So the moon landing was faked!

Lol, not ones ignored what you have said, the problem is you haven't showed any evidence at all.
No evidence no point.
And you are one for saying we ignore you. I'm still waiting for why you think a flight in a Soyuz capsule would prove anything? And why you think he lied about the VLT array.
 
Robosapien said:
atmosphere of dust
Click to expand...

UmpOi.gif
 
Angilion said:
On Earth, landing something directly downwards onto a dry, dusty surface using a rocket for braking would throw up loads of dust and displace the material for a sizeable distance around the lander. On the moon, it wouldn't. There are two reasons for that. The lesser reason is that you'd be using a much less powerful rocket due to the much lower mavity (the rocket on the lunar lander had a throttle). The greater reason is that there's no air on the moon. As a result, the only material that is disturbed is the material directly under the rocket. On Earth, the majority of the disturbed material would be disturbed by the air moved by the rocket. Which can't happen on the moon, as there's no air. Very different conditions, very different results.
Click to expand...

Conversely there's weaker mavity on the moon so you might expect the dust to be launched higher?

It was daytime. How many stars do you see in the daytime from the surface of the Earth? It's none, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Probably more to do with the scattering of sunlight by the Earth's atmosphere...I'm sure that with the naked eye you could see stars from the lunar surface in "daytime". Maybe I'm wrong. Like you go on to say though camera exposure far more plausible as explanation for 'missing stars' I would've thought?

Edit:- Having read up on it, it would seem that scattering of sunlight from the lunar surface would be sufficient.
 
Last edited:
Robosapien said:
4 Real Bro, the mavity is so weak, that s$$$ floats. That gif is incredible btw.
Click to expand...

Dictionary said:
An atmosphere (New Latin atmosphaera, created in the 17th century from Greek ἀτμός [atmos] "vapor"[1] and σφαῖρα [sphaira] "sphere"[2]) is a layer of gases that may surround a material body of sufficient mass,[3] and that is held in place by the mavity of the body.
Click to expand...
 
groen said:
I have backed out of this thread now, pointless continuing when everyone just ridicules me, tells me to shut up and ignores all the videos and information i post. :(
Click to expand...

I won't insult you.
However, is there anything in this thread where you have thought 'well that makes sense' and changed your view?
 
The following as far as I’m concerned have not been successfully debunked. If any of them have been, then please link to the research because I have not seen it.

1. Yuri Gagarin Conspiracy

There is evidence to suggest that the first man in space was in fact Vladimir Ilyushin, one of Russia’s most celebrated test pilots.


The above is presented merely to point out that the USA did not whistle blow against the Russians and that de-classified information now paints a different historical picture.

Many people argue that if the moon landing was faked, then Russia would have immediately denounced the achievement for political gain.

An alternative view is that the Russians (and other nations) would have instead used this knowledge for future political advantage.

2. Oddities in the CSM


12:00 to 16:00

The shadow in front of the Earth shot

Earth taped to the window

Another Earth closer?

3. Unusual Lighting

Again from the documentary presented in point 2.

45:20 to 45:45

Hasselblad engineer Jan Lundberg cannot explain the foreground lighting in the classic Aldrin picture.

It is conceivable that images taken on the moon were either of such poor quality or sustained radiation / temperature damage that NASA made the decision to produce studio quality pictures and footage to be released to the public.

This is why I have made no reference to any of the obvious fake imagery.

4. How they reduced weight

Again from the documentary presented in point 2.

1:59:20 to 2:00:50

Tell-tale flash pings from wires used to reduce mavity.

2:00:20 to 2:00:50

In this section Percy suggests that wires are used to assist the astronaut in standing. However, whilst it does look a little odd it could be explained by an arm support in reduced mavity.

What concerns me more are the two sample packets that fall to the ground during this scene at what appears to be Earth gravitational speed.

5. Anomalies in solar radiation

Again from the documentary presented in point 2.

2:24:55 to 2:26:20

One of the most severe solar flares ever recorded occurred in August 1972 between Apollo missions 16 and 17. This single flare would have delivered 960 rem (roentgen equivalent in man) of solar radiation.

Astronauts neglect to use protective gold visors to shield their faces.

The solar cycle occurs every 11 years. It peaked in 1969, thus this was the most dangerous time to be sending astronauts into deep space.

6. Van Allen Belt

In an interview with Jim Collier in the late 1990’s, Dr James Van Allen stood by his original findings.

http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

He further stated that there had to be some ‘fundamental flaw’ in his research but could not clarify this statement.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...james van allen interview jim collier&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...of the arrival of auroral radiations"&f=false

Van Allen said:
The conclusion was then immediate – at higher altitudes the intensity was actually at least a thousand times as great as the intensity due to cosmic radiation.
Click to expand...

I remain entirely unconvinced that the Van Allen belt is not as dangerous as it was initially predicted. What was the real purpose behind Operation Starship Prime?

Interestingly, the International Space Station is actually in the Thermosphere rather than outer space. Why has no manned space mission by any country ever gone out of low Earth orbit since Apollo allegedly did?

7. Exposure

Again from the documentary presented in point 2.

2:26:20 to 2:29:40

No radiation damage or damage caused by temperature to the Kodak film used.

8. Bag drop Audio Correction


9. Erroneous Time Delay


9:15 sounds like an echo of ‘clamps and the tape’ rather than ‘wait dammit’.

There is a follow up to this video.


10. Evidence of shame?

Apollo 11 Press Conference

Armstrong looks utterly dejected.



Neil Armstrong said:
There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers.
Click to expand...


11. Nothing proven on Apollo Transmissions


12. The Apollo Guidance Computer


13. Ride Report

In 1987, a task force under the leadership of astronaut Sally Ride was asked to formulate a new strategy for NASA. The ‘Ride Report’, or ‘NASA Leadership and America’s Future in Space’ to give the correct title estimated that it would take between 13 and 18 years to return Man to the moon.

http://history.nasa.gov/riderep/begin.htm

Ride Report said:
The initial phase would focus on robotic exploration of the Moon. It would begin with the launching of the Lunar Geoscience Observer, which will map the surface, perform geochemical studies, and search for water at the poles. Depending on the discoveries of the Observer, robotic landers and rovers may be sent to the surface to obtain more information. Mapping and remote sensing would characterize the lunar surface and identify appropriate sites for the outpost. The discovery of water or other volatiles would be extremely significant, and would have important implications for the location of a habitable outpost.
Click to expand...

Why robotic exploration if we have sent humans before?

Ride Report said:
Phase II begins with the return of astronauts to the lunar surface. (The scenario is sketched in Figure 9.) The initiative proposes that a crew be transported from the Space Station to lunar orbit in a module propelled by a lunar transfer vehicle. The crew and equipment would land in vehicles derived from the transfer vehicle. Crew members would stay on the surface for one to two weeks, setting up scientific instruments, a lunar oxygen pilot plant, and the modules and equipment necessary to begin building a habitable outpost. The crew would return to the orbiting transfer vehicle for transportation back to the Space Station.
Click to expand...

14. Oddities


15. LM Data Subsystem

Part 1.


Part 2.


Part 3.


16. Lack of Rover Tracks


17. Earth to the Moon and back. Retroreflectors.


18. Debunking Mythbusters – The Waving Flag


19. Once a Nazi, always a Nazi.

Wernher von Braun visited Antarctica in 1967, allegedly to collect moon rock samples.. Whilst not necessarily proof of anything, it adds to the overall picture.


24:40 to 25:45

Von Braun also publish a book in 1953 named ‘Conquest of the Moon’ in which he stated:-

Wernher von Braun said:
It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the Earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility.
Click to expand...

Wernher von Braun said:
Calculations have been carefully worked out on the type of vehicle we would need for the non-stop flight from the Earth to the moon and return. The figures speak for themselves: each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building (1250 feet) and weight about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons!
Click to expand...

I cannot locate a download link to the original book online.

20. Core Rope Module Problem


21. Unusual – no memory!


22. Knowledge is power

A final humorous video showing that the LRO ‘unedited’ images have photoshop tags. Tampering or NASA driving the conspiracy theorists crazy? You decide.


“One small step for man. One giant leap for mankind”.

This statement makes perfect sense to me now.
 
Last edited:
Robosapien said:
4 Real Bro, the mavity is so weak, that s$$$ floats. That gif is incredible btw.
Click to expand...

http://www.space.com/18067-moon-atmosphere.html
On the moon, there's no air to breathe, no breezes to make the flags planted there by the Apollo missions flutter. However, there is a very, very thin layer of gases on the lunar surface that can almost be called an atmosphere. Technically, it's considered an exosphere.

In an exosphere, the gases are so spread out that they rarely collide with one another. They are rather like microscopic cannon balls flying unimpeded on curved, ballistic trajectories and bouncing across the lunar surface. In the moon's atmosphere, there are only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter. In comparison, Earth's atmosphere at sea level has about 100 billion billion molecules per cubic centimeter. .
Click to expand...

So how would a none existent atmosphere, disturb the dust in the first place?
Then how would it interact with the dust, to spread them out wider.
The dust in moon videos along with everything else falls at moon mavity without friction.
 
Lol billy wobble.

Strings have been debunked so many times. People have even tried repeating it on earth with strings, and it does not match the videos at all.

So yes that's been debunked so many times its unbelievable.


As for the first point. Russians didnt claim to do something they didnt, so why would Americans call them out? This is totally backwards thinking. Oh wait Russians where even more advance than us, this is again the total opposite of calling something fake out.
 
The van Allen belt myth, again has been debunked so many times, I can't belive you even posted it.

For a start you need to understand there is different types of radation, some can be stopped by a sheet of aluminium foil, others need thick lead.
You then need to think about the speed of the apollo missions were traveling and which part of the belt they where traveling through, the belt is not even slightly uniformed, it varies massively.
Here's some basic maths on the subject

http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/3Page7.pdf


Nasa played the number game for solar flares, and won, just.
Again you need to understand radation.
What on earth would a gold visor achieve from a massive solar flare? It wouldn't provide any protection at all.
 
Last edited:
As for 18 that's also rubbish and be debunked so many times. If you work out the angles and sizes the maths comes in that the astronaught did indeed brush passed the flag, so there was contact.
But then again why would CT even try to examine it.
 
In reference to the 'von Braun' comments...

How can you possibly take that as evidence? Lots of people have made bold statements over the years only to proved completely and utterly wrong. The bit about 'non-stop flight' makes it sound as if he was under the assumption you would have to propel the rocket continuously under full power to the moon and back which is clearly not the case.
 
19,
More CT rubbish. It didnt travel directly to the moon, so it didnt need a 800,000 ton spaceship. Read it in context. That is calculation to get to the moon in a straight line.

They didnt go to the moon in a straight line, so didnt need to go so fast as to counteract mavity or atmosphere.
 
Dimple said:
I won't insult you.
However, is there anything in this thread where you have thought 'well that makes sense' and changed your view?
Click to expand...

The only two points that have been brought up that i thought were interesting enough for me to do a bit of research was the altitude of the satellites and if they need additional technology to withstand the environment.

Other bit was mentioning that Gemini 11 went to 800 miles. These two points i am still looking in to. Now i am wondering if it was only apollo that was fake or gemini as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom