So the moon landing was faked!

gillywibble said:
I don't believe so. I am friends with a forensic engineer who undertook detailed analysis of the crash scene.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, I see. So someone using their advanced scientific knowledge made a detailed analysis of all the evidence available to them, and concluded that she wasn't murdered...

See where I'm going? ;)
 
timbob said:
Yes I do, frequently. However, when overwhelming evidence proves something to be true, I accept it.

See my Hoover Dam example. I believe it's there, even though I've never seen it myself.
Click to expand...


Have you heard of the Doofer Dam? It's three or four times the size of the Hoover Dam but only I have pictures to prove it exists, no-one else has any pictures of it, other than the ones I give them.

Do you see how flawed your argument is? This is what the CT guys prey on all the time.
 
timbob said:
Ahhhh, I see. So someone using their advanced scientific knowledge made a detailed analysis of all the evidence available to them, and concluded that she wasn't murdered...

See where I'm going? ;)
Click to expand...

Yes of course, but if I had any reason to suspect that Diana was murdered, then perhaps I would have questioned him more closely.
 
Squark said:
All quibbling aside those are some amazing photos

as12466806.jpg
Click to expand...

Clearly they had JJ Abrahms on board for that shoot :p
 
timbob said:
Sigh. One last try.

Conrad and Bean (Apollo 12 astronauts) took photos of the surveyor site, and the trenches its scoop dug. These are the very trenches shown on the video beamed back from Surveyor 3 (or is that fake too, set up in another studio so they could "go back" in two years and "recover" parts for scientific research...!?)

AS12-48-7110.jpg


Here is Pete Conrad touching the very camera. Note the LEM at the back of the picture... Just how big is this studio of yours...?

AS12-48-7133.jpg


There are thousands more photos. Showing the snipped straps that held the camera. More showing the bit of Surveyor 3 that Conrad accidentally bent when he hit it with his bolt cutters. Start here: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/images12.html#Mission

If you GENIUNELY believe that it's a simple case of making a replica camera, and marking it with a matching serial number, then there is no hope. I give up. It seems you're being obtuse and deliberately wasting a good many people's time who are trying to help educate you.

You are totally ignoring hard, independently documented proof that the camera brought back on Apollo 12 spent two years exposed to space on the surface of the moon. You conveniently ignore the micrometeorite evidence, solar wind particles, the reaction of the components to levels of UV radiation ONLY POSSIBLE outside of the earth's atmosphere.

Your response, please?
Click to expand...

I never said they marked it with a matching serial number i said they could have faked the serial numbers. Which means they could have easily modified the historic records of the serial numbers that were on the probe to match the new replica that they created or they could have just created a new device with the same serial numbers. How is anyone going to confirm that the serial numbers on the probe are the ones that nasa claim are on the probe?

Have you actually compared the original surveyor 3 footage with the apollo 12 footage to see if there are any discrepancies with regards to the layout? Is it not feasible, in your opinion, that they could have just looked at the surveyor 3 footage and tried to recreate them in the studio for apollo 12?

Robert M Walker received an award from nasa in 1970 "NASA Exceptional Scientific Award (1970)", I can not find much information on Robert M Walker but I doubt he could be considered independent. While I am not taking anything away from Robert Walker, he known to be a great physicist and had some amazing ideas.

Bob served on the scientific team that advised NASA on the handling and distribution of moon rocks and soil samples from the first Apollo missions. At the end of the Apollo program, he and James Arnold were invited
Click to expand...

I don't think we can get away with calling him independent on the topic of apollo.

Jarah white has about 30 videos on the moon samples that i am yet to find the time to listen to. But if you are interested, might be worth a listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucc_AXP7F8g (8 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyzUEC_Mg3Q (6 parts)
There is more episodes as well.

Everything is so well documented. The original audio recorded AT THE TIME exactly matches the photos taken, even down to the out of focus shots (time stamped) that Conrad mentioned having used the wrong shutter settings for live on the radio and recorded (also time stamped). They all match. Everything is there for the study if you have the desire to GENUINELY make up your own mind through research. Hundreds of hours of audio, probably tens of thousands of photographs, all catalogued and verified. The positions and lengths of the shadows, the azimuth, altitude and phase of the earth all exactly match what they should have been for that precise documented moment in history. The sheer amount of photos to "fake" without a single, tiny error in even one of them - impossible. They'd still be setting and resetting the studio and making sure the "projected" earth on the wall was just right to this day...
Click to expand...

No the original audio was a seperate track that was added later to edited video. With a multi-track sequencer you can just make a video and then get actors in to a studio and record the voices to match the video. They then just took still images during production and when the audio was added and the transcript was made they then put time stamps on the video and images. How many still images do we have with the earth in the background, while they are standing on the moon? Of course the commonly known argument that lack of stars in all the nasa images. Did they even try to take an image of the stars from the moon?

@Dimple image. hahah
 
Last edited:
gillywibble said:
That's a conspiracy in itself, unnecessarily high oxygen levels leading to the fire.

Gus Grissom's son believes his father was murdered.

Don't forget Thomas Baron died as well and his safety protocol report has never been found.
Click to expand...
IIRC the oxygen levels were high because at the time they were planning on using the higher oxygen level to reduce the amount of nitrogen in the air, thus preventing the astronauts from possibly suffering the "bends" when they reduced the total pressure in the cabin to it's nominal long term pressure (it's much easier to make a cabin that only has X pounds of pressure difference, than it is to make one that has 3X pressure differential).

From memory it's thought that a faulty electrical circuit caused the fire due to the higher level of oxygen in the air mix.

