#0 · Aug 15, 2002, 04:40 · clandestino
I reckon :
we did land on the moon,
99.9% of conspiracy theories are very interesting, but untrue
But after watching the program, I'm only 96.5% convinced we landed :
a) the flag ...."its fluttering in the breeze, but there's no wind on the moon! ", the arguments that I have heard FOR th landing are : It was not fluttering, there was a piece of wire inserted into the top of the flag.....the movement in the flag was a result of the astronaut screwing the pole into the moons surface.
b) 2 x speed up the films of the landing (the astronauts bouding around, the moon buggies) ....and they just look like a bunch of guys wearing spacesuits out for a jog in the park !!! hmmmm.
What does everyone else think ? Am i right to be sceptical ? or is this conspiracy theory part of the 0.1% that are true ?
Mark
#1 · Aug 15, 2002, 05:36 · WalkerInTheWoods
#2 · Aug 15, 2002, 06:17 · cainam_nazier
But as with all conspiracies, there is no solid hold in your hand proof, either way as a matter of fact.
David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.
http://www.prepaidliving.com/vip/David127385
#3 · Aug 15, 2002, 06:51 · clandestino
#4 · Aug 15, 2002, 07:16 · Tisha
Tisha
"As Above, So Below"
#5 · Aug 15, 2002, 08:16 · clandestino
you gonna take the NASA job ?
#6 · Aug 15, 2002, 11:04 · Tisha
If it doesn't work out, at least I get warm fuzzies that they wanted me. Sigh!
Tisha
"As Above, So Below"
#7 · Aug 15, 2002, 12:44 · rodentmouse
someone told me whos read Neil Armstrongs biography is that whilst on the moon, they recieved a transmission from an unknown source telling them to "go away and never come back"
I hate the fact that America placed there flag up there as if to "claim" it. Like its some sort of race/competition, despite "one small step for MAN"
#8 · Aug 15, 2002, 13:10 · WalkerInTheWoods
quote:This was a race. This was brought on mostly out of competition because of the cold war. The Russians were the first into space so the US wanted to be the first at some other greatness in space travel. What is greater than reaching out and touching the moon. I am sure it does not seem like something great to us today, but at the time I bet it was quiet an accomplishment. I cannot imagine what it was like living in a world that man had not been to the moon. By the way, when is the last time that anyone has been to the moon?
Originally posted by rodentmouse:
I hate the fact that America placed there flag up there as if to "claim" it. Like its some sort of race/competition, despite "one small step for MAN"
#9 · Aug 15, 2002, 14:25 · Tisha
Don't tell me there is nothing left to study up there. Scientists have been playing with the balls of fruit flies for decades and it seems they're STILL learning things about reproduction, and spending millions in grant money on them to boot. So there must be TONS of things to learn about on the moon. If we'd really gone to the moon, I figure, billions of dollars of grant money would be spent per year, still, doing one gravity test after another after another. That's just the way we do things, us humans.
Also, compare our more recent space odysseys to that one supposed 1968 trip to the moon. What compares to it? Nothing, my friends, even after decades of technology advances! I think getting us humans in and out of the boundaries of our earth's outer atmosphere (without killing ourselves) has proven, in reality, to be just toooo hard.
So call me a skeptic. I'm open minded, willing to be convinced. Right now I'm just not. I think the way to visit outer space is via OBE. No muss, no fuss.
Tisha
"As Above, So Below"
#10 · Aug 15, 2002, 14:46 · Tom
#11 · Aug 15, 2002, 16:15 · A-M
The way they described it, it sounded exactly the same as what RB calls 'strobe effect' in his book (and what I experience too before going to sleep). As you all probably know, his explanation of this phenomenon is surplus energy 'strobing' from the frontal chakra to the crown chakra.
According to the researchers it was due to cosmic radiation of dying supernova's, which penetrates everything, including your head/eyeballs (!)
(and they showed some impressive microscope slides of damaged rocket material to back this theory up)
Do both forms of energy (cosmic and 'extra-physical') simply cause the same effect in the eyes or is there more to this ??
A-M
#12 · Aug 15, 2002, 18:32 · General-Army
Every man has their fear of dieing, whether it be of pain or not knowing where you are going, however, mine is the family, memories, and good times i leave behind.
#13 · Aug 16, 2002, 00:33 · cainam_nazier
David Rogalski
cainam_nazier@hotmail.com
I am he who walks in the light but is masked by the shadows.
http://www.prepaidliving.com/vip/David127385
#14 · Aug 16, 2002, 05:01 · clandestino
Tom, I like your style ! maybe sticking a mini soviet union flag just under the US one would have been a laugh for Neil Armstrong and his buddies !
Sure, it might have provoked an international incident - but it would have been a laugh none the less !
#15 · Aug 18, 2002, 23:46 · Ashfo
Some basic pieces of information....
a) The flag fluttering: There was nobody near the flag, it was waving, not turning around like someone was screwing it in
b) There is no stars: There is no stars in much of the footage
c) There is no blast crater or any sign of rock movement on the moon even though a jet engine just stopped igniting right above it.
d) Footprints are made on dust which should have been blown away by the rocket
e) Double the speed and they are bouncing along and the moon buggy is acting under normal gravity conditions.
f) There is so much radiation out there its estimated you would need 6feet of concrete or 2feet of lead to just stay safe (this is why the Russians gave up - they realised it was undoable.)
g) The camera position of neil armstrong walking out of the lander is impossible - there is no way a camera could have been in that position.
h) Neil armstrong is lit up in some form of lighting even though he should be in the shade from the lander (the lander around him is black)
i) In many of the shots some rocks, people and objects have two shadows. Obviously this is from fake lighting.
j) They are seen running over the same piece of land twice in supposedly two different landings 30km apart.
k) There is a piece of desert in the Nevada that looks identical to an area on "the moon". This doesn't sound substantial, but you haven't seen the likeness.
l) Something like seven of the programs 15-odd prime astronauts were killed in suspicous circumstances because they commented before their death on speaking out and hating hiding things to their family etc.
m) I forget the name of the event, but the rocket that ignited on the ground was very suspicous. I cant remember exact details, but it took the rescue teams way too long to get there and no investigation was ever carried out (the module is in a bunker in one of the top secert air force base areas.)
That's just what I remember off the top of my head.
- Ashfo
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"You are First Cause. You are a portion of the great energy. And you, yourselves are thought manifestations of what you think you are."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
#16 · Aug 19, 2002, 14:00 · Avix
Even the person whom made the cameras for the suits said they cannot take such good quality pictures. I guess only one real way to know...someone OBE up there and tell us
#17 · Aug 19, 2002, 14:02 · Shayde
To many stars, not enough sky.
#18 · Aug 19, 2002, 14:04 · Shayde
To many stars, not enough sky.
#19 · Aug 19, 2002, 14:24 · Rob
Shayde - have you ever tried using a torch in full sunlight? You cannot even see its light, and that is after the sun has gone through our atmosphere. On the moon the light of the sun would be incredibly bright, no artificial light would stand a chance. And why bother taking huge powerful torches with you when you are going somewhere it never gets dark? Further, on the lighting thing, shadows from the sun always lie parellel to eachother for obvious reasons. However, on many of the "moon landing" photos the shadows converge to a point just off screen. I mean, come on....
Umm lets see...
Oh yeah when the lander took off it went straight up and left no gas trail after it. It was powered I think by a hydrogen/oxygen mix, as most are, which combines to make water. This would then crystalise and leave a proper big vapour/ice trail but there was none. You can just imagine a little moon lander model being pulled up on strings! The acceleration looked decidedly dodgy to me too, but I can't remember that well.
The lander was tested on earth and was found to be completely useless and impossible to pilot, let alone land. I know they crashed one in tests, probably a few. By the time Mr Armstrong got to the moon he still hadn't successfully piloted one...
err....what else let me see.....something about the videos being shoulder held and yet there is no shaking of the camera, even when it was apparently moving.
And there was something else about the photos, can't remember too well now
anyway Ashfo got most the points - good work! But haven't we all had this discussion before?
#20 · Aug 19, 2002, 14:45 · Shayde
Can't remember who said it, but they said that the first launching was probley a fake. I wouldn't put it past the US government (my goverment) to do some thing like that just so they can win the space race (and look good during the cold war.) The truth is, since then we most likley have gone to the moon. The flag is there on the moon.
To many stars, not enough sky.
#21 · Aug 20, 2002, 08:07 · Tisha
Tisha
"As Above, So Below"
#22 · Aug 20, 2002, 12:41 · General-Army
Every man has their fear of dieing, whether it be of pain or not knowing where you are going, however, mine is the family, memories, and good times i leave behind.
#23 · Aug 20, 2002, 14:35 · Shayde
To many stars, not enough sky.
#24 · Aug 21, 2002, 19:41 · muzza
I'm still undecided as to whether we have or have not been to the moon...
-- Muzza
#25 · Aug 22, 2002, 04:52 · WalkerInTheWoods
Some of you sound just like the people that refuse to believe that OBEs are real.
#26 · Aug 23, 2002, 11:09 · Frank
Yours,
Frank
#27 · Aug 24, 2002, 10:15 · seekenergyaz
I used to read a lot of newsgroups and remember one guy saying that the whole we-didn't-land-on-the-moon movement was started by the same people who ran the earth-is-flat movement. After all, a trip to the moon where a round earth was seen would be the death of flat earth ideas.
This origin makes sense to me though, since the first time I ever heard anyone claim that the moon missions were faked was on a TV program some 20 years ago or better (called "Real People" which often featured unusual people or people with unusual ideas). The featured guy was a believer in a flat earth who had some kind of organization going to promote this idea. Since, in his mind, the earth being flat was a given, then also in his mind the moon missions had to be faked.
I also heard recently that somebody's website had a good set of refutations of the "fake landing points." I think it might be Richard C. Hoagland's website but I'm not sure. A lot of folks would consider his ideas strange too, but in my mind not nearly as strange as the idea of a flat earth.
#28 · Aug 26, 2002, 03:04 · k2sixx
As for the initial landing, I have no argument to prove it false or otherwise.
#29 · Aug 27, 2002, 09:31 · liefmichael
flag: it has a piece of rigid material inserted along the top of the flag, apparently not all the way, theres no wind on the moon... how could we see it otherwise...
lighting: the most important point to remember is that the moon itself is very reflective, part of its makeup in the dust. (which is why the moon lights our earth at night..)
no stars: go outside with your camera and take a picture with a flash of the sky. no stars... the exposure is too quick, to get the stars in the pic you need longer exposure which would cause everything else to flare out
gravity: never heard this one, but ok... say you do double the speed of footage and its normal speed, what happens if you actually had footage of low gravity movement and sped it up? it would look like our earth gravity...
the moon does look very similar up close over most of it, what else is there apart from craters, dust and rocks? and yes, some places in the desert would come very close to looking like the moon (which means absolutely nothing, unless youre paranoid...)
you americans and your consipiracy theories. do you not think the russians would have been tracking it on radar and would have been the first to tell the world that they didnt actually leave orbit? what about australia being used to pick up the radio from the spacecraft, which was where they were told it was... not in some wierd orbit.
look at the facts and make an observation, or look at a theory and make up facts.
just my thoughts, as it was fresh in my mind. (and i didnt actually go so i cant say they did or didnt)
peace
lief
#30 · Aug 27, 2002, 14:34 · Rob
"flag: it has a piece of rigid material inserted along the top of the flag, apparently not all the way, theres no wind on the moon... how could we see it otherwise..."
So? It is obvious it would need to be rigid in some way. But I am told the flag was fluttering - ie moving on its own, with no wind...Can't remember myself though.
"lighting: the most important point to remember is that the moon itself is very reflective, part of its makeup in the dust. (which is why the moon lights our earth at night..)"
Stand in the desert and you will only get one shadow. The reflections off the ground would be random and the only possible thing they could do would be to lower the contrast between the shady and light areas. The main shadow from the sun would be massively brighter than any reflections, just like on earth. This does not explain the only shadows being cast converging just off screen, or double shadows (both sets converging). Perhaps if you had a huge mirror, but otherwise forget it.
"no stars: go outside with your camera and take a picture with a flash of the sky. no stars... the exposure is too quick, to get the stars in the pic you need longer exposure which would cause everything else to flare out"
No idea, can't say, but you certainly should see stars in the video footage even if you are right. I would like to test this though.
"gravity: never heard this one, but ok... say you do double the speed of footage and its normal speed, what happens if you actually had footage of low gravity movement and sped it up? it would look like our earth gravity... "
No! Of course not! Gravity on the moon is what, 1/3rd of earth gravity - that means you would be jumping 3 times as high. Well, I would anyway! Also even if they decided not to jump so high, they would be able to jump much further forwards with each step, having much more time to glide. The video would not be the same as a slowed down one from earth.
"the moon does look very similar up close over most of it, what else is there apart from craters, dust and rocks? and yes, some places in the desert would come very close to looking like the moon (which means absolutely nothing, unless youre paranoid...)"
If you are referring to the two pictures supposedly miles apart which were of the same landscape, no they were exactly the same piece of land down to the last little lump of rock, you can superimpose them and show they are the same place (only I think one has a moon lander and the other doesn't...not sure though). Again, if you took one picture of a desert on earth I guarentee you could spend your entire life searching for another piece of land which looked exactly the same and die a very unhappy (and lonely!) man.
"you americans and your consipiracy theories. do you not think the russians would have been tracking it on radar and would have been the first to tell the world that they didnt actually leave orbit? what about australia being used to pick up the radio from the spacecraft, which was where they were told it was... not in some wierd orbit."
don't think the ruskies had that advanced radar, and if they did it would more likely be pointing at the earth. Dunno about the aussies. And I am english thanks!
Any more ideas would be welcomed though!
Really when you look at it, there is so much evidence to say we didn't go, and none of it can be seriously refuted. However if anyone would like to furnish me with a quality website which attempts to do so I would enjoy trying to tear it apart! I did see a NASA guy trying to say that of course we went, but he had no arguments to refute the conspiracy ones.
Lol the first time I saw something on the net claiming the moon landings were a hoax I just laughed and thought "yeah good one, muppit freaks...". Badly blinkered as I was, and most people are.
laters!
#31 · Aug 28, 2002, 05:18 · WalkerInTheWoods
Inguma, anyone can pick anything apart if they wish to do so. I do not see anything contructive about that. On the other hand looking at something with an unbias opinion to find the truth is much more helpful.
#32 · Aug 28, 2002, 11:10 · Rob
I prefer tearing into both sides of an argument. Then weighing up, and the strongest wins. I cannot pick holes in the theories which say that the moon landing is faked, and I have seen the evidence in documentrys etc. Although to be fair it is easier to say why we didn't do something than saying we did, if you catch my drift. As for faked photos and evidence etc, well this evidence has been around since before techy computers.
I'll admit that I err to the side of conspiracies naturally, but I always try and objectively look for the truth and enjoy slapping myself when my preconceptions are destroyed. Besides, I wasn't being entirely serious. Mostly it amuses me that we didn't go there, the biggest hoax ever. lol.
#33 · Aug 29, 2002, 20:21 · Cylentpanthur
MEOW
#34 · Aug 30, 2002, 04:37 · WalkerInTheWoods
I clicked on the link here at work and it said it is blocked because of being Sexually Expliit, Drugs/Alcohol, and Gambling. Where did you send me??? LOL Our firewall is screwy.
#35 · Aug 30, 2002, 11:26 · Cylentpanthur
MEOW
#36 · Aug 30, 2002, 13:29 · Tom
#37 · Sep 01, 2002, 07:39 · liefmichael
there is a difference between having blinkers on and not being a conspiracy theorist. im open to argument but it has to be better than suppositions about physics on the moon when no one has actually been there anyway? there is a instrument set up on the moon from which if you have a laser and the correct equipment you can bounce a laser off and measure the distance (so ive read on a astronomy website, they could be in on it too)
#38 · Sep 01, 2002, 13:51 · Cylentpanthur
quote:Somehow I don't follow the logic in either of these statements. What would be the point in asking if they had gone if you've already decided that they didn't. If you won't accept a "yes" answer, then you're no longer asking a question.
Originally posted by liefmichael:
the thing is, if we asked anyone who was actually involved in the *alleged* (lol) moon landing if it actually occured and they said yes... of course they are lying because its one big conspiracy and if they said no... it proves everything. ... I can't remember which one it was, which proves it doesn't exist
And the second statement! Does this mean everything you forget now no longer exists? My question is, if it works like that, does something not exist until you "remember" it, or does it just disappear after you forget?
If you could explain, that'd be nice. Thanks.
MEOW
#39 · Sep 03, 2002, 23:48 · Oliver
Heres a website that a friend sent me that a friend sent me that pretty much knocks down everything that the fox show said that supported the landing being a fake.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
I dont actually have an opinion on weather it was faked or not. I dont actually regard it as THAT important, but im sure if the first one was faked then they have been there since. But this site is very very convincing that it was real.
Oliver
#40 · Sep 04, 2002, 08:12 · liefmichael
simplified: Sarcasm. if there is proof we went to the moon, conspiracy theorists would say it is faked, and if there is proof we didnt go to the moon, they were right.
"I can't remember which one it was, which proves it doesn't exist"
simplified: Sarcasm again. in my experience, For people who believe in theories such as this, and even more extreme theories, the proof doesnt have to be reasonably good, it has to be absolutely watertight. This is usually pretty hard as life doesnt take place in strictly controlled laboratory conditions.
I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, so I am slightly biased on the subject. I believe the website mentioned a few posts earlier was the one I read, and it was also the first mention I had ever seen of the moon landing being faked. I must say I laughed harder than I had for a long time.
#41 · Sep 04, 2002, 08:29 · clandestino
after reading
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
I'm now 100% sure that we did ! that's a relief.....
(what worries me though about conspiracy theories is how easy it is to be taken in by them....as i read through another post on this site "the truth about 9/11", I'm ashamed to say I was actually taken in by bits of that too)
#42 · Sep 04, 2002, 10:01 · WalkerInTheWoods
clandestino, science is one thing, politics is something else entirely. LOL
#43 · Sep 04, 2002, 22:52 · BDHugh
#44 · Sep 12, 2002, 06:15 · amcturbo
I've started reading the dowload "A Lawyer Presents the Case For the Afterlife" (see http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/file_library.asp ... Ebooks) and found the section on Apollo 14 astronaut, Ed Miller, to be intriguing ... enough that I searched for MORE INFORMATION regarding his "experience" on the Moon. Here's a link with some more details about it ...
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/edmitch.html
Cheers!
Greg Taylor
"Whatever consciousness may be, it's not a small thing" - Ingo Swann
"Oh, I... ain't got no ... body" - David Lee Roth (Van Halen)