Printable View
Watching a really interesting documentary called what happened on the moon, over whelming evidence suggests the moon landings were fake, from photo evidence to radiation issues. What does everone think about this?? If you think this is bullshit I strongly suggest you watch the documentary mentioned above, at least you'll have two sides of the story.
Are the apollo landings fake?
YES
How do you explain LRO' images of all the Apollo landing sites which it took last year in it's LCROSS missions? Definately not fake. If there weren't any other missions to the moon before Apollo 11 I would be sceptical, plus why would they have 5 more landings faked? There is no purpose.
So much scientific evidence suggests they are, the van allen radiation belt, image tampering with the moon landing pictures, video footage of the moon buggy kicking up dust like normal even though they are in the vacumn of space. Feel like a complete idiot as I've been to the kennedy space center and lapped up everything i was told there not knowing that the single greatest acheivment in the history of mankind is a complete lie, maybe thats why kennedy was assassinated, or why neil armstrong is a recluse?
The LRO images were released by NASA and could quite easily be fake, they did more missions because public interest in space at that time was huge which meant more money, if NASA would have done one moon landing the space programme would not have lasted long. I'd love to believe they landed on the moon but i cant be ignorant to the fact that there is too much evidence to support the fact that they didn't.
These are the same people that think 9/11 was made by our government, and Pearl Harbor was planned all bull shit....
You cant just say no, have you watched/read/heard the evidence that says its fake? Not to mention the whistleblowers that were killed. What about the safety inspector that wrote a 500 page report about the problems with the apollo mission? He was killed along with his wife and stepdaughter and the report to this day has never been found.
I know this topic has been discussed on another thread but it's a very fascinating topic. Whats mankinds 2nd greatest acheivment cause I guess its number 1 now, the wheel perhaps?
Pearl Harbor??? Never heard of any controversy with Pearl Harbor. After looking at the information...I don't believe we made it to the moon! The Van Allen Radiation Belts was my deciding fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Farnsler
There is a Mythbusters episode about this. They bust a lot of the evidence that the moon landings are fake.
How did they get around the Van Allen radiation belts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Misha Solomonik
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack LaBarge
here it is some of the people that think that... just saying there is no way we could have faked something as big as landing on the moon... but the video was interesting...
My opinion is, Yes they were faked. Just the fact that no other country has put a person out of orbit, let alone a person on the moon is just suspicious to me. Why hasn't anyone else gone? Why don't we have an IMAX 3D video of a moon landing experience? Why don't we have spoiled rich people going to the moon, just for the hell of it? It def wasn't our technological advances, so what was it? I'm thinking America needed a hero. People were fearing a nuclear war with the Soviets and the Space Race was the shit talking before a possible storm. The winner of the Space Race, surely had to have the superior technology, so how could we beat the Soviets and avoid a possible conflict... by faking it. The timing was just too perfect. No reason to go back now, too expensive, blah blah blah... If old technology and old money could do it, then it should be a lot easier now. Somethings rotting in Denmark and I think it's the moon landings.
Havent seen the mythbusters episode yet but will. Do they dispell ALL of the evidence or some? You would think going through the van allen belts would have caused some long term damage to the organs, if not the radiation from the belts than from the radiation on the moon. Where was the flare from the rocket when the capsule took off from the moon? It should have caused a red flare from the exhaust but there is nothing at all.
The technology that was used in the saturn V rocket was equivalent to that of a modern day calculator. If the apollo missions had a success rate in the high 80's, 25 more unmanned missions to the moon were attempted, only 7 made it, a success rate in the low 20's, did the apollo astronauts have horshoes up their ass because those are crazy odds!
The only thing that mythbusters did was show you how easy it is to fake going to the moon. They recreate some epic pictures with nothing but some models in a warehouse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHPyZ...eature=related
Im watching this mythbusters episode later, interested to see what they explain.
Here's a particular rebuttal to the claims of Van Allen radiation and other radiation and heat problems (see link for full treatment):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9797366/Ap...s#outer_page_1
"Challenges and responses
1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see Radiation poisoning). Some hoax theorists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.
• The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft
moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected
from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition,
the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was
selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer
of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too
dangerous for the Apollo missions.Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they
received about the same cumulative dosage as a chestX-ray or about 1
milligray.[50] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[43], pp. 160–162
• The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene
Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in
the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have early stagecataracts that have
been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their
trip.[51] However, only twenty-four astronauts left earth orbit. At least thirty-nine
former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in
high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.[52]
2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.
• The film was kept in metal containers that prevented radiation from fogging the film's emulsion.[43], pp. 162–163 In addition, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 (which used on-board film development processes) was not fogged.
3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.
• There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as
cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a
heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly
understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was
adequate to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; lunar module
temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave it its gold color.
Also, while the Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo
landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site. During the
longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their spacesuits
as the sun continued to rise and the surface temperature increased, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems.[43], pp. 165–67 The film was not in direct sunlight, so it wasn't overheated.[5 3]
• Note: all of the lunar landings occurred during the lunar daytime. TheMoon' s day is approximately 29½ days long, and as a consequence a single lunar day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly fifteen days. As such there was no sunrise or sunset while the astronauts were on the surface. Most lunar missions occurred during the first few earth days of the lunar day. 4. The Apollo 16 crew should not have survived a big solar flare firing out when they were on their way to the Moon. "They should have been fried."
• No large solar flare occurred during the flight of Apollo 16. There were large solar flares in August 1972, after Apollo 16 returned to Earth and before the flight of Apollo 17.[54]"
And here's a somewhat more laid back (but excellent) treatment of hoax theories in general:
http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.co...moon-hoax.html
Jason, your posts above make for good reading, it just doesnt make sense that they hit the jackpot with an alarming success rate with manned craft but only managed a few landings out of about 26 attempts with unmanned craft where the calculation for human error was 0 as it was all run by computers. Somethings telling me all is not what it seems with the moon landings.