# did man land on the moon???



## gold95 (May 23, 2009)

*did man land on the moon???*​
yes 6559.63%no4440.37%


----------



## gold95 (May 23, 2009)

every time i see another programme i change my mind. was it all 1 big fake? if the american government said it happened then it must have happened, why would they lie? (i'll tell the jokes)


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

They'd lie to beat the Russians.


----------



## Peter V (May 27, 2009)

Although I also wouldn't put lying past them, to fake that must have involved a lot of people. Too many to manage to keep it a secret this long.


----------



## BigMutha (Aug 14, 2009)

I know what you mean,alot doesn't make sense,I actually don't think they did having read and watched what I have. Plus we have to ask ourselves the simple question "Why have they never been back?",they have answered this with very weak excuses such as cost etc.It just doesn't add up for me,plus I am personally of a mind these days that Governments(even democratic) are capable of anything these days from Deceit to mass murder. Just my IMO though.


----------



## BigMutha (Aug 14, 2009)

WRT said:


> They'd lie to beat the Russians.


You'd lie to have the Russians beat you WRT!! Yes we know of your weird kinky perversions!! :lol:


----------



## Peter V (May 27, 2009)

BigMutha said:


> Plus we have to ask ourselves the simple question "Why have they never been back?"/QUOTE]
> 
> Probably because they asked each other the simple question "Why would we want to go back?"


----------



## Barker (Oct 1, 2009)

Ofcourse man has been to the moon theyre always up there ****ing about nowadays arent they?


----------



## UK muscle man (Sep 21, 2009)

Peter V said:


> Although I also wouldn't put lying past them, to fake that must have involved a lot of people. Too many to manage to keep it a secret this long.


they could of simply signed a contract were as they werent allowed to say anything, at them time russia were leading the space race

also theres a couple of mistakes they made

1) there is no wind on the moon yet the american flag is seen blowing,

2) also there are shadows


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

They definitely did. 12 men landed and 200,000 supported the effort and not one credible person out of the hundreds if not thousands who would've been involved has ever come out. No deathbed confessions from the astronauts, etc.

Also, the Russians would've tracked them there and back on the same type of kit as NASA was using, and the Russians have never said the US didn't land even in the height of the Cold War.

Conspiracy theories are created by those who don't understand the science and engineering feat that is probably the biggest achievement of the human race so far.

Why haven't we been back? $20bn in 1960's money for 1.6 tons of moon rock doesn't seem such a good return to keep on going to a pretty baron rock.

The people who did this, especially the men that flew, had 'balls bigger than King Kong' and have to listen to this crap all the time.

Sorry for the rant.....


----------



## Gee-bol (Jul 2, 2009)

its the shadow thing that gets me...the sun was the only light source but theres shadows coming from random directions..impossible.


----------



## Markc (Mar 25, 2009)

Yes louis armstrong did land on the moon.

If you believe all this

- flags cant wave on the moon because there is no wind

- you cant make a sharp footprint on the moon

- the no gravity was simulated by slowing down the video

- there must of been multiple light sources because of the shadows

Mythbusters proved all that wrong on their moon hoax episode. Clips here http://www.milkandcookies.com/series/286/


----------



## Peter V (May 27, 2009)

Markc said:


> Yes *louis armstrong *did land on the moon.
> 
> If you believe all this
> 
> ...


lol! Didn't know he was up there. Must have gone up to entertain the crew.


----------



## BigMutha (Aug 14, 2009)

Peter V said:


> Lol Research etc,Since they are meant to have gone to the moon back in 69,they have never stopped studying the Moon,hell they just found water on it!! Surely if they had the ability they would have been back in the last 30 years!!,as this would have only sped up their research.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

UK muscle man said:


> they could of simply signed a contract were as they werent allowed to say anything, at them time russia were leading the space race
> 
> also theres a couple of mistakes they made
> 
> ...


also theres a couple of mistakes they made

1) there is no wind on the moon yet the american flag is seen blowing,

2) also there are shadows

There is no wind on the moon, correct. The flag was specially made to unfurl with a rod in the top otherwise it would have just hung down. Any movement is caused by the astronauts trying to push the pole into the ground.

There are shadows, yes. Because the sun shines on the moon too. They landed all the missions in the lunar morning. A lunar day is and Earth month. They did this so the they could properly see obstacles when landing exactly because they would cast shadows.


----------



## Markc (Mar 25, 2009)

Peter V said:


> lol! Didn't know he was up there. Must have gone up to entertain the crew.


I got my info from shooting stars mate

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I1zQxW3BS4Y[/MEDIA]]


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

its the shadow thing that gets me...the sun was the only light source but theres shadows coming from random directions..impossible

The light source is essentially a point source of the sun. The reason that there are slight discrepancies in the directions of the shadows is the unevenness of the lunar surface which is potted by billions of years of micrometeorites.

Stand next to a ditch and see what happens to your shadow....


----------



## anabolic ant (Jun 5, 2008)

thats like asking if my a*se touched the seat when i have a sh*t...you'd obviously think that it did...but how do you really know though:lol:


----------



## Peter V (May 27, 2009)

This is Louis Armstrong.

The astronaut who went (or not apparently!) to the moon was Neil Armstrong.


----------



## Markc (Mar 25, 2009)

Peter V said:


> This is Louis Armstrong.
> 
> The astronaut who went (or not apparently!) to the moon was Neil Armstrong.


Better email the BBC and tell them. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Peter V (May 27, 2009)

Markc said:


> Better email the BBC and tell them. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Shooting Stars were making a joke! It's not a factual program lol.


----------



## UK muscle man (Sep 21, 2009)

spaynter said:


> also theres a couple of mistakes they made
> 
> 1) there is no wind on the moon yet the american flag is seen blowing,
> 
> ...


yes there are shadows on the moon, but look at the pics there is more then one lights source as them shadows angles are different, you would only get this from more then 1 source


----------



## gerg (Aug 17, 2008)

and so the 1.6 tonnes of lunar rock they brough back is fake too?


----------



## Peter V (May 27, 2009)

UK muscle man said:


> yes there are shadows on the moon, but look at the pics there is more then one lights source as them shadows angles are different, you would only get this from more then 1 source


Camera flash.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

UK muscle man said:


> yes there are shadows on the moon, but look at the pics there is more then one lights source as them shadows angles are different, you would only get this from more then 1 source


Not if there was an uneven surface onto which the shadows were cast. It's not as if they are being cast in completely opposite directions....

Why have 2 lights in almost exactly the same place? Why not just use a stronger light?

We have 1.6 tons of moon rock on Earth and every major university was given some for testing. We have hors of footage and anyone who could track Apollo 11, did track them to the moon (including the Russians). You think they went all the way to the moon and didn't land? And then repeated the process 9 times?


----------



## UK muscle man (Sep 21, 2009)

and whats making the flag move


----------



## Markc (Mar 25, 2009)

UK muscle man said:


> yes there are shadows on the moon, but look at the pics there is more then one lights source as them shadows angles are different, you would only get this from more then 1 source


----------



## Markc (Mar 25, 2009)

UK muscle man said:


> and whats making the flag move


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

UK muscle man said:


> and whats making the flag move


It's not moving. It's still, it just has a rod though the top and is made of lightweight material. You think there was a breeze in the studio they filmed in? Or perhaps they filmed outdoors somewhere so people could see.........


----------



## jimmy79 (Jul 1, 2009)

personly i s ay no they have not as the reasons stated above, all filmed in a studio, was there also a photo supposedly taken from two diffrent sides of the moon as the alleged sun was in a difrent place, yet the rock formation behind was the same. how did they get from the landing craft back into the rocket? surely they would have been back and filmed it in gloriuos hd:lol: i do belive we have orbited the moon but landed on it no...


----------



## evad (Mar 17, 2008)

Peter V said:


> lol! Didn't know he was up there. Must have gone up to entertain the crew.


we have all the time in the world


----------



## UK muscle man (Sep 21, 2009)

spaynter said:


> It's not moving. It's still, it just has a rod though the top and is made of lightweight material. You think there was a breeze in the studio they filmed in? Or perhaps they filmed outdoors somewhere so people could see.........


*its not moving wtf!!!!!!!!*


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

Only a 60:40 spilt for yes. Frightening.....


----------



## Markc (Mar 25, 2009)

spaynter said:


> Only a 60:40 spilt for yes. Frightening.....


Have you been sniffing glue???


----------



## evad (Mar 17, 2008)

this topics been done to death so


----------



## Khaos1436114653 (Aug 28, 2009)

BigMutha said:


> I know what you mean,alot doesn't make sense,I actually don't think they did having read and watched what I have. Plus we have to ask ourselves the simple question "Why have they never been back?",they have answered this with very weak excuses such as cost etc.It just doesn't add up for me,plus I am personally of a mind these days that Governments(even democratic) are capable of anything these days from Deceit to mass murder. Just my IMO though.


thank you i thought it was just me, look at the photos and the crosshairs and the landscape etc, the radiation out side the Van allen belt would have shriveled their balls.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

UK muscle man said:


> *its not moving wtf!!!!!!!!*


There's a difference between 'moving' and 'crumpled'. Watch the mythbuster vid......


----------



## blackbeard (May 3, 2009)

Why haven't they been back since??

With the advances in technlogy they should be having package holidays up there by now!!!


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

Markc said:


> Have you been sniffing glue???


Only when there's no heroin.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

blackbeard said:


> Why haven't they been back since??
> 
> With the advances in technlogy they should be having package holidays up there by now!!!


I'm not sure Thomas Cook would do very well with holidays that cost £50m and you have a 10% chance of dying....


----------



## jimmy79 (Jul 1, 2009)

star trek looks so convincing aswell:lol: :lol:


----------



## pecman (May 11, 2008)

I say no for what i have seen,

One of the biggest problems apparently is a radiation belt that surrounds the planet, The Russions sent some men up and they all come back fuked up, Lost all the hair and got badly i'll.

They said to get a human past this belt the Shuttle would have to have a skin the equivelant of a foot thickness of lead, The luna module was like tin foil.

They have a photo of an Astronaught facing the Camera with the sun behind him with full detail, Rubbish he would have been a shadow from the front unless there was another powerful light source.

same again as one of them is coming down the ladder from the luna shuttle he is fully lit up but in a massive shadow from the shuttle:confused1:

There are also shadows from the rocks in like four different directions WTF??

Then they filmed a location then later said they filmed some where else over 20 miles away but when they overlapped them it was the same place :lol:

It was also shown that when everything was speeded up it looked tatally normal :whistling:

So IMO def NO!! we couldn't even build cars properly back then never mind get people to the moon :lol:


----------



## LittleChris (Jan 17, 2009)

Not sure. I would like to think it happened, but thats only because I dislike being taken for a mug!


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

One last try to convince the non-believers:

Why wouldn't the Russians said something at the time? Because they could track Apollo 11 all the way to, and around the moon. They could also track the lunar modle to the surface. Then, I suppose the Russians realized that it would be easier to just get out of the f**king lunar module and walk around than it would be to film it all in a studio while the astronauts just sat there twiddling their thumbs.

Think about it. Everyone saw them take off on TV. Lots of people tracked them on the way to the moon including UK, Australia and Russia. Once there, everyone could track them down. There's massive indendent proof for the most difficult bits. The getting out and walking around would have been...... 'simples'.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

spaynter said:


> They definitely did. 12 men landed and 200,000 supported the effort and not one credible person out of the hundreds if not thousands who would've been involved has ever come out. No deathbed confessions from the astronauts, etc.
> 
> Also, the Russians would've tracked them there and back on the same type of kit as NASA was using, and the Russians have never said the US didn't land even in the height of the Cold War.
> 
> ...


