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 […]
Continue Reading Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
They certainly landed on moon or not but they cannot repeat that feat AGAIN
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
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.
Apollo Moon Landing
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?
8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon – the Sun and the Earth… That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).
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?
great analysis. I, too, think the landing never occured. Another point I think should be considered is How did the Astronauts survive the absolute zero cold of space? They certainly didn’t have enough electricity stored to warm the space craft against that extreme cold.
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?
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..
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 www.joelbainerman.com
i think solidtruth makes a bunch of great points here i doubt anyone could disprove all of those theories
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.
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