The Dark Side of the Moon: 40 years after moon landing the doubts persist - mirror.co.uk
Was it all a hoax?
In the words Neil Armstrong chiselled into history, it was one small step for a man
But were the Moon landings really mankind's greatest scientific leap or the most fantastic hoax ever pulled?
The thrilling TV pictures, so faint and grey that we might have been peering at a ghost moving through a thick fog, certainly showed a bulky shape in a spacesuit backing down a ladder, stretching out a leg, tentatively putting one booted foot on to the surface.
The surface of where, though? The Moon or an elaborate mock-up in a movie studio somewhere in a remote corner of an Earthly desert?
As the world prepares to celebrate the 40th anniversary of that July day in 1969 when the Apollo 11 mission completed the first manned Moon landing allegedly the doubts live on.
The conspiracy theorists, the lunatics, call them what you like, insist that Armstrong and his fellow astronauts, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, never got further than a few orbits of the Earth.
They claim what the world was watching as it goggled at its TVs was all a fake, filmed months in advance and broadcast as if it were real and happening live.
The landing. The footprints in the dust. Those phantom figures bunny-hopping around in a barren landscape. They were all part of the scam.
A loopy idea? Consider this:
In 1979, when the first suggestions began to emerge that NASA might have been up to some dirty tricks, six per cent of Americans thought the Moon landing was a hoax. In 1999, the number had risen to 11 per cent.
When they counted again recently, they discovered no fewer than 22 per cent believed that the Apollo 11 Moon landing never happened.
That's more than 60 million suspicious Americans. And many more millions worldwide. The internet now teems with claims and allegations.
Mankind was conned, they argue, and there are good reasons for suspicion. First, the motive.
Ever since President John F Kennedy pledged at the start of the 60s that man would travel to the Moon and back within a decade, the Americans were desperate to beat the Russians in the space race.
That summer of 1969, Moscow was only a month from launching its own manned Moon shot.
Washington, burdened with the Vietnam war and civil unrest, benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from its problems.
And then, the practicalities.
Technology then was positively primitive. The computer developed for the Apollo programme had only a tiny fraction of the power in a home PC today. The satnav that guides your car is many times more sophisticated than the machine which, so we are assured, steered a mission 250,000 miles to a few square yards of the Sea of Tranquility and back.
Even recently, when President George W Bush announced the USA's ambition to return to the Moon, he was told it would take 11 years to put the engineering together.
It's embarrassing now for NASA to realise that, as a four-decade anniversary approaches, a rapidly-growing body of public opinion is convinced the greatest moment was a fake.
At NASA headquarters in Washington, the men in suits even have a code for them. HBs the Hoax Believers. Area 51, the HBs argue, is the most likely spot where he put down his foot. Its a top-secret military installation in the Nevada desert, also known as Groom Lake, or Dreamland.
It would be the ideal place to hide a shed big enough to house an area of make-believe Moon.
NASA had raised $40billion of funding to go to the Moon. Plenty for a high-class production and, HBs say, enough to pay off a large number of people.
Of course, NASA has its photographic proof. Thousands of pictures, in fact. They were taken on Moon missions between 1969 and 1972, showing men and their machines, against a backdrop that had become very familiar to a public growing almost bored with the adventure by the end.
The HBs, though, kept picking over every detail. They began to notice strange tricks of the light.
How, for example, could an astronaut (below) be walking through a shadow, or have the sun at his back, and yet be brightly lit from the front, showing off all those bits of his spacesuit, especially the Stars and Stripes flag, in technicolour?
If you were posing this in a studio, with so-called in-fill lights blazing from every angle, you couldn't have produced a better result. The response from NASA? Well, you have to understand that on the Moon light can behave in odd ways.
There isn't the atmosphere to spread it around like on Earth, but there is an open surface to reflect it where you might least expect it. So where are the stars? In every photo, the sky was ink black, with nothing at all twinkling out there.
Another lunar phenomenon, NASA said. Because the sun was so bright, and the surface so reflective, the stars would be too dim for a camera to capture, or an astronauts eye to register.
It didn't take long, either, before questions were raised about moondust. Just like moonlight, it seemed to have strange properties. An astronauts foot would leave a print, for example. Yet the lunar rover, with an Earthly weight of 10 tons, would not.
And how come, when the spidery landing vehicle hovered above the surface and fired blasts from its retro-jets to lower itself down, it didn't even appear to have disturbed the very ground underneath it.
To questions such as this, NASA scientists would sigh wearily, like teachers trying to educate the dullest kid in class in the simplest physics.
Surely everyone knew, they pointed out, how to work out the pressure from 3,000lb of thrust, across the square area of the engine nozzle, how a man's boot could exert a greater force on the ground than a large wheel and, for Heavens sake, how all these calculations change in a vacuum, such as on the airless Moon.
And the flag planted by Armstrong and Aldrin. The sceptics say the shadows cast by the astronaut, the lander and various rocks seem to go in all directions when they should be parallel, while the flag doesn’t cast any shadow at all.
Nasa's version is that the shadows don’t run parallel because of the distortions in perspective, projecting a 3D scene on to a
two-dimensional photograph. Some shadows disappear because the lunar surface has a peculiar property and reflects light back in the direction it came from.
But the HBs have begun to gather important allies.
A former engineer who worked on the design of Apollo rockets Bill Kaysing had his doubts during the 1960s about whether the Moon programme would ever get off the ground.
What I saw on TV made me a sceptic, he says. The whole thing seemed phoney to me.
He was particularly puzzled by the landing vehicle itself, which didn't seem to make any engine noise.
Almost as if, Bill points out, it was a prop being lowered by wires on to a movie set.
The chances of getting a man to the Moon and bringing him back again were something like 0.0017 per cent in other words, a virtual impossibility, he adds.
My view is they were told if you cant make it, fake it.
He's not alone in his doubts.
Brian OLeary says: "I can't be sure 100 per cent that man actually walked on the Moon."
Considering Brian was an astronaut in the 1960s, and an adviser during the Apollo programme, that's a bombshell.
Perhaps most outrageous of all conspiracies is that three men did indeed go to the Moon but there was not the technology to bring them back.
They were sacrificed for US pride. The Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, who reappeared on Earth were lookalike actors.
Today only Aldrin, now 78, keeps a high public profile.
He was confronted two years ago by a TV reporter who demanded he swear on the Bible that the landing wasnt a hoax.
Aldrin's response? He punched the guy on the nose and narrowly escaped prosecution. More proof, said the HBs, of the pressure of keeping a 40-year secret.
The most telling evidence, say the HBs, is that the Moons still there, 250,000 miles away, but we dont go there any more.
And we haven't been since we abruptly abandoned the missions 37 years ago.
Has science moved so far backwards? Or are we about to celebrate the day when it really took all of us for a ride?
That small step begins to look even more mysterious than ever.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Why did i always believe that if it was anywhere, it was Nevada?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Ah yes the rise of Conspiracy theories, in tandem with new age cults and extreme religiosity; the sign we live in a credulous age once more. I hate conspiracy theories, with a passion.
It doesn't mean that there are not some conspiracies, its just that the ones that are real are ignored, while people make up these idiotic ones based on their need to believe that someone, or something is in control of some "grand scheme". Also of course, just because increasing numbers of people believe idiotic things, doesn't mean they are any less nonsense than they were when no-one believed them.
For instance in Ireland 50 years ago, lots of people still believed in fairies and leprechauns, and pookas and hairy divils, and all the rest of it, that doesn't mean they were any more real than they are now, just that people believed that they were. Just as in the way that 2,000 years ago, people believed in Jupiter and Minerva, and Apollo, and Poisidon, etc etc, and now they believe in Jesus and Monhammad, and Buddah. Again, this is just a list of what people believe at any given time.
Its funny how no matter how much evidence of climate change we produce year-on-year a large segment of the people simply refuse to believe it, while ghosts, UFOs, faked moon landings, fairies, energy crystals, etc etc are all perfectly cool and believeable; I wonder what this says about the basic irrationality of the human condition?
The facts are these.
Man really stepped on the moon in 1969.
September 11th was a real event caused by Islamic extremists.
Crop Circles are a hoax, invented by two nice blokes who did it for a laugh.
Lady Di was not killed by Mi5
America did not attack itself at pearl harbour in 1941
Elvis is dead.
Climate change is real, scientists are not in some big conspiracy to invent it.
Paul McCartney did not die in 1967, in fact he is still alive.
The JFK thing is all a bit fishy, thats certain.
UFOs are an open question at the moment, though unlikely.
Ghosts seem to be something that many people experience, but that doesn't mean there is an afterlife, just that people are perceptible to having strange experiences at night.
Climate change is real, scientists are not in some big conspiracy to invent it.
The Jews don't run the world economy.
The Free Masons don't run the world.
There is no Da Vinchi code, thats a book.
The Vatican is not a devil worshipping cult.
Man went to the moon in 1969.
The laws of physics are real.
People are foolish, credulous, and there is a sucker born every minute.
It doesn't mean that there are not some conspiracies, its just that the ones that are real are ignored, while people make up these idiotic ones based on their need to believe that someone, or something is in control of some "grand scheme". Also of course, just because increasing numbers of people believe idiotic things, doesn't mean they are any less nonsense than they were when no-one believed them.
For instance in Ireland 50 years ago, lots of people still believed in fairies and leprechauns, and pookas and hairy divils, and all the rest of it, that doesn't mean they were any more real than they are now, just that people believed that they were. Just as in the way that 2,000 years ago, people believed in Jupiter and Minerva, and Apollo, and Poisidon, etc etc, and now they believe in Jesus and Monhammad, and Buddah. Again, this is just a list of what people believe at any given time.
Its funny how no matter how much evidence of climate change we produce year-on-year a large segment of the people simply refuse to believe it, while ghosts, UFOs, faked moon landings, fairies, energy crystals, etc etc are all perfectly cool and believeable; I wonder what this says about the basic irrationality of the human condition?
The facts are these.
Man really stepped on the moon in 1969.
September 11th was a real event caused by Islamic extremists.
Crop Circles are a hoax, invented by two nice blokes who did it for a laugh.
Lady Di was not killed by Mi5
America did not attack itself at pearl harbour in 1941
Elvis is dead.
Climate change is real, scientists are not in some big conspiracy to invent it.
Paul McCartney did not die in 1967, in fact he is still alive.
The JFK thing is all a bit fishy, thats certain.
UFOs are an open question at the moment, though unlikely.
Ghosts seem to be something that many people experience, but that doesn't mean there is an afterlife, just that people are perceptible to having strange experiences at night.
Climate change is real, scientists are not in some big conspiracy to invent it.
The Jews don't run the world economy.
The Free Masons don't run the world.
There is no Da Vinchi code, thats a book.
The Vatican is not a devil worshipping cult.
Man went to the moon in 1969.
The laws of physics are real.
People are foolish, credulous, and there is a sucker born every minute.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
What you write there is all true, Galbally, all correct, I'd sign up to every word of what you wrote though I insist that US air defence was deliberately stood down on September 11th, there's no other way for intercepts not to have occurred with all four planes.
What would be interesting, though, would be the general methodology by which you reached those conclusions. What you've written is the result of a process you've applied, we see the end result but the process is a lot more interesting. Ignore cases but enable us to apply the tools alongside you. Remain within the confines of a single screen.
What would be interesting, though, would be the general methodology by which you reached those conclusions. What you've written is the result of a process you've applied, we see the end result but the process is a lot more interesting. Ignore cases but enable us to apply the tools alongside you. Remain within the confines of a single screen.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Themis;1135992 wrote: Why did the first men who landed on the Moon look depressed on their return?
you have started a thread without any knowledge on the subject.. I don't know if they went to the moon or not but I do know that there is proof worth investigating, but unlike to galley and spotty I don't assume anything or pretend that I know everything.
without any information you call people names.. conspiracy people are searchers of information ..
just be respectful to people and what they believe in.
Themis I have already answered your visitor profile comment. I said I couldn't stand consiracy theories, not consiracy theorists. I also didn't call you names directly, or anyone else, as I wasn't intentionally trying to offend you, just express what I believe, if you find it offensive that people who are rationalists consider the general phenomenon of conspiracy theorys to be essentially nonsense thats really not something I can help you with.
I think the phenomena of conspiracy theories, and their growth, is a far more interesting thing that the consiracies themselves, which are usually trite, guache, and based on a lacking in a basic ability to rationalize how things work on planet earth.
In terms of making fun about it, why not, I think its funny mostly, though in the case of people who make claims about things like September 11th I think its offensive to the people who died in that attack by trivilziing it, and turning it into some sub-X-files plot rubbish.
I just reffered to a comment once made by PT Barnum about the nature of human credulity, its a well documented saying, and remains as true today as it did then, more so when you consider the credit crunch, and its associated follies, as opposed to the conspiracy theory industry.
PS. I do work for the UN-EU-NWO thing, that is true. Its under the general umbrella of...
The Zionist, Commie-Facist-Capitalist-Islamic Assimilation Brigage, Sector 7.
Freemason House
Priory of Zion Street
Battersea
London SW 17
UK
:wah:
you have started a thread without any knowledge on the subject.. I don't know if they went to the moon or not but I do know that there is proof worth investigating, but unlike to galley and spotty I don't assume anything or pretend that I know everything.
without any information you call people names.. conspiracy people are searchers of information ..
just be respectful to people and what they believe in.
Themis I have already answered your visitor profile comment. I said I couldn't stand consiracy theories, not consiracy theorists. I also didn't call you names directly, or anyone else, as I wasn't intentionally trying to offend you, just express what I believe, if you find it offensive that people who are rationalists consider the general phenomenon of conspiracy theorys to be essentially nonsense thats really not something I can help you with.
I think the phenomena of conspiracy theories, and their growth, is a far more interesting thing that the consiracies themselves, which are usually trite, guache, and based on a lacking in a basic ability to rationalize how things work on planet earth.
In terms of making fun about it, why not, I think its funny mostly, though in the case of people who make claims about things like September 11th I think its offensive to the people who died in that attack by trivilziing it, and turning it into some sub-X-files plot rubbish.
I just reffered to a comment once made by PT Barnum about the nature of human credulity, its a well documented saying, and remains as true today as it did then, more so when you consider the credit crunch, and its associated follies, as opposed to the conspiracy theory industry.
PS. I do work for the UN-EU-NWO thing, that is true. Its under the general umbrella of...
The Zionist, Commie-Facist-Capitalist-Islamic Assimilation Brigage, Sector 7.
Freemason House
Priory of Zion Street
Battersea
London SW 17
UK
:wah:
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
spot;1135981 wrote: What you write there is all true, Galbally, all correct, I'd sign up to every word of what you wrote though I insist that US air defence was deliberately stood down on September 11th, there's no other way for intercepts not to have occurred with all four planes.
What would be interesting, though, would be the general methodology by which you reached those conclusions. What you've written is the result of a process you've applied, we see the end result but the process is a lot more interesting. Ignore cases but enable us to apply the tools alongside you. Remain within the confines of a single screen.
I will do that, but it will take a while, so not at the moment as I am busy. I promise not to go off on some long diatribe about it.
What would be interesting, though, would be the general methodology by which you reached those conclusions. What you've written is the result of a process you've applied, we see the end result but the process is a lot more interesting. Ignore cases but enable us to apply the tools alongside you. Remain within the confines of a single screen.
I will do that, but it will take a while, so not at the moment as I am busy. I promise not to go off on some long diatribe about it.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Themis;1136015 wrote: And you think this is not insulting?
Oh come on, lighten up.
You are perfectly entitled to whatever views or beliefs you have, I am not personally attacking you, I am attacking some of the premises of what conspiracy theories are based on, I don't understand why your so personally offended by that.
Also, a lot of these theories make fantastical claims, if you can't stand fairly mild criticism of that, then I don't know how you handle a more in-depth rational critique of them. If you believe in these things, then thats fine, but don't expect other people not to make fun of them, or take them and these fantastical claims seriously, just because that offends you personally for some reason, because you identify yourself with that. That sort of argument doesn't stand up in court you know.
For instance, many many people here deny climate change, it works me up, I get annoyed and all of that, I argue with them, but I don't take it personally, I am not attacking you as a person, you need to seperate out your beliefs from your person, they are not the same thing.
If you think thats bad, you should try getting a scientific paper peer reviewed, now that is a bruising experience.
Oh come on, lighten up.
You are perfectly entitled to whatever views or beliefs you have, I am not personally attacking you, I am attacking some of the premises of what conspiracy theories are based on, I don't understand why your so personally offended by that.
Also, a lot of these theories make fantastical claims, if you can't stand fairly mild criticism of that, then I don't know how you handle a more in-depth rational critique of them. If you believe in these things, then thats fine, but don't expect other people not to make fun of them, or take them and these fantastical claims seriously, just because that offends you personally for some reason, because you identify yourself with that. That sort of argument doesn't stand up in court you know.
For instance, many many people here deny climate change, it works me up, I get annoyed and all of that, I argue with them, but I don't take it personally, I am not attacking you as a person, you need to seperate out your beliefs from your person, they are not the same thing.
If you think thats bad, you should try getting a scientific paper peer reviewed, now that is a bruising experience.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
I always felt that the moon landing was real. They really walked on the moon. But the film is fake. It looks fake to me. Maybe they forgot to put film in the camera....or they forgot the camera on the moon when they left. "Hey where is the camera?" "I thought you had it" "I dont have it, I thought you had it"
The film and pictures do look fake to me.
The film and pictures do look fake to me.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Was it all a hoax?
Yes. In fact Ive been to Cape Canaveral and seen the moon landing set.
The control room looks like a cheap Star Trek mock up.
They have the original space suits and fake rocket that took them....well nowhere.
Its all quite elaborate but cmon ! The moon ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
So my mind is always open.
Are you then prepared to accept that there MAY be no conspiracy theory here?
That Armstrong and co DID land on the Moon?
Are you then prepared to accept that there MAY be no conspiracy theory here?
That Armstrong and co DID land on the Moon?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
I don't believe they did . We know today that to send men to the moon that we don't have the appropriate sheilding to protect humans from the radiation of the sun ..........doesn't that interest anyone?
And with the all the technology we cant' take pics of the litter they left there? How come, when we can apparently go to Mars and take pics?
No, I believe it was an elaborate hoax to put the Russians off. Just my understanding of it:)
And with the all the technology we cant' take pics of the litter they left there? How come, when we can apparently go to Mars and take pics?
No, I believe it was an elaborate hoax to put the Russians off. Just my understanding of it:)
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Okay, to get away from the generalized slagging of conspiracy theories, and annoying themis. I will get particular on the moon one.
1. 40,000 people worked directly on the moon shot, hundreds of thousands indirectly, the Apollo mission involved NASA, several Presidential Administrations, the US Military, the Navy, and various other news organizations and space and astronomy/science agencies world wide. So they all lied, continually for 40 years, not one leak, ever.
2. All the stuff they put on the moon is still there, you can see it directly with your own eyes through a powerful enough telescope. Check it out. How did that stuff get up there? Who drove the buggy around if no one ever went there? Who set the US flag up, its still there.
3. The astronauts put a small 1 meter square mirror on the landing site. The NASA Laser Interferometer telescope mission (which is still going BTW) has been bouncing laser beams off it every night for the past 40 years in order to get a precise reading of the distance between the earth and the moon, the readings confirm that the moon is moving very slowly away from the earth in line with predictions made by General Relativity and Newton. If the Apollo astronauts didn't put it there, who did?
4. The science, technology, people, organizations to achieve this were all there, this was technically difficult, and extraordinary achievement, but they did it. Its all recorded how it was done, the Saturn V rocket had enough thrust, the radiation levels were not a problem for the moon (they are for Mars because of the length of journey), the people who did this are still alive, the Russians, Chinese, Europeans, everyone concurs with the events as NASA described them, and as the world watched live on TV in July 1969.
5. Scientists worldwide worked on this mission, as did astronomers, engineers, etc etc, none of them ever questioned for one second whether it was feasible, or whether it was hoaxed, why would they lie? What interest would they have in doing so?
Basically, this happened, its not a hoax.
1. 40,000 people worked directly on the moon shot, hundreds of thousands indirectly, the Apollo mission involved NASA, several Presidential Administrations, the US Military, the Navy, and various other news organizations and space and astronomy/science agencies world wide. So they all lied, continually for 40 years, not one leak, ever.
2. All the stuff they put on the moon is still there, you can see it directly with your own eyes through a powerful enough telescope. Check it out. How did that stuff get up there? Who drove the buggy around if no one ever went there? Who set the US flag up, its still there.
3. The astronauts put a small 1 meter square mirror on the landing site. The NASA Laser Interferometer telescope mission (which is still going BTW) has been bouncing laser beams off it every night for the past 40 years in order to get a precise reading of the distance between the earth and the moon, the readings confirm that the moon is moving very slowly away from the earth in line with predictions made by General Relativity and Newton. If the Apollo astronauts didn't put it there, who did?
4. The science, technology, people, organizations to achieve this were all there, this was technically difficult, and extraordinary achievement, but they did it. Its all recorded how it was done, the Saturn V rocket had enough thrust, the radiation levels were not a problem for the moon (they are for Mars because of the length of journey), the people who did this are still alive, the Russians, Chinese, Europeans, everyone concurs with the events as NASA described them, and as the world watched live on TV in July 1969.
5. Scientists worldwide worked on this mission, as did astronomers, engineers, etc etc, none of them ever questioned for one second whether it was feasible, or whether it was hoaxed, why would they lie? What interest would they have in doing so?
Basically, this happened, its not a hoax.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
fuzzywuzzy;1136084 wrote: I don't believe they did . We know today that to send men to the moon that we don't have the appropriate sheilding to protect humans from the radiation of the sun ..........doesn't that interest anyone? Just how far away do you think the moon is for goodness sake?
We've had astronauts in earth orbit for over a year at a time between going up and coming back. There's no more risk to life between there and the moon than there is sat going round in a space station.
We've had astronauts in earth orbit for over a year at a time between going up and coming back. There's no more risk to life between there and the moon than there is sat going round in a space station.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
fuzzywuzzy;1136084 wrote: And with the all the technology we cant' take pics of the litter they left there? How come, when we can apparently go to Mars and take pics?They left a reflector there that bounces light straight back on the path it arrives from. Anyone on earth with a telescope and a laser can illuminate it and see the reflection. It's there to measure distance accurately. I'd not call it litter but it's in the astronauts' moonshot photos not far from the lander.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
spot;1136106 wrote: They left a reflector there that bounces light straight back on the path it arrives from. Anyone on earth with a telescope and a laser can illuminate it and see the reflection. It's there to measure distance accurately. I'd not call it litter but it's in the astronauts' moonshot photos not far from the lander.
I just made that point as well, I don't understand why people are so fixated on this moon shot thing, its obvious that it happened, I just don't get it.
I just made that point as well, I don't understand why people are so fixated on this moon shot thing, its obvious that it happened, I just don't get it.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
oscar;1135948 wrote: The Dark Side of the Moon: 40 years after moon landing the doubts persist - mirror.co.uk
Was it all a hoax?
In the words Neil Armstrong chiselled into history, it was one small step for a man
But were the Moon landings really mankind's greatest scientific leap or the most fantastic hoax ever pulled?
The thrilling TV pictures, so faint and grey that we might have been peering at a ghost moving through a thick fog, certainly showed a bulky shape in a spacesuit backing down a ladder, stretching out a leg, tentatively putting one booted foot on to the surface.
The surface of where, though? The Moon or an elaborate mock-up in a movie studio somewhere in a remote corner of an Earthly desert?
As the world prepares to celebrate the 40th anniversary of that July day in 1969 when the Apollo 11 mission completed the first manned Moon landing allegedly the doubts live on.
The conspiracy theorists, the lunatics, call them what you like, insist that Armstrong and his fellow astronauts, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, never got further than a few orbits of the Earth.
They claim what the world was watching as it goggled at its TVs was all a fake, filmed months in advance and broadcast as if it were real and happening live.
The landing. The footprints in the dust. Those phantom figures bunny-hopping around in a barren landscape. They were all part of the scam.
A loopy idea? Consider this:
In 1979, when the first suggestions began to emerge that NASA might have been up to some dirty tricks, six per cent of Americans thought the Moon landing was a hoax. In 1999, the number had risen to 11 per cent.
When they counted again recently, they discovered no fewer than 22 per cent believed that the Apollo 11 Moon landing never happened.
That's more than 60 million suspicious Americans. And many more millions worldwide. The internet now teems with claims and allegations.
Mankind was conned, they argue, and there are good reasons for suspicion. First, the motive.
Ever since President John F Kennedy pledged at the start of the 60s that man would travel to the Moon and back within a decade, the Americans were desperate to beat the Russians in the space race.
That summer of 1969, Moscow was only a month from launching its own manned Moon shot.
Washington, burdened with the Vietnam war and civil unrest, benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from its problems.
And then, the practicalities.
Technology then was positively primitive. The computer developed for the Apollo programme had only a tiny fraction of the power in a home PC today. The satnav that guides your car is many times more sophisticated than the machine which, so we are assured, steered a mission 250,000 miles to a few square yards of the Sea of Tranquility and back.
Even recently, when President George W Bush announced the USA's ambition to return to the Moon, he was told it would take 11 years to put the engineering together.
It's embarrassing now for NASA to realise that, as a four-decade anniversary approaches, a rapidly-growing body of public opinion is convinced the greatest moment was a fake.
At NASA headquarters in Washington, the men in suits even have a code for them. HBs the Hoax Believers. Area 51, the HBs argue, is the most likely spot where he put down his foot. Its a top-secret military installation in the Nevada desert, also known as Groom Lake, or Dreamland.
It would be the ideal place to hide a shed big enough to house an area of make-believe Moon.
NASA had raised $40billion of funding to go to the Moon. Plenty for a high-class production and, HBs say, enough to pay off a large number of people.
Of course, NASA has its photographic proof. Thousands of pictures, in fact. They were taken on Moon missions between 1969 and 1972, showing men and their machines, against a backdrop that had become very familiar to a public growing almost bored with the adventure by the end.
The HBs, though, kept picking over every detail. They began to notice strange tricks of the light.
How, for example, could an astronaut (below) be walking through a shadow, or have the sun at his back, and yet be brightly lit from the front, showing off all those bits of his spacesuit, especially the Stars and Stripes flag, in technicolour?
If you were posing this in a studio, with so-called in-fill lights blazing from every angle, you couldn't have produced a better result. The response from NASA? Well, you have to understand that on the Moon light can behave in odd ways.
There isn't the atmosphere to spread it around like on Earth, but there is an open surface to reflect it where you might least expect it. So where are the stars? In every photo, the sky was ink black, with nothing at all twinkling out there.
Another lunar phenomenon, NASA said. Because the sun was so bright, and the surface so reflective, the stars would be too dim for a camera to capture, or an astronauts eye to register.
It didn't take long, either, before questions were raised about moondust. Just like moonlight, it seemed to have strange properties. An astronauts foot would leave a print, for example. Yet the lunar rover, with an Earthly weight of 10 tons, would not.
And how come, when the spidery landing vehicle hovered above the surface and fired blasts from its retro-jets to lower itself down, it didn't even appear to have disturbed the very ground underneath it.
To questions such as this, NASA scientists would sigh wearily, like teachers trying to educate the dullest kid in class in the simplest physics.
Surely everyone knew, they pointed out, how to work out the pressure from 3,000lb of thrust, across the square area of the engine nozzle, how a man's boot could exert a greater force on the ground than a large wheel and, for Heavens sake, how all these calculations change in a vacuum, such as on the airless Moon.
And the flag planted by Armstrong and Aldrin. The sceptics say the shadows cast by the astronaut, the lander and various rocks seem to go in all directions when they should be parallel, while the flag doesn’t cast any shadow at all.
Nasa's version is that the shadows don’t run parallel because of the distortions in perspective, projecting a 3D scene on to a
two-dimensional photograph. Some shadows disappear because the lunar surface has a peculiar property and reflects light back in the direction it came from.
But the HBs have begun to gather important allies.
A former engineer who worked on the design of Apollo rockets Bill Kaysing had his doubts during the 1960s about whether the Moon programme would ever get off the ground.
What I saw on TV made me a sceptic, he says. The whole thing seemed phoney to me.
He was particularly puzzled by the landing vehicle itself, which didn't seem to make any engine noise.
Almost as if, Bill points out, it was a prop being lowered by wires on to a movie set.
The chances of getting a man to the Moon and bringing him back again were something like 0.0017 per cent in other words, a virtual impossibility, he adds.
My view is they were told if you cant make it, fake it.
He's not alone in his doubts.
Brian OLeary says: "I can't be sure 100 per cent that man actually walked on the Moon."
Considering Brian was an astronaut in the 1960s, and an adviser during the Apollo programme, that's a bombshell.
Perhaps most outrageous of all conspiracies is that three men did indeed go to the Moon but there was not the technology to bring them back.
They were sacrificed for US pride. The Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, who reappeared on Earth were lookalike actors.
Today only Aldrin, now 78, keeps a high public profile.
He was confronted two years ago by a TV reporter who demanded he swear on the Bible that the landing wasnt a hoax.
Aldrin's response? He punched the guy on the nose and narrowly escaped prosecution. More proof, said the HBs, of the pressure of keeping a 40-year secret.
The most telling evidence, say the HBs, is that the Moons still there, 250,000 miles away, but we dont go there any more.
And we haven't been since we abruptly abandoned the missions 37 years ago.
Has science moved so far backwards? Or are we about to celebrate the day when it really took all of us for a ride?
That small step begins to look even more mysterious than ever.
The First Called Moon Landing Was A Fake / Hoax / Stage . .
Was it all a hoax?
In the words Neil Armstrong chiselled into history, it was one small step for a man
But were the Moon landings really mankind's greatest scientific leap or the most fantastic hoax ever pulled?
The thrilling TV pictures, so faint and grey that we might have been peering at a ghost moving through a thick fog, certainly showed a bulky shape in a spacesuit backing down a ladder, stretching out a leg, tentatively putting one booted foot on to the surface.
The surface of where, though? The Moon or an elaborate mock-up in a movie studio somewhere in a remote corner of an Earthly desert?
As the world prepares to celebrate the 40th anniversary of that July day in 1969 when the Apollo 11 mission completed the first manned Moon landing allegedly the doubts live on.
The conspiracy theorists, the lunatics, call them what you like, insist that Armstrong and his fellow astronauts, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, never got further than a few orbits of the Earth.
They claim what the world was watching as it goggled at its TVs was all a fake, filmed months in advance and broadcast as if it were real and happening live.
The landing. The footprints in the dust. Those phantom figures bunny-hopping around in a barren landscape. They were all part of the scam.
A loopy idea? Consider this:
In 1979, when the first suggestions began to emerge that NASA might have been up to some dirty tricks, six per cent of Americans thought the Moon landing was a hoax. In 1999, the number had risen to 11 per cent.
When they counted again recently, they discovered no fewer than 22 per cent believed that the Apollo 11 Moon landing never happened.
That's more than 60 million suspicious Americans. And many more millions worldwide. The internet now teems with claims and allegations.
Mankind was conned, they argue, and there are good reasons for suspicion. First, the motive.
Ever since President John F Kennedy pledged at the start of the 60s that man would travel to the Moon and back within a decade, the Americans were desperate to beat the Russians in the space race.
That summer of 1969, Moscow was only a month from launching its own manned Moon shot.
Washington, burdened with the Vietnam war and civil unrest, benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from its problems.
And then, the practicalities.
Technology then was positively primitive. The computer developed for the Apollo programme had only a tiny fraction of the power in a home PC today. The satnav that guides your car is many times more sophisticated than the machine which, so we are assured, steered a mission 250,000 miles to a few square yards of the Sea of Tranquility and back.
Even recently, when President George W Bush announced the USA's ambition to return to the Moon, he was told it would take 11 years to put the engineering together.
It's embarrassing now for NASA to realise that, as a four-decade anniversary approaches, a rapidly-growing body of public opinion is convinced the greatest moment was a fake.
At NASA headquarters in Washington, the men in suits even have a code for them. HBs the Hoax Believers. Area 51, the HBs argue, is the most likely spot where he put down his foot. Its a top-secret military installation in the Nevada desert, also known as Groom Lake, or Dreamland.
It would be the ideal place to hide a shed big enough to house an area of make-believe Moon.
NASA had raised $40billion of funding to go to the Moon. Plenty for a high-class production and, HBs say, enough to pay off a large number of people.
Of course, NASA has its photographic proof. Thousands of pictures, in fact. They were taken on Moon missions between 1969 and 1972, showing men and their machines, against a backdrop that had become very familiar to a public growing almost bored with the adventure by the end.
The HBs, though, kept picking over every detail. They began to notice strange tricks of the light.
How, for example, could an astronaut (below) be walking through a shadow, or have the sun at his back, and yet be brightly lit from the front, showing off all those bits of his spacesuit, especially the Stars and Stripes flag, in technicolour?
If you were posing this in a studio, with so-called in-fill lights blazing from every angle, you couldn't have produced a better result. The response from NASA? Well, you have to understand that on the Moon light can behave in odd ways.
There isn't the atmosphere to spread it around like on Earth, but there is an open surface to reflect it where you might least expect it. So where are the stars? In every photo, the sky was ink black, with nothing at all twinkling out there.
Another lunar phenomenon, NASA said. Because the sun was so bright, and the surface so reflective, the stars would be too dim for a camera to capture, or an astronauts eye to register.
It didn't take long, either, before questions were raised about moondust. Just like moonlight, it seemed to have strange properties. An astronauts foot would leave a print, for example. Yet the lunar rover, with an Earthly weight of 10 tons, would not.
And how come, when the spidery landing vehicle hovered above the surface and fired blasts from its retro-jets to lower itself down, it didn't even appear to have disturbed the very ground underneath it.
To questions such as this, NASA scientists would sigh wearily, like teachers trying to educate the dullest kid in class in the simplest physics.
Surely everyone knew, they pointed out, how to work out the pressure from 3,000lb of thrust, across the square area of the engine nozzle, how a man's boot could exert a greater force on the ground than a large wheel and, for Heavens sake, how all these calculations change in a vacuum, such as on the airless Moon.
And the flag planted by Armstrong and Aldrin. The sceptics say the shadows cast by the astronaut, the lander and various rocks seem to go in all directions when they should be parallel, while the flag doesn’t cast any shadow at all.
Nasa's version is that the shadows don’t run parallel because of the distortions in perspective, projecting a 3D scene on to a
two-dimensional photograph. Some shadows disappear because the lunar surface has a peculiar property and reflects light back in the direction it came from.
But the HBs have begun to gather important allies.
A former engineer who worked on the design of Apollo rockets Bill Kaysing had his doubts during the 1960s about whether the Moon programme would ever get off the ground.
What I saw on TV made me a sceptic, he says. The whole thing seemed phoney to me.
He was particularly puzzled by the landing vehicle itself, which didn't seem to make any engine noise.
Almost as if, Bill points out, it was a prop being lowered by wires on to a movie set.
The chances of getting a man to the Moon and bringing him back again were something like 0.0017 per cent in other words, a virtual impossibility, he adds.
My view is they were told if you cant make it, fake it.
He's not alone in his doubts.
Brian OLeary says: "I can't be sure 100 per cent that man actually walked on the Moon."
Considering Brian was an astronaut in the 1960s, and an adviser during the Apollo programme, that's a bombshell.
Perhaps most outrageous of all conspiracies is that three men did indeed go to the Moon but there was not the technology to bring them back.
They were sacrificed for US pride. The Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, who reappeared on Earth were lookalike actors.
Today only Aldrin, now 78, keeps a high public profile.
He was confronted two years ago by a TV reporter who demanded he swear on the Bible that the landing wasnt a hoax.
Aldrin's response? He punched the guy on the nose and narrowly escaped prosecution. More proof, said the HBs, of the pressure of keeping a 40-year secret.
The most telling evidence, say the HBs, is that the Moons still there, 250,000 miles away, but we dont go there any more.
And we haven't been since we abruptly abandoned the missions 37 years ago.
Has science moved so far backwards? Or are we about to celebrate the day when it really took all of us for a ride?
That small step begins to look even more mysterious than ever.
The First Called Moon Landing Was A Fake / Hoax / Stage . .
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Daniyal;1136113 wrote: The First Called Moon Landing Was A Fake / Hoax / Stage . .
Thanks, that clears that up then. :yh_rotfl
Thanks, that clears that up then. :yh_rotfl
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Oh by the way, telescopes and amateur astronomers across the world, tracked the progress of the Apollo mission, in space, while it happened in 1969, again, why would they all pretend to see something, if it wasn't there?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Galbally;1136116 wrote: Thanks, that clears that up then. :yh_rotfl
Take It Or Leave It Facts Or Facts ,
Take It Or Leave It Facts Or Facts ,
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Daniyal;1136143 wrote: Take It Or Leave It Facts Or Facts ,
What you provided was a statement. Almost testimony but not particularly substantiated with fact.
What you provided was a statement. Almost testimony but not particularly substantiated with fact.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Daniyal: You have yet to show much ability to distinguish fact from fiction. Can you actually deal with Galbally's post on the evidence in any way? Show that it's wrong? Can you actually engage?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
spot;1136149 wrote: What you provided was a statement. Almost testimony but not particularly substantiated with fact.
You Of All People Know I Just Don't Make ( Testimony Nor Do I Accept Them ) And I Never Make Statement I Can't Back Up , You Also Know This , Not To Change The Subject , Why Is It That A Few Of You Here Can't Deal With Some One Disagreeing With Them . It Like Few Here Act Like Children Here Wanting There Way . Funny How You Say I Provided / Testimony / .. When You Think Your A Word Smith = Let Not Forget You Play Tricknowing With Word's You Do This Because You Think It Keep You The Head Of The Game Your Playing With Other Here . I Read In One Of You Post How You Were Call On Because Of The Word Can't You Play . Like I Said The First Moon Landing Was A Fake / Hoax They Even Made A Movie Showing How They Did It . Its Sad How SOME People Will Hold On To A Lie , Knowing It's A Lie .
You Of All People Know I Just Don't Make ( Testimony Nor Do I Accept Them ) And I Never Make Statement I Can't Back Up , You Also Know This , Not To Change The Subject , Why Is It That A Few Of You Here Can't Deal With Some One Disagreeing With Them . It Like Few Here Act Like Children Here Wanting There Way . Funny How You Say I Provided / Testimony / .. When You Think Your A Word Smith = Let Not Forget You Play Tricknowing With Word's You Do This Because You Think It Keep You The Head Of The Game Your Playing With Other Here . I Read In One Of You Post How You Were Call On Because Of The Word Can't You Play . Like I Said The First Moon Landing Was A Fake / Hoax They Even Made A Movie Showing How They Did It . Its Sad How SOME People Will Hold On To A Lie , Knowing It's A Lie .
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Clodhopper;1136170 wrote: Daniyal: You have yet to show much ability to distinguish fact from fiction. Can you actually deal with Galbally's post on the evidence in any way? Show that it's wrong? Can you actually engage?
Your Funny You Havn't Proven You So-called English Is A Language Yet . You Should Only Engage In A Discussion With Those Who Come From The Same Water Down School Of Though You Have .
Your Funny You Havn't Proven You So-called English Is A Language Yet . You Should Only Engage In A Discussion With Those Who Come From The Same Water Down School Of Though You Have .
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Galbally;1136125 wrote: Oh by the way, telescopes and amateur astronomers across the world, tracked the progress of the Apollo mission, in space, while it happened in 1969, again, why would they all pretend to see something, if it wasn't there?
Tell me this isnt fake. Theres hardly any buttons or knobs or anything.
Tell me this isnt fake. Theres hardly any buttons or knobs or anything.
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Their watching reruns of Lost in Space.......................:wah:
I believe the Moon Landing was real, I saw the documentary that it was a hoax, and their facts just didn't work.
I believe the Moon Landing was real, I saw the documentary that it was a hoax, and their facts just didn't work.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodhopper
Daniyal: You have yet to show much ability to distinguish fact from fiction. Can you actually deal with Galbally's post on the evidence in any way? Show that it's wrong? Can you actually engage?
Your Funny You Havn't Proven You So-called English Is A Language Yet . You Should Only Engage In A Discussion With Those Who Come From The Same Water Down School Of Though You Have .
:wah:
So that's a "No" then.
Your Funny You Havn't Proven You So-called English Is A Language Yet
Honestly, you are making a fool of yourself here. Can you really not see it?
Truly amazing.
Originally Posted by Clodhopper
Daniyal: You have yet to show much ability to distinguish fact from fiction. Can you actually deal with Galbally's post on the evidence in any way? Show that it's wrong? Can you actually engage?
Your Funny You Havn't Proven You So-called English Is A Language Yet . You Should Only Engage In A Discussion With Those Who Come From The Same Water Down School Of Though You Have .
:wah:
So that's a "No" then.
Your Funny You Havn't Proven You So-called English Is A Language Yet
Honestly, you are making a fool of yourself here. Can you really not see it?
Truly amazing.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Daniyal;1136206 wrote: You Of All People Know I Just Don't Make ( Testimony Nor Do I Accept Them ) And I Never Make Statement I Can't Back Up , You Also Know This , Not To Change The Subject , Why Is It That A Few Of You Here Can't Deal With Some One Disagreeing With Them . It Like Few Here Act Like Children Here Wanting There Way . Funny How You Say I Provided / Testimony / .. When You Think Your A Word Smith = Let Not Forget You Play Tricknowing With Word's You Do This Because You Think It Keep You The Head Of The Game Your Playing With Other Here . I Read In One Of You Post How You Were Call On Because Of The Word Can't You Play . Like I Said The First Moon Landing Was A Fake / Hoax They Even Made A Movie Showing How They Did It . Its Sad How SOME People Will Hold On To A Lie , Knowing It's A Lie .