Nothing too suspicious about that given that:
A: At the time they were working to overcome weight issues.
B: They were trying to avoid a very well known problem (decompression sickness).
And
C: It wasn't the first time that an electrical short has caused a fire in an oxygen rich environment, and certainly wasn't the last.

The whole Apollo program, especially in the early days was highly experimental, and much like cutting edge aircraft design they found all sorts of issues that weren't considered to be much of a problem before they caused an accident (things as simple at not realising the problems created by using square openings on pressurised aircraft, which were discovered in part thanks to the De Havilland Comet)

I guess what I'm saying is, that the whole history of aviation and space travel has been laced with accidents resulting in deaths because either people didn't know about a particular problem, or didn't realise how it would apply in their case.
Things as simple as not using the exact correct bolt on an aircraft has caused crashes/near crashes, let alone the testing of a newly built craft.
 
Werewolf said:
I guess what I'm saying is, that the whole history of aviation and space travel has been laced with accidents resulting in deaths because either people didn't know about a particular problem, or didn't realise how it would apply in their case.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that alone make you think about Apollo 11 to Apollo 17 and how ludicrously successful it was?
 
gillywibble said:
Doesn't that alone make you think about Apollo 11 to Apollo 17 and how ludicrously successful it was?
Click to expand...

not really.

They were using a rocket that was fairly well tested/known by then and QC was such that faults with it would generally be spotted early*.
They had learned about the problems with the capsule and dealt with them.
They performed loads of tests on the ground and ran through pretty much every problem they could think of, or had encountered before the launches.

And from memory 13 wasn't exactly a great success in it's initial mission...

If anything it tends to hold with pretty much the rest of aerospace history fairly well, problems encountered early on, problems sometimes kill people, problems investigated and (hopefully) fixed, and with the knowledge from what caused the previous accidents you can take steps to prevent, or at least reduce the risk of encountering them in the future.

IIRC there is a suggestion that the Russians lost an astronaught in very similar circumstances prior to Apollo 11, and if the Americans had known of that accident they would probably have not lost their crew (contrasting to way that as soon as the De Havilland Comet issues were known, the knowledge was shared with pretty much the whole industry, thus Boeing didn't have to learn the same lessons on their aircraft).

It's pretty much the same as any new aircraft, the first people to fly it tend to be at higher risk of any issues, and from memory one of the reasons many of the early Astronauts were at the minimum experienced pilots, often ex test pilots who were known to be able to not only cope with the pressures of basically being a human guinea pig, but also to keep calm and work through problems they might encounter.



*IIRC the Space Race gave us some revolutionary techniques for both welding, and discovering microscopic flaws in metals which are now common place in everything from construction, to cars and aircraft.
 
Another thing that makes me facepalm about all this is that according to the CT nutters, in one breath we have the most competent conspiracy ever orchestrated. They successfully fooled the whole world that men landed on the freakin moon, including, crucially, the government of an arch enemy superpower who had almost as advanced technology as them. They have kept it quiet for 45 years even prepared to murder their own astronauts to do so (although Bart Sibrel, Jarrah White etc still live for some reason??). Even to this day they are managing to get China, Japan and India to play along and make statements that they saw evidence of the landing sites during their own recent missions. Chillingly successful.

In the next breath it's the most bungling incompetent joke of a conspiracy ever dreamt up. Inept staff are leaving labels on props and making errors in faked video and photos so obvious that any layperson can spot them - no stars in the sky, missing engine sounds, using multiple light sources, etc, etc. The whole premise is physically impossible to begin with. It's a wonder such bumbling fools even put together the big fake firework at all, let alone expected anyone to believe men actually went to the moon in it.

So which is it? Oh wait I know - it's whichever view best supports whatever 'theory' is being spewed out.
 
gillywibble said:
That's a conspiracy in itself, unnecessarily high oxygen levels leading to the fire.
Click to expand...

Not strictly true, that. They used pure oxygen to pressurise the cabin rather than a nitrogen-oxygen mix. A pure oxygen setup saves weight, and had been used without issue for Mercury and Gemini (or are we now declaring those 16 missions fakes as well? :p). And because it had been used for those missions without incident, NASA thought of it as routine. As Gene Kranz noted, they simply forgot the hazards involved.

The Apollo 1 fire had several causes - the time pressure from Kennedy's 'before the decade is out' mission statement, the sheer complexity of a spacecraft that has to go out to the Moon, and the lack of the rapport the astronauts had with McDonnell (North American Aviation built the Apollo CSM). It was probably faulty/abraded wire that caused the initial spark. It was certainly pure oxygen at ~16psi that allowed that spark to set fire to everything even remotely flammable in the cabin (it turns out that velcro practically explodes when you set fire to it in a pressurised pure oxygen atmosphere :eek:). And the inward opening hatch that took half an age to open up didn't help matters. It was a tragedy. It could have been avoided. What it did do was force NASA and North American to stop, go back to the drawing board and build a better spaceship. Which they did.

gillywibble said:
Gus Grissom's son believes his father was murdered.
Click to expand...

gillywibble said:
Gus Grissom's son a 'nut job' as well. Seriously, do you never question or doubt the official version of anything?
Click to expand...

He's a man who's angry that his father died. From his point of view, why wouldn't he think that his father was murdered? The spacecraft was faulty, NASA pressed ahead anyway, and Gus, Ed White and Roger Chaffee died.

gillywibble said:
Don't forget Thomas Baron died as well and his safety protocol report has never been found.
Click to expand...

His second report isn't available, but other stuff that he wrote his. Including this little piece published by - good heavens! - NASA.

http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/barron.html

(scroll down to 'An Apollo Report')
 
Groan - shut up you complete muppet.

Meh - it's what we're all thinking.

e - I'm just saying 'groan' - that's all. It's not directly aimed at anyone in particular ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom