Were the apollo lunar landings faked?

[zeldask8r]

Now before you go an tell me how much of a nut case I am, and that I'm stupid to beleive such a thing, please hear me out. I know you think I'm the weirdo who beleives that 9/11 was a set up, and that I'm probably just crazy, but this time around I have some very serious evidence that greatly supports that the apollo lunar missions were faked!

For those of you who don't know, or maybe you live in another country so you've never heard of it, the apollo missions were space missions run by N.A.S.A ., funded by the government, who's objective was to land a man on the moon and bring him safely back to earth. Now, what spurred this desire was the "space race". During the cold war with russia, the soviet union sent the first satelite into space, called sputnik in 1957 , you probably already know that. The us imediately started research and funding for rockets, and other kinds of space related things. It was obvious that the two countries were determined to out-do on another. Anyway, as early as 1960 the united states started sending manned vessels into space, starting with the launch of an ape named "ham". By the date of 1962, it was clear that the soviets and the U.S. had set their eyes on being the first to explore the moon.

in fact, John F. Kennedy himself said that he wanted to land a man on the moon and safely return him before the end of the decade. You don't think it's a slight coincodence that man landed on the moon in 1969? the last year of that decade? I think that nasa realized they couldn't possibly land a man on the moon within the decade, so they faked the 5 apollo misisons that made it to the moon, so that they would seem more technologicly advanced than their rivals in the soviet union. And below is the proof of that.


As some more educated people may know, the earth is sourounded by an area of high radiation known as the "Van Allen belt". Now, tests have shown that to pass through this belt, and not be killed from the radiation, you would need a spacecraft with walls made of 4 foot thick lead! Now, the control module were the astronauts would have been located had a sheild of aluminum, that was only 1cm thick!!!! If they had really tried to go to the moon, the Van Allen belt's radiation would have killed the astronuats.


The moon's mass is 1/6 of earths. theirfore, the average person should weigh on sixth as much on the moon, makes sense right? Now, I don't know about you, but I can jump almost 2 feet on earth. Now, the people on that supposedly landed on the moon were much older than I, so lets say they could probably jump about 1 foot on earth. Now, this should mean that on the moon they could leap about 6 feet, right? However, look at ANY clip of the astronauts on the moon, and you will see they never reach over 2 feet maximum. I beleive a simple bungee cord allowed them to move the way they did in the film footage, and it wasn't weightlessness. here's a clip that show's light reflecting off wires of the space footage. here's the clip


BUT WAIT! IF THAT'S TRUE, HOW COME THE ASTRONAUTS DROPPED A FEATHER AND BRICK AT THE SAME TIME, AND THEY FELL AT THE SAME TIME? THAT COULD ONLY HAPPEN IN SPACE RIGHT?!?!?!

Not exactly. The reason a feather falls slower than a brick on earth is becuase of air resistance. Since their is no air in space, yes, a feather would fall at the same rate as a brick. However, one could also walk inside a sealed wind tunnel, the air could be sucked out of it, and the same thing could be manupulated.


here's another thing, why did the camera's on the apollo missions have such lousy quality? and why black and white? they could have filmed them in color to increase clarity. But that's just it, NASA wanted the images to look blury, and hard to see so that it would be harder to see all of their anomolies.


The shadows are wrong too. On the moon, their would be only 1 light source, the sun. Therefore, all shadows should be facing the same way right? here's your proof that their were multiple light sources (lighting on a studio set)

notice how the shadow of the lander goes east. While the shadow of the rock goes south-east. This is not possible unless their are more than one light source.

look at the following clip of apollo 16's lunar lift-off.
lunar lift off

Now notice two things. One is that the camera pans upword as the module lifts off. How could this happen? There would have to have been a camera man to do this. However, there couldn't possibly have been a camera man, becuase he would then have been stranded on the moon! also, the astronuats used film to record this. How did they retreive the film if they had just left the moon? Also, notice how when the lander lifts off, their is a flame! in space, since their is no air, a flame would not be visible. yet There it is! in plain sight! Does this not single handedly prove the missions were faked?

Still skeptical? read on.

Like I have stated a hundred times, there is NO air on the moon. However, when astronuats put of the us flag, it's blowing in the wind!!! that can't be because if there is no air, there's no wind, however, the flag is flapping around like crazy! proof that these missions were faked! here's the clip.
Blowing in the wind

And here, is the most convincing evidence of ALL!

On 3 of the missions to the moon, the astronauts took lunar rovers their to ride around on. They unfortunately had the leave these behind becuase it would have made the landers too heavy to lift off. Also, as you saw in the apollo 16 lunar lift-off clip, the base of the landers were left on the moon, as well as all the flags. HOWEVER! YOU CAN'T SEE THEM! Take a telescope and point it at the moon, your not gonna see any of these things. NASA has sent probes to orbit the moon, and take thousands of pictures to form one mosaic of the moon. However, do we see any buggies, flags, or lander bases in these pictures? NO! BECAUSE THEIR NOT THERE! you probably know of a site called google earth, that lets you use a satelite to view the earth. There is also a google moon. and would you look at that, still no sign of the remains! All you see is outlines of were the lunar bases SHOULD be, and were the flag SHOULD be. If they were really there, don't you think they would just show the actual thing instead of an outline?


BUT WAIT! WE GOT MOON ROCKS! THAT'S PROOF WE'VE BEEN TO THE MOON!

nope, space rocks don't necisarily have to be taken off the moons surface. IN antartica there are Ton's of sites were moon rocks are gathered.

HEY! THERE'S A CORNER REFLECTOR ON THE MOON! THAT'S PROOF HUMANS HAVE BEEN THERE!

A corner reflecter could easily have been placed their by a probe.

NASA HAD VERY POWERFUL TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME! I'M SURE THEY COULD HAVE PULLED OFF A MOON LANDING!

Not really. The computer on the apollo eleven mission had 32kilobytes of memory. That's about the amount of memory a modern day calculator has. You really beleive that a simple calculator could control the spacecraft?






Discuss your opinions on the matter.

[Jokerman]

And here, is the most convincing evidence of ALL!

On 3 of the missions to the moon, the astronauts took lunar rovers their to ride around on. They unfortunately had the leave these behind becuase it would have made the landers too heavy to lift off. Also, as you saw in the apollo 16 lunar lift-off clip, the base of the landers were left on the moon, as well as all the flags. HOWEVER! YOU CAN'T SEE THEM! Take a telescope and point it at the moon, your not gonna see any of these things. NASA has sent probes to orbit the moon, and take thousands of pictures to form one mosaic of the moon. However, do we see any buggies, flags, or lander bases in these pictures? NO! BECAUSE THEIR NOT THERE! you probably know of a site called google earth, that lets you use a satelite to view the earth. There is also a google moon. and would you look at that, still no sign of the remains! All you see is outlines of were the lunar bases SHOULD be, and were the flag SHOULD be. If they were really there, don't you think they would just show the actual thing instead of an outline?

I haven't read your post entirely, but for this I must say:
Of course you can't see the flags, or anything the austronats left after them, with a simple telescope. You know how giant the moon is? I've heard it is almost as big as Australia. The pictures of the moon you are mention, were probably tooken thousands of meters away from it. What you are saying, is like I would say this: "I can't see my house from the international space station".
EDIT: I saw the video with the wires, and actually you can see some wierd lights above the austronats... but remember, the TV quality weren't the best back then... Howewer, it is a hard riddle to break...

[Igna]

I'll take one point that I read: the shadow one.

Did it occur to you that the other shadows were simply on a slant? This would change the angle that the shadows appeared to be pointing towards.

[zeldask8r]

Originally Posted by Igna

I'll take one point that I read: the shadow one.

Did it occur to you that the other shadows were simply on a slant? This would change the angle that the shadows appeared to be pointing towards.

um...what are you saying exactly? I'm not understanding. Yeah, the shadow is on a slant, does this not prove that their is more than one light source?

I haven't read your post entirely, but for this I must say:
Of course you can't see the flags, or anything the austronats left after them, with a simple telescope. You know how giant the moon is? I've heard it is almost as big as Australia. The pictures of the moon you are mention, were probably tooken thousands of meters away from it. What you are saying, is like I would say this: "I can't see my house from the international space station".

yes, but I also went on to mention that no satelite has gotten photos of them either. NASA has sent probes to photograph the moon, and would you look at that, no signs of anyone being there. The satelite used for google moon doesn't show you the stuff either, just outlines of were they should be. If they were really there they would just show up!

[Nox]

If the moon landings were a fake, than the whole space race was an elaborate hoax by both the American and Russian governments. If the space race was a hoax, then we wouldn't be discussing about the moon landings on our PC's, whose technology was one of many results of the declassified technologies used during the space race.

THREAD OVER.

[Jokerman]

Not really. The computer on the apollo eleven mission had 32kilobytes of memory. That's about the amount of memory a modern day calculator has. You really beleive that a simple calculator could control the spacecraft?

But, weren't there many computers? I've heard that all of the computers they had together were like a "Windows XP computer"?
But, folks, I might remember wrong...

yes, but I also went on to mention that no satelite has gotten photos of them either. NASA has sent probes to photograph the moon, and would you look at that, no signs of anyone being there. The satelite used for google moon doesn't show you the stuff either, just outlines of were they should be. If they were really there they would just show up!

You know, that the flags of the United States they sat up there, probobably is white now; The sun has probably bleached them. That could be hard to see. And, all the stuff is very small, compared to the moon. I say like before: The sattelites were probably very far away from the moon when they took the pictures, and: how much did they zoom in to the moon....

Like I have stated a hundred times, there is NO air on the moon. However, when astronuats put of the us flag, it's blowing in the wind!!! that can't be because if there is no air, there's no wind, however, the flag is flapping around like crazy! proof that these missions were faked! here's the clip.

It is a little wierd how it blows...
But, didn't the flag stand out by itself? I think they built it so...

[Eternal Paradox]

Yes, we have been to the moon. Six times in fact. During one of the missions we actually placed mirrors on the moon to measure its distance from the Earth with a laser.

Previous thread on the matter.

Debunking Lunar hoax conspiracy.

Mirrors on the moon.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by zeldask8r

Now before you go an tell me how much of a nut case I am, and that I'm stupid to beleive such a thing, please hear me out. I know you think I'm the weirdo who beleives that 9/11 was a set up, and that I'm probably just crazy, but this time around I have some very serious evidence that greatly supports that the apollo lunar missions were faked!

For those of you who don't know, or maybe you live in another country so you've never heard of it, the apollo missions were space missions run by N.A.S.A ., funded by the government, who's objective was to land a man on the moon and bring him safely back to earth. Now, what spurred this desire was the "space race". During the cold war with russia, the soviet union sent the first satelite into space, called sputnik in 1957 , you probably already know that. The us imediately started research and funding for rockets, and other kinds of space related things. It was obvious that the two countries were determined to out-do on another. Anyway, as early as 1960 the united states started sending manned vessels into space, starting with the launch of an ape named "ham". By the date of 1962, it was clear that the soviets and the U.S. had set their eyes on being the first to explore the moon.

in fact, John F. Kennedy himself said that he wanted to land a man on the moon and safely return him before the end of the decade. You don't think it's a slight coincodence that man landed on the moon in 1969? the last year of that decade? I think that nasa realized they couldn't possibly land a man on the moon within the decade, so they faked the 5 apollo misisons that made it to the moon, so that they would seem more technologicly advanced than their rivals in the soviet union. And below is the proof of that.


As some more educated people may know, the earth is sourounded by an area of high radiation known as the "Van Allen belt". Now, tests have shown that to pass through this belt, and not be killed from the radiation, you would need a spacecraft with walls made of 4 foot thick lead! Now, the control module were the astronauts would have been located had a sheild of aluminum, that was only 1cm thick!!!! If they had really tried to go to the moon, the Van Allen belt's radiation would have killed the astronuats.


The moon's mass is 1/6 of earths. theirfore, the average person should weigh on sixth as much on the moon, makes sense right? Now, I don't know about you, but I can jump almost 2 feet on earth. Now, the people on that supposedly landed on the moon were much older than I, so lets say they could probably jump about 1 foot on earth. Now, this should mean that on the moon they could leap about 6 feet, right? However, look at ANY clip of the astronauts on the moon, and you will see they never reach over 2 feet maximum. I beleive a simple bungee cord allowed them to move the way they did in the film footage, and it wasn't weightlessness. here's a clip that show's light reflecting off wires of the space footage. here's the clip


BUT WAIT! IF THAT'S TRUE, HOW COME THE ASTRONAUTS DROPPED A FEATHER AND BRICK AT THE SAME TIME, AND THEY FELL AT THE SAME TIME? THAT COULD ONLY HAPPEN IN SPACE RIGHT?!?!?!

Not exactly. The reason a feather falls slower than a brick on earth is becuase of air resistance. Since their is no air in space, yes, a feather would fall at the same rate as a brick. However, one could also walk inside a sealed wind tunnel, the air could be sucked out of it, and the same thing could be manupulated.


here's another thing, why did the camera's on the apollo missions have such lousy quality? and why black and white? they could have filmed them in color to increase clarity. But that's just it, NASA wanted the images to look blury, and hard to see so that it would be harder to see all of their anomolies.


The shadows are wrong too. On the moon, their would be only 1 light source, the sun. Therefore, all shadows should be facing the same way right? here's your proof that their were multiple light sources (lighting on a studio set)

notice how the shadow of the lander goes east. While the shadow of the rock goes south-east. This is not possible unless their are more than one light source.

look at the following clip of apollo 16's lunar lift-off.
lunar lift off

Now notice two things. One is that the camera pans upword as the module lifts off. How could this happen? There would have to have been a camera man to do this. However, there couldn't possibly have been a camera man, becuase he would then have been stranded on the moon! also, the astronuats used film to record this. How did they retreive the film if they had just left the moon? Also, notice how when the lander lifts off, their is a flame! in space, since their is no air, a flame would not be visible. yet There it is! in plain sight! Does this not single handedly prove the missions were faked?

Still skeptical? read on.

Like I have stated a hundred times, there is NO air on the moon. However, when astronuats put of the us flag, it's blowing in the wind!!! that can't be because if there is no air, there's no wind, however, the flag is flapping around like crazy! proof that these missions were faked! here's the clip.
Blowing in the wind

And here, is the most convincing evidence of ALL!

On 3 of the missions to the moon, the astronauts took lunar rovers their to ride around on. They unfortunately had the leave these behind becuase it would have made the landers too heavy to lift off. Also, as you saw in the apollo 16 lunar lift-off clip, the base of the landers were left on the moon, as well as all the flags. HOWEVER! YOU CAN'T SEE THEM! Take a telescope and point it at the moon, your not gonna see any of these things. NASA has sent probes to orbit the moon, and take thousands of pictures to form one mosaic of the moon. However, do we see any buggies, flags, or lander bases in these pictures? NO! BECAUSE THEIR NOT THERE! you probably know of a site called google earth, that lets you use a satelite to view the earth. There is also a google moon. and would you look at that, still no sign of the remains! All you see is outlines of were the lunar bases SHOULD be, and were the flag SHOULD be. If they were really there, don't you think they would just show the actual thing instead of an outline?


BUT WAIT! WE GOT MOON ROCKS! THAT'S PROOF WE'VE BEEN TO THE MOON!

nope, space rocks don't necisarily have to be taken off the moons surface. IN antartica there are Ton's of sites were moon rocks are gathered.

HEY! THERE'S A CORNER REFLECTOR ON THE MOON! THAT'S PROOF HUMANS HAVE BEEN THERE!

A corner reflecter could easily have been placed their by a probe.

NASA HAD VERY POWERFUL TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME! I'M SURE THEY COULD HAVE PULLED OFF A MOON LANDING!

Not really. The computer on the apollo eleven mission had 32kilobytes of memory. That's about the amount of memory a modern day calculator has. You really beleive that a simple calculator could control the spacecraft?






Discuss your opinions on the matter.

There was a little thing known as the "Cold War" going on at the time. If the Soviet Union had any inkling that we had faked it, they would've shown the world. Why? Because Soviet radar was tracking the mission.

[Notsil]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

There was a little thing known as the "Cold War" going on at the time. If the Soviet Union had any inkling that we had faked it, they would've shown the world. Why? Because Soviet radar was tracking the mission.

Exactly! There was no reason for the Soviets to assist the US in anyway shape or form. Any possible way to demoralize and unsettle the American people without an act of war would have been used, especially something this monumental.

Even further, the US was too deep in Soviet stress to take the time to fake an epic moon landing. There'd be no reason to do all the stage work, if Russia could have simply proved it themselves. It'd be terribly economically stupid to go through all that work, especially since the Russians would have blown it all up in our faces if we tried.

[Λύσις]

Originally Posted by zeldask8r

Now before you go an tell me how much of a nut case I am, and that I'm stupid to beleive such a thing, please hear me out. I know you think I'm the weirdo who beleives that 9/11 was a set up, and that I'm probably just crazy, but this time around I have some very serious evidence that greatly supports that the apollo lunar missions were faked!

For those of you who don't know, or maybe you live in another country so you've never heard of it, the apollo missions were space missions run by N.A.S.A ., funded by the government, who's objective was to land a man on the moon and bring him safely back to earth. Now, what spurred this desire was the "space race". During the cold war with russia, the soviet union sent the first satelite into space, called sputnik in 1957 , you probably already know that. The us imediately started research and funding for rockets, and other kinds of space related things. It was obvious that the two countries were determined to out-do on another. Anyway, as early as 1960 the united states started sending manned vessels into space, starting with the launch of an ape named "ham". By the date of 1962, it was clear that the soviets and the U.S. had set their eyes on being the first to explore the moon.

in fact, John F. Kennedy himself said that he wanted to land a man on the moon and safely return him before the end of the decade. You don't think it's a slight coincodence that man landed on the moon in 1969? the last year of that decade? I think that nasa realized they couldn't possibly land a man on the moon within the decade, so they faked the 5 apollo misisons that made it to the moon, so that they would seem more technologicly advanced than their rivals in the soviet union. And below is the proof of that.

It's too bad you didn't do any research first. The claims you make below (especially the one about the flag waving) have been debunked several times before. Since I doubt you'll visit it yourself, I'll use a website posted by Eternal Paradox above, to show you why you're wrong.

As some more educated people may know, the earth is sourounded by an area of high radiation known as the "Van Allen belt". Now, tests have shown that to pass through this belt, and not be killed from the radiation, you would need a spacecraft with walls made of 4 foot thick lead! Now, the control module were the astronauts would have been located had a sheild of aluminum, that was only 1cm thick!!!! If they had really tried to go to the moon, the Van Allen belt's radiation would have killed the astronuats.

As some even more educated people may know, the Van Allen belt isn't nearly as dangerous as you make it sound, especially in a metal spaceship moving very fast.

Originally Posted by Bad Astronomy

Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''

This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!

It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.

The moon's mass is 1/6 of earths. theirfore, the average person should weigh on sixth as much on the moon, makes sense right? Now, I don't know about you, but I can jump almost 2 feet on earth. Now, the people on that supposedly landed on the moon were much older than I, so lets say they could probably jump about 1 foot on earth. Now, this should mean that on the moon they could leap about 6 feet, right? However, look at ANY clip of the astronauts on the moon, and you will see they never reach over 2 feet maximum. I beleive a simple bungee cord allowed them to move the way they did in the film footage, and it wasn't weightlessness. here's a clip that show's light reflecting off wires of the space footage. here's the clip


BUT WAIT! IF THAT'S TRUE, HOW COME THE ASTRONAUTS DROPPED A FEATHER AND BRICK AT THE SAME TIME, AND THEY FELL AT THE SAME TIME? THAT COULD ONLY HAPPEN IN SPACE RIGHT?!?!?!

