a waving flag if taken through a camera. On later missions the flag wasn’t pulled out all of the way because it looked better.
Also to answer the question for why the Hubble telescope hasn’t taken pictures of the landing site: Because NASA have better things to do with it. Using the telescope NASA are looking at the beginnings of the universe, distant planets, and expanding the boundaries of science. But instead of doing these things the conspiracy believers want these people to take pictures of something they know is already there, to prove to the small percentage of none believers that they really did land on the moon
BTW: Please before posting onto these comments READ all of the topics I’ve done on this subject
April 6, 2007at 11:51 am
I’m 46, and own a fabrication plant with CNC Lasers, Turret Presses, and Press Brake equipment that manufactures enclosures for many corporations. In the past, my plant has even made enclosures for a company that makes Body Function Monitors for the people on the Space Shuttle. Back in 1996, I was invited by that company to watch the Shuttle launch that year, but I was to busy with business to go. As you can read, I’m no stranger to at least some kind of technology.
According to some poles taken, 94% of the population believe man has stepped on the moon while the remaining 6% do not. I have read everything I could get my eyes on about the Apollo Program, including all of the Apollo Journals from the NASA sites. I even have a model of the Saturn V Rocket in my office. I’ve seen and heard it all. Pictures, video, the filming of the first step, a phone call made to the President while they’re holding the waving flag, rocks, mirrors, hitting a golf ball, riding a moon buggy, the superstitious number 13 not making the touchdown, etc, etc, etc. It grieves me to know I live in a world that 94% of it’s population can be so easily persuaded into believing that such a fair-tale actually happened. People, whom for some unknown reason feel obligated to believe in something of this nature, without question, just because the information fed to them came from a source they feel is so much higher or greater than themselves.
For the 94%, remember, NASA said they have achieved this extraordinary feat. The burden is on them to prove it, not on the public to disprove it. The remaining 6% have nothing to disprove, they’re already smart enough not to buy it in the first place.
April 7, 2007at 12:11 pm
it was a heart breaking experience as i found the job that i prefer in future is highly corrupted
April 20, 2007at 5:45 pm
speaking of all these rocks you guys say is proof — there is still one thing that bothers me: it is said (right on the Hasselblad website among many other places) that the 12 cameras the apollo astronauts took to the moon were left on the moon in order to help lessen the weight upon takeoff. however, there was no concern for the hundreds of pounds of rocks these guys brought back. and how exactly did this go down anyhow: the astronauts went inside the lunar module, took off there space suits, took the film from the camera, had to get suited back up in order to exit the LM and dump the camera. seems like an awful lot of work just to save what, 4 or 5 pounds of weight at most. and also, notice Hasselblad says 12 cameras are still on the moons surface — that’s one for each lunar-walking astronaut. yet, in one of neil armstrongs few interviews (you can google search neil armstrong brinkley interview transcripts and find it for proof) he states that buzz actually had to ask him for his camera so he could take some pictures as well. this obviously means that there was only 1 camera on the first mission, so where is this 12th camera hasselblad, the moon landing camera manufacturer, is talking about.
see, things just dont add up with how they said the moon landings went down.
there’s a lot of little descrepancies that hoax believers would like answered. all the dubunking you guys do is a matter of opinion just like our conspiracy theories are just a matter of opinion — the truth be told, none of us has ever gone to the moon, so we don’t know for a fact if stars can be seen, or how shadows should go, or if a flag would continue to wave after its pole has been tampered with, or if footprints could be left, etc etc. everything for both sides are theories and thats that. but, one of my biggest reasons for not believing is this: common sense to me seems to say that the moon is just too far away to get to with the technology they had back then, and too far and risky to send men there - without knowing what they were going to encounter or the environment they were heading into - before they would send some type of animal as a test subject first. they didnt have time though; afterall they were in a space race. and hasnt nasa before and since lived by the rule that man doesnt go where a monkey hasnt been first. why didnt they follow this rule with apollo.
April 21, 2007at 11:15 am
Although alot of the points put out throughout this page seem very valid I still believe America went to the moon. First off how could these 12 men to set foot on the lunar surface put up an act for all these years? These men were military test pilots, among the most brilliant engineers and pilots the world has seen. How many books have these guys written since the Apollo program, quite a few if you check it out. These guys went to the moon, some even cried on the lunar surface to see the awesome sight of our earth that we live on…The proof is out there, we have rockets going to Mars in todays society but oh let me guess no one believes we really have these rockets they are just simulations right? The amount of scientific data is enough, forget the pictures forget all of that… I think one fact can dismiss this hoax… On the lunar surface left behind by the astronauts is a reflector that scientists use to measure the distance from earth the moon is… They beam this laser of sorts to the moon and it bounces back…if we never landed on the moon how can that be… how can we have such accurate maps of the lunar surface that tells where the astronauts landed…how can we still be transmitting information over hundreds of thousands of miles between the moon and not have been there…
May 2, 2007at 11:04 pm
Surely there must be Appolo astronauts alive to this day. I’m wondering if they would submit to lie detector tests. Put it to them directly and ask them if they went there.
