So the moon landing was faked!

For those who believe the landings were faked, is there common agreement on the extent of the "faking" and how this was achieved? I guess what I mean is that we have all see the Saturn V blast off and I assume there is agreement this actually happened. But were the astronauts in the rocket at this point or do the CTs believe they never even left the ground? Or is it a case of the mission was completed with the exception of the descent onto the moon? As far as I can see there doesn't appear to be general agreement on this? It's all well and good saying it was faked but what exactly happened?

However, the big issue for me which the CTs tend to brush over, is how NASA have managed to keep anyone from spilling the beans. I think there were around 500,000 people directly employed on the Apollo programme and whilst I accept that they would not all be involved in a cover up, it would certainly be more then the 3 astronauts and those in mission control. I just cannot comprehend how such a cover up (actually not just one but 7 or 8 if you count Apollos 10 and 13) has not been blown open. Four of the astronauts who walked on the moon have now died - to me that is one heck of a lie to take with you. Countless others involved must have also now died - whilst not always the case it is not uncommon for people to have a desire to "come clean" as they come to the end of their lives. Are the CTs saying that NASA continue to have total control over these people?
 
Martytoon said:
For those who believe the landings were faked, is there common agreement on the extent of the "faking" and how this was achieved? I guess what I mean is that we have all see the Saturn V blast off and I assume there is agreement this actually happened. But were the astronauts in the rocket at this point or do the CTs believe they never even left the ground? Or is it a case of the mission was completed with the exception of the descent onto the moon? As far as I can see there doesn't appear to be general agreement on this? It's all well and good saying it was faked but what exactly happened?
Click to expand...

I imagine Saturn V went to space for a few days and gradually reduced its velocity preparing for Earth re-entry. I don't know if this is the general consensus though.

Martytoon said:
However, the big issue for me which the CTs tend to brush over, is how NASA have managed to keep anyone from spilling the beans. I think there were around 500,000 people directly employed on the Apollo programme and whilst I accept that they would not all be involved in a cover up, it would certainly be more then the 3 astronauts and those in mission control. I just cannot comprehend how such a cover up (actually not just one but 7 or 8 if you count Apollos 10 and 13) has not been blown open. Four of the astronauts who walked on the moon have now died - to me that is one heck of a lie to take with you. Countless others involved must have also now died - whilst not always the case it is not uncommon for people to have a desire to "come clean" as they come to the end of their lives. Are the CTs saying that NASA continue to have total control over these people?
Click to expand...

Compartmentalisation for the most part. 99% of those people probably didn't even know it was faked.

As for the astronauts, I refer to the point I made earlier in this thread regarding Apollo 1 and the suspicious deaths of Grissom, White and Chaffee. If (and it's a big if) they were deliberately murdered, it would make sense as to why no astronaut came forward. They have families too.

Just a theory, I have nothing to back either of the above up.
 
So what went to the moon and back transmitting, that all the ham radiosts tracked?

There was nothing different in apollo 1 than the air used in Gemini and mercury.

So neither of those theories even stand up to a gradual glance.
 
gillywibble said:
See point 11.
Click to expand...

Good god, if you belive that video there is no hope.
It really is dumb. Something had to go to the moon, it's not just radar, you have to physically aim the antennas to recieve the broadcast,. The moving of antenna follows the craft.

So no point 11 is absurd.
As you would be pointing the antenna at empty space and not recieve anything, this is what happened.

Again a CT with no understanding of physics. Just like you think light can curve without interacting with anything and make shadows disappear.

You don't want to reply about James van Allen?
 
Last edited:
Robosapien said:
The gas would have to be fired at immense speed to make up for the lack of quantity though - which would definitely clear a lot of dust, launching it higher up and for a longer time (giving it that suspended/aloft quality) than you would expect on Earth due to the weaker mavity.
Click to expand...

Nope, newtons law pretty much comes in to play here, no extra gas is needed due to a lack of atmosphere.

The lack of air resistance would lead to dust falling quite quickly. Remember in a vacuum all objects fall at the same rate. That's GCSE level physics.
 
Glaucus said:
Just like you think light can curve without interacting with anything and make shadows disappear.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying that.

Glaucus said:
You don't want to reply about James van Allen?
Click to expand...

I already have. Besides, it doesn't detract from the main point which is that no manned space mission by any country has ever gone out of low Earth orbit since Apollo.
 
gillywibble said:
I don't recall saying that.



I already have. Besides, it doesn't detract from the main point which is that no manned space mission by any country has ever gone out of low Earth orbit since Apollo.
Click to expand...


You said if that was the case, why deep shadow. Therefore you are saying light should bend in a vacuume. Yet again shows a lack of understanding of basic physics.


Distract from what? Why should there be manned missions since?
Soviet Union collapsed.
uSA - cut funding for nasa, even cancelling the apollo missions. Adjusted to 2007 figures. At the peak of apollo nasa were getting £30,000 million a year, to half of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
China - is only now an up and coming super power and has human travel in mind,

Half the budget with little pay off means manned flight has been limited. It's better to send machines.
Only now is manned missions coming back to the front of budgeting. Due to the need to colonise mars, and/or have a permanent base on moon for resources/construction.

So that point doesn't show anything, apart from more lack of understanding on both budget size and what science has been focused on.
How can we advance science the way we have in the last few decades with manned missions?
The science means sending sensors up for years and even decades. There isn't an unlimited budget, so either it's manned, or multiple satelites/probes/robots.
 
Last edited:
gillywibble said:
As for the astronauts, I refer to the point I made earlier in this thread regarding Apollo 1 and the suspicious deaths of Grissom, White and Chaffee. If (and it's a big if) they were deliberately murdered, it would make sense as to why no astronaut came forward. They have families too.
Click to expand...

And with that, any shred of credibility your position had just went south....if the CT'ers really have to invent nonsensical BS like astronauts being murdered to silence them and keep The Truth™ from getting out to make their theories hold together then perhaps they should take another look at those theories.

Apollo 1 was a tragedy. Like the Challenger and Columbia disasters, it could have been avoided. But suspicious? No. Everyone knew that the Block 1 Apollo CSM had big problems. That 'before the decade is out' mandate was hanging over everyone though, and with it came Go Fever. The astronauts weren't happy with the Block 1 spacecraft but figured that if it could just be gotten into orbit then they'd deal with it. Then when the Block 2 was ready they'd already have dealt with some of the milestones needed to complete the program.

Pure oxygen atmospheres had been used on every single US manned spaceflight up until then. A pure oxygen atmosphere did not cause the disaster. A faulty spacecraft, a hatch designed to not open easily and a ****-load of velcro were responsible. And if anything good came out of it, it was that it happened on the ground rather than in Earth orbit. At least NASA and North American Aviation could look at the spacecraft and work out how to prevent any kind of repeat. Indeed, the rework of the internal wiring probably helped the crew of Apollo 13 more than any other - the Command Module had gotten so cold after being shut down following the oxygen tank mishap that condensation had formed all over the instrument and control panel, if the insulation on the wiring hadn't been upgraded then all that water might have shorted the craft right back out again when they started it back up again for re-entry.
 
gillywibble said:
On the Van Allen belt point, I think we will just to wait and see what happens in future manned space explorations.

Now rather than belittling me, perhaps you can get back to the task of debunking those points still remaining?
Click to expand...

What points still remaining?

Why do we have to wait? You do realise we have satelites up there measuring the radation belts? And that radation is well understood? And taht the belts are not uniform over the entire plant?

You did read that calculation paper and the nasa radation reserch paper which included the levels for the apollo missions, didnt you?
 
Re the AGC videos by 'hunchbacked' - watching a few of the videos commenting on his claims by someone who seems to have actually bothered to read the AGC documentation, it seems that 'hunchbacked' consistently shows little understanding of what he's talking about (mainly drawing on knowledge of more modern & totally different architectures) and doesn't cross-reference any of his sources to find corroborating evidence (if he had, then most seem to disprove his whatever his original theory or conclusion was).

http://www.youtube.com/user/rawmonkno1
 
gillywibble said:
Serious?
Click to expand...

Seeing as you don't know basic physics, you really want to go into computer schematics?
For a start are these draft schematics, final schematics? Any alterations in the final build which differed from the schematics?
Then we need to know what that particular system does and why supposedly the schematics show it can't do it.

So no, I'm not going to get into that, as I can show those things, neither can several two minute video clips from youtube cover those points.
 
Glaucus said:
Seeing as you don't know basic physics, you really want to go into computer schematics?
Click to expand...

I know basic physics thank you.

There is bound to be someone on the forum that is willing to investigate the computer schematics of the Apollo mission and address the points raised.

If your work here is done then all well and good. Let someone else have a go.
 
gillywibble said:
I also went on to say -
Click to expand...

If you can't back it up, then you shouldn't really be using it to defend your position should you? ;):p

gillywibble said:
If you don't think that nations have ever murdered their own people for a political aim, or to silence others, then you are very gullible.
Click to expand...

So let me get this one straight.


  • I believe that NASA put men on the Moon. I've seen the wealth of physical evidence, read the testimony of countless numbers of people involved. I've read up on the physics and engineering involved in the missions. I believe that the Apollo 1 fire was a tragic accident. I am therefore gullible.
  • You don't believe that NASA put men on the Moon. You base your view on Youtube videos, a slightly shaky grasp on the physics of 1/6th mavity, and on the fact that Werner von Braun went to Antarctica once to fetch some rocks (your point #19). You think it's perfectly possible that NASA engineered the Apollo 1 fire to silence troublesome astronauts, but can't back up that theory. You are therefore not gullible.


Hey ho!
 
I'm still waiting for come backs on several matters, like why you think a calculation for a space ship taht goes directly to the moon is important?

Why you disbelieve James van Allen, as well at least 4 separate satiate data to back up radation.
Why you think wires are used, but people including cts have tried replicating it can't reproduce the mobpvement a seen. On top of that there's several chips where astronaught a are together and show no wires, u less wires can pass through arms etc.

It's doubtful you can find anyone with enough detailed knowledge on the computer architect used at the time and enough knowledge of what each sub system actually does to get any response.

But you think a guy who is uknowledgable on it can prove it on youtube, without any of these details?

If you know physics, then explain why you thought you should get uniformed illumination and no dark shadows on the photo, or no illumination of the astronaught.

Im also interested in your thoughts of the multiple phots of the lunar buggy moving with dust coming off the wepheels and no tracks. You haven't responded to that either.
Do they have an invisible person scrapping the tracks out, like that website I posted thinks?

And why if there are wires, did they constantly fall over. When those wires should be holding most of their weight. Did those wires snap as they hit the floor, or where they very good at releasing the tension from the wire at exactly the same rate as lunar mavity?
Or was it all staged and each fall was carefully planned, but then why plan falls, what does that prove. Other than give rise to dust and other anomalies which would also need to fake lunar mavity.
 
Last edited:
JRS said:
If you can't back it up, then you shouldn't really be using it to defend your position should you? ;):p
Click to expand...

It's not a position. Someone asked a question and I gave a 'possible' hypothesis.

JRS said:
I believe that NASA put men on the Moon. I am therefore gullible.
Click to expand...

It is gullible to discount the hypothesis simply because you don't like it. It is possible that it is true.

Anyway, enough about me, I am not that egocentric. Back to debunking the points if you please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom