Did Man Land On The Moon?
74
And evidence shows for and against that someone landed on the moon on July 20 1969 and here it is:
For
Evidence that the US did land on the moon is that we know for a fact that there are satellites, space stations and other space probes etc. in space so why is it so hard to land on a lump of rock?
Another thing going for America landing on the moon in 1969(the first recorded time that someone did land on the moon) is the government records that are open to the US public and many analysts and scientists etc have looked over the files to check if they match up with other evidence that they have. But you could argue that the people were bribed by the US government to say that the records checked out, which brings me on to the second argument.
Anyway, do we trust the American goverment I suppose is the main question.
Against
I think the first thing to say is, would America be so shallow and so demidiante that they would pull such a trick on the whole world including their own people? and I think the answer to that is yes. The reason that America may of faked the landing on the moon in 1969 was because that the soviet union and the USA were in races with each other, three in fact the space race, arms race and spy race which is not usually mentioned but it should be as if there wasn't it’s said that the Russians would not of made it past the clouds.
The evidence we have for the theory that man did not land on the moon all those years ago is mostly visual so I shall be referring to pictures at the bottom, which I have numbered( sorry for the captions I am mr.stubbs). As you can see in picture 1 have circled certain things the first thing I’ve circle is the flag see it how it flys sort of side ways like flag does on earth, it flaps you could say, but there is no wind on the moon so the flag would not look like that, you could argue that he is holding it upright like that but look at the next picture, picture 2, nobody’s holding it weird huh. But a couple of years ago a picture was found of the astronaut Eugene saluting the flag and the flag is being given the effect of it flapping by having a metal rod attached to the top of the flag and to the rod stand, but why was it found so may years later. The second thing is the shadows they are leaning the wrong way and are either to long or to short (I can't remember which). The next picture, picture 3, is hilarious, don't look at the man look at the background look no stars.
Now the next bit is what supposedly started the whole thing off. Look at picture 4 the one with two pictures in it now look at the background, yeah that’s right those mountains or hills if you like, they are the same bloody hills/mountains but in a different locations, NASA have just stuck the same back ground on each picture, hilarious.
My verdict
I believe that the moon landing was a hoax but I also want to believe that it was not a hoax but we shall never know for sure, or will we. Du du du du du du du du du.
Hope you found this interesting
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
yep probably
LOL, I was also going to say "not this again!" but it seems someone beat me to it! ;) It's interesting though. Dunno what happened, as I wasn't there.. !
Inerestingly, I heard a few weeks ago that NASA can no longer find the original films of the moon landing. No way to check out the films now. Concidence or more government bungling? As you say, we may never know.
But why are there no stars in the pictures? How has this been explained?
I'm joining your fanclub just becuz of this...
I have would never have believed this a few years ago but since the lies about 9/11 I have studied a lot about it. The fact is that NASA did lie just like the American and English government did with 9/11 and 7/7
Sad but true!
this provides enough evidence to prove its fake, but the only negative is that there are not enough posirives. its like the author wants you to agree with him. please provide more evidence for the positives =]
ty
Rapidchoper
no stars because it was "day time"in the moon, just like in earth u cant see starts during daytime
Several times over the past month I've seen people in the comments section here asking why stars aren't visible in photos taken from the International Space Station, from the space shuttle, or from lunar satellites.
This objection is one of the prime issues raised by people who claim to believe the original moon landings were hoaxes. But put that aside – it's a valid question, and remains a puzzling one for many who are unfamiliar with the details.
The answer turns out to be simple. On Earth we're used to seeing stars brilliantly dot the nighttime sky, and in space, the sky always appears black as night. But the analogy turns out not to hold.
Our daytime sky is bright because of the diffusion of light through the atmosphere. In space, or on the moon, there's no atmosphere to spread the light around, and the sky will appear black at midday – but that doesn't mean it's not just as bright. An astronaut looking out the window of the space station will see just as much direct sunlight, if not more, than I will looking out my apartment window on a cloudless day.
If I want to take a picture out my sunny window, I'll naturally use a fast exposure and a narrow aperture setting on my camera, which lets only a short burst of light in – a little like the way the pupils of the eye contract in sunlight, so the bright light isn't so painful.
Naturally, the astronauts or satellites in space are going to do the same thing when taking pictures of sunlit objects, since it's just as bright up there. Fast exposure times means they can get good pictures of the bright Earth or lunar surface, but it also means no stars in the picture. Even in space, stars are relatively dim, and simply don't produce enough light to show up in photos set for bright sunlight.
i really didn't want to have to explain how cameras work on here, but i guess if you think the moon landing was fake, you probably wouldn't understand how a camera, and film work. thanks for covering the bases for me.oh and all the flag waves not because of wind but because physics work on the moon just like the do on earth, and things in motion tend to stay in motion untill some out side force acts on them. so if the flag was waved at all when putting it into the moon, it will carry it's momentum for a certain amount of time.
I just don't think the US have the ability or technology to land on the moon, they can do it once, but they cannot do it again.
sori sir.
but ur all wrong.
in the 1st picture,yeah ur ryt,there is no wind on moon theflag is hanging up like that is because the rod for that flag is special,what i mean?that special rod is like letter L upside.now u understand?and there is no stars because its in space...u know????SPACE.....its not easy to see other heavenly bodies,and because stars are too small.if it is the size of the earth,you will probably see those.
i dont believe in this....
man really landed on moon.
have any of you heard about moon landing in last 10 or even 20 yrs? the answer is NO. and when it happened first time? in 60's. with the speed of expanding technology we supose to have buses to the moon every 10 mins. fake, fake, fake
kinda weird????? but i guess no ones gonna take such a big risk of just sticking backgrounds..... huh?????
he is not really land on moon. the evidence for this is 'CONSPRENCY THEORY'
the further evidences are
the blast creeders of shuttle looks like a new one after landing
wavivg of flag on moon
the reference cross hairs in the photos are behind the image. How it is possible???????????
the most importent point is the lunar atmosphere is full of radiations but those men are not affected by any such radiations
in the documantry given by NASA the men is jumping of men from the shuttle.ok
but How it is possible to jump on the surface in the absence of gravity??????????
the shadows casted in the photo are in two directions. how????????
the sound of rocket engine is more than 140db. How it is not possible to here the sound of blast
then how it is possible to here the voice of them.....................
he is not really land on moon. the evidence for this is 'CONSPRENCY THEORY'
the further evidences are
the blast creeders of shuttle looks like a new one after landing
wavivg of flag on moon
the reference cross hairs in the photos are behind the image. How it is possible???????????
the most importent point is the lunar atmosphere is full of radiations but those men are not affected by any such radiations
in the documantry given by NASA the men is jumping of men from the shuttle.ok
but How it is possible to jump on the surface in the absence of gravity??????????
the shadows casted in the photo are in two directions. how????????
the sound of rocket engine is more than 140db. How it is not possible to here the sound of blast
then how it is possible to here the voice of them.....................
he is not really land on moon. the evidence for this is 'CONSPRENCY THEORY'
the further evidences are
the blast creeders of shuttle looks like a new one after landing
wavivg of flag on moon
the reference cross hairs in the photos are behind the image. How it is possible???????????
the most importent point is the lunar atmosphere is full of radiations but those men are not affected by any such radiations
in the documantry given by NASA the men is jumping of men from the shuttle.ok
but How it is possible to jump on the surface in the absence of gravity??????????
the shadows casted in the photo are in two directions. how????????
the sound of rocket engine is more than 140db. How it is not possible to here the sound of blast
then how it is possible to here the voice of them.....................
Clearly, none of you have even bothered to open google and research
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
Check this out and I hope you will realize man did land on the moon. The conspiracy theories are fake and it is not a hoax
Think about it. 500,000 people worked on the project. If it was a fake, the secret was bound to be told by someone. It's human nature. Please take your time to read the article on the site mentioned above
YES!! WE LANDED ON THE MOON!!!
Why do you think Kennedy was KILLED
ye defo a hox and if thay did land on the moon y have they not gon back
wew are doing this in school and i am not ure but the pictures here are very intersting because they are all against it but how do we know that you haven't tampered with them and you have also put alot of evidence agansist and not for which leads me to belive that ytou have already made up your mind and that this arguement is unfair.
You idiot. First of all, in the video, you see the two astronuaghts construct the flag and put two poles through the top of the flag and the bottom that click into place with the main pole to hold it upright.
And with your 3rd picture, the camera was probably not good enought to focus on the man and the stars beyond him.
On and your 4th picture, the hills are a different shape!!! If you look closely, they definately are different shapes.
And following V.P.Prabhakaran's point, there IS gravity just not as much as on Earth. And the shadows are cast by the Sun and the reflections from the Earth which are greater than that from the moon (hence it is not pitch-black at night here). And they were not using their full engines to land the rocket otherwise they wouldn't be able to land!!!!! AND THEIR MICROPHONES WILL BE RIGHT NEXT TO THIR MOUTHS!!!!
the moon landing is real i agree with tomatoe 9
DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?
A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory
On February 15, 2001 the FOX television network aired a program titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon? This program showed alleged evidence that NASA faked the moon landings. This hoax theory has been around for several years, but this is the first time it has been presented to such a wide audience. Since this Website, Rocket and Space Technology, is dedicated to the men and women who brought the moon landings to fruition, I feel the time is right for me to speak out on this topic.
This TV program capitalizes on America's fixation with government conspiracies by sensationalizing the notion that NASA perpetrated a multi-billion dollar hoax on the world. In my opinion, the FOX network acted irresponsibly by airing this program. What they produced is a TV show filled with sloppy research, scientific inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. To support such an absurd theory and to cast doubt in the minds of the American public is an insult to the courage of the astronauts and the brilliance of the engineers who worked to achieve mankind's greatest technological feat. FOX is apparently only concerned with ratings while exhibiting total disregard for the integrity of America's true heroes.
Some of the most prominent advocates of the hoax theory are Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went To The Moon, Ralph Rene, author of NASA Mooned America, David Percy and Mary Bennett, co-authors of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers and, more recently, Bart Sibrel, producer of A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon. These people, and other hoax advocates, usually point to alleged anomalies in the Apollo photo and video record as evidence of their claims. The FOX program featured many of these claims while providing very little refuting evidence or testimony. Below are my comments refuting both the evidence presented in the TV program and many other common hoax allegations. I invite you to draw your own conclusions, but I suspect you will find the facts speak for themselves.
The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.
Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017% (1 in 60,000). The source of this information appears to be a report prepared by the Rocketdyne company in the late 1950s. This assessment was, of course, based on understanding and technology existing at the time of the report. As tremendous resources were poured into the problem over the next decade, the reliability studies improved dramatically.
During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.
Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.
This is the claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. Although I am unfamiliar with the source of this information, Mr. Rene's assertion is clear; the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a "defect" and a "major technical problem". None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions with amazing success.
The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.
Television pictures of the Apollo 11 landing were sent directly to Earth from the surface of the Moon using the Lunar Module's antenna and power supply. This placed a restriction on the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted. Apollo 11 was thereby limited to using a black-and-white, slow-scan TV camera with a scan rate of 10 frames-per-second at 320 lines-per-frame. In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 30 frames-per-second at 525 lines-per-frame. The pictures transmitted from the Moon were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a vidicon camera was pointed at the screen and the pictures were scanned at the EIA standard. A number of peculiar image artifacts were seen on the images. One set of artifacts was produced by sunlight reflecting off the astronauts and the LM onto the TV camera's lens. These reflections produced the ghostly effects perceived by the public. Other prominent artifacts were the result of spots burnt into the monitor screens from which the optical conversions were produced.
Apollo 11 was only a first step in what was to be increasingly ambitious missions, thus it was lacking in some capabilities. Among these was the ability to transmit high-quality TV pictures. Later missions, starting with Apollo 12, had enough time in the schedule to permit the astronauts to erect large freestanding dish antennae. This increased the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted, thus allowing complex color TV pictures to be sent directly to Earth.
There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures.
The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. The photosensitive emulsions layers where placed on an ESTAR polyester film base, which had previously been used primarily for motion picture film. The melting point of Estar is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at around 200° F. Fortunately the film was never exposed to this kind of temperature. The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts' clothing, were indeed white.
Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters.
The implication is that the astronauts could not have achieved this apparent level of perfection. The obvious answer is that they did not, as is evident by this badly underexposed example [see photo]. The photos to which the hoax advocates refer are publicity photos released by NASA. Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. Also, what appears to be perfect composition is, in many cases, the result of cropping. If all the photographs were uncropped, the number, size and pattern of crosshairs would be identical in every photo, which clearly is not the case. I don't mean to take anything away from the astronauts because they performed a remarkable job, which can be explained in three words: practice, practice, and practice. Perhaps no humans have ever been better prep
DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?
A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory
On February 15, 2001 the FOX television network aired a program titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon? This program showed alleged evidence that NASA faked the moon landings. This hoax theory has been around for several years, but this is the first time it has been presented to such a wide audience. Since this Website, Rocket and Space Technology, is dedicated to the men and women who brought the moon landings to fruition, I feel the time is right for me to speak out on this topic.
This TV program capitalizes on America's fixation with government conspiracies by sensationalizing the notion that NASA perpetrated a multi-billion dollar hoax on the world. In my opinion, the FOX network acted irresponsibly by airing this program. What they produced is a TV show filled with sloppy research, scientific inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. To support such an absurd theory and to cast doubt in the minds of the American public is an insult to the courage of the astronauts and the brilliance of the engineers who worked to achieve mankind's greatest technological feat. FOX is apparently only concerned with ratings while exhibiting total disregard for the integrity of America's true heroes.
Some of the most prominent advocates of the hoax theory are Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went To The Moon, Ralph Rene, author of NASA Mooned America, David Percy and Mary Bennett, co-authors of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers and, more recently, Bart Sibrel, producer of A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon. These people, and other hoax advocates, usually point to alleged anomalies in the Apollo photo and video record as evidence of their claims. The FOX program featured many of these claims while providing very little refuting evidence or testimony. Below are my comments refuting both the evidence presented in the TV program and many other common hoax allegations. I invite you to draw your own conclusions, but I suspect you will find the facts speak for themselves.
The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.
Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017% (1 in 60,000). The source of this information appears to be a report prepared by the Rocketdyne company in the late 1950s. This assessment was, of course, based on understanding and technology existing at the time of the report. As tremendous resources were poured into the problem over the next decade, the reliability studies improved dramatically.
During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.
Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.
This is the claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. Although I am unfamiliar with the source of this information, Mr. Rene's assertion is clear; the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a "defect" and a "major technical problem". None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions with amazing success.
The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.
Television pictures of the Apollo 11 landing were sent directly to Earth from the surface of the Moon using the Lunar Module's antenna and power supply. This placed a restriction on the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted. Apollo 11 was thereby limited to using a black-and-white, slow-scan TV camera with a scan rate of 10 frames-per-second at 320 lines-per-frame. In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 30 frames-per-second at 525 lines-per-frame. The pictures transmitted from the Moon were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a vidicon camera was pointed at the screen and the pictures were scanned at the EIA standard. A number of peculiar image artifacts were seen on the images. One set of artifacts was produced by sunlight reflecting off the astronauts and the LM onto the TV camera's lens. These reflections produced the ghostly effects perceived by the public. Other prominent artifacts were the result of spots burnt into the monitor screens from which the optical conversions were produced.
Apollo 11 was only a first step in what was to be increasingly ambitious missions, thus it was lacking in some capabilities. Among these was the ability to transmit high-quality TV pictures. Later missions, starting with Apollo 12, had enough time in the schedule to permit the astronauts to erect large freestanding dish antennae. This increased the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted, thus allowing complex color TV pictures to be sent directly to Earth.
There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures.
The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. The photosensitive emulsions layers where placed on an ESTAR polyester film base, which had previously been used primarily for motion picture film. The melting point of Estar is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at around 200° F. Fortunately the film was never exposed to this kind of temperature. The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts' clothing, were indeed white.
Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters.
The implication is that the astronauts could not have achieved this apparent level of perfection. The obvious answer is that they did not, as is evident by this badly underexposed example [see photo]. The photos to which the hoax advocates refer are publicity photos released by NASA. Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. Also, what appears to be perfect composition is, in many cases, the result of cropping. If all the photographs were uncropped, the number, size and pattern of crosshairs would be identical in every photo, which clearly is not the case. I don't mean to take anything away from the astronauts because they performed a remarkable job, which can be explained in three words: practice, practice, and practice. Perhaps no humans have ever been better prep
Actuually one peice of evidence from modern times is pretty convincing that man didnt land on the moon in 1969. I was watching Sky news and a senior Nasa spokesman was talking about a future moon landing. He said they had planned to go to the moon and make a manned landing in 2017 but due to many technical issues this wouldnt be possible. He went on to say he didnt expect it to happen now until the 2020s when he hoped the difficulties of a moon landing would be solved. The Sky reporter then jumped in and said "hang on didnt you go to the moon back in 1969, how come you could do it then and you cant now". The guy from NASA just looked at the camera and the link with Nasa was lost. Russia crash landed a sputnik on the surface of the moon in either 1959 or 1960. They were also the first to put a man in outer space after using animals. They were at one point well ahead of the Americans. Basically in the cold war, he who conquered space was the most powerful on earth and America won the battle by alledgedly landing on the moon. So basically comming from behind America was able to pass the Russians and in the short space time of either 9 or 10 years put men on the moon. IT WAS A HOAX, THE BIGGEST EVER. The real truth is they are still working on doing it for the first time. Shadows, no stars etc etc are all things that can argued, explained and dismissed by the experts and I am no expert. I have however looked at and touched the spacesuits and absolutely no way could they have protected anyone from extreme cold or extreme heat. The man made fibres we use today for those purposes hadnt been invented then. Had they been developed specially for the space program, they would have sold the developments on, as they have with many other things to help pay for future missions. All you need to do is use your commonsense, you dont have to be a rocket scientist to work it out, we simply didnt have the technicalogical knowhow back then to achieve such an almost impossible task. If you do believe they did land on the moon then you probably believe the earth is flat and the moon is made from cream cheese. I was told by a man who lives or lived in Nevada the whole bloody thing was filmed in area 51. I pushed him with questions that he flatly refused to answer. I never heard from him again which was strange because we had been communicating for more than 18 months. Maybe he was warned who knows. America has many secrets and this has to be the most guarded of all.
I have just read the comments of the guy who posted before me. I do understand his acknowledgement of the very brave men who went into space and I do accept him not wanting to think the American government hoodwinked the World with a clever Buck Rogers movie, its a very patriotic view, and I respect it. Unlike most of you, I lived through those times and I dont have to refer to books or the internet about the 50s and 60s. Computers that would have filled a very large room back then were nowhere near as powerful as a tiny laptop is today and software didnt exist. We hadnt been using transistors all that long and the micro chip wasnt invented until many years after. Spaceships had electrics not electronics. Technology back then was crude by todays standards and even NASA with its huge budget was using equipment that today belongs in a museum. People back then were in general far more gullible than they are today and were far more likely to believe what they were told by the media. Today we question things more and you only have to look at the huge advances in technology in the past 40 years to realise landing on the moon was an utter impossibilty in 1969. Orbiting the moon is one thing but landing on it is another. Getting men into space and bringing them back alive was in itself an enormous acheivment for those times. I therefore salute all those involved in the space program then, and in the years since, who have worked so hard and those who have died when things went wrong. Going full circle then if its going to take another 15 years, World economy permitting, to solve the problems of landing on the moon, I think that tells us without any doubts, we never did land there 40 years ago. Forget all the expert analysis that can be argued till the cows come home, pure logic and commonsense says the whole thing was a hoax. I think in a way NASA has finally told us the truth without ever intending to do so.