Maybe there was a hoax. Maybe the hoax is a hoax to cover up something even more fantastic. A deal was made that left us with the messy end.
May 19, 2007at 12:01 am
to those who say the government is not capable of doing bad things or covering up the truth just research all about Operation Northwoods their is nothing wrong with trusting government but at least try and verify information
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of terrorism and violence on US soil or against US interests, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.
As part of the U.S. government’s Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative, the plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.
source #1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
source #2:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
May 26, 2007at 3:50 am
The laser ranging argument is rubbish i.e. you could “laser range” the moon without mirrors. Or perhaps you could use a Russian mirror already there.
This subject is like an enforced religion from medieval times - “Believe or ye shall perish” As most people prefer to live than die it is not necessarily in their interest to divulge any secrets. Look at the rocketdyne guy - How many times did the CIA try to kill him (was it 5? ) There is most certainly something not quite right about all of this.
June 24, 2007at 6:52 pm
The thing that bothers me about the hoax theories is that the best “anomalies” stem from gross ignorance.
The crosshair’s bit is one of the worst. What would that actually explain? Are people implieing that they actually propped up a giant crosshair behind objects?
That we should see stars with that sort of exposure time? Have you ever, ever tried to photograph stars? I don’t think so.
The absolute worst is “How could we go to the moon with a computer with so little power on board?” That’s a statement that comes from someone who isn’t a programmer. (Maybe a Java programmer?) Computers were used very, very extensively in the program, but most of them on the ground. The workload onboard was small beans for even the crudest of computers.
The shadows are on uneven surface. Light reflects off ground and objects. Dust moves in parabolic arcs. Flags wave when you move them. etc. The Van Allen belt exposure they got was equal to a chest x-ray. etc.
I’ll tell you what’s not right about it; how come the Soviets never tried to hoax it? If you think the Soviets would have any qualms about lieing about it, you don’t know enough about the Soviets. The soviets had enough control over their media and people that they’d have a far easier time pulling it off than the US.
But even they didn’t try that one.
Plus, while the soviets have a nice list of firsts, so does the US - including things that were far more relevant to the actual execution of the moon landing, such as extravehicular activity. And they were usually behind the Soviet’s firsts by mere weeks.
Even hinting the Americans could’ve actually accomplished such a hoax is pissing on Russia’s intelligence agency.
The rocks probably do “look” like ones in your backyard, but that’s because your not a geologist. There are moon origin meteorites, but not without signs of atmospheric entry or local contamination.
How come NASA isn’t trying to prove the hoax theory wrong? It’s simple:
*All* of the complaints have been thoroughly refuted over and over and over again, and anything else they could ~possibly~ offer is just as fallible.
Going back? If they could hoax it before they can do it now.
Satellite photo? Computer graphics. Something they DIDN’T have in 1969.
How come so many government conspiracies involve much, much smaller numbers of people get blown out of the water? The fact that people can name so many famous government conspiracies that got away is more telling. The moon hoax would be 10,000 times harder to fake than blowing something up and pointing fingers.
August 2, 2007at 5:19 am
I don’t just think we never landed on the moon, I believe that it is impossible to complete this mission today. Just the fuel required to make the trip, the massive shielding required to protect not just the astronauts and the LM as well as the tremendous stress that would occur to the craft in flight make the project look phony. Take a good look at the photos of the LM. If you say that it would be possible for this craft to travel at thousands of miles per hour, you are a fool. With loose panels, aluminum foil, and what looks like tent material; there is no way that thing successfully landed (6 times) on the moon- no way- I’m not buying it. Look at the ridiculous antenna setup on the top of the LM, the metal looks about as thick as a coat hanger. What about the fuel cell on the LM, where is it? There is no way you will ever convince me that there was enough space for a the fuel required to not only land on the moon, but to ascend as well.
I have a challenge for anyone who is willing to attempt it; build a replica or even a model and show us just the engine or booster. I guarantee that it is impossible to fit a 10,000 lb. per sq. ft. thruster into a compartment the size of the LM; let alone 3 men, a lunar rover, and the fuel cell to boot.
August 2, 2007at 2:07 pm
The Truth is it is a Hoax. No-one has landed on the moon. The conspiracy theory is that they did land. NASA was just an instrument used to drum the idea that this “so called” landing occurred when it didnt. Reason=Cold WAR against USSR (Russia). Using your logic while checking out images tells you its FAKE.
Now just because i believe that it was a HOAX does not make me a NERD as NASA agents and affiliates would like others to believe. I also believe 911 was an inside job. And that the war on terror is a load of crap. Fox News would try to do what NASA and their affilates do as well.
Ive worked very hard in my life, im not 40, Joe. Im 28. I have a Girl Friend and she is a beautiful Angel. Ive also just finished recording my 5th Album.
You (Joe and Friends) probably work for NASA. You never know. But one thing i do know is that the Moon Landing is a HOAX.
September 9, 2007at 12:50 am
OK… first off everyone can agree that nikola tesla is by far one of the smartest men ever.. why did we never get to hear his dynamic theory of gravity… well.. because it disproved newton and einstein.. einsteins tests were only conducted based on newtons observations as a frame of reference.. so.. if newton was wrong.. yep.. einstein was too… all energy is vibrations.. our earth spins because the sunlight hits it and causes tides in the oceans, soil, atmosphere….everything.. and then when we have a full moon the suns rays (visible and invisible) are reflected onto the portion of the earth thats normally cooling… ok.. well that basically puts a brake on the earths rotation and inertia drives large bodies of water forward.. causing high and low tides.. it has nothing to do with the moons gravity.. if you believe in gravity you have to believe in a strong and a weak force.. and nothing can be that selective and segregate WHAT it is going to pull….especially if you say a large body in space has gravity simply because it has mass then why are meteors striking the surface of the moon and not being pulled towards us… and that also proves that the moon has NO atmosphere.. and gravity is relative to atmosphere.. if you dont have light you cant heat up water and other gases and the planet wont start to spin… if you lack an iron core (also like the moon) you will not generate energy… A VERY FRIKKIN HIGH AMOUNT… that energy traps in all the earths gases…. the moon lacks all of that…. simply from pushing the flag into the moon he would have pushed himself into space… LONG LIVE TESLA AND THE FORWARD MOVING UNIVERSE…..
September 17, 2007at 5:41 am
I am surprised to see how many so called smart people believe the moon landings were faked. First and fore most I am not an U.S. Citizen and I think that you U.S. Citizens who believe the moon landings were faked are the more unfair with your country.
If you look any video sequence of Neil Armstrong and the U.S. flag you will see that efectifely the flag is NOT waving, I challenge any one to reproduce the ´waving´effect, you will not be able to do, so the landing in real
September 17, 2007at 9:55 am
Hi, if it was a hoax can somebody explain how the sound and picture images of the moon landing came from the moon to earth via the radio telescope at Parkes NSW Australia, then relayed by land line to the Huston space centre. The time of day and lunar position meant that Huston was blind to the moon and all communication had to come and go through the radio telescope at Parkes.
Please, no claims “they were in on the hoax” or any other cop out. The signals came from the moon.
September 19, 2007at 4:51 pm
Wow. I stumbled on this site through a google search and I must say that I am STUNNED by the sheer ignorance and lack of any authoritative knowledge posessed by those who claim this hoax. I was tempted to just pass this dungeon of ignorance by, and will do so, never to return, but not before saying:
As you conveniently put aside all of the physical artifacts, all of the toil of thousands of people (myself included) to build and operate the program; all of the environmental effects/evidence still present and visible on this earth, in its orbit, and on the surface of the moon; all of the life work and bravery of hundreds who have experienced near-space flight and space travel; all of the actual devices developed and still being used today; and all of the personal experiences of those who know and do; As you put aside and cling to your own half-truthes, distortions, and hearsays, and ask us to prove the negative - ask yourself this: WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY? WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU? To start, it makes you an ignorant, pompous, silly fool. Buzz Aldrin reacted to one of you by punching him in the face, which was understandable. I prefer to just let you wallow in your ignorance.
November 10, 2007at 9:47 pm
One point that nobody seems to discuss to is the 3 astronauts who made this mission. on balance, I believe they did go but equally acknowledge that each of them suffered afterwards and became partialrecluses. Guilty conscience according to sceptics or equally, naive experts who became too overwhelmed by it all? I recently met Armstrong who speaks quite convincingly about this experience at the age of 77. He does not appear delusional or to lack integrity. I believe that he believes he went, even if others dont.
November 19, 2007at 5:43 pm
This blog is open to all comments, however if you-
CAPITALISE THE ENTIRE POST (4 or 5 comments like that) I’ll delete it. The odd sentence to emphasise is fine.
Swear excessively (could be kids reading this for a school project) I’ll delete it.
Call another poster a moron or something, guess what, I’ll delete it.
Yes we have different beliefs, but that does not mean we have to be disrespectful to others beliefs.
The Non Believer
November 20, 2007at 5:34 pm
They certainly landed on moon or not but they cannot repeat that feat AGAIN
November 21, 2007at 5:40 am
I agree with everything your saying and i want to discuss conspiricies with you. meet me at the Empire state Building at 11:00 on monday morning 12/12/2007
November 26, 2007at 2:38 pm
OK, I’m quite open minded about the whole affair. I tend to think they did go to the moon but I’m quite open to the idea that part of it was faked or at least something happened that we are not being told. Apart from Apollo 13 it was all too flawless and the astronauts are all too……well……weird!
Firstly, all the websites that advocate the hoax theory are run by very naive people. Nearly all the ‘evidence’ for the hoax is easily dismissed. I must say that I’m amazed that no one has worked out the real reason the flag was moving. It’s quite simple…it was a piece of fabric. The astronaut stretches out the flag and it naturally retracts itself slightly due to it’s elasticity and moves about as it does so. Almost any piece of fabric will do this. Very simple.
Now we definitely had the ability to fake certain portions of the moon landing. Stanley Kubrick and Douglas Trumble could easily have faked the space ships and the lunar surface but there are things even they couldn’t do. Such as the low gravity dynamics that is observable in the astronauts gait and the settling of dust. This would be extremely hard to fake. Also there is not one piece of so called anomalous photographic or video evidence used by the hoax theory advocates that is not explainable in simple terms and easy to verify as being genuine.
OK, having said that it is quite possible that we are not being given the full story about the moon missions. The idea that the mission/s experienced such a flawless execution is very suspicious indeed. Things probably went wrong that we don’t know about and there were most likely secret elements to the missions.
Maybe the radiation is quite dangerous. There are conflicting reports about this detail from experts in the field.. Maybe the astronauts were exposed to injurious levels of radiation. This is quite possible. There are many people who receive high levels of radiation who apart from initial effects on their health do not die from cancers or other damage. The astronauts were maybe slightly cooked and have remained silent on the fact to save face for Uncle Sam.
Maybe, apart from what we are told, the astronauts had a bad time of it in other ways during the mission. Maybe they were more traumatised by their experiences than they are aloud to say. They seem calm enough in the official communications but maybe they were panicky some of the time. Maybe conditions were a bit unbearable. Maybe it was extremely uncomfortable on the moon with the temperature variations. Maybe they spent time huddled in the lander sweltering and/or shivering and wondering if they might die, then putting on a brave face for the camera’s. Of course some will say no, they were all brave test pilots etc. but I say no, they were human beings in conditions few have ever encountered so any reaction would be understandable.
Now here’s an idea that isn’t brought up often. Maybe there was a secret program in which the landing was tested by unknowns before the public event could be attempted. Of course there are some obvious arguments against this idea but I don’t think it’s too implausible. Firstly some will say it is impossible to keep such a secret from coming to light. Too many people would have to be involved in the cover up. I say rubbish, if there is one thing that people will keep a secret for it is national security. Especially if the military is involved. The military are able to enforce secrecy in national security situations very effectively. And there doesn’t need to be an enormous number of people who know what is actually going on. Hundreds maybe, not the thousands as postulated by some skeptics. The only people who really need to know that there is a real moon landing going on and not some test/simulation would be the communications technicians at the Parks observatory in Australia, the ground control team at Houston, the astonauts and a hand full of politicians and military officials. Anyone else could be told they are part of a secret test/simulation. How many times was the Saturn vehicle tested? Were there any manned splash down simulations? Anyhow, This is all just speculation but I find it difficult to accept that the first mission was a perfect success as is reported with there having been no real world testing of all the main elements of the technology. Of course getting it right first time is not out of the question but it must be asked, would they really risk showing the first attempt to the public?
There is allot to think about with the moon landings as reported to the public and what might have gone on in secret behind the scene. We don’t hear much about the military’s involvement in the space race. Who knows what they’ve been up to on the moon or elsewhere since we’ve had the capability of traveling in outer space. Maybe they did test nuclear bombs on the dark side of the moon as they wanted to but wern’t allowed to. Who knows?
Alright, this is just my two cents worth of maybe worthless speculation. Though I definitely believe that we were not and are never told exactly what went on or goes on behind the scenes with the moon landings or any large scale governmental/military technological endeavour. And going to the moon over and over again just to stick a flag in the ground and pick up a few rocks makes no sense whatsoever but then again maybe that’s all they did. People often don’t make sense.
Dave.
December 2, 2007at 10:56 am
Moonlanding-33 things that need to be answered!
Written by Dave Cosnette.
Updated September 12th, 2006
1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be “astonishingly brilliant”. See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show ’stars’ in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad’s camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren’t the astronauts affected?
3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM’s 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?
4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)
5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.
7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?
9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital “C” on it and a ‘C’ on the ground in front of it?
10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
11) In Ron Howard’s 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun’s rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.
12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in “one sixth” gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.
15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.
16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn’t the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?
17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.
18) The astronauts in these “pressurized” suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer’s 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary ‘Paper Moon’ The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the ‘official’ measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.
21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.
22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, ‘Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can’t even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.’ This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA’s progress in the great space race.
23) Why did NASA’s administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?
24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could “rehearse” the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.
25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to “see” the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!