Wow, thats really, really hard to read. Well done.
So your basing your argument, that someone, somewhere made a documentary claiming that the Moon Landing was faked, and thats it?
All the actual material evidence that exists and I have outlined, you can just dismiss it, but the "documentary" is bible. Do you have a source for this documentary or movie or whatever. Why am I even bothering with this, urgh.
I think you should revisit the last sentence you wrote there, apply it the other way around and think about it. Geez. What's the point.
Wow, thats really, really hard to read. Well done.
So your basing your argument, that someone, somewhere made a documentary claiming that the Moon Landing was faked, and thats it?
All the actual material evidence that exists and I have outlined, you can just dismiss it, but the "documentary" is bible. Do you have a source for this documentary or movie or whatever. Why am I even bothering with this, urgh.
I think you should revisit the last sentence you wrote there, apply it the other way around and think about it. Geez. What's the point.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Nomad;1136298 wrote: You can see the strings Dr Galbladder.
Damn, where did you find that shocking evidence???
Burn that photograph immediately before I have the Men in Black calling around.
Damn, where did you find that shocking evidence???
Burn that photograph immediately before I have the Men in Black calling around.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
I'm just curiously wondering - where did the hundreds of pounds of moon rock which has been examined at universities around the world come from? Surely something that simple has to have been addressed by the landing deniers.
And... assuming the landing deniers admit there actually is a moon, they must know that people will get back there some day in our lifetimes. The landers are still there, they're not rusting, they'll be there for hundreds of millions of years. What's the point of such short-term denial when the evidence one way or the other is so testable?
And... assuming the landing deniers admit there actually is a moon, they must know that people will get back there some day in our lifetimes. The landers are still there, they're not rusting, they'll be there for hundreds of millions of years. What's the point of such short-term denial when the evidence one way or the other is so testable?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
spot;1136395 wrote: I'm just curiously wondering - where did the hundreds of pounds of moon rock which has been examined at universities around the world come from? Surely something that simple has to have been addressed by the landing deniers.
A gravel pit in Oklahoma.
A gravel pit in Oklahoma.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Nomad;1136401 wrote: A gravel pit in Oklahoma.
But it's not gravel. It's demonstrably non-terrestrial. There's only a couple of places on the planet with rocks that old and those rocks aren't the same at all. Would you like me to post some of the differences into the thread?
But it's not gravel. It's demonstrably non-terrestrial. There's only a couple of places on the planet with rocks that old and those rocks aren't the same at all. Would you like me to post some of the differences into the thread?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Themis;1136408 wrote: Some astronauts claim seeing objects following them.I'll chase this one down if I may. Would you like to name one of the astronauts who reported this?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
spot;1136407 wrote: But it's not gravel. It's demonstrably non-terrestrial. There's only a couple of places on the planet with rocks that old and those rocks aren't the same at all. Would you like me to post some of the differences into the thread?
Dont you use logic on me mister !
Dont you use logic on me mister !
I AM AWESOME MAN
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Nomad;1136221 wrote: Tell me this isn't fake. Theres hardly any buttons or knobs or anything.
And what is up with that second guys forehead? I'm pretty sure that the wavy watery distortion above and behind him is showing us his brains being sucked out..
:eek:
And what is up with that second guys forehead? I'm pretty sure that the wavy watery distortion above and behind him is showing us his brains being sucked out..
:eek:I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
spot;1136395 wrote: I'm just curiously wondering - where did the hundreds of pounds of moon rock which has been examined at universities around the world come from? Surely something that simple has to have been addressed by the landing deniers.
And... assuming the landing deniers admit there actually is a moon, they must know that people will get back there some day in our lifetimes. The landers are still there, they're not rusting, they'll be there for hundreds of millions of years. What's the point of such short-term denial when the evidence one way or the other is so testable?
Totally illogical dear. Men tell women they are 6 feet tall and then stand looking a 5'4'' woman in the eye.. men lie to impress. It's that simple.
And... assuming the landing deniers admit there actually is a moon, they must know that people will get back there some day in our lifetimes. The landers are still there, they're not rusting, they'll be there for hundreds of millions of years. What's the point of such short-term denial when the evidence one way or the other is so testable?
Totally illogical dear. Men tell women they are 6 feet tall and then stand looking a 5'4'' woman in the eye.. men lie to impress. It's that simple.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Galbally;1135960 wrote: Ah yes the rise of Conspiracy theories, in tandem with new age cults and extreme religiosity; the sign we live in a credulous age once more. I hate conspiracy theories, with a passion.
It doesn't mean that there are not some conspiracies, its just that the ones that are real are ignored, while people make up these idiotic ones based on their need to believe that someone, or something is in control of some "grand scheme". Also of course, just because increasing numbers of people believe idiotic things, doesn't mean they are any less nonsense than they were when no-one believed them.
For instance in Ireland 50 years ago, lots of people still believed in fairies and leprechauns, and pookas and hairy divils, and all the rest of it, that doesn't mean they were any more real than they are now, just that people believed that they were. Just as in the way that 2,000 years ago, people believed in Jupiter and Minerva, and Apollo, and Poisidon, etc etc, and now they believe in Jesus and Monhammad, and Buddah. Again, this is just a list of what people believe at any given time.
Its funny how no matter how much evidence of climate change we produce year-on-year a large segment of the people simply refuse to believe it, while ghosts, UFOs, faked moon landings, fairies, energy crystals, etc etc are all perfectly cool and believeable; I wonder what this says about the basic irrationality of the human condition?
The facts are these.
Man really stepped on the moon in 1969.
September 11th was a real event caused by Islamic extremists.
Crop Circles are a hoax, invented by two nice blokes who did it for a laugh.
Lady Di was not killed by Mi5
America did not attack itself at pearl harbour in 1941
Elvis is dead.
Climate change is real, scientists are not in some big conspiracy to invent it.
Paul McCartney did not die in 1967, in fact he is still alive.
The JFK thing is all a bit fishy, thats certain.
UFOs are an open question at the moment, though unlikely.
Ghosts seem to be something that many people experience, but that doesn't mean there is an afterlife, just that people are perceptible to having strange experiences at night.
Climate change is real, scientists are not in some big conspiracy to invent it.
The Jews don't run the world economy.
The Free Masons don't run the world.
There is no Da Vinchi code, thats a book.
The Vatican is not a devil worshipping cult.
Man went to the moon in 1969.
The laws of physics are real.
People are foolish, credulous, and there is a sucker born every minute.
Just get to the point please
It doesn't mean that there are not some conspiracies, its just that the ones that are real are ignored, while people make up these idiotic ones based on their need to believe that someone, or something is in control of some "grand scheme". Also of course, just because increasing numbers of people believe idiotic things, doesn't mean they are any less nonsense than they were when no-one believed them.
For instance in Ireland 50 years ago, lots of people still believed in fairies and leprechauns, and pookas and hairy divils, and all the rest of it, that doesn't mean they were any more real than they are now, just that people believed that they were. Just as in the way that 2,000 years ago, people believed in Jupiter and Minerva, and Apollo, and Poisidon, etc etc, and now they believe in Jesus and Monhammad, and Buddah. Again, this is just a list of what people believe at any given time.
Its funny how no matter how much evidence of climate change we produce year-on-year a large segment of the people simply refuse to believe it, while ghosts, UFOs, faked moon landings, fairies, energy crystals, etc etc are all perfectly cool and believeable; I wonder what this says about the basic irrationality of the human condition?
The facts are these.
Man really stepped on the moon in 1969.
September 11th was a real event caused by Islamic extremists.
Crop Circles are a hoax, invented by two nice blokes who did it for a laugh.
Lady Di was not killed by Mi5
America did not attack itself at pearl harbour in 1941
Elvis is dead.
Climate change is real, scientists are not in some big conspiracy to invent it.
Paul McCartney did not die in 1967, in fact he is still alive.
The JFK thing is all a bit fishy, thats certain.
UFOs are an open question at the moment, though unlikely.
Ghosts seem to be something that many people experience, but that doesn't mean there is an afterlife, just that people are perceptible to having strange experiences at night.
Climate change is real, scientists are not in some big conspiracy to invent it.
The Jews don't run the world economy.
The Free Masons don't run the world.
There is no Da Vinchi code, thats a book.
The Vatican is not a devil worshipping cult.
Man went to the moon in 1969.
The laws of physics are real.
People are foolish, credulous, and there is a sucker born every minute.
Just get to the point please
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Themis;1136007 wrote: Apollo 11 press conference: YouTube - Clip of Apollo 11 press conference
Neil Armstrong's cryptic speech: YouTube - Neil Armstrong's cryptic speech
these quotes always left me open minded when I was a child... So my mind is always open.
I with you Themis in that i have an open mind on this.
The one key part for me was that i never believed they had the adequete technology.
Neil Armstrong's cryptic speech: YouTube - Neil Armstrong's cryptic speech
these quotes always left me open minded when I was a child... So my mind is always open.
I with you Themis in that i have an open mind on this.
The one key part for me was that i never believed they had the adequete technology.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
spot;1136407 wrote: But it's not gravel. It's demonstrably non-terrestrial. There's only a couple of places on the planet with rocks that old and those rocks aren't the same at all. Would you like me to post some of the differences into the thread?
The moon is about 4 1/2 billion years old.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
The moon is composed of rock and soil, not unlike earth. And there are some similarities. But the nature of the rocks and soil over the moon isn't that well documented. We only have a few samples, and this limited supply of stuff to study originated in only a few areas - those where we landed to investigate. It isn't like we have samples from all over, as there were only a few missions to the lunar surface.
Therefore since Earth and the Moon are of similar age and composition as far as we know the rocks could have come from a gravel pit in Oklahoma.
The moon is about 4 1/2 billion years old.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
The moon is composed of rock and soil, not unlike earth. And there are some similarities. But the nature of the rocks and soil over the moon isn't that well documented. We only have a few samples, and this limited supply of stuff to study originated in only a few areas - those where we landed to investigate. It isn't like we have samples from all over, as there were only a few missions to the lunar surface.
Therefore since Earth and the Moon are of similar age and composition as far as we know the rocks could have come from a gravel pit in Oklahoma.
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Galbally;1136292 wrote: Wow, thats really, really hard to read. Well done.
So your basing your argument, that someone, somewhere made a documentary claiming that the Moon Landing was faked, and thats it?
All the actual material evidence that exists and I have outlined, you can just dismiss it, but the "documentary" is bible. Do you have a source for this documentary or movie or whatever. Why am I even bothering with this, urgh.
I think you should revisit the last sentence you wrote there, apply it the other way around and think about it. Geez. What's the point.
He is correct. There was a documentary as i watched it also. I can't remember the exact in's and out's as it was some years ago now but i know of it. It went into why the flag was flying when there is no wind on the moon etc etc
So your basing your argument, that someone, somewhere made a documentary claiming that the Moon Landing was faked, and thats it?
All the actual material evidence that exists and I have outlined, you can just dismiss it, but the "documentary" is bible. Do you have a source for this documentary or movie or whatever. Why am I even bothering with this, urgh.
I think you should revisit the last sentence you wrote there, apply it the other way around and think about it. Geez. What's the point.
He is correct. There was a documentary as i watched it also. I can't remember the exact in's and out's as it was some years ago now but i know of it. It went into why the flag was flying when there is no wind on the moon etc etc
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
He is correct. There was a documentary as i watched it also.
I saw something similar too. But it doesn't PROVE anything to say you once saw a movie/documentary that suggested otherwise, and to suggest that Galbally is not providing factual data (or is just telling lies) on the basis that a documentary said otherwise is a quite stunning display.
I saw something similar too. But it doesn't PROVE anything to say you once saw a movie/documentary that suggested otherwise, and to suggest that Galbally is not providing factual data (or is just telling lies) on the basis that a documentary said otherwise is a quite stunning display.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Themis;1136435 wrote: I'll have a look...I'll wait, then. It's impossible to chase down all the "belief" you pollute the internet with, someone who wants to call you and demonstrate the underlying folly has to put a finger on the map sometimes and say "there, show me what that one's about". No, I'll not look at your video clip, life's too short. I'll work out what "some astronauts claim seeing objects following them" means instead if that's okay with you.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Was the moon landing an elaborate hoax?
Clodhopper;1136468 wrote: I saw something similar too. But it doesn't PROVE anything to say you once saw a movie/documentary that suggested otherwise, and to suggest that Galbally is not providing factual data (or is just telling lies) on the basis that a documentary said otherwise is a quite stunning display.
I merely pointed out that i also saw the documentary that Danny saw. I said that one of the issue's it tackled was the flag flying.
I also put a post on saying that i was with Themis in that i have an open mind. My post after the newspaper report said that 'If i believed it happened anywhere, i believed it was Nevada'. At no time have i stated that i do believe it or dis-believe it.
While galbally may provide factual data, there is equally a hoard of imformation on the net claiming it was a hoax. I have not called galbally a liar, I do not call anyone a liar as i respect the fact that we all have different mind sets.
However, what does get up my chuff at a rate of knots is the attempt to destroy any healthy debate on a thread because a poster has stated that he knows better and we should all listen to him.
When i posted the article, i was hoping certain posters would come in as i was actually interested in what their thoughts were.
I merely pointed out that i also saw the documentary that Danny saw. I said that one of the issue's it tackled was the flag flying.
I also put a post on saying that i was with Themis in that i have an open mind. My post after the newspaper report said that 'If i believed it happened anywhere, i believed it was Nevada'. At no time have i stated that i do believe it or dis-believe it.
While galbally may provide factual data, there is equally a hoard of imformation on the net claiming it was a hoax. I have not called galbally a liar, I do not call anyone a liar as i respect the fact that we all have different mind sets.
However, what does get up my chuff at a rate of knots is the attempt to destroy any healthy debate on a thread because a poster has stated that he knows better and we should all listen to him.
When i posted the article, i was hoping certain posters would come in as i was actually interested in what their thoughts were.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon