Moon Landing A Fake?

[NetSyn]

After reading Remot_access_'s post http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?threadid=203040 on the Paranormal Phenomena it reminded me about sumthin i saw on TV a few times and read some articles on..

Whats this u may ask, well the fact that the moon landing might have been faked and nothing more then a fake moon landing taped on earth by the gov to make us belive that they really went to the moon. Does this sound like its not possible.. well read this info and tell me what u think then..


Lets face it, there isn't really a heapload of evidence that we didn't go to the moon. Why would there be? NASA doesn't WANT evidence that we went to the moon. NASA wants people not to ask questions, and keep living their happy little lives. But here is some evidence that you cannot argue with. My theory is that the moon landing were set on a sound stage, not in space. (Perhaps an Air Force base near San Bernardino, called Norton Air Force Base, where they have the world's largest sound stages under tremendously efficient security).

On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. Shots 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 shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's yet they are by far. http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa2.gif


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 http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa7.gif




There are many more opinions of how it was a fake. Read here http://batesmotel.8m.com/

_NetSyn_

[hot_ice]

I received an email some weeks ago with a word document attachment that showed all these different pictures of light sources and shadows from the 'apparant' moon landing that make it look like a fake (similar pics to the ones you have links of, but many, many more).

This email got me very interested and I searched the topic up in google (aaah...such a great search engine :) ) and I found out info that this question - was the moon landing a fake? - has been floating around ever since it happened. Many people have argued that it was fake, by using the pictures, saying that there are too many light sources and shadows are not consistent. One article that I read (I think from the CNN website) said that NASA had argued that they have 'space rocks' and that scientists have tested them and came to the conclusion that they could not have originated from Earth.

Very interesting topic - I wonder what the truth is??

Greg

[tH3#cL3aN3r]

Very good post, if the Moon landings didn't take place, covering that up is one major security job.
My 4 1/2 cents. :D


Lets face it, there isn't really a heapload of evidence that we didn't go to the moon. Why would there be? NASA doesn't WANT evidence that we went to the moon. NASA wants people not to ask questions, and keep living their happy little lives. But here is some evidence that you cannot argue with. My theory is that the moon landing were set on a sound stage, not in space. (Perhaps an Air Force base near San Bernardino, called Norton Air Force Base, where they have the world's largest sound stages under tremendously efficient security).

The U.S.S.R. would have disputed the U.S.A.'s claim, unless the U.S.S.R. & the U.S. worked something out at the height of the cold war.


On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. Shots 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 shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's yet they are by far.


The Earth will cast reflected light from the Sun onto the moon, as will any light used by the guys there.Then there is light from the Sun & Earth(see above) reflecting of the Lander & other such stuff that would also add to extra weird light.


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 http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa7.gif

No stars, the photogragh's are'nt exposed long enough, You try take a picture of the stars.
Its also daytime on the moon thus the Sun glare will dim the stars a bit.


Then again I may be wrong.

[zepherin]

has anyone ever considered the possibilty that someone just changed a few contrast options in photoshop and resaved it? Might take the better part of 30 minutes

[chsh]

Guys, this debate has been going on for a while, I think it's even a FAQ for sci.physics.astronomy...

Basically, the claims that there are 'too many light sources' are patently wrong, because on the moon, sunlight is a lot stronger.
I'll give you guys some pretty good links, rather than trying to repeat all the points that have been brought up elsewhere.

The one I recommend you all read first is:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
and then the others:
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
http://asia.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/19/nasa.moon/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

[Tedob1]

when we go there, hopefully soon, if there's an american flag there, then its settled.

[Guus]

Hehe, you'd probably carve "Tedob1 was here!" in the sand, wouldn't you? :)

[rcgreen]

I don't think they faked the moon landing,
but today we have such good computer animation
and other image manipulation techniques,
that its only a matter of time before someone
comes up with a really spectacular hoax.

Let's say someone claims he got home video of
a politician messing with under age girl, or taking
money from mafia. People believe what they see.

Even if the hoax is exposed later, what if someone loses
an election over it. You couldn't invalidate an election
just because of a false news story.
:cool:

[hot_ice]

There are a lot of hoax's going around, especially with UFO sightings. Whenever there is a UFO program running on TV, they always show heaps of footage and say that it was a hoax. Too many people are making fake footage, what's the point? What if one day someone actually does record an actual UFO sighting like a flying sourcer or something? Will we then simply dismiss it as a hoax due to all the fake footage we've previously seen?

Same with people who think they have been abducted by aliens. You just don't know whether to believe them or not. Personally I don't think any of them have been adbucted, I don't think any aliens have come to our planet (yet). But there's just so much of these people, what happens when someone really does get adbucted by aliens, will everyone just assume he/she is crazy?

Greg

[NetSyn]

i wouldnt write sumthin like "NetSyn was here" id write like "I Own J00r M00N" or "Use google.com u idiot" or sumthin on thoes lines :)


_NetSYn_

[hot_ice]

"Use google.com u idiot"

HEHE...then everyones questions could be answered by looking up to the sky at the moon!

Greg

[CyberSpyder]

until an independent first hand study is done about the moon landing then we won't know.

[BERBURT]

something else to look at is the video footage and pics
notice there were not and depressions on the moons surface
now u would think that the propellent would at least throw up some dust or something

[chsh]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=212516#post461675) by BERBURT
something else to look at is the video footage and pics
notice there were not and depressions on the moons surface
now u would think that the propellent would at least throw up some dust or something

You might think that if you were operating in an atmosphere, but the moon has no atmosphere. It's all explained at the links I posted above, so try reading up on it. It's rather interesting.

[lord_darkside_x]

i dunno... i think it *could have* been faked. there is no conclusive evidence either way, but it could have easily been shot in a hollywood basement at that time...

[Alcatraz]

If it was a fake, then wouldn't the Soviets have bitched about that? Considering it was the middle of the Cold War...

[valhallen]

some good explinations to some of the points most frequently queried about the moon landing
moon hoax index (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/)

and i used to think it was a def fake - hmmmmm now i wonder :confused:

v_Ln

[nabylbt]

given the political tension of the time, i think that it is impossible for the us to have succeded in pulling off such a hoax and getting away with it...
the soviets where a lot more advance in space tech at that time and they confirmed it .... while i'm sure that they would have loved to reveal the truth ...
by the way they lost the moon race ( they also had a rocket but because of inner political fighting never agreed on the design....)
once again praise google.com

[thesecretfire]

Okay, when I saw the subject line, I almost went into full rant mode, but I'll try and control myself. The first time I saw this on TV, I made notes and went on to counteract every single point made by the program, with the help of a photography buff on a forum. I don't remember all the points, but I'll try and post those I remember

1."There are no stars in the background"
I shouldn't even dignify this with an answer...obviously, you have major glare from the earth and sun

2."American flag waves"
The NASA geeks put springs in it just so that it WOULD wave.

3.Photographic Evidence
I don't remember all of it, but someone online who knew about photography told me that different shadows will be caused by camera positions and elevations of the objects.

4."No rocket exhaust visisble in some shots"
There are plenty of fuels used which aren't very visible, especially in a no air environment

Something else I should mention is Neil's famous line. "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" It doesn't quite make sense, since man and mankind are synonyms. What he meant to say was "One small step for A man, one giant leap for makind" If you were on an expensive sound stage, wouldn't you fix a blooper like this. (Although some might argue that it was put in on purpose)

Hmm, looks like I don't remember very many of the points mentioned, but if anyone wants to post others, I'll gladly point out the many ways in which they are total BS.

[owen76]

My astronomy teacher said that scientists have looked at the rocks and you can't tell the difference. Area 51. Everything is housed there.
The Japanese are going to photograph the surface of the moon within the next couple of years. If they see a lander, I will believe the landing.
I saw an article that said that Utah has a look like Mars. Gee...

[KorpDeath]

Please. A hoax. These are the same ID10Ts that say the Holocaust never happened. Utter crap and anyone that doubts it should have their head examined.

[owen76]

holocaust happened. this didn't. You trust the govt too much and will pay in the long run.

[gold eagle]

More info from an astronomy site could help the doubters. There are many international astronomers and they would have seen the landers etc by now.

[KorpDeath]

Again. I reiterate. Please.

You conspiracy freaks are too much sometimes.. I tell you, and on a monday morning no less. Don't you ever rest?

[gold eagle]

I think the conspiracy freaks belong here in cosmos ....

[owen76]

http://www.primeline-america.com/moon-ldg/
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/3543/moonfake.htm#The Theory

This site has links so you can decide for yourself...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010808-moon2.htm

[KorpDeath]

I've decided that when it comes to those theories, that's all they are just theories. My uncle worked for NASA during the late 60's early 70's and I have print outs and a whole host of other things not to mention his word. Now what kind of argument are you going to make??? He's a liar? ( those are fightin' words) He's been brainwashed? (then so to have countless thousands of others...no) Do you really believe that all the people involved are dead, or what? Sorry I have so many questions for you, but I've always had a hard time understanding ignorance. And this is truly ignorant.

[KorpDeath]

Here's some reference material for you to read up on.

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm

I'll be back w/ more. I read yours now you read mine.

[KorpDeath]

I'm back

Take a look here.

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/moon.htm

It is a response to a popular website. Nice.

[gold eagle]

Go get 'em Korp! :)

[KorpDeath]

Here's another:

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp

I think I've made my point. Now where's your hard, real evidence? You believe the media and nutso cases too much.

I'm done w/ this thread. iF you still believe the conspiracy theorists then you are too far to help.

Peace.

[hot_ice]

I'm done w/ this thread. iF you still believe the conspiracy theorists then you are too far to help.

But how do you know for certain they went up there? Yeah, this article shows some space rocks and explains a few things, but how do you know it's not made up? How do you know NASA didn't shit themselves thinging people could really turn this into something HUGE that they made all this up and produced these rocks and gave explanation why they can ONLY come from the moon?

You never really know with the government.

I personally am leaning to believing that they went up there - I'm about 90% sure they did, but I'm just saying, you can't simply say people who believe otherwise are wrong and that's that. You never really know.

Greg

[chsh]

hot_ice, you're wrong, you can tell. They did go up there, just like they ARE working on Hubble...

Here's a question for you: What does NASA gain by creating such a huge lie?

Don't answer, I already know they don't gain anything. They've been losing funding over the last ten years or more, so I don't see how it really helped them to pretend to have gone to the moon.

[hot_ice]

hot_ice, you're wrong, you can tell.

You can't just say that by saying they didn't gain anything out of it!! I mean all I'm saying is that I'm not 100% sure that they went and you may think you are 100% sure, but how exactly do you know? Just cos you saw it on TV and a few pictures? I mean nothing is for certain, you can't believe everything you hear.

I do think they went, don't get me wrong. My point is that I'm not 100% certain, there are some good arguments against it, so you never know.

Greg

[jcmcb]

Guys -

We all deal with computers, so at some level we all believe in logic....so lets use that wonderful tool of logic "Occham's Razor":

Which is more likely,

A) A massive Gov't conspiracy to fake a moon landing by the US gov't, involving building massive rockets that were tracked in the the stratosphere by several nations. This conspiracy would require multiple gov't involvment (the US, British, French and all of Nato who could track the Moon rockets, plus the Soviets who would not want to let the US get away with this kind of hoax), and require thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people to be in on the plot...including techincians, scientist, astronauts, spies, radar operators, news men/women, and average people who were watching the rockets blast into space.

or

B) despite incredible odds, the US was able (thru hard work and luck) to send several dozen men to the moon...

And one more thing, if we didn't make it to the moon, did we make it into space at all...cause if we did, then I am part of the conspiracy...having seen a space shuttle launch!!!!

[jcmcb]

Guys -

We all deal with computers, so at some level we all believe in logic....so lets use that wonderful tool of logic "Occham's Razor":

Which is more likely,

A) A massive Gov't conspiracy to fake a moon landing by the US gov't, involving building massive rockets that were tracked in the the stratosphere by several nations. This conspiracy would require multiple gov't involvment (the US, British, French and all of Nato who could track the Moon rockets, plus the Soviets who would not want to let the US get away with this kind of hoax), and require thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people to be in on the plot...including techincians, scientist, astronauts, spies, radar operators, news men/women, and average people who were watching the rockets blast into space.

or

B) despite incredible odds, the US was able (thru hard work and luck) to send several dozen men to the moon...

And one more thing, if we didn't make it to the moon, did we make it into space at all...cause if we did, then I am part of the conspiracy...having seen a space shuttle launch!!!!

[Cohiba227]

i just find it hard to believe the gov. would even bother to fake something like this....i would hope they got better things to do..heh

[Cohiba227]

i just find it hard to believe the gov. would even bother to fake something like this....i would hope they got better things to do..heh

[KorpDeath]

They wouldn't fake it. That's just the point. I can't believe this thread is still going. Pathetic.

[hot_ice]

And what if in 50 years time, NASA come out and say, "yes, we are sorry, we faked it - forgive us"?? Then you'll all be fools!!! FOOLS I tells ya!!

Ahhh, I dunno, with all the valid points you people are bringing up, especially jcmcb talking about how many people would have to be involved in a hoax, I realise that most probably they went up. :)

I still have that little doubt somewhere in my head, I can't get it out...

Greg

[owen76]

You're telling me those cheap, crappy space suits could hold up against the Van Allen belt radiation? If that is so, they should clean up three mile island in them.

The metal on the vehicle was not thick enough to sustain that kind of radiation.

The solar wind was recording some of its highest values in years, it would have scorched the ship.

I'm not doubting we never went to space, just the moon. Besides, the Soviets aren't big babies like America and don't whine when we make a lie. I'm currently reading
The Presidents' Secret Wars. You wouldn't believe the crap the CIA does and covers up.

[jcmcb]

Owen -

You need to do a little more reseach...
We have suits that you can wear into three mile island... just not for very long (because of the strain on the operator, something you don't have to worry about in space).

As for the Radiation - Your suggesting that the landings never took place, then show me some PROFESSIONAL opinions that say that the lander or the Suits couldn't have stood up to cosmic radiation. I am a Weapons of Mass Destruction Profesional, with a speciality in Radataion, and from my personal training and observations it is my opinion that they could block the cosmic radiation...

I am always willing to be proved wrong however...

[chsh]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=212516#post473563) by hot_ice
And what if in 50 years time, NASA come out and say, "yes, we are sorry, we faked it - forgive us"?? Then you'll all be fools!!! FOOLS I tells ya!!

Yeah, but until then, you're a fool. Which is better, to look like a fool for thirty years (I'm 20 now, assuming I live to 100), or for fifty? ;)

Ahhh, I dunno, with all the valid points you people are bringing up, especially jcmcb talking about how many people would have to be involved in a hoax, I realise that most probably they went up.

[Eglaelin]

I, like KorpDeath, am amazed that such a thread is still going. Going to the moon is the most spectacular demonstration of human potential that I know of. There is no other thing that we can point to and say "Humans did that," which has the same scope. For me it is a signpost pointing to what the future holds for us.
The only thing that is starting to compare is the construction of the ISS. More countries are cooperating in its construction than anything ever before. It is a signature of what we humans can do when we decide to work together. For me, one of the saddest things of Bush's presidency is the cutting of funding to the space program. His government is trying to stop progress on the station and cut down on the number of people living there.
I hope he does not succeed. I keep holding on to the thought that I can get off this rock before I die......

As Astra Per Aspera
To the Stars Through Hardship

[owen76]

We have suits NOW, but did we have them then? If we did land on the moon, how come we haven't built crap on it for research. I know there is a supposed treaty that won't allow military structures. Also, if the Russians had the technology on 1/10 the budget, why did they never go to the moon? They were far ahead of us in the game. There is footage of Armstrong piloting the lander on Earth a week before the "landing" and he had no control over it. You expect me to believe he landed it perfectly on the moon without any problems in an environment with little to no room for error?

[chsh]

I cannot believe the astounding idiocy that some people freely exhibit.

Owen: The shots of Armstrong having trouble with the lander were in EARTH gravity, NOT in space. There is very little gravity on the moon compared to here on Earth, so it's a LOT easier to set down on the moon. Not to mention the fact that what you interpret was 'barely landing it' was actually 'doing really well'. There is lots of room for error in a 0G environment. It is not that difficult to hit a relatively stationary target here on earth, and we have gravity to deal with.

As for why we haven't built things on the moon, there is one basic reason: COST. It would cost WAY too much to put a structure on the moon now, and you're looking at 30 years ago. They're contemplating a project that would put a stationary observatory on the dark side of the moon something like 20 years from now.

Buildings on the moon are much more expensive too, because you would have to lead line them, and it would cost a lot to cart the building materials up there. Shuttles aren't big enough to take something prefabbed up, so you would have to either build it on the ISS, or build it on the moon. Either way it's an expensive proposition, as you'd have to rotate your relatively small work crew (no more than say, 6 people) out every six months. That doesn't even consider the fact that you're looking at the cost of finding and training the personell to launch to put on the moon.

All in all it's a VERY VERY costly proposition, and for what? What would your ROI be? Very very little compared to what you spent, even for an observatory.

[jcmcb]

Owen -

Its good to question authority, but sometimes they tell the truth...

A) We have been working with Radiation since the turn of the century, so we have had suits for a long time (all you need is lead, to paraphrase from the beatles)

B) NASA has found that unmmaned research is cheaper and safer now than with manned mnissions, hence we haven't gone back (see the Voyager Series as an example)

C) The Russians actually got there first, just with un-manned probes. They sent em after we did, and even brought back dirt (I think)

D) chsh covered the landing footage pretty well, but he left out the atmospheric differnce between the Earth and the Moon....