Exactly. My girlfriends dad was an engineer who worked on the Apollo projects and so have heard a fair bit about the missions... for this to be a conspiracy it would have had to have been an amazing cover up that fooled all the great scientific minds of that era, with not one single person actively involved in it ever having the conscience to spill the beans.


----------



## pecman (May 11, 2008)

spaynter said:


> One last try to convince the non-believers:
> 
> Why wouldn't the Russians said something at the time? Because they could track Apollo 11 all the way to, and around the moon. They could also track the lunar modle to the surface. Then, I suppose the Russians realized that it would be easier to just get out of the f**king lunar module and walk around than it would be to film it all in a studio while the astronauts just sat there twiddling their thumbs.
> 
> Think about it. Everyone saw them take off on TV. Lots of people tracked them on the way to the moon including UK, Australia and Russia. Once there, everyone could track them down. There's massive indendent proof for the most difficult bits. The getting out and walking around would have been...... 'simples'.


Fair points but if they could track them too the moon all that time ago how come with todays tech they still can't find evidence from telescopes etc where they landed, the luna module is not there or the flag:confused1:


----------



## pecman (May 11, 2008)

Dtlv74 said:


> Exactly. My girlfriends dad was an engineer who worked on the Apollo projects and so have heard a fair bit about the missions... for this to be a conspiracy it would have had to have been an amazing cover up that fooled all the great scientific minds of that era, with not one single person actively involved in it ever having the conscience to spill the beans.


the government is a very powerful thing they can threaten there families for generations for them to keep quiet

Just MO


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

pecman said:


> I say no for what i have seen,
> 
> One of the biggest problems apparently is a radiation belt that surrounds the planet, The Russions sent some men up and they all come back fuked up, Lost all the hair and got badly i'll.
> 
> ...


Read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Critical_examination_of_hoax_accusations


----------



## Chew (Mar 4, 2009)

BigMutha said:


> It costs a ridiculous amount of money: billions of dollars. Its highly dangerous and it achieves virtually nothing. The Americans only really did it just to prove that they could.
> 
> To study it in any amount of detail the astronauts would have to be there for a long period of time, which would add to the cost even more to the cost.
> 
> ...


----------



## Terra Firma (Aug 7, 2009)

This is an interesting site, first vid is a bit odd but the rest is very interesting http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html


----------



## bassmonster (Aug 29, 2009)

i don't believe for a second they went to the moon. if they could have done it 40 years ago, why can't they do it now? especially when technology has advanced astronomically...pun intended

it's all lies....


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

I find it so disturbing, that in an era where we calculate our trip to the pub via a network of orbiting satellites, elegently triangulating our position on the planet, compensating for relativistic time-shift; that so far 15 out of 38 people think we couldn't have shot a lump of metal at the closest other bit of rock.

Every day I question the future of our race when I read these retard-heavy threads.


----------



## El Ricardinho (May 30, 2008)

the computer capacity used was the equivalent of a modern day school calculator. they went to the moon, aye sure they did. some people believe everything they see on tv.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

I'm done with this hive of idiocy...


----------



## jimmy79 (Jul 1, 2009)

spaynter said:


> One last try to convince the non-believers:
> 
> Why wouldn't the Russians said something at the time? Because they could track Apollo 11 all the way to, and around the moon. They could also track the lunar modle to the surface. Then, I suppose the Russians realized that it would be easier to just get out of the f**king lunar module and walk around than it would be to film it all in a studio while the astronauts just sat there twiddling their thumbs.
> 
> Think about it. Everyone saw them take off on TV. Lots of people tracked them on the way to the moon including UK, Australia and Russia. Once there, everyone could track them down. There's massive indendent proof for the most difficult bits. The getting out and walking around would have been...... 'simples'.


the rocket did take of people saw it how do we know that it didnt just orbit the moon and the people who worked in the control room were not in on it and just watching the same footage that we all were, filmed from a secret location? where is the luna , how did they get home i thought rockets ditched there empty fuel on the way up, how did they get from the moon back into the rocket? just to much against it...surley they would have sent loads up there and built a launch pad on the moon to fly to mars or something?!!


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

megatron said:


> I'm done with this hive of idiocy...


 :lol: :lol: PMSL - see your avatar is gone, you leaving UKM for good? :lol: :lol:


----------



## Chew (Mar 4, 2009)

El Ricardinho said:


> the computer capacity used was the equivalent of a modern day school calculator. they went to the moon, aye sure they did. some people believe everything they see on tv.


http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/computer.htm

So because they didn't have a very powerful computer they didnt go to the moon?

The computer was much more complicated than a modern day school calculator. It was not equivalent to a school calculator on every level. The Apollo computer had many things hard wired in to it, it could run up to eight tasks in parallel, it had emergency interrupts, could shed low priority tasks in the event of an emergency.

Its not just about the power of the computer its also about the software that was running on it and how it handled data, memory allocation etc.


----------



## dasheleboopi (Sep 22, 2009)

this is quite a debate, one that could go on forever i feel. i reckon they did land but then again from reading this thread i realise i dont know that much about it so i could be wrong


----------



## Craig660 (Dec 8, 2005)

I think we should ask George Bush, see what he think


----------



## mck (Sep 25, 2009)

i wreckon they did.


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Wasn't it a shame Nasa 'lost' all the original footage and all we now have to go on is the poor quality tv stream......would have thought that with all their technology they'd at least be able to make a copy of the high quality tape.

Stanley Kubrick's involvement always get's me......It is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey parallels the Apollo program. The film production started in 1964 and went on to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968. Meanwhile the Apollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon landings on July 20th 1969


----------



## cellaratt (Jul 16, 2008)

I figure even if we didn't then haha we fooled you...It did what it had to do when it had to do it...and was undeniably the stepping stone to what we have accomplished ( as a planet ) today...JMO


----------



## PHHead (Aug 20, 2008)

When I was a kid I just always thought yeah of course we did but as I have got older it seems a lot more apparent that they might have faked it!

All the photo evidence and conspiracy theory's are interesting but inconclusive as they can be explained away to fit either argument.

The main thing that stands out to me is how primitive the technology was that they used to get there, I mean its just a big firework at the end of the day and all the millions of mathematical calculations they would have had to get exactly correct to land and return from the moon on this rocket just seems a bit unlikely the more I think about it.

I would like to think we did though as to lie about something like that to the whole world really makes you think, what else is bullsh*t!?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Just out of curiosity, do those who don't believe NASA put a man on the moon (or twelve of them in all six of the Apollo missions) also disbelieve in the Galileo pics of Jupiter or the Pathfinder pics taken from Mars?

These are technically much more complex missions despite not involving transporting humans.

What about the Hubble telescope or the Russians and the Soyuz missions to the Mir station that held in a continuous human occupation of space for over ten years? What about the Valeri Polyakov staying out on Mir for fourteen consecutive months, did those things happen?

Again, all of these are at least as technically difficult as the Apollo missions.


----------



## BigMutha (Aug 14, 2009)

I know for a fact that the Moon is made of Cheese,therefore if the Yanks had been there this would be Common Knowledge.....End of Story:thumb:


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

Dtlv74 said:


> Just out of curiosity, do those who don't believe NASA put a man on the moon (or twelve of them in all six of the Apollo missions) also disbelieve in the Galileo pics of Jupiter or the Pathfinder pics taken from Mars?
> 
> These are technically much more complex missions despite not involving transporting humans.
> 
> ...


Yes but getting to the Mir station vs the Moon is probably like saying rowing in a canoe from Dover to the channel mouth vs rowing from Dover to America?? Doesnt the Mir station and that orbit our planet?

I donno anymore. The atmosphere and lighting thing always throws me and why we have never been back to setup a decent base.

Who knows.... when tours to the moon take off we will know. I bet china will have the first moon base established. I thought there was a race to establish a base on the moon for mliitary purposes?


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

I havent read this thread as this sort of thing makes me seethe with rage....

Of course they went to the moon ffs....the evidence is overwhelming....how do you fake 6 missions to the moon involving tens of thousads of people...and not one of em since 1969 has said it was a fake..

The rocks bought back from the moon are still being studied and analysed now....I read a report at the weekend describing how they contained more water than had previously been detected......when the rocks were first studied they were found to be damp....this was put down to contamination from water in our atmosphere...it now seems that they realy were damp...infact the whole moon looks like it is damp...which is good news for any moon base...as extracting the water is quite a simple process.

I'm going off topic here....let me just state once and for all....man did land on the moon.

End of thread....thank you


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

pecman said:


> Fair points but if they could track them too the moon all that time ago how come with todays tech they still can't find evidence from telescopes etc where they landed, the luna module is not there or the flag:confused1:


The moon is quarter of a million miles away and you'd need 'Google Earth' type capabilities to see something that small.

We don't have telescopes here on Earth with the resolution to see the moon in that detail. However, in the first mission they did leave a specially designed mirror which is still used to measure the exact distance of the moon from the Earth. Anyone with a laser powerful (a lot of universities) enough can (and do) use it.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

jimmy79 said:


> the rocket did take of people saw it how do we know that it didnt just orbit the moon and the people who worked in the control room were not in on it and just watching the same footage that we all were, filmed from a secret location? where is the luna , how did they get home i thought rockets ditched there empty fuel on the way up, how did they get from the moon back into the rocket? just to much against it...surley they would have sent loads up there and built a launch pad on the moon to fly to mars or something?!!


You so accept that they at least went to the moon, even if you think they just orbited it. Interesting because was the difficult bit. Landing and taking off from the moon was more simple because of one sixth gravity there.

The Lunar module came in 2 parts. The descent engine and the ascent engine. They landed the whole lunar module using the descent engine, and then used the empty engine as the 'launch pad' when they took off in the ascent part. They then docked with the command module (the other astronaut in orbit), and got rid off the spent ascent engine by crashing it into the moon usually. It had no heat shield for re-entry because it was very lightweight made specially for the moon.


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

IanStu said:


> I havent read this thread as this sort of thing makes me seethe with rage....
> 
> Of course they went to the moon ffs....the evidence is overwhelming....how do you fake 6 missions to the moon involving tens of thousads of people...and not one of em since 1969 has said it was a fake..
> 
> ...


it must be true then if you say so:whistling:

why does it make you seethe because people dont believe everything they are told? the media is full of bullsh1t and governments are always lying to us.


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

Al Kerseltzer said:


> it must be true then if you say so:whistling:
> 
> why does it make you seethe because people dont believe everything they are told? the media is full of bullsh1t and governments are always lying to us.


yup the media is full of BS...and goverments lie all the time....but it doesnt follow that everthing is a lie.....some things actualy did happen....and the moon landings are one of them.

and yes I'm glad you've seen the light....if I say its true, then it is :whistling:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Could you guys who don't believe the landings happened please explain how much technical knowledge you have about astronautics, engineering and physics?

I hope it's not the case that the skepticism is just a blind acceptance of the 'science' behind the conspiracy theorists statements... whilst at the same time ignoring and rejecting the science that the whole established scientific community (thousands of people with expert training in the field and world wide and over fourty years) is prefectly satisfied with.

If you don't have the technical knowledge can you please explain why the minority view, wholely discredited by the main scientific community, seems more valid to you?


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)

The media is full of bullsh*t, no question, as is the government, however tens of thousands of people, family members, friends of families etc, could not be involved in giant lies and not one whisper slip out about them being faked - it just wouldn't be possible.

In the very same way that the media is full of bullsh*t, so are the conspriacy theorists, particularly since the invention of the internet when they can mass produce their theories and make them sound convincing enough that some people will believe them to be the truth - generally people who are succeptible to this type of thing or want to believe that they're being lied to by the government etc.

If it's enough to convince scientists and leading minds in the fields of astro physics and various other areas, why is it not enough to convince a bunch of office workers and so on as we have on here?

It is frightening to think that almost 1/2 of people on here think that man did not land on the moon!

That said, there are still large numbers of people who believe the earth is flat, and that 'God' is real and not just a regular poster on UKMuscle :lol:


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

I think people are forgetting something here!!!!!!

The original and as far as I know still standing question is and this thred was phrased incorrectly. *Did NASA fake the first moon landing!*

Some believe the first trip was faked and the rest were actually achieved.

*Why would someone do this if it's possible:*

Stop others racing to the moon,

Pretend/Claim to hav eyour flag their first.

Who knows.... I know there are some solid dumbells at my gym which I'm going to press tonight. That I know....


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

I might start an 'Evolution' vs 'Creation' thread and see if there are any conspiracy theories about Darwin. Turning algae into a giraffe is a lot more complicated than landing on the moon. Even if you got 2 billion years instead of 10 to do it.....


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

TaintedSoul said:


> I think people are forgetting something here!!!!!!
> 
> The original and as far as I know still standing question is and this thred was phrased incorrectly. *Did NASA fake the first moon landing!*
> 
> ...


So they faked the first one only to land 'for real' 3 months later (in 1969 still)?

What was the point in taking that MASSIVE risk?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

If the argument is that the Americans faked it in a big conspircay to win the space race, how come the Russians, who tracked everything, were perfectly satisfied with it all?

Also, there were many other independent observers too... and if the original mission to the moon 'didn't happen' then where did the rocket actually go - and why wasn't it tracked going elsewhere? It definitely took off and landed so it must have gone somewhere... and if it didn't go to the moon, and remained closer to the earth like the accusation, then why did no one track it that way when so many eyes were following it?


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

Dtlv74 said:


> *Could you guys who don't believe the landings happened please explain how much technical knowledge you have about astronautics, engineering and physics?*
> 
> I hope it's not the case that the skepticism is just a blind acceptance of the 'science' behind the conspiracy theorists statements... whilst at the same time ignoring and rejecting the science that the whole established scientific community (thousands of people with expert training in the field and world wide and over fourty years) is prefectly satisfied with.
> 
> If you don't have the technical knowledge can you please explain why the minority view, wholely discredited by the main scientific community, seems more valid to you?


i have a phd in astrophysics along with 15 years experience working as a consultant at NASA. Ive also been to the moon and back on numerous occasions and im currently on the phone to richard branson, booking a 3 year round trip to mars. ok?


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)

Al Kerseltzer said:


> i have a phd in astrophysics along with 15 years experience working as a consultant at NASA. Ive also been to the moon and back on numerous occasions and im currently on the phone to richard branson, booking a 3 year round trip to mars. ok?


Liar liar pants on fire :lol:


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

spaynter said:


> So they faked the first one only to land 'for real' 3 months later (in 1969 still)?
> 
> What was the point in taking that MASSIVE risk?


I dont write these things! :confused1:

Perhaps an ego trip and wanting to claim first place? I donno. What was the reason for going back 3 months later when they had just been there?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Al Kerseltzer said:


> i have a phd in astrophysics along with 15 years experience working as a consultant at NASA. Ive also been to the moon and back on numerous occasions and im currently on the phone to richard branson, booking a 3 year round trip to mars. ok?


Ah cool... on the next trip can you bring me back a moon rock? Wan't to grind it up and see how well it works as a PWO supplement


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

TaintedSoul said:


> I dont write these things! :confused1:
> 
> Perhaps an ego trip and wanting to claim first place? I donno. What was the reason for going back 3 months later when they had just been there?


Fair enough.

They went back 3 months later because they already had 30 blokes trained, 10 rockets built and had to pretend it was all about science rather than just beating the Russians.

At the time there were some serious questions asked about why go there more than once by politicians looking to save money.......


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

Dtlv74 said:


> Ah cool... on the next trip can you bring me back a moon rock? Wan't to grind it up and see how well it works as a PWO supplement


ive already got some mate, ive been using it as a supplement and ive put on 50lb of lean muscle in 6 weeks. the only side effects are its made me even more handsome and irresistable to women and my todger has increased from an already ample 8incher to a mamouth 12 incher.

tell you what, i'll send you a free 1kg sample of the stuff. its truely fcukin awesome! just PM me your credit card details so i can take £4.95 to cover P&P. but dont tell anyone else about this as they will all be wanting some.


----------



## Nidge (Jan 22, 2007)

If that was a real photo of the moon landing why is there moon dust on the surface and footprints in the dust?? I thought there wasn't any gravity on the moon, if there wasn't any gravity the surface would be solid rock there'd be no footprints because there'd be no dust on the surface of the moon. That's my take on things anyway.


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

Nidge said:


> If that was a real photo of the moon landing why is there moon dust on the surface and footprints in the dust?? I thought there wasn't any gravity on the moon, if there wasn't any gravity the surface would be solid rock there'd be no footprints because there'd be no dust on the surface of the moon. That's my take on things anyway.


 thats a very strong argument you have there except for 1 small thing, there is gravity on the moon. :whistling:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Al Kerseltzer said:


> ive already got some mate, ive been using it as a supplement and ive put on 50lb of lean muscle in 6 weeks. the only side effects are its made me even more handsome and irresistable to women and my todger has increased from an already ample 8incher to a mamouth 12 incher.
> 
> tell you what, i'll send you a free 1kg sample of the stuff. its truely fcukin awesome! just PM me your credit card details so i can take £4.95 to cover P&P. but dont tell anyone else about this as they will all be wanting some.


Will do mate, sounds a bargain. I managed to get 5kg of martian rocks for £7.99 plus P&P from eBay and had similar effects... I now have to fight off supermodels daily due to my increased sex appeal and tuck my extra length dick into my socks.

The moon rock sounds like it would stack well with it :thumbup1:


----------



## Markc (Mar 25, 2009)

Nidge said:


> If that was a real photo of the moon landing why is there moon dust on the surface and footprints in the dust?? I thought there wasn't any gravity on the moon, if there wasn't any gravity the surface would be solid rock there'd be no footprints because there'd be no dust on the surface of the moon. That's my take on things anyway.


Theres no atmosphere on the moon, there is gravity.


----------



## Rocho (Mar 30, 2009)

This will end it once and for all!!!!!!!

http://www.dc8p.com/html/moonhoax.html


----------



## John Wood (Apr 13, 2008)

Yes!!! I watched it 'Live' on TV


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)

Al Kerseltzer said:


> thats a very strong argument you have there except for 1 small thing, there is gravity on the moon. :whistling:


 :lol:


----------



## Greyphantom (Oct 23, 2003)

Yes they did...


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Ths video leaves a lot to be explained...

3Vrge-8F6rw[/MEDIA]]


----------



## BigMutha (Aug 14, 2009)

I blame Winger! He was the Yank behind this conspiracy! :lol:


----------



## BigMutha (Aug 14, 2009)

Markc said:


> Theres no atmosphere on the moon, *there is gravy*.


 :confused1: :confused1: They've found Gravy on the Moonmg:


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)

FPMSL just bring the chips!


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

That is the weakest thing I have ever seen........


----------



## Nidge (Jan 22, 2007)

Al Kerseltzer said:


> thats a very strong argument you have there except for 1 small thing, there is gravity on the moon. :whistling:


Don't know never been:thumb: :thumb: I didn't think there was gravity on the moon? :confused1:


----------



## Markc (Mar 25, 2009)

Nidge said:


> Don't know never been:thumb: :thumb: I didn't think there was gravity on the moon? :confused1:


The moon weighs only 1/81 as much as the earth. So its gravity, or pull, on its surface is much less than that of the earth. In fact, it is only one-sixth as strong as that of the earth.

Whos a nerd :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not me I used google:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)

> There is gravity on the moon but it is much weaker than Earth's gravity. When the American astronauts landed on the moon in 1969, they could leap and jump higher and more easily than on the Earth because the pull of gravity was less strong. The effect of Earth's gravity gets weaker further out into space. Astronauts feel this change as their spacecraft leaves the Earth's atmosphere. Slowly and gradually, the pull of the Earth's gravity becomes less strong and, as the spacecraft gets nearer to the moon's gravity starts to be felt. However, the strength of the moon's gravitational pull is only about one sixth of the Earth's.


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

How do we know there is gravity on the moon? I thought we hadnt been there yet? :lol:


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

Nidge said:


> Don't know never been:thumb: :thumb: I didn't think there was gravity on the moon? :confused1:


this is a wind up right....all mass has gravity its basic physics....

quick lesson for you..not from google..from Ian.....matter bends the fabric of space causing a dip....this causes any object travelling near enough to fall into that dip...that is what we call gravity...all objects have gravity..from an atom to a star.....it isnt actualy a force its more of a consequence...hope that clears things up


----------



## Team1 (Apr 3, 2008)

This thread is scary.

What i cant believe is that in 2009 there are som many people still think this didnt happen.

PS - Im working fro the US goverment so my opinion is slightly bias


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

IanStu said:


> this is a wind up right....all mass has gravity its basic physics....
> 
> quick lesson for you..not from google..from Ian.....matter bends the fabric of space causing a dip....this causes any object travelling near enough to fall into that dip...that is what we call gravity...all objects have gravity..from an atom to a star.....it isnt actualy a force its more of a consequence...hope that clears things up


i bet you're a bundle of laughs on a night out with the lads... :whistling:


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

this thread is getting nowhere fast so ive done some proper research and can prove once and for all the first moon walk was on March 25th 1983

check out the link below, it will leave you in no doubt






hopefully this will be an end to it...


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Well I put forward some arguments and for some reason nobody commented? typical of the believers that dismiss any real evidence


----------



## pecman (May 11, 2008)

GunnaGetBig said:


> Well I put forward some arguments and for some reason nobody commented? typical of the believers that dismiss any real evidence


I agree mate, And some one please explain to me how they got through the radiation belt????


----------



## Rocho (Mar 30, 2009)

Official unseen NASA video.....






Must be real!!!! :lol:


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

pecman said:


> I agree mate, And some one please explain to me how they got through the radiation belt????


Good question?


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

pecman said:


> I agree mate, And some one please explain to me how they got through the radiation belt????


traversing the van allen belts isnt that problamatic....although the charged particles held in them can pose a threat to sensitive eletrical equipment they can easily be shielded against that....there is little or no threat to humans...any space craft with a skin of more than 3mm offers more than enough protection.

All satelites that we have in orbit, except for those in very low orbit have to be shielded against the van allen belts....it is a very well understood phenomena


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

pecman said:


> I agree mate, And some one please explain to me how they got through the radiation belt????


From wikis debunking of the conspiracy theory and in relation to the radiation:



> The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.[Clavius 12] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[books 15] The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[books 16]
> 
> 
> 
> The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[54] However, only twenty-four astronauts left Earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

IanStu said:


> this is a wind up right....all mass has gravity its basic physics....
> 
> quick lesson for you..not from google..from Ian.....matter bends the fabric of space causing a dip....this causes any object travelling near enough to fall into that dip...that is what we call gravity...all objects have gravity..from an atom to a star.....it isnt actualy a force its more of a consequence...hope that clears things up


Actually it bends the fabric of spacetime........ ;o)


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

spaynter said:


> Actually it bends the fabric of spacetime........ ;o)


[email protected] :lol: ....yes I know...I was trying to make it easier for him to understand


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)

Yeah yeah, we believe you :lol:


----------



## bowen86 (Mar 17, 2008)

Peter V said:


> lol! Didn't know he was up there. Must have gone up to entertain the crew.


lmfao!


----------



## Gerry_bhoy (Dec 25, 2008)

sS3uvfzOJE8[/MEDIA]]





Hmmmm.


----------



## Round-2 (Jul 20, 2009)

IanStu said:


> this is a wind up right....all mass has gravity its basic physics....
> 
> quick lesson for you..not from google..from Ian.....matter bends the fabric of space causing a dip....this causes any object travelling near enough to fall into that dip...that is what we call gravity...all objects have gravity..from an atom to a star.....it isnt actualy a force its more of a consequence...hope that clears things up


Einstien 101

Funny thread :lol:


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Gerry_bhoy said:


> sS3uvfzOJE8[/MEDIA]]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


interesting video


----------



## Team1 (Apr 3, 2008)

^Good clear explination for the "real evidence" there


----------



## bowen86 (Mar 17, 2008)

one thing i must say is that lunar 5 moon buggy thing? how ****e did that look? the 60's or not, they would have had something abit more substantial to go driving around in!?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Gerry_bhoy said:


> sS3uvfzOJE8[/MEDIA]]
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> *Photographs and films*
> 
> Main article: Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
> 
> ...


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Still leaves a lot unexplained......

The lack of shadowing on the astronauts

The lack of lander in the 360 shot

The tiny astronaut next to the boulder

The reason why they used high quality colour video camcorder inside the spacecraft but only low resolution, black and white footage outside which was then shown on tv through recording the black and white footage off a projector

The hour long footage showing the astronauts staging part of their mission with a prompt in the background. The footage then goes on to show the astronauts faking the recording of the earth, pretending to be from a distance of 130,000 miles when it is clear they are closer. All footage was dated the 18th, 19th and 20th, of which 20 seconds was used as 'live' footage on tv

The fact that they conviniently 'lost' all colour footage they had in their archives

Stanley Kubricks involvement with NASA during which time he produced 2001


----------



## jimmy79 (Jul 1, 2009)

lol the war of the worlds continues....only man to walk on the moon was as above mr spoon nasas finest piolt


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

This ones the best and shows how easy it would have been to film their grainy black and white rubbish....

mouUUWpEec0[/MEDIA]]


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> This ones the best and shows how easy it would have been to film their grainy black and white rubbish....
> 
> mouUUWpEec0[/MEDIA]]


pmsl...thats so funny...jeez you realy are took in by all this hoax crap...do you believe any old **** thats posted on youtube....you're so gullible...I havent seen one shred of evidence that suggests the moon landings didnt happen...what has been put forward is so feeble its laughable.


----------



## corbuk (Jan 18, 2008)

This thread.

WTF?


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

IanStu said:


> pmsl...thats so funny...jeez you realy are took in by all this hoax crap...do you believe any old **** thats posted on youtube....you're so gullible...I havent seen one shred of evidence that suggests the moon landings didnt happen...what has been put forward is so feeble its laughable.


You do realise I put this on as a joke don't you? PMSL chill mate

Jeez almighty, know-it-all, if the evidence put forward is so feeble then why is it not answered???


----------



## Chew (Mar 4, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> You do realise I put this on as a joke don't you? PMSL chill mate
> 
> Jeez almighty, know-it-all, if the evidence put forward is so feeble then why is it not answered???


It is answered, most people that believe the hoax just prefer the 'fingers in the ears lalalalala I can't hear you' approach when presented with the evidence.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> You do realise I put this on as a joke don't you? PMSL chill mate
> 
> Jeez almighty, know-it-all, if the evidence put forward is so feeble then why is it not answered???


In my mind the one single biggest piece of hoax debunking evidence is that, at the height of the cold war, having lost 100's of people in Star City in a rocket explosion, having spent billions of rubels and 10 years trying to win the space race:

The Russians - not once - ever - accused the Americans of faking it. Because they followed them to the moon, followed them down to the surface and saw the footage.

That added to the:

12 Astronauts who landed who've never said anything and, in some cases, have been profoundly effected by the experience;

~200,000 people involved, none of whom have ever come forward (credibly);

Pieces of kit they left on the moon that are still giving readings now (laser mirror, seizemometer, etc);

1.6 tons of moon rock a little of whch is in ever major university on Earth;

These pioneers deserve more than 58% of people (if this is anything to go by) to believe they risked their lives for scientific advancement and a bit of glory.


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

Who cares if we landed. We about to blow it up so no one can prove it!! :lol:


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> In my mind the one single biggest piece of hoax debunking evidence is that, at the height of the cold war, having lost 100's of people in Star City in a rocket explosion, having spent billions of rubels and 10 years trying to win the space race:
> 
> The Russians - not once - ever - accused the Americans of faking it. Because they followed them to the moon, followed them down to the surface and saw the footage.
> 
> ...


You say 200,000 people which I assume is a rough estimate; however, IF there were this number of people they would not all have DIRECT contact with the mission. They might have folded the aluminium foil spacecraft or supplied the fuel. The actual amount of people involved in the launch and the astronauts would be minimal.

Want a whislte blower? just ask Gus Grissom's family the intended first man on the moon however he was also a critic of the apollo program. He was 'accidently' killed along with co-astronauts. The cause of the fire is still a mystery and the capsule remains locked away at their military base. Hmmmmm

There were also Thomas Ronald Baron, the safety man on the Apollo 1. After the fire had been testified before congress he claimed that the Apollo program was such disarray the United States would never make it to the moon. He produced a 500 page report as to his reasons. Sods law he and his family were hit by a train just a week after completing the report and to this day the report has mysteriously vanished. Hmmmmmm

Between 1964 and 1967 a total of ten Astronauts lost their lives in freak accidents. These deaths are accounts for astonishing 15% of NASA's Astronaut core.

Basically if your going to hoax something this big your not going to tell your whole team of 200,000 people. Only the key people i.e the astronauts would know it is fake. You wouldn't tell the tea boy etc etc.


----------



## skd (Dec 17, 2008)

USA first and *last* to land on the *moon*....in *1969*

lmfao...how gullable are we humans....buts thats just my opinion lol


----------



## Tasty (Aug 28, 2007)

IanStu said:


> I havent read this thread as this sort of thing makes me seethe with rage....
> 
> Of course they went to the moon ffs....the evidence is overwhelming....how do you fake 6 missions to the moon involving tens of thousads of people...and not one of em since 1969 has said it was a fake..
> 
> ...


Oh well I'm glad your incoherent post with no real point has let us end this thread. You are truly a gentleman.


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> You say 200,000 people which I assume is a rough estimate; however, IF there were this number of people they would not all have DIRECT contact with the mission. They might have folded the aluminium foil spacecraft or supplied the fuel. The actual amount of people involved in the launch and the astronauts would be minimal.
> 
> Want a whislte blower? just ask Gus Grissom's family the intended first man on the moon however he was also a critic of the apollo program. He was 'accidently' killed along with co-astronauts. The cause of the fire is still a mystery and the capsule remains locked away at their military base. Hmmmmm
> 
> ...


This is getting surreal...people do die in accidents...they're not all murdered...and if you're saying they were killed, is there a shred of evidence for this other than just wanting it to be true.

Space travel is just about the most dangerous thing we do...almost everything about it is potentialy lethal....the fact that 10 astronauts died in what were pioneering days when everything was new and untried, is not that surprising.


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

Tasty said:


> You are truly a gentleman.


Very kind of you to say so :stuart:


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

IanStu said:


> This is getting surreal...people do die in accidents...they're not all murdered...and if you're saying they were killed, is there a shred of evidence for this other than just wanting it to be true.
> 
> Space travel is just about the most dangerous thing we do...almost everything about it is potentialy lethal....the fact that 10 astronauts died in what were pioneering days when everything was new and untried, is not that surprising.


But why does all the evidence of these deaths have to be kept so secret????


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> You say 200,000 people which I assume is a rough estimate; however, IF there were this number of people they would not all have DIRECT contact with the mission. They might have folded the aluminium foil spacecraft or supplied the fuel. The actual amount of people involved in the launch and the astronauts would be minimal.
> 
> Want a whislte blower? just ask Gus Grissom's family the intended first man on the moon however he was also a critic of the apollo program. He was 'accidently' killed along with co-astronauts. The cause of the fire is still a mystery and the capsule remains locked away at their military base. Hmmmmm
> 
> ...


200,000 was the estimate for all those involved right down to the people that made the screws, so you're correct, not all of these people would have know. However, to stage something this big, you'd be involving, I'm guessing, 500 people from the President down? All these, very powerful and clever people, now dead or old have never once said anything? All 500? Even on their death beds to relieve their wieghtly consciences?

You're now adding to the fact we faked the moon landings that the Apollo 1 fire that killed, Gus Grissom, Ed White (First American moonwalk) and Roger Chaffee was actually murder? They chose to put their program back 18 months and have hoards of investigators and journalists crawl all over them in the middle of the space race in order to kill 3 astronauts?

10 astronauts didn't die in that period. 7 did. 3 in the Apollo 1 fire and another 4 in aircraft related incidents. 2 of them flew their T-21s into a NASA building in fog (pilot error), one mechanical failure and one had a snow goose fly through his canopy. Perhaps it was a suicide snow goose paid by NASA?

Never heard of your safety man, but Grissom thought the Apollo 1 spacecraft was a piece of cr*p, yes. And it was, and it cost him his life.

They then redesigned in 18 months the whole thing and reduced the oxygen content from 100% in the cabin once they realised that this casued the fire. (an electrical arc in 100% oxygen is bad. the dust in the air caught fire and they were at 3000 degrees in 30 secs with a hatch they couldn't get out of......

I don't think we'll convince each other, but I'm happy the evidence is stacked my way about 99.999%.


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> 200,000 was the estimate for all those involved right down to the people that made the screws, so you're correct, not all of these people would have know. However, to stage something this big, you'd be involving, I'm guessing, 500 people from the President down? All these, very powerful and clever people, now dead or old have never once said anything? All 500? Even on their death beds to relieve their wieghtly consciences?
> 
> You're now adding to the fact we faked the moon landings that the Apollo 1 fire that killed, Gus Grissom, Ed White (First American moonwalk) and Roger Chaffee was actually murder? They chose to put their program back 18 months and have hoards of investigators and journalists crawl all over them in the middle of the space race in order to kill 3 astronauts?
> 
> ...


Lol your evidence consisting of a guesstimate of 500 people being involved.....ok mate.

How would you explain the footage of them recording the earth using the window to create the illusion they were further away?

Why was black and white footage used on the moon and not clear colour images like inside the spacecraft?

Never heard of Thomas Ronald Baron.....How silly of course you haven't. Especially with his damning report of the Apollo mission. Here we go a quick look on wikipedia and you would have found this.....

Thomas Baron


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)

GunnaGetBig said:


> Lol your evidence consisting of a guesstimate of 500 people being involved.....ok mate.
> 
> How would you explain the footage of them recording the earth using the window to create the illusion they were further away?
> 
> ...


You're not providing any evidence to back your theory up, just questions, over and over.

It's actually boring, endless pieces of evidence backing up the fact that the moon landing happened have been provided, not one piece of evidence has been provided that they didn't, just a never ending list of questions.

So because they used a different camera, they didn't land on the moon, yeah, that makes perfect sense.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> Lol your evidence consisting of a guesstimate of 500 people being involved.....ok mate.
> 
> How would you explain the footage of them recording the earth using the window to create the illusion they were further away?
> 
> ...


Of course I'm guessing, it didn't actually happen!

Any whole picture of the Earth you have ever seen comes from these missions. No Earth satellite can take these. Or perhaps every picture of the Earth is photoshop?

I would have thought that cameras that have to work in 200C temperatures in sunlight on the Moon, may be of lesser quality than those used in the capsule. Any engineering issue rather than proof of hoax.

Thomas Baron - out of the thousands that worked on the program, one man's damning report who then committed suicide. Not very nice, but not unthinkable.

A slim piece of evidence on which to base an entire point of view. You're looking for tiny pieces of evidence to back up your belief. I'm looking at the evidence as the basis for my opinion.

You wouldn't want to go to court if the legal system worked that way.......


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

T.F. said:


> You're not providing any evidence to back your theory up, just questions, over and over.
> 
> It's actually boring, endless pieces of evidence backing up the fact that the moon landing happened have been provided, not one piece of evidence has been provided that they didn't, just a never ending list of questions.
> 
> So because they used a different camera, they didn't land on the moon, yeah, that makes perfect sense.


How about the video I posted of them staging part of the mission and faking the distance of the earth? Oh yea course that's not substantial is it


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> Of course I'm guessing, it didn't actually happen!
> 
> Any whole picture of the Earth you have ever seen comes from these missions. No Earth satellite can take these. Or perhaps every picture of the Earth is photoshop? - *Ever heard of a satellite? They take images of the earth mate and then NASA stitch them together add a dash of photoshop and voila you have a pretty picture like the ones your referring to.....*
> 
> ...


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> How about the video I posted of them staging part of the mission and faking the distance of the earth? Oh yea course that's not substantial is it


Having reviewed the video, I take it all back and have voted twice for 'no'.

It's so compelling that I now think that the points I've made are worthless. Please disregard my previous mails on this matter.

Now, about Princess Di........


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> Having reviewed the video, I take it all back and have voted twice for 'no'.
> 
> It's so compelling that I now think that the points I've made are worthless. Please disregard my previous mails on this matter.
> 
> Now, about Princess Di........


Easier than actually coming up with an explanation to the questions put forward......


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> Easier than actually coming up with an explanation to the questions put forward......


You answer mine and I'll answer yours. When the weight of evidence is on your side, I'll start justifying things like the video. A spooky soundtrack doesn't make it the sinister truth.

Why nothing from the Russians?


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)




----------



## Hawky (Jun 30, 2009)

I heard it was filmed in a studio. To be honest I think the whole thing is a hoax.


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)

Hawky said:


> I heard it was filmed in a studio. To be honest I think the whole thing is a hoax.


I think you should read the previous 10 pages mate, there's a wee bit more thoguht put into things than that :lol:


----------



## cellaratt (Jul 16, 2008)

Hawky said:


> I heard it was filmed in a studio. To be honest I think the whole thing is a hoax.





T.F. said:


> I think you should read the previous 10 pages mate, there's a wee bit more thoguht put into things than that :lol:


----------



## Team1 (Apr 3, 2008)

To be serious

Believing that we didnt land on the moon is up there with Believing in Noah's Ark and the earth is less that 10,000 years old.

Theres apparently lots of "evidence" that proves that aswell.


----------



## pecman (May 11, 2008)

I don't wan't to fuel this thread, BUT why have they now said they have only just found water on the moon via a Satellite in orbit around the moon and they state it can be got at by impacting the rocks.

They said today they are going to fire an object the size of a car into it to see.. :confused1:

All this money on these sats and missions, why not send man back to look closer:confused1:

And if they had all this moon rock for all these years why have they only found it now..

I don't know a lot on this so i'm just looking for answers as i'm quite interested in this.

And in my life time i have seen more evidence convincing me they didn't go than they did. Thats why most young people don't believe..


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

A good site debunking pretty much all of the conspiracy theorist points and showing them to be made either on incorrect or incomplete understanding of the science in question - http://www.clavius.org/


----------



## jimmy79 (Jul 1, 2009)

who would win in a fight bruce lee or mike tyson?:laugh: :lol: :thumb:


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

jimmy79 said:


> who would win in a fight bruce lee or mike tyson?:laugh: :lol: :thumb:


depends if biting is allowed:lol:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

jimmy79 said:


> who would win in a fight bruce lee or mike tyson?:laugh: :lol: :thumb:


I don't believe either mike tyson or bruce lee exist - all film and tv footage of them clearly was broadcast via a tv studio therefore could have been edited... this proves to me that they are both fake and the result of a conspiracy to make everyone think fighting is good so that we might become better accustomed to violence and thus better tolerate aggresive but unnecessary military action.

The government have intimidated the media and other boxers and martial artists into supporting these lies.

:whistling:


----------



## jimmy79 (Jul 1, 2009)

Dtlv74 said:


> I don't believe either mike tyson or bruce lee exist - all film and tv footage of them clearly was broadcast via a tv studio therefore could have been edited... this proves to me that they are both fake and the result of a conspiracy to make everyone think fighting is good so that we might become better accustomed to violence and thus better tolerate aggresive but unnecessary military action.
> 
> The government have intimidated the media and other boxers and martial artists into supporting these lies.
> 
> :whistling:


fantastic answer:lol: :lol:


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> You answer mine and I'll answer yours. When the weight of evidence is on your side, I'll start justifying things like the video. A spooky soundtrack doesn't make it the sinister truth.
> 
> Why nothing from the Russians?


The Russians could quite easily have been following a lump of metal on radar.

How about answering some of the actual evidene against for once?

Another one for you.....

What puzzles me is how the camera could move and zoom without anybody operating it?

Or did they have some kind of remote on the camera?

How could one operate the remote so perfectly keeping the module in perfect view and focus, while being ejected with incredible speed off the moon?

And would they have time for operating a camera while being busy ejecting of the moon?

If it wasn't manually done, was the camera preprogrammed?

There were no computers in those days small enough to fit in a camera, so how did that work?

That camera also would have had to have a broadcasting device.

How would the footage otherwise find it's way to earth?

That must have been one hell of a sophisticated camera that for some reason they couldn't use when first stepping down from the ladder????


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

I guess you're one of those idiots that believes the Chinese spcae walk was real :lol: :lol:


----------



## Damo86 (Aug 7, 2009)

They replayed the Mythbusters episode about the ''fake'' landing today and it showed you why things like the flag moving and shadows pointing different directions dont prove ****.

Unfortunatley I'd only just woken up and cant remember any of the details lol.

Actually I can remember that you cant fake the way the astronauts bounced while they are walking in the videos, if your on earth. they even tried it the way all the conspiracy theorist say it was done and it didn't work.

To be honest I couldn't give a ****e either way so I just wasted 60 second typing this.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> The Russians could quite easily have been following a lump of metal on radar.
> 
> How about answering some of the actual evidene against for once?
> 
> ...


Following a lump of metal on radar? A lump of metal that took off from Earth, slowed down to go into Lunar orbit, split in two, one half land on the moon, that split in two, rejoined the other lump of metal, spilt in 2 again and accelerated back to Earth and land in the Pacific.

Yep, that 'lump of metal' was Apollo 11.

What do you think is more difficult? Designing a camera with remote control or firing a lump of metal to the moon and back?

Your evidence is all circumstantial like camera angles and focus, etc. Ignoring the physical evidence of equipment left on the moon, moon rock, Russian verification, etc.

Even the Channel 5 program 'Did they fake the moon landings?' or whatever it was called, got the end and said 'no, they didn't fake them'.

No wonder Buzz Aldrin got into trouble for smacking someone in the mouth...... Risks his life to do it, no problems until Capricorn 1 is released at the cinema, and then everyone takes it seriously.....


----------



## Team1 (Apr 3, 2008)

GunnaGetBig said:


> The Russians could quite easily have been following a lump of metal on radar.
> 
> How about answering some of the actual evidene against for once?
> 
> ...


I appreciate that all the other questions have been well answered regarding the conspiracy and that all you are left with now is that the camera zoomed in and out far too well.

The next line of defense for the conspiracy theorist will be that they couldnt possibly have went to the moon as the pictures they sent back of earth show it as a round sphere like object. This also part of the conspiracy as the earth is clearly flat


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

It happened. I saw the evidence on tv last xmas.

Bloke and a dog wannit?


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> Following a lump of metal on radar? A lump of metal that took off from Earth, slowed down to go into Lunar orbit, split in two, one half land on the moon, that split in two, rejoined the other lump of metal, spilt in 2 again and accelerated back to Earth and land in the Pacific.
> 
> Yep, that 'lump of metal' was Apollo 11.
> 
> ...


Landing an object on the moon is a whole different story when you got passengers on board.....Ever heard of lunar 9? The Russians were the first to land succesfully on the moon and did it three years prior to the Americans.

So please actually answer my question......please!!!! How did the camera manage to trck the launch off the moon when the space craft was travelling at such a high speed? and why was this quality camera not used when they landed?


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Team1 said:


> I appreciate that all the other questions have been well answered regarding the conspiracy and that all you are left with now is that the camera zoomed in and out far too well.
> 
> The next line of defense for the conspiracy theorist will be that they couldnt possibly have went to the moon as the pictures they sent back of earth show it as a round sphere like object. This also part of the conspiracy as the earth is clearly flat


Here were go another 'smart' ar$e 

Ermmm don't know what thread you been reading but NONE of my questions have been answered....funny that. There's only been attempts at smart comebacks that have answered nothing.

Whilst ont he subject of the images of the earth...... Why was it when they were recording it claiming the camera to be "filling up the window" were they actually in fact at the otherside of the spacecraft using a template around the window to create the illusion of being further away??


----------



## Team1 (Apr 3, 2008)

Without goign back through the ful thread, there has been loads of links to the mythbusting type sites that explain all

No point in replicating these well written explinations or copy & pasting them for people who are determined to believe it never happened to stick their fingers in their ears despite the real evidence suggesting suggesting it did

Its like arguing with creationists that believe the world is 6000 years old and god created everything as it is today almost 

What would it take to convinse you otherwise in a paragraph if you dont mind summing it up


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Team1 said:


> Without goign back through the ful thread, there has been loads of links to the mythbusting type sites that explain all
> 
> No point in replicating these well written explinations or copy & pasting them for people who are determined to believe it never happened to stick their fingers in their ears despite the real evidence suggesting suggesting it did
> 
> ...


To be fair mate the questions I've raised aren't the usual 'shadows in the pics', 'theres no stars in the sky' theories that mythbusters cover


----------



## Team1 (Apr 3, 2008)

I didnt say mythbusters particularly, i said the mythbuster type sites posted by the likes of Dtlv74 a page back and some other very good sites


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> To be fair mate the questions I've raised aren't the usual 'shadows in the pics', 'theres no stars in the sky' theories that mythbusters cover


So you reckon that you have stumbled upon the one piece of proof, never covered by by a myth buster that proves that man didn't land on the moon? Man, that's funny.

The question you 'please' want me to answer was 'How did the camera track the launch from the moon when the spacecraft was so quick?'

I've seen various footage, but the cameras I remember for lunar take off were:

The one they left on the surface that watched the module take off. It was stationary, but actually tracking something from a standing start going straight up wouldn't be too difficult.

One on the LM looking down ( the same one that they used to land)

and one on the CM used to track the LM back in to dock.

I can't see a problem with any of these.

Why couldn't they use Higher definition camera on the moon? Because of the harsh environment. Lunar dust and the massive heat when not in the 'shade'. In fact, on Apollo 12, they didn't have pictures from the main camera because Alan Bean pointed it at the sun and burnt it out.

Like Team1 says, nothing is going to persuade you, but thinking that your shreds of evidence somehow competes with the vast swathes of evidence supporting the moon landing is just not a balanced view.

Just like all the fossil evidence points to evolution, but some people choose to 'believe' creationism. You've got to ask yourself the question - If you knew nothing at all about this, and 2 sides gave you their arguments, who would you believe?

A couple of camera zoom inconsistencies, or the documentary, verbal and physical evidence of countless people, reports and moon rock, laser reflectors, seizemometers, etc.


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> The one they left on the surface that watched the module take off. It was stationary, but actually tracking something from a standing start going straight up wouldn't be too difficult.
> 
> *
> For 1969 mate I reckon it would have to have been controlled by a man, yes? I doubt it would have had heat tracking etc....SO how is it that one of the astronauts, whilst takig off, at I would assume quite high velocity, manages to keep the picture in frame?*
> ...


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

Actually the astronauts would have experienced only slight acceleration on lunar take off because of one sixth lunar gravity, so pointing a camera isn't beyond the realms of possibility. However, you seem to think that in 1969 they had nothing they could control remotely. Radio control has been around a lot longer than that and in fact the spacecraft could be controlled from Houston pretty much if they needed to.

The whole idea of having test pilots as astronauts is that they could deal with things as and when they went wrong.

The camera your referring to (colour tracking the take off) was probably from a later mission. Apollo 17 has some nice footage of them taking off. Equipment was developed and refined as they went along. Moon buggy, etc.

Apollo 11 was a 2 hour moon walk and Apollo 17 did three 7 hour moon walks on different days.

Do you really think it's inexplicable though? If a camera expert from the 60's and 70's logged on here now and gave you a technical explanation with specs, etc, would you believe him?


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> Actually the astronauts would have experienced only slight acceleration on lunar take off because of one sixth lunar gravity, so pointing a camera isn't beyond the realms of possibility. However, you seem to think that in 1969 they had nothing they could control remotely. Radio control has been around a lot longer than that and in fact the spacecraft could be controlled from Houston pretty much if they needed to.
> 
> The whole idea of having test pilots as astronauts is that they could deal with things as and when they went wrong.
> 
> ...


Nope the footage is from the Apollo 11 take off. Surely as there is less gravity the velocity of takeoff would be increased. Gravity is pulling them craft down and therefore reducing velocity.

I didn't say they couldn't control it remotely, I said that surely it would have been difficuly to track whilst taking off at high speed.

What I did say they wouldn't have had is automated tracking


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> Nope the footage is from the Apollo 11 take off. Surely as there is less gravity the velocity of takeoff would be increased. Gravity is pulling them craft down and therefore reducing velocity.
> 
> I didn't say they couldn't control it remotely, I said that surely it would have been difficuly to track whilst taking off at high speed.
> 
> What I did say they wouldn't have had is automated tracking


If they could track a small spacecraft to the moon, I'm sure a tracking device on a camera wouldn't have been out of the question. There weren't blokes on Earth aiming the radar dishes manually, so that technollgy must have existed.

Velocity doesn't make things difficult to do. Force (proportional to acceleration) does in the form of g-force. If the astronauts aren't experiencing much g-force, then they can do a lot of things, like aiming cameras if necessary.

Anyway, answer my question: If a technical guy came on here and answered all your camera related questions, would you believe him, or just think he is a stooge?


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

spaynter said:


> *Actually the astronauts would have experienced only slight acceleration on lunar take off because of one sixth lunar gravity,*


that statement implies that you only experience acceleration whilst in a field of gravity. im no physicist but im pretty sure that is wrong. if you accelerated from 0 to 1000mph in 1 sec it would pretty much kill you whether you are in the gravitational field of a plant/moon/sun/etc or not.


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> If they could track a small spacecraft to the moon, I'm sure a tracking device on a camera wouldn't have been out of the question. There weren't blokes on Earth aiming the radar dishes manually, so that technollgy must have existed.
> 
> Velocity doesn't make things difficult to do. Force (proportional to acceleration) does in the form of g-force. If the astronauts aren't experiencing much g-force, then they can do a lot of things, like aiming cameras if necessary.
> 
> Anyway, answer my question: If a technical guy came on here and answered all your camera related questions, would you believe him, or just think he is a stooge?


Hmm, personally I'm not convinced that they would have had the technology for the camera to follow the takeoff without human intervention. Another thing I don't get is why the whole thing wasn't recorded on video? Surely that would have been a lot better than pictures alone.

After a little research I discovered that the patent for the "Method and apparatus for automatically tracking a moving object" was first issued in 2003 so clearly this is new technology.

In answer to your question, yes I would believe a technical guy if he could back up his answers with proven theory/evidence.


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Al Kerseltzer said:


> that statement implies that you only experience acceleration whilst in a field of gravity. im no physicist but im pretty sure that is wrong. if you accelerated from 0 to 1000mph in 1 sec it would pretty much kill you whether you are in the gravitational field of a plant/moon/sun/etc or not.


i would have thought so to. According to Spaytner this was they're first attempt at takeoff from the moon so when deciding what amount of thrust would be needed to take off you would assume 1/6th of what it would take to get off the ground on earth.....therefore, giving you the same acceleration/speed.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> Hmm, personally I'm not convinced that they would have had the technology for the camera to follow the takeoff without human intervention. Another thing I don't get is why the whole thing wasn't recorded on video? Surely that would have been a lot better than pictures alone.
> 
> After a little research I discovered that the patent for the "Method and apparatus for automatically tracking a moving object" was first issued in 2003 so clearly this is new technology.
> 
> In answer to your question, yes I would believe a technical guy if he could back up his answers with proven theory/evidence.


Read one of the many books by NASA back room teams involved in the Apollo missions then. NASA issued some ridiculous amount of patents during the space race, so you there would have been plenty surrounding the cameras to look at.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

Al Kerseltzer said:


> that statement implies that you only experience acceleration whilst in a field of gravity. im no physicist but im pretty sure that is wrong. if you accelerated from 0 to 1000mph in 1 sec it would pretty much kill you whether you are in the gravitational field of a plant/moon/sun/etc or not.


You're correct, acceleration is a vector that doesn't need gravity to work. Although of course there is gravity everywhere in the universe.

At the non-quantum level Force = Mass x Acceleration.

On the Earth, the energy needed to get the entire rocket and fuel into orbit was enormous because of the drag of Earth gravity as a downward force along with the resistance of Earth atmosphere.

On the lunar surface, the mass of the ascent part of the LEM was light and there's no atmosphere and the drag is only one sixth that on Earth. Therefore the force needed for them to take off was small and controlled and in fact the net force on them was only about 1g (just like standing on Earth), so performing operations would have been easy.


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

spaynter said:


> You're correct, acceleration is a vector that doesn't need gravity to work. Although of course there is gravity everywhere in the universe.
> 
> At the non-quantum level Force = Mass x Acceleration.
> 
> ...


you took the words right out of my mouth:whistling:


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> i would have thought so to. According to Spaytner this was they're first attempt at takeoff from the moon so when deciding what amount of thrust would be needed to take off you would assume 1/6th of what it would take to get off the ground on earth.....therefore, giving you the same acceleration/speed.


At a rough calculation if they'd used 1/6 Earth thrust to take off from the moon:

LEM = 4.5 Tonnes

Saturn V booster = 36 M N

F = Ma

a = (F/M) = (6,000,000 - 750 (drag of LM))/4,500

a = 1.3 Km / s / s

Subjecting the astronauts to (assume they weigh 75k) 10,000g. (Humans can survive about 15g) Mmmm, they'd have been scraping off the floor.

In fact the ascent engine had 15,000 N peak thrust which could have exerted 3g max on the astronauts.

Mate, assumptions won't replace science and maths.


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Re: did man land on the moon???

Yes

Another behemoth thread brought to a conclusion by the genius that is RS :thumb:


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

spaynter said:


> At a rough calculation if they'd used 1/6 Earth thrust to take off from the moon:
> 
> LEM = 4.5 Tonnes
> 
> ...


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

Al Kerseltzer said:


> Nice. They should have saved the fuel and just beamed over.


----------



## ricey (Nov 28, 2008)

pecman said:


> I say no for what i have seen,
> 
> One of the biggest problems apparently is a radiation belt that surrounds the planet, The Russions sent some men up and they all come back fuked up, Lost all the hair and got badly i'll.
> 
> ...


this is it. i was going to mention the point about the radiation belt well said mate. how the hell could that group of astronauts pass through that belt unscathed and not too mention then live on for many years with no health issues what-so-ever.

very suspect to say the least

also worth mentioning is the possibility that the was a silencing clasue in place for any people from nasa to keep their big traps shut, subsequently i beleive there were around 10 deaths of various people associated strongly with nasa over a period of a couple of years following the supposed landing,again a litlle perculiar, 1 maybe, a couple possible but not that many.

i think somebody mantioned a point about there being many trips to the moon since but i beleive that there had been no manded missions to land on the moon since, no satalite images nothing! again very strange

surely if this mission really happend there would still be remenants of the mission on the moons surface.

too many things dont add up, i want to beleive but i dont, it sounds so simple they landed on the moon no big deal but in reality there was so much more at stake and too many reasons to lie


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

ricey said:


> this is it. i was going to mention the point about the radiation belt well said mate. how the hell could that group of astronauts pass through that belt unscathed and not too mention then live on for many years with no health issues what-so-ever.
> 
> very suspect to say the least
> 
> ...


I explained this in a previous post...see below



IanStu said:


> traversing the van allen belts isnt that problamatic....although the charged particles held in them can pose a threat to sensitive eletrical equipment they can easily be shielded against that....there is little or no threat to humans...any space craft with a skin of more than 3mm offers more than enough protection.
> 
> All satelites that we have in orbit, except for those in very low orbit have to be shielded against the van allen belts....it is a very well understood phenomena


 :thumb:


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)

Read the thread, it's already answered.



Edit: Ian has beaten me to it.


----------



## brasco (Mar 3, 2007)

i watched a program a few weeks ago and it explains all the shadows and flag waving etc..... was very interesting and now makes me laugh when people say we didnt go!

I voted yes!


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

Here's an article I came across reading about Stanley Kubrick "The Shinning". It basically says Stanley Kubrick was responsible for handling the faking of it??? First I've read about this.

Long read enjoy.. I'm only on page 3!! So far.....

Still doesnt explain how other countries withlarge telescopes were either in on it or tricked also?

Here's the first page :

------------------------------------------------------------------



*
How Stanley Kubrick*

*
Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:*

*
Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lies.*

*
Alchemical Kubrick II*
​
By

Jay Weidner

Copyright July 20 th 2009

Sacred Mysteries Productions

"There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truths protective layers"

-Neil Armstrong, 'First Man on the Moon'. July 20 th 1994

It has now been forty years since the fabled moon landings by NASA and the Apollo gang. When it comes to the subject of the moon landings, people tend to fall into two belief groups. The first group, by far the bigger of the two groups, accepts the fact that NASA successfully landed on the moon six times and that 12 human beings have actually walked on the surface of the moon. The second group, though far smaller, is more vocal about their beliefs. This group says that we never went to the moon and that the entire thing was faked.

This essay presents a third position on this issue. This third point of view falls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position postulates that humans did go to the moon but what we saw on TV and in photographs was completely faked.

Furthermore this third position reveals that the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who directed the hoaxed landings.

1) MOTIVATIONS FOR FAKING

But why fake the moon landings at all? What would be the motivation? Authors Joseph Farrell and Henry Stevens both have shown us undeniable proof that Nazi scientists had developed advanced flying saucer technology as early as 1943. These authors also show that the US Government brought these same Nazi scientists into this country in order to build these highly advanced flying machines.

Furthermore, they believe that the idea that aliens from outer space are invading the Earth is a clever cover story concocted by NASA to hide this technology.

Many sources inside the military industrial complex have related to me that after John Kennedy was shown the flying saucer technology early in his Presidency, he realized that the advances in technology promised by the flying saucers could solve many of the pressing problems of the world. He saw that releasing this exotic technology would point the way towards cheap and environmentally friendly energy among other things.

Soon after seeing the flying saucer technology, JFK made his famous speech asking NASA to land a man on the moon before the decade was out. Many insiders believed that this was a ploy by JFK to get NASA, and the secret government, to release their saucer technologies. Since it was obvious to everyone that standard rocket technology could not get man to the moon and back, JFK may have thought that NASA would be forced to release the knowledge of the technology behind the flying saucers in order to fulfill his vision and get to the moon by the end of the 1960's. JFK's ploy was therefore intended to free this advanced technology from the insidious hands of the shadow government.

After the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, NASA began a new plan that would solve the problem that JFK initiated. This new plan would allow NASA, and the shadow government, to keep the saucer technology secret and to still make it look like standard rocketry had taken man to the moon and back.

Someone high up in the shadow government decided to fake the entire moon landings in order to conceal the United States' extremely new and advanced Nazi technology both from us, the citizens and our enemies.

In some ways NASA's position on this was understandable. We were in the middle of the cold war with the Soviet Union. Did we really want to show the Russians what we had?

2). WHO WILL FAKE IT?

In early 1964 Stanley Kubrick had just finished his black satire Dr Strangelove and was looking to do a science fiction film.

While directing Dr. Strangelove Kubrick had asked the US Air Force for permission to film one of their B-52 bombers for the movie. The Pentagon turned him down.

The movie, Dr. Strangelove, was about a flight squadron that had been ordered to fly to Russia and drop nuclear bombs on that country. The Pentagon read Kubrick's script and rejected his request to actually film the inside, and outside, of a B-52.

The reason for this rejection was that Kubrick's film was clearly a satire on the military and US nuclear policy. The Pentagon did not want to assist Kubrick in this satirical undertaking.

Undaunted by the rejection, Kubrick used various special effects to create the B-52 in flight. When viewing Dr. Strangelove today, these special effects look quaint and old fashioned, but in 1963 they looked very good. It is possible that someone in NASA saw what Kubrick had done in Dr. Strangelove and, admiring his artfulness, designated Kubrick as the person best qualified to direct the Apollo Moon landing. If he could do that well on a limited budget - what could he do on an unlimited budget?

No one knows how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo landings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way. The fact that his brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist Party may have been one of the avenues pursued by the government to get Stanley to cooperate.

Kubrick also had a reputation for being a notoriously nasty negotiator. It would have been very interesting to have been a fly on the wall during the negotiations between Kubrick and NASA.

In the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the second was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life.

Except for his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick got what he wanted.

3). PARALELLING EVENTS

It is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey parallels the Apollo program. The film production started in 1964 and went on to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in1968. Meanwhile the Apollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon landings on July 20th 1969.

Also it is very interesting to note that scientist Frederick Ordway was working both for NASA and the Apollo program and was also Kubrick's top science advisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Once he negotiated the deal, Stanley, got to work. The most pressing problem for Kubrick in 1964 was to figure out a way to make the shots on the ground, on the surface of the moon, look realistic. He had to make the scenes look wide-open and expansive, like it was really done on the moon and not in a studio back lot.

4). HOLLYWOOD TRICKERY.

No one knows how many things he tried but eventually Kubrick settled on doing the entire thing with a cinematic technique called Front Screen Projection.

It is in the use of this cinematic technique that the fingerprints of Kubrick can be seen all over the NASA Apollo photographic and video material.

What is Front Screen Projection?

Kubrick did not invent the process but there is no doubt that he perfected it. Front Screen Projection is a cinematic device that allows scenes to be projected behind the actors so that it appears, in the camera, as if the actors are moving around on the set provided by the Front Screen Projection.

The process came into fruition when the 3M company invented a material called Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny glass beads each about .4mm wide. These beads were highly reflective. In the Front Screen Projection process the Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage. The plane of the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had to be exactly 90 degrees apart. A projector would project the scene onto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror and the light would go through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into the camera. An actor would stand in front of the Scotchlite screen and he would appear to be 'inside' the projection.










Today Hollywood magicians use green screens and computers for special effects and so Front Screen Projection has gone the way of the Adding Machine and the Model T, but for its time, especially in the 1960's, nothing worked better than Front Screen Projection for the realistic look that would be needed both for the ape-men scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey and the faked Apollo landings.

To see how Front Screen Projection looks on the screen let's examine the ape-men scenes at the beginning of Kubrick's film 2001: A Space Odyssey. While viewing the stills from these scenes, or watching them in the film, one has to remember that the early scenes in 2001 with the actors in Ape costumes were all done on a soundstage. None of what you are seeing in the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001 was actually shot outside. The scenes that surround the ape-men in 2001 are actually slides of a desert being projected onto Scotchlite screens standing at the rear of the set.

In order to create these desert backgrounds Kubrick sent a photographic team to Spain to shoot 8'' X 10'' Ektachrome slides. These slides were then projected via the Front Screen Projection system onto the Scotchlite screen. The actors in ape costumes stood in front of the screen acting out the script.

If you watch 2001 on DVD you can actually see the 'seams' of the screen occasionally behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was doing Front Screen Projection on such a huge and grand fashion that the technicians were forced to sew together many screens of Scotchlite so that Kubrick could create the vastness needed for the ape scenes to be believable.

In this still taken from an early scene in 2001 you can see the seams in the blue sky if you look closely.










Next is the same image as above only I have processed it through a graphic program. In this processing I have increased the gamma and increased the contrast.

Please examine:










Now we can clearly see the 'seams' and the 'stitching' of the Scotchlite Front Projection screen in the sky.

To get the perspective correct one has to realize that the Scotchlite screen is right behind the rocky outcropping set, which was built on the soundstage.

The lines on the screen are the flaws in the Scotchlite screen. These flaws in the screen give the sky give a peculiar 'geometry' when the image is properly processed to reveal the Front Projection Scotchlite Screen.


----------



## ricey (Nov 28, 2008)

ok maybe the van allen belts can be explained i will retract that lol. still some interesting stuff tho


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Still waiting to see one bit of proof (speculation doesn't count) varified by the scientific community (as the landings were) that the landings were fake.

I wonder if all the folks who prefer speculation (because they like the sound of it) over science (when they don't like the sound of it) train and supplement that way too...


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

Dtlv74 said:


> Still waiting to see one bit of proof (speculation doesn't count) varified by the scientific community (as the landings were) that the landings were fake.
> 
> I wonder if all the folks who prefer speculation (because they like the sound of it) over science (when they don't like the sound of it) train and supplement that way too...


I speculate if I inject enough, eat enough and train enough I'll grow!! :thumbup1:


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Dtlv74 said:


> Still waiting to see one bit of proof (speculation doesn't count) varified by the scientific community (as the landings were) that the landings were fake.
> 
> I wonder if all the folks who prefer speculation (because they like the sound of it) over science (when they don't like the sound of it) train and supplement that way too...


Ok answer me this..."Scientifically" when you take a 360 degrees photo you capture all objects within that 360 degrees radius, yes? yes......SO where in their 360 degree shot published in one of their photoshopped books (Yes there is proof that it is photoshopped) is the landing module?


----------



## MXD (Jan 23, 2008)

I think we did last there..


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> Ok answer me this..."Scientifically" when you take a 360 degrees photo you capture all objects within that 360 degrees radius, yes? yes......SO where in their 360 degree shot published in one of their photoshopped books (Yes there is proof that it is photoshopped) is the landing module?


Scientifically - it is not in the camera's line of sight. ie Obscured by a ridge, hill or crater rim. The moon's far from flat.

Of course you could research it. Each mission had a detailed report drawn up that tracked the astronauts steps (or drives) and tallied to the photos.

Or, it could be that the same brilliant brains that fired lumps of metal to the moon and did trickery in low Earth orbit and successfully conned the world for 40 years just forgot to put the LM on a photo that they put together in Photoshop (you'd think that would be the one thing they'd remember to put on)...... and that is their downfall because now they've been rumbled..... Expect loads of ex NASA people in the 70's and 80's to now come forward and confess......


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> Ok answer me this..."Scientifically" when you take a 360 degrees photo you capture all objects within that 360 degrees radius, yes? yes......SO where in their 360 degree shot published in one of their photoshopped books (Yes there is proof that it is photoshopped) is the landing module?


If there is a discrepancy with the photo, all it means is that there's a discrepancy with the photo - it doesn't prove that the landings didn't take place.

The publishers of the NASA photo's have openly admitted that they photoshopped some images for dramatic effect... so inconsistencies would be expected, whether they landed or didn't, and this therefore discredits any claims on photos as evidence against.

Proof the landings didn't happen would equate to physical/forensic evidence *verified by multiple **experts* that show the Apollo craft were somewhere else other than the moon.


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> Scientifically - it is not in the camera's line of sight. ie Obscured by a ridge, hill or crater rim. The moon's far from flat.
> 
> Of course you could research it. Each mission had a detailed report drawn up that tracked the astronauts steps (or drives) and tallied to the photos.
> 
> Or, it could be that the same brilliant brains that fired lumps of metal to the moon and did trickery in low Earth orbit and successfully conned the world for 40 years just forgot to put the LM on a photo that they put together in Photoshop (you'd think that would be the one thing they'd remember to put on)...... and that is their downfall because now they've been rumbled..... Expect loads of ex NASA people in the 70's and 80's to now come forward and confess......


sS3uvfzOJE8[/MEDIA]]





Watch the video from 3 mins onwards. Its a 360 degrees photo of the "landing site" of Apolo 17. No landing craft in view....hmmmmm go figure


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Dtlv74 said:


> If there is a discrepancy with the photo, all it means is that there's a discrepancy with the photo - it doesn't prove that the landings didn't take place.
> 
> The publishers of the NASA photo's have openly admitted that they photoshopped some images for *dramatic effect*... so inconsistencies would be expected, whether they landed or didn't, and this therefore discredits any claims on photos as evidence against.
> 
> Proof the landings didn't happen would equate to physical/forensic evidence *verified by multiple **experts* that show the Apollo craft were somewhere else other than the moon.


Haha they certainly made a dramatic effect by removing the landing craft from the landing site

hahahaha

Oh and before you say its not the landing site, actually look at the evidence put forward for once instead trying to dismiss it and you will realise that the book published by NASA actually claim it to be the landing site


----------



## MXD (Jan 23, 2008)

The moon has mines on the suface you know.look into it.. Thts why they airbrush everything. Thers also an alien base on the backside of the moon. Watch the disclosure project vids.


----------



## PHHead (Aug 20, 2008)

There has been so much damming evidence to imply that the moon landing was faked but for me this is the nail in the coffin for NASA, just look at the shadows on this one.....................


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> sS3uvfzOJE8[/MEDIA]]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Brilliant. A bloke examining photos - Cast iron proof.

I've got Michael Light's book (it's meant for coffee table viewing) and he's an artist. At the start of the book he explains that he does some things for visual effect. The guy in the film claims this should be a factual document - No it shouldn't, it's a book for coffee tables!

John Glenn and Scott Carpenter were 10 years before Apollo 17 and really in low Earth orbit. Their 'fireflys' were later discovered to be debris and dust particles catching the sun. It's comical that it turns from 'Where's the module they must have faked it' to 'They doctored the film because there were UFOs eveywhere'.

I also notice a little advert for a website you can presumably buy his DVD from keep popping up.

Dtlv has the right idea. Minor discrepancies (all explainable if NASA didn't have better thing to do) do not form proof.

Watch the footage of the powered descent of Apollo 11 to the lunar surface. It's a million times more compelling than where's the LM in a photo in a coffee table book.


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

PHHead said:


> There has been so much damming evidence to imply that the moon landing was faked but for me this is the nail in the coffin for NASA, just look at the shadows on this one.....................


ive always sat on the fence with this one but i have to admit, that picture is pretty dam convincing..... :beer:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> Haha they certainly made a dramatic effect by removing the landing craft from the landing site
> 
> hahahaha
> 
> Oh and before you say its not the landing site, actually look at the evidence put forward for once instead trying to dismiss it and you will realise that the book published by NASA actually claim it to be the landing site


You are making an assumption about the photos. The 360 degree image is a composite of different pics taken at different times and not from the same position - but they have been edited together (with some images expanded and others contracted) to appear to make a smooth 360 degree image taken from the same position. The guy in the vid says so himself.

Now think about this - there are two ways to collect such a series of images.

1) you can stand on one spot, not move, and pivot on that spot taking pics from a fixed position. If this were the case then nothing would be hidden (other than the camera and person taking the pics himself) and the lander should be visible.

However,

2) you can also take the pics whilst walking in a circle around an object (or series of objects - including the lander in this case), and in doing this the object(s) you walked around would not feature in the 360 composite would they?

Now please tell me why is it impossible that the astonaut who took the pics might have taken them in the way described in option 2?


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

Dtlv74 said:


> You are making an assumption about the photos. The 360 degree image is a composite of different pics taken at different times and not from the same position - but they have been edited together (with some images expanded and others contracted) to appear to make a smooth 360 degree image taken from the same position. The guy in the vid says so himself.
> 
> Now think about this - there are two ways to collect such a series of images.
> 
> ...


Great point. Also, on the later missions with the rover, they literally went miles away from the lander. The guys 'presumes' on the video it is the landing site, but it may not be.


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

I dont understand why you photoshop anything for "dramtic effect"? This is not some movie requiring post processing!!! People need and want to see the raw uneditted footage!!

Besides there was no Photoshop back then? I'm not sure what kind of image editting software they had?


----------



## Craig660 (Dec 8, 2005)

yes we did land on the moon, i was there


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

TaintedSoul said:


> I dont understand why you photoshop anything for "dramtic effect"? This is not some movie requiring post processing!!! People need and want to see the raw uneditted footage!!
> 
> Besides there was no Photoshop back then? I'm not sure what kind of image editting software they had?


On a coffee table, people want to see pretty things. The artist also wants to give it his spin, otherwise they haven't got a book and can't make money.


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

Craig660 said:


> yes we did land on the moon, i was there


i know you were there cos i was standing next to you:whistling:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

TaintedSoul said:


> I dont understand why you photoshop anything for "dramtic effect"? This is not some movie requiring post processing!!! People need and want to see the raw uneditted footage!!
> 
> Besides there was no Photoshop back then? I'm not sure what kind of image editting software they had?


Just to show a nice moon scape rather than tatty pics of rocks! Remember the mision itself wasn't realy about getting nice pics at all - it was about collecting geological data and samples from the moon. Most of the pics are very boring shots of craters, lumps of rock and hill formations - not the kind of the thing that would inspire the public at all. NASA just responded to the public demand for the spectacular and dressed up a few pics.

This in itself is no evidence of consipracy at all - they were quite open about doing this.

Photoshopping is just a modern word I guess for manipulating images. I agree it's not the most helpful phrase to use as back in the day they didn't have the software to elaborately fake images like a modern computer prog can.


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

Dtlv74 said:


> Just to show a nice moon scape rather than tatty pics of rocks! Remember the mision itself wasn't realy about getting nice pics at all - it was about collecting geological data and samples from the moon. Most of the pics are very boring shots of craters, lumps of rock and hill formations - not the kind of the thing that would inspire the public at all. NASA just responded to the public demand for the spectacular and dressed up a few pics.
> 
> This in itself is no evidence of consipracy at all - they were quite open about doing this.
> 
> Photoshopping is just a modern word I guess for manipulating images. I agree it's not the most helpful phrase to use as back in the day they didn't have the software to elaborately fake images like a modern computer prog can.


I still dont get why... Yes we went to the moon but hey look at these pics it's the moon but it's not the moon we felt you would rather see our version of the moon.

Load of crap, give me the original photo anyday.


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

The voting on here is interesting.

yes 62 59.05%

no 43 40.95%

Way more say no that I ever expected.

I havent voted yet......


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

TaintedSoul said:


> The voting on here is interesting.
> 
> yes 62 59.05%
> 
> ...


In that case, you get the casting vote! Whatever you decide, I'll go with it.... ;o)


----------



## shady (Jan 22, 2004)

we have been to the moon of course we have this is not In question.

The real question is.

Where do the conspiracy theories come from?

Sure most of them start off in the heads of idiots but...

I don't for 1 minute believe that it is beyond the government to lie to the public it happens every day...

It would appear the government dose not make any great atempt to disprov the conspiracy theries perhapse they even encoureg them

this is the real conspiracy

if there is such a high percentage(as the poll sugests)of people that believe the government are capable of such a massive undertaking then they the government would encourage the belief to encourage ther illusion of power and fear .

Bacteria is bad for you...

Your going to die from swine flu...

They have wepons of mass destruction...

it is a fact that people who are kept in a state of fear are more susceptible to suggestion we are always being fed bull**** to keep us in a state of fear it make us more efficient consumers

sorry if I wondered a bit off topic


----------



## Howe (Mar 17, 2008)

In my opinion yes they did, Although their are some good and strong argument to say they didn't.


----------



## TaintedSoul (May 16, 2007)

spaynter said:


> In that case, you get the casting vote! Whatever you decide, I'll go with it.... ;o)


LOL - I honestly couldnt vote either. I doubted the first mission but the ones after I thought they had.

It seems almost too impossible/silly etc.. etc.. for them to fake it to be true?

Who knows.....


----------



## shady (Jan 22, 2004)

were consumers...god dam it!!

controlled by fear....god dam it

I explaind it all a few posts ago

listen to me....god dam it!!!


----------



## Al Kerseltzer (May 5, 2008)

shady said:


> we have been to the moon of course we have this is not In question.
> 
> The real question is.
> 
> ...


i think ur spot on mate, we're fed BS 24/7 via tv papers internet etc. ive practically given up reading papers now, i certainly never buy one and anything i read i take with a pinch of salt. The rest of the media are as bad IMO. Feeding peoples fear is a great way of controlling them.

As for the moon landings im neither one way or the other. i think they probably have been there by now but i wouldnt be surprised if the first attempt was faked. I also think its wrong to imply that people are stupid for doubting this happened. there is a lot of evedence to suggest it was a hoax, (which may or may not stand up under scrutiny) and the American Governments reputation is hardlysqueeky clean.


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> Great point. Also, on the later missions with the rover, they literally went miles away from the lander. The guys 'presumes' on the video it is the landing site, but it may not be.


I don't presume anything. It's written in the book. :laugh: Surely if you want to make a book of "dramatic images" then surely you would include the landing module in your 360 degree shot of the landing site



TaintedSoul said:


> I still dont get why... Yes we went to the moon but hey look at these pics it's the moon but it's not the moon we felt you would rather see our version of the moon.
> 
> Load of crap, give me the original photo anyday.


I'm with you mate. I don't see the point in editing the images at all. Unless you got somehting to hide. If I buy a pictoral book of the moon I wanna see real images not edited [email protected]

Ok answer me this......If they didi in fact land on the moon on the 16th July 1969 (And this was an incredible feat remember that was extremely difficult and dangerous) then why was it they went back and landed on the moon only 4 months later on the 14th November 1969? Did Neil Armstrong forget his keys?

Another thing I'd also like to know....I'll admit I haven't actually looked into it but it just came into my head so I guess the Scientists on here can answer me......How did the rover move around on the moon? Was it electric? Like I say I cba to look and find out myself and would be interested in someone shedding some light for me


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

I meant the guys on the video, actually. I think there are 2 compelling explanations of why the lander wasn't there posted.

The aesthetics are a personal choice up to you guys about whether you want the pics touched up or not. Doesn't seem to be an issue to Cheryl Cole's people. ;o)

Why did we do back, because that was the plan. Every 6 months until further notice. The American taxpayer would never have bought 20 Billion dollars for 1 trip in the planning stage. It was planned out to Apollo 20, but they stopped at 17 and recycled the parts already built into Skylab.

The rover was battery powered yes. Remember, in 1/6 gravity, much easier to push people about......


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

spaynter said:


> I meant the guys on the video, actually. I think there are 2 compelling explanations of why the lander wasn't there posted.
> 
> The aesthetics are a personal choice up to you guys about whether you want the pics touched up or not. Doesn't seem to be an issue to Cheryl Cole's people. ;o)
> 
> ...


So they planned on going every 6 months but couldn't wait to release the next Apollo episode, sorry I mean mission, and went after 4 months. Don't understand how they could just go up every few months back then when nowadays NASA say that we gotta wait 'til 2018 'til they can do it again?

Hell that rover must have had some serious batteries on it then because the electric cars of today have huge batteries and run out in no time at all. We're talking 40 years ago so NASA are miles ahead of the electric car market then ??


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

GunnaGetBig said:


> So they planned on going every 6 months but couldn't wait to release the next Apollo episode, sorry I mean mission, and went after 4 months. Don't understand how they could just go up every few months back then when nowadays NASA say that we gotta wait 'til 2018 'til they can do it again?
> 
> Hell that rover must have had some serious batteries on it then because the electric cars of today have huge batteries and run out in no time at all. We're talking 40 years ago so NASA are miles ahead of the electric car market then ??


There are launch 'windows' available. Gotta to be not too cold, clear weather (although Apollo 12 was hit by lightning) and, all importantly, the moon has to be at the right angle to the sun. The landed in the lunar 'morning' so the shadows were helpful. Remember a lunar 'day' is an Earth month. So, 2 trips per 12 months (average every 6 months). Some 4 months apart and some more than that. It's not further grounds for disbelief.

Remember 1/6 gravity and no air resistance man. I could DL 1200kg on the moon (with a belt ;o)). The battery didn't need to be too powerful and only had to last ~ 20 hours and do about 40 miles. Hardly shocking technology as the command module was powered by H & O fuel cells which were state of the art. One of 'em blew up on Apollo 13....


----------



## Team1 (Apr 3, 2008)

GunnaGetBig said:


> I don't presume anything. It's written in the book. :laugh: Surely if you want to make a book of "dramatic images" then surely you would include the landing module in your 360 degree shot of the landing site


Makes perfect sense why the lander wouldnt be there. WHoever took the pics had wanted a full 360deg panoramic view from the landing site. whats the point in fcuking that up by having the landing craft in it

or oyu could say that they wanted to get a view of what it looked like in every direction from the exact landing site...thus a panormaic right round about it.

This is the kind of evidence thats put forward for a conspiracy!!! All the scientific points have been well covered and now its down to utter desperation and silly stuff :lol:


----------



## GunnaGetBig (Dec 14, 2008)

Makes perfect sense to you but not to me. Seems a lot of hassle sidestepping round the lander to get a 360 shot when you could stand a bit further away and just turn 360 on the spot. oh well


----------