Not exactly. The reason a feather falls slower than a brick on earth is becuase of air resistance. Since their is no air in space, yes, a feather would fall at the same rate as a brick. However, one could also walk inside a sealed wind tunnel, the air could be sucked out of it, and the same thing could be manupulated.

The site doesn't debunk this, but I read somewhere that someone jumped over the moon lander. Which is, of course, taller than two feet.

here's another thing, why did the camera's on the apollo missions have such lousy quality? and why black and white? they could have filmed them in color to increase clarity. But that's just it, NASA wanted the images to look blury, and hard to see so that it would be harder to see all of their anomolies.


The shadows are wrong too. On the moon, their would be only 1 light source, the sun. Therefore, all shadows should be facing the same way right? here's your proof that their were multiple light sources (lighting on a studio set)

notice how the shadow of the lander goes east. While the shadow of the rock goes south-east. This is not possible unless their are more than one light source.

First of all, there is more than one light source. There's the Sun, there's Earth, and there's the Moon itself. However, the Earth is too dim to cause any effect, and if it did there would be more than one shadow. Second of all, the shadows are not parallel due to two possible reasons. One: perspective. Two: topography. The only reason that shadows would be parallel is if they were on level ground. If the shadows were on slanted ground, the shadows would also be slanted. Also, simple perspective comes into play as well.

Originally Posted by Bad Astronomy

In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth. An example of that can be found at another debunking site. The scene (near the bottom of the above-linked page) shows objects with non-parallel shadows, distorted by perspective. If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don't take my word for it, go out and try!

Some images to seal the deal:


Perspective.


Slanted ground.

look at the following clip of apollo 16's lunar lift-off.
lunar lift off

Now notice two things. One is that the camera pans upword as the module lifts off. How could this happen? There would have to have been a camera man to do this. However, there couldn't possibly have been a camera man, becuase he would then have been stranded on the moon! also, the astronuats used film to record this. How did they retreive the film if they had just left the moon? Also, notice how when the lander lifts off, their is a flame! in space, since their is no air, a flame would not be visible. yet There it is! in plain sight! Does this not single handedly prove the missions were faked?

The site doesn't deal with this either (in fact, it deals with lunar hoax believers who say that the lunar lander should have had a flame, but didn't...) but have you ever heard of remote control? And how do we get film from robotic cameras on Mars? Also, I didn't see a flame in that video at all.

Still skeptical? read on.

Actually, I think you count at the skeptic in this case...

Like I have stated a hundred times, there is NO air on the moon. However, when astronuats put of the us flag, it's blowing in the wind!!! that can't be because if there is no air, there's no wind, however, the flag is flapping around like crazy! proof that these missions were faked! here's the clip.
Blowing in the wind

This is the single most annoying "evidence" ever. The flag is not blowing in the wind. I'm not sure if you know this or not, but there is NO air on the moon. This means no air resistance, and no friction. Notice that in the video the astronaut holding the flag is moving it around. Because there's no air, there is nothing to slow down the flag, and thus it ripples a bit longer than one would expect it too when somebody moves it. Also, the flag has a horizontal rod holding it open so that you can actually see the flag.

Also, if there was wind, why isn't the dust blowing around in it?

Originally Posted by Bad Astronomy

Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?

The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!

Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.

And here, is the most convincing evidence of ALL!

On 3 of the missions to the moon, the astronauts took lunar rovers their to ride around on. They unfortunately had the leave these behind becuase it would have made the landers too heavy to lift off. Also, as you saw in the apollo 16 lunar lift-off clip, the base of the landers were left on the moon, as well as all the flags. HOWEVER! YOU CAN'T SEE THEM! Take a telescope and point it at the moon, your not gonna see any of these things. NASA has sent probes to orbit the moon, and take thousands of pictures to form one mosaic of the moon. However, do we see any buggies, flags, or lander bases in these pictures? NO! BECAUSE THEIR NOT THERE! you probably know of a site called google earth, that lets you use a satelite to view the earth. There is also a google moon. and would you look at that, still no sign of the remains! All you see is outlines of were the lunar bases SHOULD be, and were the flag SHOULD be. If they were really there, don't you think they would just show the actual thing instead of an outline?


BUT WAIT! WE GOT MOON ROCKS! THAT'S PROOF WE'VE BEEN TO THE MOON!

nope, space rocks don't necisarily have to be taken off the moons surface. IN antartica there are Ton's of sites were moon rocks are gathered.

HEY! THERE'S A CORNER REFLECTOR ON THE MOON! THAT'S PROOF HUMANS HAVE BEEN THERE!

A corner reflecter could easily have been placed their by a probe.

NASA HAD VERY POWERFUL TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME! I'M SURE THEY COULD HAVE PULLED OFF A MOON LANDING!

Not really. The computer on the apollo eleven mission had 32kilobytes of memory. That's about the amount of memory a modern day calculator has. You really beleive that a simple calculator could control the spacecraft?

Discuss your opinions on the matter.

Of course you can't see anything on the Moon. That would be like me going to the Moon and trying to see a flag I set up in my front yard (not counting the atmosphere in the way of course.) Telescopes can't see such small objects that far away, not even powerful ones.

Also, Google Moon doesn't have any images at the zoom level you'd need to see such small objects.

[zeldask8r]

During one of the missions we actually placed mirrors on the moon to measure its distance from the Earth with a laser.

If you had actually read my post, you would know I mentioned this (the corner reflector) and I said it could easily have been placed there by a probe.

If the moon landings were a fake, than the whole space race was an elaborate hoax by both the American and Russian governments. If the space race was a hoax, then we wouldn't be discussing about the moon landings on our PC's, whose technology was one of many results of the declassified technologies used during the space race.

The russian's would not have to be in on this at all. And not everyone in the government would have to know either. I'm not denying that astronauts went to space. I believe we've been in space, and sent satelites up, and space stations, all of which we WOULD need computers for, and as a result, yes, we would still have our nice technology acheived from the space program if the missions were faked.

There was a little thing known as the "Cold War" going on at the time

you didn't read my post either. I specificly mentioned the cold war. I know it was going on, that's the whole reason for the space missions. Becuase U.S. wanted to 1-up the soviet union, and making it seem like we had landed on the moon would be a GREAT way to do it!

As some even more educated people may know, the Van Allen belt isn't nearly as dangerous as you make it sound, especially in a metal spaceship moving very fast.

The Van Allen belt is dangerous. And even if the astronauts were moving fast through it, it's less than 1cm of aluminum protecting you. They would have suffered from radiation. No doubt. 1cm of aluminum just isn't enough protection, even if you're only in the belt for a short amount of time.

The site doesn't deal with this either (in fact, it deals with lunar hoax believers who say that the lunar lander should have had a flame, but didn't...) but have you ever heard of remote control? And how do we get film from robotic cameras on Mars? Also, I didn't see a flame in that video at all.

you don't see? When the top of the lander de-ataches from the bottom, sparks fly and a flame is emitted that sends it upword. It should NOT have had a flame. film? well, the robotic cameras on mars were about 10X more sophisticated than these cameras. The cameras on mars, sent the pictures digitally back to the earth. However, at the time, like I stated, the computers had 32kilobytes of memory. The average picture is a few THOUSAND kilobytes. There's NO way they could have digitally sent them to mission control with their primitive technology. Therefore, someone would have had to bring the film back home. And since the camera was left there, there's no way that could have happened!

This is the single most annoying "evidence" ever. The flag is not blowing in the wind. I'm not sure if you know this or not, but there is NO air on the moon. This means no air resistance, and no friction. Notice that in the video the astronaut holding the flag is moving it around. Because there's no air, there is nothing to slow down the flag, and thus it ripples a bit longer than one would expect it too when somebody moves it. Also, the flag has a horizontal rod holding it open so that you can actually see the flag.

Also, if there was wind, why isn't the dust blowing around in it?

okay, so it's a possibility the flag isn't waving in the wind. It sure looks like to me! Why isn't the dust moving? Becuase the wind isn't strong enough. Here's an analogy. Have you ever been on a beach and seen a sailboat go by? Well, the sailboat's sail (resembling the flag in this case) is catching the wind an moving. However, the sand your sitting on isn't blowing all over the place is it? NO, because the canvas is catching the wind, and the sand (or dust) isn't. It's that simple.

Of course you can't see anything on the Moon. That would be like me going to the Moon and trying to see a flag I set up in my front yard (not counting the atmosphere in the way of course.) Telescopes can't see such small objects that far away, not even powerful ones.

Also, Google Moon doesn't have any images at the zoom level you'd need to see such small objects.

true, however, I have used google earth to zoom in far enough that I could see my house. I could even see my dads car in our driveway. So, if I could see stuff on google earth, why not on google moon?

[Igna]

Originally Posted by zeldask8r

um...what are you saying exactly? I'm not understanding. Yeah, the shadow is on a slant, does this not prove that their is more than one light source?

Though I consider the debate rather one-sided already, just for clarity...

It is on a slanted ground, which makes the shadow look like it is pointing in a different direction than it actually is.



It's not rocket science.

[zeldask8r]

Originally Posted by Igna

Though I consider the debate rather one-sided already, just for clarity...

It is on a slanted ground, which makes the shadow look like it is pointing in a different direction than it actually is.



It's not rocket science.

okay, I understand. Okay, well than 1 part of my post has been debunked.

Who's up for debunking the rest! c'mon, I'm looking for a challenger!

[Λύσις]

Originally Posted by zeldask8r

The Van Allen belt is dangerous. And even if the astronauts were moving fast through it, it's less than 1cm of aluminum protecting you. They would have suffered from radiation. No doubt. 1cm of aluminum just isn't enough protection, even if you're only in the belt for a short amount of time.

Or, so you think. Yet, you provide no evidence, nor any sources, that say this. On the other hand, I did provide a source, one that says the Van Allen belt would not have been a problem.

you don't see? When the top of the lander de-ataches from the bottom, sparks fly and a flame is emitted that sends it upword. It should NOT have had a flame. film? well, the robotic cameras on mars were about 10X more sophisticated than these cameras. The cameras on mars, sent the pictures digitally back to the earth. However, at the time, like I stated, the computers had 32kilobytes of memory. The average picture is a few THOUSAND kilobytes. There's NO way they could have digitally sent them to mission control with their primitive technology. Therefore, someone would have had to bring the film back home. And since the camera was left there, there's no way that could have happened!

Well, we have been to the Moon six times, they could always have picked up the film then.

okay, so it's a possibility the flag isn't waving in the wind. It sure looks like to me! Why isn't the dust moving? Becuase the wind isn't strong enough. Here's an analogy. Have you ever been on a beach and seen a sailboat go by? Well, the sailboat's sail (resembling the flag in this case) is catching the wind an moving. However, the sand your sitting on isn't blowing all over the place is it? NO, because the canvas is catching the wind, and the sand (or dust) isn't. It's that simple.

The dust is lighter than the flag, and lighter than sand. As for your analogy, the wind is stronger over the ocean, although you do have a point in saying that the sail has more surface area and catches the wind better.

But all that's really irrelevant anyway, as there was no wind. The flag was moving because the pole holding the flag was moving. I could wave a flag indoors, with no wind, and it would move.

true, however, I have used google earth to zoom in far enough that I could see my house. I could even see my dads car in our driveway. So, if I could see stuff on google earth, why not on google moon?

Because, like I said, Google Moon does not have images at that zoom level. Try it for yourself. The closest you can zoom in provides very little detail of the surface of the Moon, and any small objects on it would be impossible to see. Also, it's not like Google has satellites constantly pointed at the Moon that take pictures every now and then, or while you're using it.

[Notsil]

Van Allen radiation belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read through that, and then tell me how the Van Allen belt was dangerous to the Apollo astronauts.

During Project Apollo, astronauts traveled through the Van Allen belts on both the outbound and return trips to the moon. The crews spen