26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man’s own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!
27) CNN issued the following report, “The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the ‘Van Allen Belts’ can spawn (newly discovered) ‘Killer Electrons’ that can dramatically affect the astronauts’ health.”
28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That’s the equivalent of a simple calculator.
29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?
30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.
31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, showing the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!”. and appears above in the ‘Why Did Apollo 11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?’ section.
32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History’s greatest accomplishments?
33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?
December 6, 2007at 2:35 pm
it is said that NASA killed some of it’s people who came to know about this hoax and was against this .was this true?
December 8, 2007at 1:59 am
Yes there is no wind on the moon and the flag should not have been waving on its on. But there is no wind on a sound stage either. The flag was waving because N Armstrong was twisting the pole.
I wrestled with the question of who is the dumbest person among these ignorant foolish people then I found …
Matthew Sean O’Gill said,
September 9, 2007at 12:50 am
all energy is vibrations.. our earth spins because the sunlight hits it and causes tides in the oceans, soil, atmosphere….everything..
Any arguments?
December 8, 2007at 11:06 pm
How does NASA explain how the small little capsule- minus all the rockets that were needed when launched from the earth’s atmosphere- left the Moon’s atmosphere- and- targeted itself so that it would know exactly where to land when it reentered the earth’s orbit? What fuel load took the capsule that we saw on the moon all the way back to earth- and be able to land exactly off the ocean of Cape Canaveral? What was used in the capsule to “steer” the space craft back to earth? How is it that they could land the craft right there so close to Cape Canaveral?
Also, wouldn’t then have needed satellites to send a photo all the way back to earth. Even today- without a satellite- you can’t send film across the ocean. Was there actually a direct link between the signal that the astronauts were sending out- video as well as voice- were actually travelling all the way back to earth- on their own? Without an satellite relay link? How is that possible?
Joel Bainerman
Jerusalem, Israel
http://www.joelbainerman.com
January 3, 2008at 4:50 am
i think solidtruth makes a bunch of great points here
i doubt anyone could disprove all of those theories
January 6, 2008at 12:26 pm
If NASA could launch men into space, pilot them to the moon, deploy a lander, drop a rover from that lander, have the men explore the moon, then return to the lander, launch from the lunar surface, dock with an orbiting module, and then return to earth, re-enter the atmosphere and land in a specific recovery zone, all back in 1960’s, why is it that now in 2007 they are attempting to develop a craft that will be able to send a man to the moon and bring him back? why not just use the same tried and true model from the 60’s that has a higher success:failure ratio than our modern space shuttles?
We don’t have the technology to do it today… so what makes you think we had it then? How is it that currently other countries that today are far more technologically advanced than we were back then are trying but can not repeated this feat? China is our closest competitor and plans on having a round trip mission capable vehicle and human crew ready by 2024. Nasa predicts it will have a working vehicle and equipment ready for a mission no later than 2020…. yet in the 60’s we pulled something together from litterally nothing in under a decade.
Anyone who watched apollo 13 and believed that you can manually pilot and steer a rocket from halfway to the moon back to the earth on a booster rocket with nothing but radio guidance telemetry that carries a several minute delay from target is either completely uninformed or blindly optimistic.
The Clementine Lunar Probe is the most damning piece of evidence to date… its not speculation, conjecture or theory… the landing sites are not there. There is no LM or Buggie at any of the alleged landing sites.
The man on the moon missions didn’t happen. May happen someday, but it didn’t hapen then.
January 18, 2008at 4:32 am
apparently the resolution on the clementine probe was unable to shoot the locations and give us a close enough picture. The recent chinese orbitor was equally a wash. Though as it decended to low orbit, it should have been able to show us something.
We will get there though… maybe not untill the late 2020’s now. There’s a lot of stink about discontinuing the shuttle program due to a loss of jobs. (aparently a manned lunar mission won’t create enough jobs to offset it) And a lot of money earmarked for the shuttle program would be re-directed
January 31, 2008at 4:37 pm
Baratacus makes a strong argument. Why the sudden loss of ability to make this happen today when it was so easy and faultless back then. I know mankind can literally move mountains when it wants to, but it takes many attempts with loss of life before success is achieved on the grand ideas.
We our only just plumbing the deepest oceans with crewed submarines where pressure is the biggest danger and the distance is measured in meters. Yet we are expected to believe that we have been to the moon through the vacuum of space a journey of thousands of miles, beyond the earths protection from the violence of the sun, to a cold lifeless rock, where we jump about, drive cars that we brought with us and then head home with large payloads of rock. Making sure we just hit the atmosphere at the correct speed, angle etc so as not to ruin the day in a fiery ball. I really don’t think so….
Forget the pictures and evidance and look at it logically. We just couldn’t do it then, we still can’t do it now.
