Hi,

There's an awful lot of conspiracy talk around here about all kinds of things, and I'll like to ask everyone who tends to doubt the official version of things to give me their opinion on a favourite subject of the conspiracy theorists - the moon landings.

I really, really want to know if you think they were faked, and if so, how and why.

I once saw an interesting documentary on one of the satellite channels about it.

My problem with the conspiracy theory - man has been to the moon several times in total. I consider it highly unlikely that it was hoaxed.

And I like conspiracy theories (or alternative narratives).

My dad didn’t believe they landed on the moon the very first day they went. Everyone said to him: Shuddup you silly old sod, of course they have. Well If he was still alive today I think he would be pleased knowing that so many now seem to agree with him. I personally am a little suspicious when Neil Armstrong said to his wife. “Do you remember our Vacation in Yosemite” BLEEP

It seems pretty unlikely that you could land such a large vehicle on something so small. What is it - 1m across - 2 perhaps. Certainly no more than 10 feet anyway.

Everyone knows the Nazis were there first!
http://www.secretnazimoonbase.blogspot.com/

Yeah baby!

Check out this classic thread from two years back, when I was going thorough my moon landing CT phase!
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...20two&st=15

The best conspiracy I know is...

19 Muslims flew 2 planes into New York and brought 3 buildings down at freefall speed (Yes all 3).
Another plane flew into the Pentagon (The worlds most protected building) and left no wreckage as did a fourth in Shanksville.

A war was then started in Afghanistan and Iraq based on a pork pie, a war that was described before the events by a writing called 'the Project for a New American Century' PNAC.

30, 000 - 100, 000 children dead due to these events without any human being held accountable.

I could go on... in fact I will jut for the fun of it.

As a Taxpayer we in the U.K. and America we may be seen as funding this Genocide. I think we'll all agree that makes us guilty of funding this atrocity and therefore breaking:

The General Treaty for the Renuniation of War 1928 (Kellogg-Briad Act)
The United Nations Charter 1945
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
The Proxmire Act 1988 (US), The Rome Statute 1998, The International Criminal Court Act 2001
The United Nations Charter 1945

http://makewarshistory.org.uk/

Are you still a doubter regarding the rocks and the stars in the photos?

Hmmm good question. My doubts arise from the contrasting news reports of the landing sites, and whether the LEM made a blast crater or not. Also the whole Lunacorp thing; The absurdity of taking four cars to the moon; And how it's possible to photograph Beagle Two (size of a suitcase) on the surface of Mars, but not four cars and six LEMs on the moon. Seeing as there is so much CT stuff on the net why don't they just prove it with some snaps? Read my posts and the links in that thread.

There's only three cars on the moon, from Apollos 15, 16 & 17. They were very useful for geological exploration, much of the work done on the last 3 missions couldn't have been done without it.

There isn't a camera in orbit round the moon like there is on Mars, so no hi-res pics.

The LEM probably didn't make a blast crater, as the engine should have been cut off when the contact probes touched the ground (although that didn't always happen). I've certainly seen some scattering of the dust under the LEM. Its also a vacuum up there, which means the exhaust gases disperse quicker.

The stars in the photos are fairly obvious, just try taking a photo on earth during the day, or even at night in a big city and see if you can see stars.

You've not read the thread have you?
Kindly and carefully read the thread and the articles I've linked.

So you're saying:

Moon rocks are meteorites from the South Polar region?

A film camera could take photographs of the lunar surface and the stars without over or under exposing one or the other?

The videos don't work.

Where was the fourth car?

Ok, three cars.
Yes to the rest.

Where is the telemetry? One of mankind's greatest achievements, and they just lost it?


Apollo 13. On the thirteenth hour of the thirteenth mission disaster struck! So staged and formulaic, of course it's believable!

It was the third day the disaster struck on Apollo 13.

I challenge you to take a photograph at night of someone, using flash photography, and capture both them and the stars perfectly.

If the rocks were meteorites, how do you account for the zap pits caused by radiation from the sun?

The photos weren't taken with flash on the moon!!

Meteorites consisting of material from Mars have been found on Earth.

I said the thirteenth hour, not day.

The photos weren't taken with flash on the moon!!

Meteorites consisting of material from Mars have been found on Earth.

I said the thirteenth hour, not day.

I dont believe the US got to the moon. It just looks like a complete scam to me. It seems so obviously faked i cant even understand how they fooled people at the time.

Just like they could prove that a plane hit the pentagon by releasing the CCTV footage that was confiscated, they could easily photograph debris from the landing to prove they happened.

But the silence is deafening

I never said there was flash used on the moon. However, using a flash at night is a good way to emulate the exposures the film in the cameras on the moon would have had to deal with to photograph both stars and the lunar surface.

Actually, here's a better one. Try and take a photo of the full moon and stars without over exposing the moon or under exposing the stars.

I know meteorites of martian rocks have been found on earth (SNC meteorites). However, are you saying that the moon rocks from Apollo were actually meteorites?

You said the thirteen hour, but you were wrong. The explosion occured on the third day of the mission.

What makes you say that?

1. It all seems very cheesey like a film, not like a real operation
2. The photos just dont look real. If they did go to the moon im still 100% convinced they lost the film and faked the photos afterwards. If you compare the pics of mars and other planet landing with the moon landings, they just look fake to me. Not sure about all the shadow crap, i just get an overwelming feeling they are fake, and always have.
3. The russians said it couldnt be done, and they were more advanced in this field at the time.
4. If it was possible then, why havnt we been back?
5. I dont trust the American government, they have faked too many things
6. If you read about deep sea exploration, and how hard it is, youll start to realise how absurd it is to suggest we can get to the moon with basic technology in the 1960s.. We cant even get to the bottom of the deepest ocean trenches on our own planet.
7. Look at a TV from the 60's. Its rubbish. All electrical stuff was. I dont beleive it would have lasted in space.
8. If you go to the moon, you would do work, not **** around playing golf as such crap. It would be very dangerous, and there would be a high probability of death. The last thing on your mind would be some photo stunts. I cant see Scott getting some clubs out for a cheesey picture oportunity at the south pole. His mind would be more focused on making sure he didnt die.
9. Why the hell would they take a car to the moon,? The very idea of it seems too incredulous.
10. Youve seen how hard it is launching a craft from the earth. It takes hundreds of people thousands of hours to do it. Yet we are expected to believe that a tin foil space craft managed to land the right way up and then take off again with the control of a few atsronauts in suits? If you study the way the unmanned craft land on mars, its very violent, and they use parachutes and inflatable protection for the crash landing. Often the craft are destroyed on landing, or land on rocks and are disabled. Yet the americans managed to land a craft the right way up on a perfectly flat area with no fuss at ll. That seems to defy what i know about other landings.

I dont know about all the scientific stuff like the van allen belt etc, its hard to know what to beleive. But from my own evidence using common sense, it seems unlikely that it was real to me.


My personal view is they blasted off, did a couple of circuits of the earth and then came home.

1. In what way does it seem "cheesy"?

2. Given that the pics were taken on medium format film cameras, then of course they look different. How do they not look "real"?

3. When did the Russians say it couldn't be done? They came very close to doing it, but they had problems with their N1 rocket.

4. No political will to do so.

5. Agreed, but that's hardly enough to refute the evidence.

6. The moon is not the bottom of the ocean. The problem in the ocean is pressure, which isn't such a big deal in space. Just beacuse one thing is difficult, doesn't mean something totally different is as well.

7. A TV from the 60s or 70s didn't cost a million bucks a piece. A lot more money was spent on Apollo technology than consumer goods!

8. All Apollo astronauts were highly trained in field geology, and spent up to three days doing survey work on the moon per mission. The last mission even sent up a professional geologist. The golf was done for laugh at the end of one mission without the prior approval of mission control. There was some amazing science done up there.

9. The car was small, lightweight and designed for geological traverses. With it they were able to move between survey sites quickly so they could field map a larger area - all partof that work you mentioned in point 8.

