The 'Fake' Moon Landings

My english is far from good and ligible... but, I usually get my point across. And for the Cuba thing... You are right, USSR was behind it, and the US did remove all land mines and ICBM from turkey in exchange. Pres. Kennedy did give an ultimatum to the USSR... but in the background the US already had agreed to for a compromise.

-M-

Mario,

Firstly, you are trying to play the ping-pong thing. Also, in the picture you've posted, the flag on the lander isn't the focal point, the astronaut in the foreground is. Any infill happening to reflect onto the lander and illuminate the flag is incidental. Also, in your photo, there is infill on the inside of the wheel of the rover. Your notion that a light-meter would be needed blah-blah-blah. It's irrelevant.

Pehaps you could also illuminate what you meant about "hidden moon features." This is something with which I am not at all familiar.

Also, the infamous "C" rock to which you refer doesn't have a "C" on it at all. You're looking at a third generation copy of the original photograph. The original doesn't have it. Somewhere along the way, a hair or something crept into it. Feel free to contact NASA to see the original. (And if you're going to introduce something along the lines of NASA airbrushed out the "C" then I'll just say Conspiracy Theorists airbrushed the "C" in.)

By the way, if you're going to play the rousing game of "Hunt the Boeing", you may wish to bring a little more to the table than stuff you've read on the internet. But, feel free to "hunt" away.

Still, you haven't answered my question about why the US would engage in fakery of the moon landings. If you're "on the fence" as you claim, wouldn't you also question the motives behind it?

I don't even understand what it is you were trying to say about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba removed missiles but didn't back down? Say what?

Why would the United States fake the Lunar Landings? What is the motivation? I get the “Space Race” component that clearly existed in the early 60s (when the Cold War was extremely hot) but by the late 1960s détente had largely set in, thus largely eliminating the propaganda angle.

Dayseed, I'm still waiting on this too. :twisted:

here the CBC actually did a show on what im talking about, this is totaly different than the fox crap. It is a re-make of the orignal french film I mentioned

Canadaka,

I took a quick look at both links. The CBC one seems to be reporting the film being available with a hook of a quote from Kubrick's widow. Unfortunately, I'm too cheap to buy it. I also believe Oswald shot Kennedy but JFK is one of my favourite films.

The bottom link is erroneous and rehashes the same baseless arguments that only prove that astrophysics, photography and other scientific principles take a backseat to emotions.

One of the quotes on the bottom link is: Why is the flag fluttering if there is no breeze? The angle the link is going for is that a breeze wafted through the set. There are two problems with this. Firstly, the flag itself is hung from a telescopic pole that extended outwards. It hangs down. This telescopic pole didn't extend and thusly, the flag had ripples in it. But, if you wish to ignore that and instead believe it is fluttering, why ISN'T the moon dust billowing with it? Why does this breeze selectively blow the flag but leave powder untouched?

Also, the stuff about the heat on the moon cooking film is silly. The surface temperature of the moon can reach astounding temperatures. But, without an atmosphere, there is no heat convection. That is, no air heats up and cooks the film like an oven would. Also, the suits and lander were designed to reflect the light, casting away even more heat. Couple that with the missions taking place on the lunar mornings and you've got a recipe for as little heat as possible reaching the film.

The bit about the footprints? Even the author of the webpage admits it amounts to a suggestion. The other piece about astronauts would be reflected in the other astronaut's visor? Click on the CBC link to see a photograph that clearly disproves the notion.

The rest of it is pure tripe, speculation and bad, bad science.

But, much like JFK, I would love to see it. Shame I missed it.

for you internet know hows, i found the CBC doc on eDonkey, tyring to download now, but going really slow.

I think the Fox broadcast was a joke as well. As far as the other oddities that were apparently found in the media....it's all about making cash and that what it all boils down to. The flag fiasco is a prime example. If it was shot in a movie sound stage why would there be wind inside a building? Then if there was a fan blowing it, why was there no other dust floating by as Dayseed pointed out?? So again why would the US put together this big hoax? On the other hand the bigger question remains who's interest would it be in, to dismiss the whole thing?.........the USSR! They would have been the first to cry foul and would have still pushed to get there first. As of yet I've never heard of them say it didn't happen. :roll:

[B][font=Comic Sans MS] [/font]Although i also believed in the moon landing to being true just a few years ago, i now find myself questioning it. My reason is, the year nasa was supposed to have landed on the moon, there was a unusually large amount of radiation around the perimiter of the moon. now, you will probally say that the shuttle was covered in lead or somethng, but the fact is, even if it had 8"thick of lead covering it, this would have offered no sheild against the radiation thus causing mutations and death to the astranouts..

thanks for reading

Rich117,

If the astronauts were willing to ride through the Van Allen belts to get to the moon then they were probably willing to ride through this mysterious "extra-radiation". Amounts of radiation are one thing to consider in mutagenesis, carcinogenesis or radiation poisoning. The other thing to consider is exposure time. Were the astronauts within the Van Allen belts long enough? Apparently not.

But, perhaps you can provide a little more insight on this ring of radiation around the moon you're quoting. I've never heard of it, unless you're referring to the Van Allen belts.

Good morning to you all...

Hey seed... I see my point is not going accross... I am just saying that it could be possible that the moon landing COULD be a hoax...

This is a Link to one of my sources. The internet is far from a biased placed to base an oppinion, but keep an open mind and you will see that "C" I mentioned. That should save me from playing ping pong with you. :roll:

And rich... could you shed some info on that radioactive you mentioned. Because it is not making sense at all. You have alpha and Beta particle which are not a threat to the astronauts, even in a elevated dose it would still not affect the astronauts. And Gamma is the dangerous one... and you would need a lot the be at a dangerous or fatal level. Chernobyl level to be as dangerous as you mentioned.

Mario,

Your point ISN'T getting across. The moon landing wasn't a hoax. Regina has the right bower in this debate. Why didn't the Soviets, the people best in the know to disprove ANY faulty American claims, show them up? Why did the Soviets CONGRATULATE the Americans as they (not poor Houston) were the first to receive signals from the moon?

Any claims contrary to the standard historical narrative of the Space Race HAVE to account for Soviet actions. But, if you wish to dismiss that and instead believe a third generation photocopy of a rock with a "c" on it is evidence of a hoax, be my guest. You might as well also surmise the world COULD be flat, the Flintstones COULD be a documentary and Rue McLannahan of Golden Girls fame COULD have been the sexiest senior woman on 80's television (beating out that cloven hoofed Katherine Helmond for the honour)

It's your choice.

TO answer your first question.... the soviets were under the same blanket. Many were saying that Gagarin wasn't the first man in space. And its not the way the soviets do business, When the soviets SST crashed at the paris airshow (back in 73 I think), it was because a french mirage was trying to take pictures of it. The soviets never tried to expose the french.

You are an idiot my friend... I already told you that the "C" is not a reference. AND the ONLY picture I questioned is the Lunar module with the american flag in the shade all light up. and How old are you man? or better... what do you do for living?

Speaking of radiation, and i know that this is not what Rich is talking about, the Van Allen belts do have a very high amount of radiation compared to the normal background radiation. However, Dr. James A. Van Allen, the man who discovered them, says that the readiation levels are nowhere near the level that could be harmful too humans. I have heard that the equivelant dosage is around that which you get from 1 x-ray.

And Dayseed, although i like the fact that you are helping to prove that landings were real, there is no need to attack Mario to do so. And he is right, they COULD have been faked, but it would be easier and cheaper to just go to the moon instead.