Topic awaiting preservation: Proof the moon landing was a hoax ! (Page 2 of 3)

quote:

---

Face it, they had the means, and they had no reason to fake it. Yes, they probably could have, but that doesn't mean they did.

---

Whether they had the means is questionable. Whether a government would fake something is a guarantee, and there were plenty of reasons to do so. But as you say, it doesn't mean they did.

quote:

---

DL: From my understanding, the debris that was noted is not unexpected and not a worry.

---

Yes, they made a big deal out of nothing. Typical media play.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Here's a must-read (serious) article for all who are interested in the moon landings:
Of course we went to the Moon
A defense of the Lunar Landings...

/TwoD

Yannah: Yes, please, if you have any hard evidence to prove that it was a hoax, we'd love to see it. Do you have anything other than speculation and a desire to believe the worst?

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

quote:

---

Into the unknown, shall we triumpantly go!

---

...to militarize and pilfer resources. How exciting. And doubly exciting is that we, the taxpayers, are footing the bill.

Shouldn't we fix our own house before pillaging another?


Suho, to play the devil's advocate, we don't have the proof outright, but we do have a pretty sound motive, and in a court of law that counts for a lot. Consider the following, specifically the first few points.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-28-2005 10:02)

Ram: Motive does not a crime make. And what is this about not having proof outright? You mean we don't have proof at all, don't you? Clever how you stick the "outright" on there to make it seem like, yeah, we have proof, it's just not outright.

I did read the points in that website, but they do not convince. You are right--none of those points are proof. They are just speculation designed to plant seeds of doubt.

I suppose this could be argued back and forth for quite some time with no resolution. Until I see convincing proof that it was a hoax (and so far I have seen none), I see no reason to doubt the moon landing.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

(Edited by Suho1004 on 07-28-2005 11:13)

Hey, moon shadows are not fake trust me !

Reiso : Sadly it seems that many Americans have been lured again by another stupid promise (a clean war, anybody remembers ?). Bush's plan to send men to Mars is just plain stupid. Almost all scientists agreed it would be a gigantic waste of money. I'm, as usual, stunned by how misinforming American medias are :/

----
If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.

quote:

---

to militarize and pilfer resources. How exciting. And doubly exciting is that we, the taxpayers, are footing the bill.

---

Yes.

Since time immorial, it has been so.

"What, you think, you get it for free?" - Hall & Oates, Maneater.

That doesn't change our Manifest Destiny - "The stars are ours!" - Isaac Asimov.

quote:

---

Clever how you stick the "outright" on there to make it seem like, yeah, we have proof, it's just not outright.

---

Add to that, the evidence to the contrary. The evidence that we have, actually supports that we went to the moon.

Yeah yeah, but you'd think after all the flights into space that by now they'd have had the process nailed down a bit, yes perfection is a myth but near-perfection isn't. It's not like NASA don't have enough money to spend!

quote:

---

yes perfection is a myth but near-perfection isn't.

---

And it would appear that the Discovery shuttle launch was just that - near-perfection.

As for the points on that site - I read the list the first time you psoted it, and again: nothing more than vague speculation.

The evidence that we do have is supportive of us going to the moon.

When there is evidence to the contrary, as opposed to "well, it was good politically, so we must've faked it!" kind of nonsense....I'd love to look into it.

My view of government corruption and conspiracy doesn't seem to be much different from yours Ram.

But there is just *nothing* out there that I have seen that supports the moonlanding being a hoax.

"The Sun is turning arround the earth"

"The earth is flat"

"We never went to the moon"


That's all the same kind of non scientifical rubbish people tend to believe one day or another. Ofcourse you are free to believe whatever suits you but don not try to bend the facts untill they fit in to the things you believe in.
I don't think that back 1969 the technology was advanced enough to mock-up the moonlanding. Did you ever took a look at special effects from that generation blockbuster movies? Did you ??

I rest my case.

------------------------------
Support Justice for Pat Richard

quote:

---

Suho: Clever how you stick the "outright" on there to make it seem like, yeah, we have proof, it's just not outright.

---

LOL. You got me.

quote:

---

Rinswind 2th: I don't think that back 1969 the technology was advanced enough to mock-up the moonlanding.

---

Technology was not advanced enough to mock the moon landing, but it was advanced enough to actually go there? hehe

quote:

---

DL: But there is just *nothing* out there that I have seen that supports the moonlanding being a hoax.

---

While most of the "proof" can and has been ruled out as scientific ignorance, there is one piece of footage from a documentary I have seen that is pretty interesting. Most of the documentary (A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon) is bunk and actually quite humorous.

View it here (wmv). Sorry for the low quality.

What do you make of that, huh?

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

errr....

what do I make of a bad narration stating that certain things happen....but - again - without any actual evidence of it happening (other than their assertion and some film clips that are random and vague enough to be meaningless)...?

Not much

quote:

---

Technology was not advanced enough to mock the moon landing, but it was advanced enough to actually go there? hehe

---

While it does sound funny to say that, it is also relatively true.
Some of the things that would need to be done, assuming that the all the footage that we have is to be the evidence, would be extremely difficult to fake even today. There is very clearly a lack of gravity in the footage we see of Astronauts navigating the surface of the moon. Did we have an entire sound stage with reduced gravity?

It's possible...

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Technology was not advanced enough to mock the moon landing, but it was advanced enough to actually go there? hehe

---

To give a somewhat fantastic example, think of Lord of the Rings. Up until relatively recently, the technology did not exist to make the movies that Peter Jackson created. Up until that point, it would have been far easier to just travel to Middle Earth and film those scenes as they actually happened.

Ridiculous, I know, since Middle Earth and all those creatures don't actually exist, but the same principle applies.

In other words it is most likely that the technology to travel to another world, where conditions are far different from our own, will come before the technology to actually recreate those conditions (at least on film) here.

Gah. I didn't get enough sleep last night. I don't know if I'm making sense.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

Earth from a distance:




Earth from a low orbit:




Earth from a low orbit through a porthole:




Yeah. Totally has me fooled. And amazing how they kept that cropped field of view from changing at approximately 74,000 kph.

But it makes you wonder why none of all those evil geniuses thought of simply pointing the camera at a photo of the Earth rather than staging the 8th-grader home-video special effects.

Not that this is directly related to the discussion at hand, but the recent shuttle launch was discussed, so I thought this might be interesting reading: Intense Hunt for Signs of Damage Could Raise Problems of Its Own

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

There is a Penn & Teller episode of Bullsh%T all about conspiracy theories, in which the moon landing features quite prominantly, I suggest you all hunt it down through various means and give it a watch.

quote:

---

amazing how they kept that cropped field of view from changing at approximately 74,000 kph.

---

What if they weren't going 74,00 kph, but just in a synchronous orbit.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

I am not going to argue either way on this for one very significant reason - to me, the evidence (un-mountain-like as it is) that the moon landings were a hoax is arguably as compelling as the evidence that it was achieved in reality.

True - most of the arguments that it was a hoax are fairly easy to debunk, but unless you can tell me for an absolute fact that Diana was- or was not- not topped by the British monarchy, then you couldn't really sway me definitely in either direction on this issue either.

I think I'll wait for it all to come out in the wash. I can say with confidence that whatever the outcome, my reaction will be something like "Really? Wow. Was that one sugar or two in your tea?"

Axle, my honourable countryman and fellow asylum-dweller, were you barely aware that your comedic post would lead back to this oft-revisited debate, or did you intend to surreptitiously slip this into the Ozone fish tank just to see the bubbles?

I must say that if I had visited the moon, despite years (yes, it is an old idea - though some might argue that it is not widely held) of putting up with people accusing me of taking part in a great hoax, and somebody asked me to swear on a Bible that I did do what has been claimed - I doubt I'd have much trouble doing so.

Then again, if I had taken part in a great hoax like that, I doubt I would have any qualms about swearing on the Bible either, so it signifies nothing at all that not one moon visitor has been willing to do this in front of a camera.

In fact - such is the nature of the great mis-information ping-pong game of conspiracy and counter-conspiracy debate that the only way we'll ever really settle this argument between the vociferous minority and the trusting majority, is if we all take a long space walk and have a look at the landing sites (or potentially, lack of), and see for ourselves.

I personally have not been to the moon, so I cannot say for definite that anyone has been to the moon. I haven't been to India either, but I've seen pictures on the telly (and met a large number of people who claim to be from there).

It is probably obvious to all by now that I have no idea where I'm going with this. I thought I did, but now I'm not so sure.

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I saw this documentary once that attempted to prove that the building of an ancient weapon/device (that could lift ships, spin them about, break their backs, and ultimately and effectively sink them) was entirely plausible, only ended up proving that they, themselves, were unable to replicate what may or may not have been a real invention!

To be honest the (incidentally, and completely irrelevantly female) engineer heading up the construction seemed to have utterly no idea what the **** she was doing anyway, ignored advice from people who built cranes for a living, and approached the whole problem in an obscure and impractical manner - but this makes no difference to my point.

To attempt to prove that something was not possible (like the faking of the moon landings) rather than prove that it was not actually achieved, is pointless. You can only prove that you are unable to replicate an alleged fake.

Besides, did this guy start out with a 'faking' budget any where near what NASA could have commanded at the time?

Um...

I'll just get my coat. Don't get up, I'll see myself out.

(blast those work-place farewell booze-ups) *hiccup*

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

quote:

---

What if they weren't going 74,00 kph, but just in a synchronous orbit.

---

Well, a geosynchronous orbit would have required them to be at an altitude of about 35,000 km (you can't simply go slower or you'd fall), which would have put them directly within the very radiation belts they supposedly couldn't penetrate in the first place. In fact, it would have put them in the outer Van Allen belt and required them to pass through its most intense region of 14,500?19,000 km.

Incidentally, I'm surprised no one's mentioned the range reflector placed by the astronauts that's been used by multiple observatories since its installation to measure the distance to the moon.

Though I'm sure the skeptics would say its placement was made possible by a secret, parallel program that developed an intelligent rover that took it there and aligned it so NASA would have "evidence" the astronauts were actually there, though NASA seems never to have made a big deal out of it. And round and round we go ...



(Edited by Wes on 07-30-2005 02:11)

quote:

---

Axle, my honourable countryman and fellow asylum-dweller, were you barely aware that your comedic post would lead back to this oft-revisited debate, or did you intend to surreptitiously slip this into the Ozone fish tank just to see the bubbles?

---

I'm scared....and i want my mummy !

I must say, the response is fascinating, the whole 'did they,didnt they' debate gets you thinking, although i personally think people dont argue the case because they honestly believe it never happened, but merely for the fact it creates such a stir of emotions that it becomes entertaining.

No Sig ?

quote:

---

i personally think people dont argue the case because they honestly believe it never happened, but merely for the fact it creates such a stir of emotions that it becomes entertaining.

---

In this case, you are correct. Well, at least I don't really believe it, although I do have some lingering doubts.

Wes: Good points, although I am sure there is some sort of refutation to be made. They really didn't have to be in a full geosychronous orbit because the lack of sych would not have been noticed in the short timeframe they were filming.

As regards to the video I posted, why would they be faking a shot like that? Perhaps it was taken out of context by the narrator, but I was unable to find this video in any archive online. What else could they have been doing?

In any case, narration aside, the date of the video was a date in which they should have been halfway to the moon, but when they pan out at the very end and open the lens, you can clearly see the earth is very close. What's all that about?

Perhaps NASA feels themselves above having to explain these loony conspiracy theories, but why don't they just do it? Prove it to us once and for all. Does not the technology exist to take pictures of the landing sites? Why have they not explained the inconsistencies in the accounts of the astronauts? Since we allegedly went to the moon 36 years ago, why have not so much as left orbit since? Thirty six years and billions in funding and nothing but robots and probes? WTF? Waste of money if you ask me considering all the problems here.

So who does space exploration benefit? Who makes a profit from it? What is the use of knowledge if we can't even take care of problems here at home? Why was the Apollo program the only one to 'succeed' at taking us to the moon? I still think there may be something to the distraction from revolt (Vietnam) and/or geopolitical factors. All speculation of course, but it is sound motive along with the $$$ handed over to certin sectors. Funny thing is, the same people making the equipment for NASA and our "giant leap" were at the same time killing on a mass scale over in Vietnam with their "defense" products. When it comes to men who run giant companies which manufacture death, one should trust nothing about them. Lots of questions which the authorities shun under the guise that they are ridiculous.

Questions like those were not always considered so ridiculous. The populations in the early 1900s was well informed and aware of the banking cartel, the growing MI complex, and all that other fun stuff, and they used to question government a lot more. At one point it all stopped. Probably in the early 50s when our schools were officially handed over to government.

Maybe one day we'll know for certain, but until I see the evidence, hardcore irrefutable evidence, there will always remain a seed of doubt in me. Government has never given us any good reason to believe they are honest, so why believe them fully on this account aside from wanting to believe?

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-30-2005 22:14)

Ram do you trust your own eyes? Or even your own brain? Or maybe your own soul? Do you even believe you do exist or are you only the anoying voice in my head, is it even my head you are in or are you inside your own head? Are you born ignorant or are you ment to be some kind of concrete block born in the wrong kind of body? How do you even know we all do exist? Or even me? did Jezus die on the cross 2000 thousand years ago or are we waiting for him to come tomorrow?

Don't even even try to answer all these questions. Let our philosofers do so.
So you have changed have you? From an narrow minded militant right wing guy who wanted tom bomb iraq before breakfast in the morning to an left wing anti governemental conspiracy theorist? So do you feel the world around you has improved? What does the world around you feel about it?

Let me tell you, You still don't check your facts, you still keep digging up irrelevant shit and you still don't know when to stop.
This post started as a fun post and now look what has been made of it. Then cross out all your own posts an the reactions people posted on it...see what is left.


Ram if you have any intelligent reaction on this let me know by email or so, if not don't bother.
Rinswind2nd@gmail.com

Sorry guys for getting personal, but sometimes i feel only the blunt axe is getting through.

------------------------------
Support Justice for Pat Richard

(Edited by Rinswind 2th on 07-30-2005 22:55)

So......Nice weather we got, hope it lasts !

No Sig ?

quote:

---

Since we allegedly went to the moon 36 years ago, why have not so much as left orbit since?

---

I think this can be answered by looking back at your own reason for thinking this is a hoax.

At that time, it was important enough for us politically to take the risks and spend the time money and effort to get there.

What reason do we have now to continue taking the huge risks to get people to the moon, and spend the amazing amounts of money it would take to do so?
When we have more pressing reasons, and perhaps when we have further developments and improvements on such things like the space station and the shuttle program, then it will be worth undertaking such a trip again.

Rinswind: I am just asking rhetorical questions, and there was no need for your hot-tempered response. I do not believe we faked the moon landing, just saying there is doubt in my mind. Ever hear of entertaining two different points of view without really commiting to either?

As I said to Suho back on page 2: "Suho, to play the devil's advocate..." That, and I wasn't taking this thread all that seriously.

quote:

---

Ram do you trust your own eyes? Or even your own brain?

---

Do you always trust your own perception? Do you trust those who have a handle on your perception?

Yes, I have changed. Is that a problem? You think I'll feel ashamed if you tout out my history? Go right ahead.

HEY EVERYONE, I WAS A RIGHT-WINGER!!

*looks around* Oh my God, seems everyone already knew that.

Just an FYI: If you feel the need for labels a more accurate depiction would be an anti-state, free-market, Libertarian stance, not left wing.

quote:

---

This post started as a fun post and now look what has been made of it.

---

I was still having fun until I read your post. If I came across the wrong way, to you or anyone else, I apologize for any miscommunication. I did not pick up any tension, anger or other warning signs from anyone before your post.

I will not apologize for posting my thoughts freely though.

As far as emailing you, for what purpose? I never did understand this. Is this like the Internet version of calling someone out? You don't like me, you've made it clear, conversation over. That ok with you?

quote:

---

So......Nice weather we got, hope it lasts !

---

Well, it got rather warm in here all of a sudden.

DL: Thank you. Makes sense.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-31-2005 01:52)

We went to the Moon, to prove that we could.

But to actually make such a "regular event", we need more than just a rocket that can get a few astronauts there, with a bit of equiptment. For a permanent base on the Moon, and to make use of the Helium-3 there, we need a reliable, working method to get into space, and a Space Station that can handle the continuous traffic.

And to be quite blunt, after the fall of the USSR, the main threat was diminished, and "certain" eyes turned from space to other endeavours.

Then we had a number of Space Shuttle accidents.

Lack of interest ~ lack of funding + a number of public calamities involving the (rather out-dated, I may add) technology that we are currently using to reach space = a rather "cold" atmosphere to continue manned space explorations.

I believe the true colonization of Space will begin, when business sees a monetary reason to do so, just like it has always been. True, some exploration has to be done, from Government and true explorers first, to pave the way - and that we have done. Providing there is not some earth-shaking incidents in the next 50 years, I believe that Big Business will start casting its greedy eyes towards the Heavens.

quote:

---

As regards to the video I posted, why would they be faking a shot like that?

---

I don't see any solid evidence they were even faking a shot. In the final scene where we supposedly see that the Earth is very close in the window, all I see is a bright, overexposed light. Looks like they changed the iris in the camera to be able to shoot in the dimmer light of the craft, causing the much brighter (distant) Earth to blow out the exposure in that area of the scene.

In fact, I don't see anything the narrator says is going on. Creating a fake shadow on the Earth where it's supposedly night? I don't see any mask. I don't see anything change when the narrator says they adjust the mask. And saying the cameraman tried to pan away when someone's arm gets in the scene? Looks like the camera shaking just as it had been the whole damn time.

Everything the narrator points out is a speculative, highly biased interpretation of the scene.

Anyway, a far more interesting aspect of this argument is the question of why we haven't been back, which is already being discussed, so please carry on. (And to anyone who asks the question, let me ask: Can you give me a good reason we should have continued the moon landings? What further purpose was there?)

quote:

---

Can you give me a good reason we should have continued the moon landings?

---

I think it would be nice to have another moon landing, so that the people of today, in particular the young people of today, could for themselves experience and be part of what, at the time, was considered to (if you excuse the pun) out of this world.

It would be interesting to see how far we have come technology wise by comparing how we would approach a moon landing today as opposed to how we supposedly went to the moon in the '69.

To give todays generation the chance to experience such a feat, would be astronomical (sorry ), to say the least.

Perhaps when they are up there place some webcams about so we can keep an eye out for the little green men....

Oh, and i have the deeds to prove i own 1 acre of the moon Lunar Property

No Sig ?

quote:

---

axleclarkeuk said:

I think it would be nice to have another moon landing, so that the people of today, in particular the young people of today, could for themselves experience and be part of what, at the time, was considered to (if you excuse the pun) out of this world.

---

Uh, as far as I know, NASA generally does do things because they would be "nice."

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

Mm.

That's got to be the absolute worst reasoning I've ever heard...

Ok, is any one in here able to find what the distance of a step in the moon supposed to be without reffering to the landing. It should be some mitres considering the mass of the astronaut, the distance of the moon from the earth and the acceleration.
However, the step taken by Lance Armstrong doesn't look that long.
Does this count?
BTW, I take back what I said earlier about the Discovery lift off, I just got taken by those stupid media reports.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | 5464 | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Xanga| Support and advice needed. Now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Edited by Yannah on 08-01-2005 05:55)

No, extensive research was done into the actual walking and movment of the Astronauts (it seems to be one of the "favorite" areas to pick on, apparently).

What was found out, is that one cannot reproduce the gait that the Astronauts had in a Earth-like gravity well (well, one could probably do a 3D computer graphic simulation, but they couldn't do that back then).

quote:

---

Does this count?

---

Does it count for what?

yes, it certainly does count as yet another page full of nonsensical fantasy without an ounce of substantiation.

Speculation about how long a step an astronaut should take on the moon vs. what someone thinks it looks like his step was is so irrelevant it's just silly.

Video proves with about as much certainty as we could ask for that the environment the astronauts were in had exceptionally low gravity and a lack of atmosphere (the way the dust behaves when thrown up by the tires of the rover, for example).

(Preface: I currently can't get to the link Yannah provided.)

Yannah:

1. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the distance from the earth to the moon has zero bearing on how long a step on the moon would be.
2. The biggest factor in the length of a step would be how far one tried to step. (Go on, take a step. Now take a bigger step. Now leap as far as you can.)
3. Lance Armstrong, as far as I know, has never been to the moon.

quote:

---

3. Lance Armstrong, as far as I know, has never been to the moon.

---

Didn't even catch that one

Now that he's retired, that might be his next goal though...

quote:

---

Wes said:

1. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the distance from the earth to the moon has
zero bearing on how long a step on the moon would be.

---

I never said

quote:

---

Wes said:

Lance
Armstrong, as far as I know, has never been to the moon.

---

Yes, but using the F=(GMm)/r^2 people should be able to find that. What's his mass on the moon, the mass of the moon and the distance?
Sorry, meant to say Neil Armstrong.

Please read!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | 5464 | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Xanga| Support and advice needed. Now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Edited by Yannah on 08-02-2005 03:57)

quote:

---

Yes, but using the F=(GMm)/r^2 people should be able to find that. What's his mass on the moon, the mass of the moon and the distance?

---

All of which - once again - has absolutely nothing to do with anything whatsoever.

quote:

---

Please read!

---

Yannah, we've covered all of this nonsense many times now.

Do yourself a big favor - either find something that has some actual evidence, or stop posting about it.

Throwing out the same old crap is pointless and tiresome.

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-02-2005 04:22)

How about you give me evidence supportig your belief?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations | 5464 | My Poetry Cell | My Own Domain | Xanga| Support and advice needed. Now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "The past will always attack the present with the pain of your memories." - Seiichi Kirima |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sigh ... Why do I let myself get into this?

Yannah said:

quote:

---

It should be some mitres considering the mass of the astronaut, the distance of the moon from the earth and the acceleration.

---

That wasn't you?