10. Viking landed on Mars the same way. Harriers land in a similar manner. In a vacuum its even easier to do.

How could they do a couple of circuits of the earth with the whole world watching and then claim to have gone to the moon?

Mars is a lot further away and has higher gravity than the moon. Also the moon has no atmosphere to speak of.

If the septics hadn't gone then the soviets would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

Plus there's the moon rocks they brought back.

The most you can argue is the film is fake.

Listen, I used to work in a photographic laboratory of a museum, so I know a bit about exposure.



Very easy. Slow film, tripod, stop down, long exposure. There is just such a photo in the thread.

I'm an experienced photographer who uses the same type of cameras the astronauts used, Hasselblads.

The astronauts didn't use tripods, nor did they use long exposures. Hence, by your own statement, you won't get stars in the picture.

There's still the rocks question.

No they took golf clubs instead.

I just don't believe it. The success rate was just too high. And taking cars, just absurd. At one sixth gravity the thing would be uncontrollable.

He put the head of a golf club on the end of his rock sample tool. It was good PR for NASA. What's the problem with that?

Why would the car be uncontrollable in one sixth gravity?

Speaking of the lunar rover, check out this clip and explain why the dust is behaving as it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSpntQ-VtY

Looks like one sixth gravity and a vacuum to me.

Edit: The photo success rate wasn't that high. They took thousands of pictures. I've looked through some of the unedited sets, there's plenty of over/under exposed pics and heads chopped off etc.

The reason that the sky is so black is because of the difference in required exposure between the sky and the ground. The ground is very bright there. The sun is shining upon it and this is obviously what the Hasselblads were set to capture. They could have set the Hasselblads to capture the stars in the sky but then the foreground would be completely burnt out.

Now doubt they would also have been using slide film for better results as opposed to print film and so the exposure latitude is far less forgiving. If you want an every day example of how difficult it is even on Earth to capture detail in the foreground and the sky then go to a rock pool on a sunny day and try to capture detail in the dark rock pool yet not have the sky and highlights burnt out. I find that there is three stop difference (I'm pretty good at judging EV's without the use of a light metre).

You can try it yourself in fact. Point a camera at the full moon and capture it and the stars at the same time without the moon being burnt out. These photos were taken with a Hasselblad and a 500mm lense.

http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/astropho...F-00124-12.html
http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/astropho...F-00151-11.html

OK. If I accept what you're saying then how do you explain the shots of the astronauts taken in shadow that appear to be filled with reflectors or lighting? The Moon's surface is 7% reflective.

Examples?

You still haven't answered the rocks question.

Contrived, overly stripted and unlike any genuine operation ive listened.

Yes, I think the rocks were found on Earth or brought from the Moon by unmanned craft.

Examples?

Read the thread!!!

"Which funily enough could have been found anywhere"

No, due to their isotope count they could only have come from the earth-moon system. And given their age they aren't from earth.

They came from the moon. No question.

I read the thread, but struggled to make sense of it.

How could zap pits exist on rocks that had ablated through the atmosphere?

How could soil samples fall as meteorites?

How could unmanned craft perform the complex field geology to recover the samples that were found? Its not just a bunch of random rocks they brought back, they returned a complex suite of rocks that required detailed field work to recover. As a trained geologist myself I know the difference between a random bunch of rocks and those recovered from a proper field survey, and the Apollo rocks were from a proper field survey.

And as for a reflector, you have the surface of the moon scattering light everywhere. Why isn't one half of anything in total darkness on earth?

Im quite happy to accept that man has landed on the moon, all i require is proof in the form of a photograph of the abandoned equipement taken by someone other than the USA.

I dont believe anything im told without proof.

What about the rocks?

people on this forum are hooked on conspiracy theories, indeed it's all they believe in, gives them comfort and makes them feel powerful and enlightened when in fact they are just deluded folks who are ignoring the facts and the realities of life. Believing things without evidence.

So you believe man walked on the moon?

I know, the bulls have almost deserted us now.

Do you believe jesus walked on the moon? Or was water his limit?

DON'T LET THE SCATBOT HIJACK MY THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!