February 20, 2008at 10:02 pm
To those who believe that man never landed on the moon, you are either ignorant or deluded. Every single piece of supposed “proof” of a hoax is easily dismissed by either common sense or a simple knowledge of science and physics. The biggest piece of proof that it did actually happen is the Russians. It was the height of the cold war, and the race was on with the Russians to get to the moon first. If the USA faked it, the Russians would have SCREAMED to the world that it was fake. To those who say the burden of proof lies with those who believe that we did actually land on the moon, you are wrong. The proof is there. What more do you need? Prove that it didn’t happen. Guess what? You can’t. You should be ashamed of yourselves for for so easily discounting the single greatest technological event in the history of the world. I will offer a one million dollar prize to anyone who can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was a hoax.
March 22, 2008at 4:05 pm
I believe that we landed on the moon. Why? Because I have respect for the integrity of the men who went there. If one of the moon-landing astronauts could come out and deny this-and survive, unlike Gus Grissom who supposedly was set to do the same thing-I would say that there should be many many more people that would have had to be involved with a hoax to come forward.
If the government has so successfully “landed” on the moon, then why haven’t they tried to “land” on Mars yet? Could it possibly be that we’re actually planning on going?
March 22, 2008at 4:09 pm
Also, solidtruth? If you have ever gone to Cape, as I have, or been lucky enough to speak with an astronaut, as I have, you might know that people in the shuttle or a space station are able to see that radiation, and yet they survive, months even, in space.
April 1, 2008at 3:08 pm
I totally believe that men went to the moon. A big flaw in the hoax theory, that no one ever seems to mention, is this. Assuming they did fake the first landing why did they keep doing it? Surely the risk of being discoverd once was massive so why multiply it so many times? Theorists? Answers please?
April 13, 2008at 11:04 pm
i dont understand why there are so many non believers out there it really makes me sad i look up to the brave astronauts who risked their lives to fufill their dreams of going into outerspace. in the future i hope to be one of them. i came on this site to help me with my 8th grade project but seeing all the doubters out there just i dont know, really got my spirts down anyway i just wanted to let you know how awful you are to have such a closed mind and to come on here just to argue about something you really dont seem to know much about.
May 6, 2008at 6:08 pm
below is a perswasive speach that i am doing…some of it is i got it from variouse websites, i dindnt have a opinion over this stuff before, but now i am thoroughly convinced that man didnt land on the moon
Moon Landing Was A Hoax!
*How can the flag be fluttering when there’s no wind
on the atmosphere free Moon?
*with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked
up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are
the only proof that the Eagle ever landed.
And Rene believes they’re fake, and now I do too
For a start, he says,
*the TV footage was
hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked
like two blurred white ghosts jump about threw rocks and
dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was
that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up.
So networks actually had to film “man’s
greatest achievement” from a TV screen in Houston -a
deliberate ploy so that nobody could properly
examine it. But yet the still photos were stunning. Yet
that’s just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of
pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused.
Not one was badly composed or even blurred. As Rene
points out, that’s not all:
* The cameras had no white meters or view ponders.
So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to
see what they were doing.
* There film stock was unaffected by the intense
peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions
that should have made it useless.
* They managed to adjust their cameras, change film
and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been
almost impossible to end their, fingers.
Award winning British photographer David passer is convinced
the pictures are fake:
* The shadows could only have been created with
multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful
spotlights. But the only light source on the
Moon was the sun.
* The American flag and the words “United
States” are always brightly lit, even when everything
around is in shadow.
* Not one still picture matches the film footage,
yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.
* The pictures are so perfect, each one would have
taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together
But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.
David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate,
left there by “whistle blowers”, who were keen for the truth to
one day get out.
Why would anyone fake pictures of an event
that actually happened?
The questions don’t stop there. Outer space is
awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar
flares firing out from the sun.
Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near
space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are
protected by the earth’s Van Allenbelt.
But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way
outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical
data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once
said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the
walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship
to the moons surface were, said NASA, “about the thickness of heavy
duty aluminum foil”.
How could that stop this deadly radiation? And
if the astronauts were protected by their space suits,
why didn’t rescue workers use such protective gear at
the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a
fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one
Apollo astronaut, ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo
16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started.
“They should have been fried,” says Rene.
Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first
to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects.
Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims
there wasn’t one major technical problem on any of their Moon
missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole
thing. “The odds against these are so unlikely that God
must have been the co-pilot,” says Rene.
Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin
* “the second man on the Moon” - was asked at a
banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface.
Aldrin staggered to his feet and left
the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be
the last time he did this.
“It strikes me he’s suffering from trying to live
out a very big lie,” says Rene.
Aldrin may also fear for his life. Virgil
Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program,
was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up.
In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo
capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called
lemons) and told his wife Betty:
“if there is ever a serious accident in the space
program, it’s likely to be me.”
Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month
he and his two co- pilots were dead, burnt to death during a
test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen,
exploded. Scientists couldn’t believe NASA’ carelessness - even a
chemistry students in high school knows high pressure oxygen
is extremely explosive.
In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch
pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three
who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car crash.
Now this is a spectacular accident rate.
“One wonders if these ‘accidents’ weren’t NASA’s way of correcting
mistakes,” says Rene. “Of saying that some of these
men didn’t have the sort of ‘right stuff’ they were looking for.”
NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their
press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the
pictures are real.
But a NASA public affairs officer “Julian
Scheer” once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage
of astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had been made on a
mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was
the real lunar landscape.
“The purpose of this film,” Scheer told the
enthralled group, “is to indicate that you really can fake
things on the ground, almost to the point
of deception.” He then invited his audience to “come
to their own decision about whether or not man actually
did walk on the Moon”.
A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who
claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift
offs. The astronauts simply have to be on board, he says, in case the
rocket exploded.
“It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn’t
left with three astronauts who ought to be dead,” he claims,
adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the public
eye (global surveillance wasn’t what it is now)
and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked
them off to prepare for the big day a week later.
And now NASA is planning another giant step
*project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. “Think
what they’ll be able to mock up with today’s computer graphics,” says Rene
Chillingly. “Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s.
This time around will have no way of determining the truth.”
Space oddities
*Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on
the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased
him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by
uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
*A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16’s Lunar
Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
*The pressure inside a space suit was greater than
inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the
Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
*Text from pictures in the article Only two men
walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut
reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn’t
match the dark line in the
foreground, which looks like a line cord.
So the shadow to the lower
right of the spaceman must be the flag.
*Why is the flag fluttering?
*How can the flag be brightly lit when its side on to the light?
Where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
*The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the
astronauts feet seem to have made a
bigger dent in the dust.
*The powerful booster rocket at the base of the
Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons
service. Yet it has left no traces of
blasting on the dust underneath. It should have
created a small crater,
yet the booster looks like it’s never been fired.
1. *If NASA could launch men into space, pilot them to the moon, deploy a lander, drop a rover from that lander, have the men explore the moon, then return to the lander, launch from the lunar surface, dock with an orbiting module, and then return to earth, re-enter the atmosphere and land in a specific recovery zone, all back in 1960’s, why is it that now in 2007 they are attempting to develop a craft that will be able to send a man to the moon and bring him back? why not just use the same tried and true model from the 60’s that has a higher success:failure ratio than our modern space shuttles?
We don’t have the technology to do it today… so what makes you think we had it then? How is it that currently other countries that today are far more technologically advanced than we were back then are trying but can not repeated this feat? China is our closest competitor and plans on having a round trip mission capable vehicle and human crew ready by 2024. NASA predicts it will have a working vehicle and equipment ready for a mission no later than 2020…. yet in the 60’s we pulled something together from litterally nothing in under a decade.
May 27, 2008at 6:29 pm
Boy, we sure do have some ignorant people in the US of A. Ask ANYBODY who was there, watching Neil and Buzz bounce about the Sea of Tranquillity, on their televisions and everyone of them would say it is true. Ask some ignorant *&%-holes in their 30’s and 20’s and they will give you information that should make you laugh your balls off. Common sense and a little reading (yes, it is hard to actually read a book by yourself when your mommy reads it to you) will debunk any so called “theory” these scum bring up.
Absolutely stunning.
If anything, years of experience and F’s on research papers has taught me to never trust anything you see on the internet without background checks.
After Casey redo’s some horrible spelling mistakes in his post perhaps he can make some checks over some material he got from websites admined by 40 year olds who jerk off to shemale videos.
I’ll do my part for my side and disprove his idea of the LEM’s descent engine not making a crater on the surface. It would, IF IT WAS AT FULL THROTTLE! Gotcha! The engine only needed to support slightly less than the weight of the craft as it approached the ground, only at about 10-20% of maximum power. Constantly running the engine at full power for a long time would deplete the engine’s precious fuel.
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
now go out of your basement, take a deep breath of fresh air and look at the Moon sometime. Hard to fathom, but yes, we were there. In a time when the USA was at its finest, when we could achieve anything. But those days are over and nowadays Paris Hilton going to prison is considered news.
BC
June 2, 2008at 8:19 pm
To all you conspiracy nuts..So what would you constitute as proof then.
Answering all of the points made above? - been there, done that. Science to prove it. There are credible answers for all the so called “evidence against” points, but you choose not to believe them.
A photo from Hubble? - couldnt that be faked. No doubt that would be the claim
Going back there? - if we can fake it once then we can fake it again.
Face it. You just dont want to accept the truth. There is not one unchallengable argument against you can come up with. But for all the evidence that we did go to the moon you still cant believe.
The most telling bit about the validity of the landing is this. Three men went into space. Thousands of people saw the launch. If they didnt go to the moon, where did they go?
Its not very easy to hide when there is nothing to hide behind. There must have been hundreds of tracking stations on earth watching them. Soviets, Chinese, etc. So why didnt they say, “hold on, we followed you and you just did a couple of spins round the earth and came back.”
Any answers?
June 3, 2008at 12:03 pm
Don’t be discouraged that people don’t believe we went to the moon. Don’t be discouraged that our government may have lied to us with our “best interests” in mind. The do it all the time.
Radiation on this side of the van-allen belt is surviveable and you won’t die from it in a shuttle (400km-500km out from earth) The van-allen belt is an anomaly where by radiation is trapped by earths electromagnetic field in 2 concentric rings around our planet. In high orbit, at a distance of over 2,000km from the first belt, shuttle pilots are far from the belts. The first ring is 3,000 km up and is 5,000km across. The second ring is 15,000km-20,000km up and is 6,000-10,000km across. Today we have Polyethaline shielding which is far more effective for shielding against partical radiation that is found in the van allen belts. We didn’t have this shielding technology in the 60’s and used a thin metal foil to insulate the astronauts from radiation. Metal is a poor insulator against partical radiation and needs to be very dense. We didn’t even use lead foil, we used a lightweight foil that would have been completely inadequate to protect the astronauts from the partical radiation of the van allen belts.
Even getting safely through the radiation, we didn’t have a lander that could land. It failed every single landing test and simulation. It was too top heavy and would tumble every time. The lunar landing was it’s first sucsessfull touchdown. In fact, every single simulation of the lunar mission at mission control ended in an abort or mission failure. The eagle touching down was the first time that the controlers had actually experienced a successfull touchdown.
Why would we fake it? why would we do it more than once? Do you have any Idea how much money in civil engineering investors was tied up in this? If this program failed, It would be a death sentance to anyone involved. Not just NASA, but IBM, General Dynamics, Gruman, Hydrodine… and about a thousand other companies were revitalized or born out of this program. It was a billion dollar industry. The U.S. public had no interest in orbiters… Russia already beat the pants off of us in that market and was owning us in the space race. Someone that could do what Russia couldn’t do was golden in the eyes of the American Public.
Why did we stop going? You can only keep up a lie for so long. It was only a matter of time before NASA got busted. Why do you think the president of the U.S. said that the lunar missions were finished and we would not be sending any more manned flights to the moon in the forseeable future. Why do you think all of the prototypes and plans were “Lost”
Don’t let this discourage you from becoming an astronaut. Astronauts do exist, we have traveled to outerspace. But don’t idolize and make a hero out of any man. Columbus was a genocidal oportunist and a poor navigator. Yet we have a national holiday for him. All men are falable and thats part of being human. If you saw 10 of your buddies drop off like flies for protesting how things were being done, you’d shut your mouth too.
June 29, 2008at 1:30 am
All of you Moon landing “skeptics” have clearly devoted hours and hours of time poring over the conspiracy angle. How much time have you actually devoted to researching the Apollo program or, good gravy, familiarizing yourselves with basic physical science principles? If you would simply spend half as much time learning something useful about the space program rather than accepting, without ctitical analysis or technical knowledge, the absurd claims my by hoax enthusiasts, you’d be able to answer your own preposterous questions.
And to clarify a peculiar attitude advanced by a number of you, the burden of proof IS on YOU. YOU are challenging the historical record, so YOU have to make YOUR case. Since you can’t come up with a challenge that cannot be easily addressed by applying the most fundamental scientific analysis, you have no proof of a hoax and you never will.
Here’s the thing. The Soviets were the best at working conspiracies. Why didn’t they fake a landing before we did? If I follow your reasoning, there really was no Cold War and the USSR was in cahoots with the USA to expose the shortcomings of soviet communism! That’s why the Soviets didn’t rat us out. Yeah. That must be it.
The security around Apollo Program was nothing like what went on during the Manhattan Project. Just go to the library and look at how many news articles from the early- and mid-1960s follow the progress of the project. Oh, wait. All of the nation’s newspapers and their employees were in on the conspiracy, too.
In fact, to pull off this hoax, every citizen of Earth, except American taxpayers, was in on it.
Can you see why this whole conspiracy angle just doesn’t make it? Science, common sense and rational thinking simply undercut the entire premise. Let it go.
July 1, 2008at 3:00 am
please note that I’m not asking anyone to shut their mouths.. I’m suggesting that it is possible that men with integrity can be silenced. You threaten their familys or their friends, you can buy their silence, or force it. I won’t attack the integrety of anyone in this matter since I don’t know who is a willing participant and who isn’t. I feel that the ground crews and the mission control personelle had no Idea any of it was faked. They would be easy to fool and also the most compelling witnesses attesting that it all was real and it happened. There are people that had full knowledge of what happened and are filthy dirty in the creation of the lie.