Conspiracy Theories Moon landing, evidence suggestion: Several photos don't match up, like the one with a close up of an astronaut. Only buzz and armstrong 'landed' on the moon, so we assume one person stayed in the craft. But there are 2 people in the reflection in the visor. So thats Buzz, Armstrong, and an unknown. Flags moving..the 'official response' was that the flags were made to look like that, with a metal pole along the top of the flag. But the photos clearly show the flag in a waving position. Funny, that there's no atmosphere on the moon. Meaning no wind. What was moving the flags? Where are the stars in many of the shots? The movie clip of the pod leaving the moon, who recorded it? So they left someone behind, yet brought back the footage on the camera? The astronauts sure as hell look clunky trying to walk around the moon, yet they can take photos using a camera in those big gloves.. They joke about 'slicing' the ball when armstrong hits his famous shot. How could you slice, if there was no atmosphere? "Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere.." ------------- TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, so no one could closely examine it, perhaps. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. Skilled photographers, in clunky space suits? I doubt photography was in NASA's training program. Between the earth and the moon lies some 1500 solar flares, and a hell of a lot of cosmic radiation. If doctors and patients need a lead wall to protect themselves during an Xray, what hope would the astronauts have in outer sapce? shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil. ----------- before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is a spectacular accident rate. Tragedies, or deliverate attempts to knock off the suspicious, would be space travellers? ------------------------------ 9 more facts 9 SPACE ODDITIES: 1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air. 2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming? 3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot? 4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints. 5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares. 6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot? 7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon? 8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars? 9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
Here's an interesting site that seems to answer many, though not all, of your questions: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/index.html In particular the following pages are worth a look: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Flag.htm http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Stars.htm http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Take_Off.htm http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Too_Good.htm http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Video.htm Apparently it was! http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Too_Good.htm http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Van_Allen_Belts.htm http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Take_Off.htm http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/First_Man.htm http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Shadow_Angles.htm http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Flag.htm http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/In_The_Shadows.htm http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Stars.htm http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Floating_Dust.htm Hope that gives you something to think about! Of course, this is far from the last word on the matter but the points mentioned do seem quite reasonable. If you come across anything that debunks the debunk I'd appreciate the info.
Conspiracy Theories hehe yes, that debunks pretty much all of those points. however, they could quite easily be 'setup', much as the hoax evidence could be. no one really knows, so I guess its one of those 'accept it or dont' kind of things. I'd like to believe it, but the one thing that is preventing me from doing so, is why we've never gone back.
Conspiracy Theories We have gone back. 6 times(i think) since the first moon landing. But repeat landings are not financially justifiable from the tax payer.
I've had a look around on various different websites dedicated to the moon-hoax conspiracy from both viewpoints and after several hours I've come to the conclusion that the debunkers put forward a stronger case than the conspiracy theorists. Of course the debate will rage forever but until I see something better than what I've found so far than I'll have to side with NASA for now. The only thing I haven't reconciled so far is the reactions of the astronauts in interviews and press conferences after their achievement. On the other hand there this... http://www.lunaranomalies.com/ This site has a looooong article debunking the moon-hoax theorists while at the same time making the claim that the real cover-up is the fact that NASA is aware of the existence of what I gather to be some sort of ancient ruins on the moons' surface! The plot thickens. :good:
OK, sorry it took me so long, I kinda forgot about this thread. Here we go: Only buzz and armstrong 'landed' on the moon, so we assume one person stayed in the craft. But there are 2 people in the reflection in the visor. So thats Buzz, Armstrong, and an unknown.-I have never seen said picture so cannot draw a conclusion Flags moving..the 'official response' was that the flags were made to look like that, with a metal pole along the top of the flag. But the photos clearly show the flag in a waving position. Funny, that there's no atmosphere on the moon. Meaning no wind. What was moving the flags?-The flags, in fact, were held up by a metal pole, making them stand straight out. Also, if you look at a picture of them, the flag stands straight out from thw pole, whereas a flag in wind is curled. Where are the stars in many of the shots?-It was daytime on the moon, daytime there=daytime here, no stars. Where are the stars in many of the shots?-I assume this refers to the stairs on the lander. Stairs would be very heavy, most likely, a ladder like system was used, probably fairly small. The movie clip of the pod leaving the moon, who recorded it? So they left someone behind, yet brought back the footage on the camera?-Camera mounted to rover The astronauts sure as hell look clunky trying to walk around the moon, yet they can take photos using a camera in those big gloves..-This one is almost funny. Whoever thought they took your household Kodak up there must be stupid. These cameras, along with everyhting else, was designed specifically for this trip. They joke about 'slicing' the ball when armstrong hits his famous shot. How could you slice, if there was no atmosphere? "Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere.."-"slice" is a common term and could easily be used by an amateur golfer (my whole family) as a bad shot, not neccessarily a scientific slice. TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, so no one could closely examine it, perhaps.-This was the 1960's, computers were not the best (let's just say pre-64 bit era) and therefore computer controlled video uplinks were not the best. It is a miracle the images got to Earth. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. Skilled photographers, in clunky space suits? I doubt photography was in NASA's training program.-Oh contrare! NASA knew this would be an uber famous event, and probably did train the astronauts in photography. Between the earth and the moon lies some 1500 solar flares, and a hell of a lot of cosmic radiation. If doctors and patients need a lead wall to protect themselves during an Xray, what hope would the astronauts have in outer sapce? shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil. -We're talking about complete protection there. The astronauts were exposed to radiation, and were in danger, but they did it anyway, because it was a trip to the moon. Many astronauts had died, I 3 before they even got off the ground, they knew it wasn't safe. Also radiation in space is not as much as you think, the shuttle goes into space without 2 meters of lead shielding. before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is a spectacular accident rate.-3 were killed in a training accident involving an extremely volitile pure oxygen environment. In this kind of environment, aluminum foil will burn. Don't know much about the others. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?-camera attached to lunar lander The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.-I don't know how to explain this scientifically, so bear with me, at least I know what I'm talking about. The pressure inside a football is around, say, 60 psi, on the high end. The volume of air in a spacesuit is much higher than that of a football. Compressing a football slightly, increases the air pressure a large amount, say 5-10 psi (not accurate numbers, just used for the theory), whereas with the higher volume of air, that slight compression only raises the pressure 1-2 psi. Do you see where I'm going with this? The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.-They did. A mirror was left on the moon, which, when hit by a laser from earth reflects that signal back. This has been done many times, specifically to measure how far away the moon is. Maybe not flares but it's proof. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?-I don't understand the first 2 parts of this question in the least. Clearification would be appreciated. The rest I have answered. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?-As for the first part, the moon is highly relective. If it can bounce sunlight back to Earth it can bouce sunlight to a flag 4 feet away. I already answered the second part. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.-The rocket wasn't fired at landing, but before. The rockets were fired at a fair distance about the moon, and even then they were not at full thrust. Well there is my debunk-age, enjoy.
Yeah, pretty good. But: You say the computers were not the best....yet they managed to construct a spaceship, with, presumably, a lot of fairly advanced controls to operate the space ship? Sounds pretty advanced computing to me,so surely a better hook up could have been achieved. And that *would* have been good for the morale, actual footage of the men on the moon, assuming the soldiers had a TV...
Advanced computers weren't needed to construct or fly the ship. Flight controls were very rudamentary, and manual. This is why astronouts spent thousands of hours in simulators. And the design of the ship was done by those incredibly smart people at NASA. Remember, any calculation a computer can do, a person can do too, just in a lot longer period of time. BTW, this is my hundreth post, w00t, w00t!
Nice Max! That's pretty impressive there dude, looks like you know your stuff. Good topic Waffles. Oh and you still need one more post;P
No, I had it, it just takes a few minutes for the post to register on the counter, I noticed that too. It read 99 before and 99 after. But yea, before computers, space was my thing, that and cars.
riiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhttttt the points before make me wonder what kind of computers the military has now like primitive 128 bit? haha
Are you sure because you posted at, according to my time settings on the forum, 1:17 and I posted that at 1:44, one heck or a delay, but it doesn't matter because you now have 160+! You posted like 70 times in one day! Have you left the computer
Well the ways movies can portray computers more like 128-bit, quad-core, north/south bridge integrated into chips.
you can all rule out the computer theory. Germany in WWII during hitler's regime had things far more advanced than computers. Then basically, it all came out war booty.
sort of UFO type things. Un-piloted discs that would follow the rich exaust fromt he engine's fuel mixtures, follow behind them and jam radio signals and take down radar. That kinda stuff.
