Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.

The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 140 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 ... 15 16 >
Topic Options
#10510 - 11/09/05 01:39 PM fake moon landing
RM Offline

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
was the moon landing a fake? What do you think?
fake moon landing
Only one choice allowed

Votes accepted starting: 01/01/70 12:00 AM
You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

#10511 - 11/09/05 04:47 PM Re: fake moon landing
DA Morgan Offline

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I think people that ask the question have time to take out the trash: And should.
DA Morgan

#10512 - 11/09/05 10:00 PM Re: fake moon landing
Uncle Al Offline

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 540
Loc: Southern California
Tell us how the corner cube reflectors used for lunar laser ranging to test the Nordtvedt effect were emplaced on the surface of the moon.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect

Were you schooled in Kansas?
Uncle Al
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)

#10513 - 11/20/05 05:51 AM Re: fake moon landing
erich knight Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/30/04
Posts: 142
Loc: Virginia
A posting on this space science site about a UK TV reality show that cons contestants into believing that they are sent into space, produced the comments below.

I thought you all would enjoy the suggestion for a reality show for fundamentalist, ROFL:

, The "contest winners" will have to not be space nuts
like us, or else they will notice that, for all the
rocket noise and shaking, the 3 G acceleration seems
to be missing in action. And how will the lack of
microgravity be explained?

Anyway, if I were to be hoaxed in any such way, I
would sue the pants off of the hoaxers, and then I
would have all future pants impounded for life. I
would sue if I didn't fall for it (and I wouldn't),
and I would sue if I did fall for it (in which case
I'd feel pretty stupid, but since the whole world
would've just seen me looking stupid, there would be
little point in hiding my stupidity).

The basis of the lawsuit would be emotional damage.
Space has been a dream for me since I was a little
kid. To be told that the dream is coming true for
lucky little ol' me, and to work my butt off
"training" so that the dream can be real, and then to
be fooled into thinking that "oh my God, I'm in
SPACE!!" And then to be told "PSYCH! we sure fooled
you!" This is cruel, and the hoaxers cannot be
allowed to get away with it. Yes, I do think there
are too many lawsuits, and yes, I think that charges
of emotional cruelty are overdone. But this is proof
that the category should not be done away with.

It is exactly like convincing a bunch of
kindergartners that they are going to the North Pole
to meet Father Christmas... "PSYCH! This is Norway,
and there is no Father Christmas! You dumb kids!
HAHAHA!!!" It is like convincing an American Southern
Fundamentalist congregation that they have been
Raptured, complete with meeting Jesus, only to tell
them "PSYCH! You're still on Earth, and this 'Jesus'
is actually an atheist! and gay! and a Democrat!
HAHAHA!!!" Some things just should not be done to
people. I hope the hoaxees punch the hoaxers in the
mouth, and get away with it. Plead emotional distress.

Space Future | To unsubscribe send email with the subject "unsubscribe"
www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@spacefuture.com".

You want emotional distress? Here's my, better, idea for a
space shot hoax/reality TV show. Instead of just sending them
into space, send them to Mars instead, but make it clear that
they would have to be asleep on the journey in order to
conserve supplies. Instead, they get put to sleep, loaded on
a plane, and flown to their "Mars base". You don't even have
to bring them home. Just let them start finding wierder and
wierder stuff around their base, maybe have them spot a few
aliens running around, and then end it with a close encounter
of some sort. More good ideas: give them clocks that run fast
and roll over at 24:37. Mess with the lighting in the base
and put filters on the windows so they think the sky looks
brownish. Show them fake newscasts on the TVs during their
"training" so they think everyone knows about their "Mars
shot". Kill off one of the actors on an expedition in some
sort of accident, or maybe have him captured by aliens. I
think it could run for a few seasons. A lot cheaper than
building a space shuttle simulator too, I think.

Erich J. Knight

#10514 - 11/21/05 03:11 AM Re: fake moon landing
Junior Member

Registered: 11/20/05
Posts: 13
Loc: NYC
I hope Rob was kidding.

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura, ch? la diritta via era smarrita. salimmo s?, el primo e io secondo tanto ch'i' vidi de le cose belle che porta 'l ciel, per un pertugio tondo. E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.

#10515 - 11/23/05 06:46 AM Re: fake moon landing

No Rob was not kidding ...
If the landing was false then why didnt Russia respond with equal doubts.Do you think KGB was so weak? Communist generally do accept defeat.
It is against their philosophy and you think that Russia would have overlooked the propaganda.
Obviously they are more informed than us.
There are so many people invovled in this project that I feel it is impossible to create such a big propaganda.
I was surprised when I first heard this discussion.Can someone cheat to such an extent?
And are there people who think we all are being cheated for pure nonsense?
The hollywood and press has played propaganda in past but never I imagined that this was possible..
For sake of my own peace I choose to believe that yes America had successfully landed the on the moon.
What do you say ?

#10516 - 11/24/05 01:16 AM Re: fake moon landing
Ric Offline

Registered: 08/10/05
Posts: 44
Loc: Wisconsin
Of course we landed on the moon. To even ask this question is pure nonsense. Conspiracy theories are certainly interesting sometimes, but seriously... come on...
"The first Human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization." -Sigmund Freud

#10517 - 11/26/05 12:57 PM Re: fake moon landing
socrates Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/26/05
Posts: 8
Loc: australia
I do have one question/urban legend, to add to this discusssion.
That urban legend is that the unmanned Russian Lunig probe, which lifted of a wek before Appollo and crashed, out of control onto the moon a few days before the Eagle landed, WAS IN FACT NOT UNMANNED. It carrried a single cosmonault, who was meant to sing the Soviet anthem from the surface of the moon three days before Apollo landed.

Has anybody else heard of this one.

#10518 - 12/10/05 04:46 PM Re: fake moon landing
Beaker Offline

Registered: 12/09/05
Posts: 34
Loc: Hatfield - Herts - UK
I?ve heard quite allot about that conspiracy theory and some of the arguments are extremely compelling. As always I will go along with what I have been taught without absolute belief until it has been proven to me rather than just stated at me.
If you believe everything you read, better not read.

#10519 - 12/10/05 04:49 PM Re: fake moon landing
Beaker Offline

Registered: 12/09/05
Posts: 34
Loc: Hatfield - Herts - UK
Sorry to be clear the Apollo moon landing forgery rather than the Russians having the first corpse on the moon.
If you believe everything you read, better not read.

#10520 - 12/15/05 04:37 PM Re: fake moon landing
bazza Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/15/05
Posts: 5
Loc: uk
I have no doubt that the lunar landings were hoaxes. A scientific and logical examination of the facts and data cannot lead to any other conclusion. Scientific process must not be polluted by the emotional stress caused when the results of that process are psychologically traumatic. In this case an untruth on a truly global scale.

To believe that the landings were real would require a suspension of logic and intelligence of breathtaking proportions.

#10521 - 12/15/05 04:59 PM Re: fake moon landing
physic Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/27/05
Posts: 4
Loc: India
Bazza , on which facts do you base your "logical conclusions"? will you kindly explain?

#10522 - 12/15/05 06:24 PM Re: fake moon landing

#10523 - 12/15/05 08:56 PM Re: fake moon landing
bazza Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/15/05
Posts: 5
Loc: uk
Hi physic

here a a few questions on the subject. The list of "excuses" often recited like some sort of mantra whenever these questions are asked is usually deafening. Loud they certainly are but are devoid of serious scientific study.

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.

21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?

30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

#10524 - 12/15/05 10:29 PM Re: fake moon landing
TheFallibleFiend Offline

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon?"
The distance from the earth to the moon is negligible. It's doubtful anyone could measure the parallax. The reason is probably because of the brightness of Earth requires a very fast shutter speed. That seems a lot more likely than your fantastic "explanation."

"In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth."

Why couldn't they just continue faking it? After all, they did it once before. There are many cases of humans losing technology.

"The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator."

Only partly true. They had STACKS of these "calculator" quality computers.
You are a kook.

#10525 - 12/19/05 12:11 AM Re: fake moon landing
bazza Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/15/05
Posts: 5
Loc: uk
Hello all

I just need to try to understand this photographic question. You require me to believe that because of parallax when photos are taken by unmanned missions the stars are clearly visible but when the photos are taken on "manned missions" they are not visible. This is a new optical science I have not encountered before.

Another comprehension problem I have is trying to believe that humanity could "forget" technology on this scale and at this level. Supposedly mankinds greatest scientific acheivement and you expect me to believe that we have "forgotten" how it was done? It would be easier to forget how to construct automobiles, ships, aircraft etc!!

If you take the time to peruse the NASA issued details of the Apollo vehicles you will see that there were not "Stacks" of computers in board. There would not have been the power available to operate them even if they were fitted. Also the heat produced by these "Stacks" of computers could not be dissipated .
This is a science based forum, which is why I have demonstated by scientific method the Apollo hoax to be just that. The fact that the hoax itself was probably the greatest political exploit ever is best left to other forums.

#10526 - 12/19/05 03:36 PM Re: fake moon landing
TheFallibleFiend Offline

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
1. "You require me to believe that because of parallax when photos are taken by unmanned missions the stars are clearly visible but when the photos are taken on "manned missions" they are not visible."

No. I didn't say that parallax would make fewer stars visible. If you're not going to actually read my responses, please let me know now so I can reserve my comments for people who pay attention.

I said that it's probably the case that fewer stars can be seen because the shutter speed on the cameras is so fast. How many stars can you see in the day time on earth?

Humanity has forgotten LOTS of things. There are LOTS of companies that make automobiles. The technology is very old. Space programs are much more complicated and so far they're restricted to bureaucratic governments.

Okay, there were not "stacks", but A stack of three separate computers. Back in those days we didn't have the burden of overhead of the kinds of operating systems we use today. With so little memory, programmers had to be clever, creative, and very thrifty with code.

You haven't demonstrated anything scientifically. You've made a bunch of claims and then stated a bunch of inferences, electing to pretend that the most unlikely explanations are far more likely than the more obvious ones.

#10527 - 12/20/05 08:00 PM Re: fake moon landing
bradp Offline

Registered: 12/20/05
Posts: 82
Loc: Spain
my english is not so good but here goes.I find it very strange the only people who believe this 3rd rate manipulation of the masses are Americans.I agree with bazza but what worries me is people like Da morgan who seems to be clever does not know or want to believe what is going on in his/her country.Have you been paying attention lately?? AlQaeda??Irak??ect..

#10528 - 12/21/05 03:28 AM Re: fake moon landing
TheFallibleFiend Offline

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Your grasp of English is the least of your problems. Your worst problem is your non-grasp of logic.

#10529 - 12/21/05 03:49 PM Re: fake moon landing
bradp Offline

Registered: 12/20/05
Posts: 82
Loc: Spain
what has any of the above to do with logic?? "problems"??? are you a failed teacher with too much time on your hands? Is your world in side your head?? maybe you need too get out more(if they let you) I have made millions with (my) logic can you say the same?? or can you not put to use all that wealth of information in your head.No wonder we still have wars.I know your problem!!!

Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 ... 15 16 >

Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.