Did We Land On The Moon?

adriantc

Jan 31 2005, 12:35 PM

Did we land on the moon?

We take for granted when we hear Neil Armstrong saying "One small step for men, one giant

leap for menkind". But did he step on the moon or he really steped in a giant recording studio in

Aria 51. Some say men landing on the moon was a giant hoax, the most expansive movie ever

made. Why? With a simple search on google you can discover proof of this hoax.
1. American flag flaping on the moon which everybody knows has no atmosfere.
2. Photos made by the astronauts in (NASA says) different locations seem identical.
3. Shadows in the same photos suggest 2 different light sources, but on the moon the sun is the

only light source.
4. No dust present on the moon lander.
5. If you double the speed of the tape with the astronauts walking on the moon, you will see

that they seem to run.
What I have told you are not the only proofs, only the most important one. I suggest you

watch the documentary made by an american tv channel (NBC not sure thought). After seeing

that documentary I am wondering if we really landed on the moon...

Mario

Jan 31 2005, 12:48 PM

Well its contradictory. Depends, right now i believe that we've landed on the moon.I've heard from both sides and I still think we landed on the moon. There are some weird things about the pictures.

googlue

Jan 31 2005, 12:56 PM

All that is really strange. I have seen those movies and have wondered how the American Flag could flap on Moon?

But I have never been to Moon, so I do not know whether the American Flag can flap there... May be we can try that with some other Nation's flag and check whether they also flap? You know, things are always different for Americans...

But will somebody, as a part of a respected organization have the guts to cook up such a story and stage a hoax? Just for this reason I believe that man has been to the Moon... Now I have heard that India is planning a mission to the Moon... I am pretty sure that they cannot stage a hoax of this nature, Americans will be the first to trip them over

If they succeed, then we will be certain that man has really set foot on Moonland!

s243a

Jan 31 2005, 03:38 PM

QUOTE

1. American flag flaping on the moon which everybody knows has no atmosfere.

Maybe the flag was especially designed to look like it was flapping. If no air, perhaps some floating dust could agitate a flag a little.

QUOTE

2. Photos made by the astronauts in (NASA says) different locations seem identical.

Identical? The moon does not have the most interesting landscape.

QUOTE

3. Shadows in the same photos suggest 2 different light sources, but on the moon the sun is the only light source.

Perhaps the camera.

QUOTE

4. No dust present on the moon lander.

Would you see it in a black and white phtoto?

QUOTE

5. If you double the speed of the tape with the astronauts walking on the moon, you will see that they seem to run.

Of course the look like the are running. They are bouncing up and down that is what bad runners do.
[quote]
What I have told you are not the only proofs, only the most important one. I suggest you

watch the documentary made by an american tv channel (NBC not sure thought).[/qutoe]
And you believe it because it is on TV? I find it hard to believe that we have to have this debate but I am willing to look at the pictures. Provide links from the NASA site and not your quack documentary.

adriantc

Jan 31 2005, 06:40 PM

I should tell you that the documentary in not a hoax. If you would have watched it you would realize that the landing on the moon was a giant hoax. You can see in the movie objects castings shadows in 2 different parts. Is there anyone here who is able to explain that?
NASA. There was someone on the documentary representing NASA. He just sad that they landed on the moon. He never sad anything like..guys, objects cast shadows in different parts because... He just sad no not true.

burgen

Jan 31 2005, 07:01 PM

the one thing I don't understand is if we have landed the moon 30 years ago, why wouldn't we do it again in recent years? Back then there is tight competetion between US and USR, you would wonder if US can land on the moon, USR would do it also, given that they have the technology at the same level as US back then, but they didn't.

whyme

Jan 31 2005, 11:51 PM

Hee's some evdience which I think, is quite contradictory to the fact that we landed on the moon.

- When the U.S declared war on Vietnam, many Americans opposed to this.

- It was so unpopular that the US needed a diversion from this event.

- They decided the "make history" and "land on the moon" so the Americans would be diverted from the war. (Like how George W. Bush diverted American's away from Bin Laden, by insiting that Iraq was more dangerous, but tyhat's another story.)

- After the war ended, the moon landings also promptly ended

- An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, in these temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.

- About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

- There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.

- When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched.

- And how many years has it been now, roughly 30 years, and why haven't we gone back to the moon? NASA says it's too darned expensive, but some how the can afford billions to send robots to mars and jupiter? Confused

- lastly when one of the moon landers, Buzz Aldrin, was asked to legally swear that he had been onto the moon, he REFUSED to do it.

It's up to you to decide what's right and what's wrong.

Here are links that show flaws and errors in which NASA claims to be REAL photographs on the moon, as well as ALOT more information on the hoax's

http://batesmotel.8m.com/

http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~akapadia/moon.html

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

A simple search on Yahoo, Google, or Dogpile for "Moon landings will show you more results for fake moon landings than actual information on the moon landings.

grrlfromoz

Feb 1 2005, 02:43 AM

QUOTE(burgen @ Jan 31 2005, 07:01 PM)

I was just wondering that same thing -- why haven't we gone back? They learned all they need to know just on that one trip? Maybe we haven't gone back because it's of the American mind that we should always be doing things "bigger and better." Consumerism and materialsim rule in our Post Modern society. What I'm saying is, maybe the moon is too simple. We have to go way out there to Jupiter or whatever to prove that we're interested in space exploration. (Doesn't seem much to explore if we can actually SEE the moon from our backyards - doesn't seem so impressive and pictures are always in black and white anyway, not nearly so impressive as the red on Mars

)

I hadn't even ever concidered that we hadn't gone to the moon until I saw that documentary. (I think I saw it on the local PBS station.) The documentary made a pretty convincing arguement I thought.

no9t9

Feb 1 2005, 03:32 AM

I didn't see this so called "documentary" about the alleged fake moon landing. But it is totally ridiculous to say that it never happened. It's almost as bad as those freaks that say the holocaust never happened.

It is not hard at all to send someone to the moon. It requires a lot of details and it is risky but it is very possible (and DID happen). Just some things that I thought were pretty ridiculous...

I would like to point out again that I did not watch the documentary...

Flag Flapping Issue - things are able to move in a vacuum. When they stuck the flag into the moon, they undoubtedly caused the flapping. It likely continued to flap for a while since they were in a vacuum and the moon's gravity is so low. There are much less forces there that will stop the flapping.

Lighting - How do you know the "other" light source was not from the vehicle they brought to the moon, the light of the video camera, the flash bulb in the picture camera, the moon lander, their space suit, or any other million possibilities? They did have flash lights and light bulbs in the 60's you know. Finally, the Earth is also a source of light!! Just as the moon is a source of light on earth, the opposite is true.

Crater under LEM - I don't know what they landed on. Could have been solid rock beneath that moon dust.

Dust on Lander - First, pictures may not pick it up. Second, gravity on the moon is much less than earth. Even on earth, dust takes a LONG TIME to settle. It would take even longer on the moon.

Temperature - On the cold side away from the sun or atleast partially away, is nowhere near 280F. Temperature on the moon ranges from about -170C to 100C. Plus, they have space suits that are thermal barriers.

30 years since last moon landing - it IS expensive and there probably isn't much incentive to go back. They brought back tons of samples and the moon really isn't that interesting. They WILL be back, just a matter of time.

adriantc

Feb 1 2005, 05:19 AM

I never sad we can't go back now (if we were there in the first place). But still:

2nd light source in the photos coundn't be a light bulb, flash or something because they didn't have flashs on their cameras (and by the way the cameras are much to hard to manipule since they are attached to the suits... the question is how did they take that cristal clear, well focused photos). Even if we would have only the photo with the 2nd light source that would have convinced me that we've never been to the moon

Latest Entries

Munchie

May 14 2005, 03:08 PM

If we havent actually landed on the moon yet, how do we know there should of been dust on the moon lander?

but yeh statement 3 "Shadows in the same photos suggest 2 different light sources, but on the moon the sun is the
only light source." seems a really good point

~ Munchie ~

bjrn

May 14 2005, 02:50 PM

I can't believe no one has posted this quote yet (it's from a comment to a story on Slashdot). I don't have much to add to the discussion here in itself, but I just thought that this quote had to be posted, it's just priceless

QUOTE

It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

allabout42

May 13 2005, 03:35 AM

QUOTE(adriantc @ Jan 31 2005, 04:35 AM)

1. American flag flaping on the moon which everybody knows has no atmosfere.
2. Photos made by the astronauts in (NASA says) different locations seem identical.
3. Shadows in the same photos suggest 2 different light sources, but on the moon the sun is the
only light source.
4. No dust present on the moon lander.
5. If you double the speed of the tape with the astronauts walking on the moon, you will see

Wow I never thought about this. It kinda does make you wonder though....

Wyllt

May 5 2005, 06:25 PM

Ok, this is just plain silly.

All of these arguments are ancient and pointless.

"Waving Flag"
There are a multitude of possiblilites to explain this, and they have been covered in this thread over and over again. Suffice it to say, there is a reason why it APPEARS to be waving in the non existant wind.

"No dust on the lander"
Again, this has been covered, but I will repeat it, dust takes a very long time to settle, and a picture would not necessarily show dust, no matter how clear it was.

"Second Light Source"
Again, it has been covered, but again it bears repeating, EARTHSHINE!!! The earth IS a light source.

"Van Allen belt radiation"
There are several methods through the Van Allen belt wich minimizes radiation, it is easy enough to avoid the heaviest areas of the radiation belt, and this is exactly what the appolo missions did. Also it DOES NOT require 2m of lead shielding to protect against said radiation. This is an urban legend that is completely false, the fact is 2m of shielding would probably protect you from a nuclear blast, and do you really believe that the van allen belt is putting out THAT much radiation? The Radiation in the Van Allen belt is not the same as electomagnetic radiation, and if I recall correctly metal is fairly useless against particle radiation, the shielding of choice is I belive polyetheline (sp?), back in the appolo age they used something else, but there are numerous materials that work just fine and dandy.

I have seen a similar documentary, and it is compelling, but the arguments are made by people who don't have a basic understanding of physics, and NASA doesn't bother refuting them because they are silly arguments. That are not fully researched.

There I believe that I have refuted all the evidence agains the lunar landing. If people still choose to believe something they saw on a deliberately biased documentary I refer them to Chariots of the Gods. Or if that reference was a little vague let me relate a little story my Grade 11 physics teacher told us about analysing data to "prove" something. One of his students (or so he claimed, personally I believe it was probably him) proved conclusively that three hole punched lined paper was a message from Alpha Centauri. His argument was extremely interesting, but of no real value, in his paper he demonstrated that by taking the length of the paper and multiplying it by the number of lines, and then doing something about the radius of the holes you end up with pretty damn close to the exact distance from here to Alpha Centauri. Very interesting little paper, I read it, quite amusing and throughly convincing, however you then had to realize all the crunching he had to do to fit the theory. When you start out with a theory you are already convinced is true it is pretty easy to skew the evidence in your favour.

elevenmil

May 5 2005, 05:52 PM

Come on people, we landed on the moon. I hate these arguments that people make, but the initial evidence presented makes it valid I guess. To me, space has zero gravity. When you put up a flag at zero gravity, any motion that flag gained by its initial movement would remain constant, thus the flag would wave in space. I don't know if that is scientifically substantial validity, but that's my view...

ADD REPLY / Got an Opinion!	a humble request :-)	RAPID SEARCH!	Free Hosting	[X]
Express your Opinions, Thoughts or Contribute your information that might help someone here. Ask your Doubts & Queries to get answers.. "Together, We enlight each other!"	Register FREE for AD-FREE forum, Create your own topics, Ask Questions, track topics, setup subscriptions & notifications and Get a Free Website w/ Email and FTP.		500MB Space No Ads, CPanel, FTP, PHP, MySQL, EMails - 100% FREE

Did We Land On The Moon? - Did we land on the moon?

Did We Land On The Moon? - Did we land on the moon?

Latest Entries