fake landing on the moon

Author

Message

Home < Conspiracy Theory Zone ~ fake landing on the moon

Guest

Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 3:39 am

you have all prob heard of it. the moon landing was a scam. it was actually staged. from the reflexion in the helmet to the shadow on the ground. www.batesmotel.8m.com will tell u more.

Guest

Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 3:41 am

Quote: Originally Posted by scammers you have all prob heard of it. the moon landing was a scam. it was actually staged. from the reflexion in the helmet to the shadow on the ground. www.batesmotel.8m.com will tell u more.
do you want me to go through this nonsense picture by picture and explain why this guy doesn't know what he's talking about?

Guest

Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 3:51 am

Quote:
On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's
This is simply explained: the area mentioned is sloped.

Guest

Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 3:55 am

Quote: if you look in areas 6 and J , you will again see no stars. In area K you will notice that one side of the LEM in covered in shadow, but somehow the symbol of the US flag in illuminated. This very well could have been a touch up job
There are also no stars seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station and Earth observation photos. Cameras used for imaging these things are set for quick shutter speeds in order not to over-expose the film for the brightly lit daylight scenes. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film. (Science fiction movies and television shows confuse this issue by depicting the stars as visible in space under all lighting conditions.) Stars were easily seen by every Apollo mission crew except for the ill-fated Apollo 13 (they couldn't see the stars due to the fact that oxygen and water vapor created a haze around the spacecraft). Stars were used for navigation purposes and were occasionally also seen through cabin windows when the conditions allowed.

Guest

Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 4:05 am

Quote: This is a picture of Alan Bean holding up a Special Environmental Examiner Container. This picture was taken off a camera that was strapped to Conrad's chest. If the camera was attached to Conrad's chest, the top of Bean's helmet L should not be in this picture.
This is utter nonsense, there is clearly a handle on the camera for the purpose of swiveling and attachment/detachment of the camera. Not to mention the fact that Conrad is clearly on higher ground.
Quote:
All of the shadows reflected in Bean's visor M are going off in separate directions, not in parallel lines like they should be.

If you will look at the Environmental sampler that Al Bean is holding, N , The reflection is coming from a light source other than the sun, but it is possible that light is being reflected off the space suit.
Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources; the Sun, Earth and the Moon itself. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple expectations of the hoax believers. More significantly, perspective comes into play. This effect leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found.

And why should they be going off in parallel lines? The astronaut's visor is spherical in shape which badly distorts the images seen reflected in it. Check the image of Buzz Aldrin presented earlier in this collection and you will see at least 4 discrete shadows visible there, and they behave in a similar fashion to those reflected in Bean's visor. Also note the distortion of the LM's leg
Quote: There is a strange anomaly in the sky 7 , It is yet to be determined what that might be.
Lens flare, there are tons of them in moon photography, and everyday photography.

Guest

Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 4:08 am

Quote:
In our last picture, I would like to direct your attention to the circled portion of the screen. These Lunar Rover tracks are quite well defined, don't you agree? Well, the fact is, you need a mixture of a compound, and water, to make such defined lines. I don't know if that idea is so convincing, but I assure you, this next one is.
The lunar dust is very fine and adhers to boots and anything else despite its lack of water. It clumps together in the form of any pattern imprinted on it. No need for water to make it do this. Try imprinting a coarse object into a pile of dry flour or dry dirt. You will find that it tends to work similarly despite its being dry. Similarly, you can easily see shoe prints, tire tracks, animal tracks, etc., in dry dirt here on Earth - without any water to help.
Quote: If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?
That's a film artifact from that particular double. Here, it's not in the original:

Guest

Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 4:15 am

Quote: An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.
The mid-day temperature on the moon is indeed around 260 degrees Fahrenheit, however, the low temperature in the dark of night is about minus 250 degrees Fahrenheit! The lunar landings and following exploration was done when the sun was low, within a day or so of local sunrise at the landing site at the time of the landing, so that temperatures were actually quite moderate, even after a full 3 days on the lunar surface. The film in the cameras was also kept in magazines that provided some protection from the extreme temperatures even when left in direct sunlight. In a vacuum without an atmosphere to conduct heat, film inside the magazines it was carried in is quite well protected from the heat of direct sunlight.
Quote: 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.
Radiation is a big problem when it comes to space travel and the Earth's magnetic field concentrates this radiation into the Van Allen belts that surround the Earth. No matter what, the Apollo crafts had to go through these belts and there was no way the Apollo crafts could afford to take all the weight of lead shielding with them. So they were bound to be exposed. The question is, just how serious would this exposure be?

What you have to realize that the radiation involved isn't the same kind or intensity as you might get from a nuclear bomb. You don't fall sick and your hair doesn't all fall out. It's been calculated that travelling at speed through the Van Allen belt would result in exposure of 1 rem. Radiation sickness symptoms don't start to show until you get around 25. Once you reach 100 you're going to be ill. 500 and you're probably dead. So the exposure the astronauts received is pretty mild.

But that isn't to say either that it can't do you any harm. Added to the exposure they got actually out on the moon, it is a risk that can't be fully quantified. Who knows what cancers could result from it? Given the choice most people would want to avoid this kind of exposure to radiation. But the astronauts risked it because they thought it was worth it. This, and all the other risks they faced, is what makes them remarkable people.
Quote: There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.
In fact there are many more than "millions" of bits of would be meteors out in space, and they travel at speeds as high as at least 120,000 MPH! Despite the large numbers and high speeds, the space density of these objects is quite low so the average interval between impacts on an astronaut is extremely low. The spacesuits the astronauts wore on the lunar surface had layers designed to stop such small particles (we're talking micron sized bits!) to protect the astronaut.
Quote: If you look at the pictures/video of people on the moon, you will never see more than 3 stars.
Briefly, the images are exposed for the daylight scenes and star images are badly underexposed and therefore not visible. And wait, I thought they didn't show any stars?
Quote: 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.
On the contrary, there are many photographs (1, 2, and 3) which show the disturbance of the lunar soil under or near the Lunar Module.

Also, the expectation of having a blast crater (presumably looking like a fresh impact crater?) under the LM is flawed. Does a garden hose sprayed at high pressure into the dirt create a blast crater? It surely blows the surface dirt in a radial direction and will clear out a small hole, but not a blast crater (like an explosion of dynamite, perhaps?). There is even an Earthly example of a rocket landing on dirt. The DC-X was a test flight program of a vertical takeoff and landing rocket. On one of its last flights, it made an emergency landing outside of the pad area. Despite the hydrogen/oxygen engine producing a thrust of some 60,000 pounds (about 20 times the thrust of the LM descent engine!), the engine produced a mark on the desert floor that was barely recognizable. Given that the descent stage engine bell is about 5 feet across at the bottom, and that thrust of the engine at touchdown was about 3,000 pounds, that blast pressure of the rocket exhaust was only about 1 pound per square inch - not much different from the pressure caused by the weight of an astronaut on the Moon standing on one foot while walking across the surface.

Guest

Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 4:33 am

everybody has there own theorys but i look at it like this. is oj innocent just because a bunch of so called experts can make people believe something is true doesn't mean it really is.there all puppets

Guest

Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 4:41 am

Quote: Originally Posted by scammers everybody has there own theorys but i look at it like this. is oj innocent just because a bunch of so called experts can make people believe something is true doesn't mean it really is.there all puppets
What does O.J. Simpson have to do with the moon landing? What kind kind of logic is that? Are you saying because they couldn't convict O.J. that means the moon landing must have been faked, regardless of Occam's razor?

Remember, you're the one claiming that the moon landing was faked, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it. Seeing as how your claims are of flimsy methodology and skirt scientific fact, they were easy to refute.

You only believe it was faked because you want to, and no amount of legitimacy will shake you of that conviction.

Sometimes people get the wrong idea of what it means to have an "open mind".

Guest

Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 4:50 am

yes that is true. but you have to admit the evidence is shaky in the third picture number 7 lens flare come on. its something

Guest

Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 4:52 am

A lens flare or a blur makes a lot more sense than 'something' that isn't. If all that you're left with as evidence the moon landing was faked is not being able to explain a blur in the corner of one photo, I think the counter-evidence to the claim wins out.

Guest

Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 1:27 am

hey guys, i personally don't think it happened, instead it was staged here on earth, to get more information, my personal report, and some video footage that proves this please goto my website and take a look
Report - http://www.random-heaven.com/anarchy/cons/apollo.htm
Media -
http://www.random-heaven.com/media/vids.htm

Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:34 am

excuse me y'all?........aren't you aware that you can bounce a laser here from the earth and hit the reflector they left there? and there is only one place that will reflect the laser, it's not like you can just hit anywhere........even though the site cannot be seen in the visible spectrum (due to the distance and the length of a light wave, the site it simply too small) the x-ray telescopes can detect the site also?

Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:11 am

I have been reading and reading about this moon-landing controversy. It is easy to see why there is so much controversy.

-----------------------------
NASA claims that they used >30,000 MATLAB simulations of the Rover (594 days and counting) before they actually sent it to Mars for an unmanned landing. Such simulation was simply not available back then. Computers weren't there. Remember punch cards? Read how Mathworks is touting its software as one of the key enablers for this mission.

http://www.mathworks.com/company/ne...une04/mars.html
-----------------------------

We have all seen, how inadequate the american shuttles are in the year 2005. How the tiles are being repaired and NASA is scared to return to Earth. They are holding these "fool-the-americans-only" press conferences. In the mean-time, the soyuz capsules silently go up and come down. No chest-beating, press-conferences, bravado or pride-laundering and no landing claims of any kind either.

Multi-Billion dollar shuttles, multi-million dollar imaging equipment and communications on the ground that just wasn't possible in 1960s or 70s as for that matter. And we are trying to dock with the space station only that is around 300km or so from the Earth.

The flimsy aluminum pod that is shown landing on the moon, wouldn't have survived a fall from 20 feet. Besides how was it able to land without balloons like the Rover did. Thrust only!! Or did it ever, ( i mean the rover also). How did it dock back with the apollo rocket. Are there any pictures of it taken as it was docking. It would have been much easier to take pictures from inside the rockets of a glorious aluminum pod re-docking when perfect pictures can be taken on the moon surface with 'kodak' hardware.
-----------------------------

The above may reveal my ignorance about rocket science. But one thing is clear; Next time, either americans or the Chinese or the Russians go to the moon, the pictures should match the ones we have already seen. Quite a feat! Martians beware! You will be photographed next. Do you have a shadow or not at all?

------------------------------
Fix the tiles, get a glass of cold water and a hair-cut and then hire Spielberg this time. And we are all set for another befitting journey to the moon. One small step for a producer, one giant step for the americans.
brush up on your reading and math while ye people are at it.

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

Ciao

Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:08 am

It's true, WE DID NOT LAND ON THE MOON!!!!

TOO MUCH PROOF

A great example... UFOS and aliens... All made up by the goverment to what, make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and lots of $$$$$$$$$... If anything that got to be the biggest SCAM of all... Landing on the moon, UFOS and aliens.... Damn yankees

All the people that believe this ****t, open your eyes alot more!!!!

All times are GMT

View next topic Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next Scams Talk Forum Index ~ Conspiracy Theory Zone

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Partners LinkDash IndexGuy LinkDiy GotLinks 365Days