i believe that we never landed on the moon. its totally fake
i believe that we never landed on the moon. its totally fake
As I said before I am no expert on technical issues so I have done some research that should kill off any belief that men went to the moon once and for all. The surface of the moon has an environment so severe even today it would be impossible for a man to land and walk on it. In the light the temperature is as hot as inside a domestic oven and in the shadows more than twice as cold as the Antarctic.If that isnt bad enough the levels of radiation are so high that each man would have to wear lead protection 4 feet thick to survive. It certainly isnt the friendly place we think it is when we look up at the moon on a clear night. That for me and should you, discount any possibility that the Americans ever landed men on the moon all those years ago. Before you even get to the moon you have to pass through the Van Allen belts which again are highly radioactive so even orbiting the moon would seem impossible, never mind landing on it. Even low levels of radiation will give you cancer, while higher levels will destroy your vital organs. The Americans and the Russians were very aware of the radiation levels in deep space and on the moon back then but only now are the Americans looking at the huge problems associated with radiation. Putting people into orbit around the Earth is relatively safe, but even so lives were lost. I understand the moon is 240,000 miles away from Earth and when manned craft orbited the Earth they were only 250 miles up and still protected by the Earths atmosphere. Furthermore they were at a very safe distance from the lethal Van Alen belts. Another astonishing fact also has to be considered. Radiation in space is variable and was much higher than usual between 1969 annd 1971 but according to what we are told that wasnt a problem back then. Today its seen as a massive problem but an even bigger problem has to be for NASA to explain how they got to the moon all those years ago with rather basic technology compared to what we have today. Forty years is a long time and what we have discovered and what we have achieved in that time is phenominal yet the problems associated with high levels of radiation in space are still holding us back. It seems we are still a very long way off putting a manned craft into outer space yet many believe we not only accomplished it but did it 40 years ago. For some its like their religion, it must not be questioned. They believe in the moon landings in a similar way to the events in the Bible or whatever is their book of faith. I havent looked at the photographic evidence which can be debated this way and that, I dont think any of that is necessary. You just need to apply commonsense, logic and reasoning and you have to come to the conclusion it was the BIGGEST HOAX EVER STAGED. By the way the Cottingley Fairies was a hoax too but people believed what they saw in the photographs. Two young girls surrounded by fairies in the early 20th century by a brook. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle provided the sealed camera and he was convinced they were real. The last of the girls to survive was still insisting as an old lady the photographs were genuine. Then just before she died she finally confessed how with the help of her father they rigged the whole thing. You might think this hoax is a strange comparison, who is stupid enough to believe in faries, but the fact is hundreds of thousands did until the old lady came clean. Look again at the improbability of men on the moon all those years ago and its just about as daft as the Cottingley fairies, thats why I make the comparison. You live in modern times, not back in the 60s or early 70s when people could be fooled and were. We now have more than enough knowledge and information to realise it never happened and could not of happened. I emailed a so called expert who insists it did happen and being unable to deal with my points I got back three lines of childish stuff which surprised me. Why did he even bother writing back, lowering himself to that level.
Waylon, I cannot agree with you any more here. You have made serveral valid points, and you seem to be well informed. I however am not well informed on this matter, so it is not fair for me to call it a hoax or call it real. It is all very interesting though! I do believe that NASA has made matters worse for themselves, as it appears they have given out vague information for the last 40 years. If I was NASA, and knew for a fact that I landed on the moon, then I would do everything in my power to debunk the conspiracy theory. Instead it seems as if NASA has decided to hide in the shadows about this matter. If I am wrong on this, then could someone please direct me to information where NASA is defending themselves, instead of wishful thinkers defending themselves? It is possible that I have just not been exposed to the NASA evidence. I want so bad to believe that we have landed on the moon, but as Waylon has mentioned, you have to use common sense on this matter. The whole religion point is so valid. People are so scared to question what they believe in, because if you question one thing you believe in, then you have to question everything you believe in. It is fun asking friends and families about this matter as well, because for the most part the conservative, simple minded, church every Sunday, will tell you that there is no way this is a hoax. Again, that is just an observation among people I know, so I am not claiming that as factual. People should view this as a fun topic, and not get upset with each other. We are human, and what makes us human is our ability to think logically. That is all I have. I have enjoyed reading everyones comments.
I think it is clear that the appollo missions orbitted the moon and did the amazing things they did, but actually landing on the surface and more to the point getting off it again is questionable. Sure looks fishy.... and taking into account the truth behind 911 thats slowly coming to the surface. Maybe it was a hoax ???
I'm almost embarrassed to admit I don't personally believe they landed on the moon. Mainly because it puts me in a minority -most people think you are a crackpot for thinking they might not.
I can't in all honesty say I'm 100% sure they didn't, but it just seems that in 1969 the technology was simply not there.
However, at some point, telescopes powerful enough to look at the moons surface should be able to provide conclusive evidence one way or the other.
I was told that the Japanese are developing just such a telescope, though I'm not sure what the timeframe for completion is.
Bruce. Dont be embarrassed, everybody is entitled to an opinion, and you have yours. If the Japanese do develop a telescope powerful enough to examine the moons surface they are hardly likely to expose NASA because politically that would be a bad decision. Japans trade with America is worth billions and I cant see them jeopadizing that. NASA is owned, funded and controlled by the Pentagon, so they are a pretty powerful organization. It wouldnt be the first time somebody looked through a telescope and found the exact opposite to what was previously believed, and that is an historical fact.
This guy has a completly false oppinion. I mean how do you explain the moon rocks that NASA scientist were studying they were obviously brought from the moon on 20 June, 1969. Half the world was even watching the live video of Niel and Buzz walking on the moon, how can you explain that?
I dont think Niel Armstrong is the worlds most famous man for no reason.
Humans have never came into pyhsical contact with the moon. If they did why haven't they went back since?
that flag "proof" is not valid,
when you move flag force that you applie make it "move" and not wind
also there is "pole" @ upper part of flag to make it stand upright like that
Robin says:
"Humans have never came into pyhsical contact with the moon. If they did why haven't they went back since?"
Because it cost them more money than your tiny little brain can process, and after several successful Apollo missions, the US politicians and coin counters, let alone the public themselves didn't want to fund any more trips to the moon. There are only so many dusty old rocks to look at at. Also, once Apollo 11 landed...the political punch in the Soviets gut had already been accomplished. My only surprise is that they want back as many times as they did.
I hate to hear moon landing disbelievers of any nationality, but when I hear it from Americans it really turns my stomach. They should be damn proud of what their countrymen achieved during the Apollo program. I might not be American, but as a human being I'm proud of them.
Is anyone watching MythBusters right now. They have busted all the 'CONSPRENCY THEORIES' they have tested so far.
If you belive that man has been to the moon and never been back you might as well belive in Santa
Come on its all rubbish and deep down you all know it
There is no way that man could of survived the radiation and the extreme heat and cold in deep space. Did man have the ability in 69 to leave our atmosphere. I don't think so! Man has advanced more since the 1960's to now, than he ever will in the future. Have we learned technology from distant aliens and their crafts?, because we have come up with alot of cool stuff in 40yrs. Amazing technology is all around us in our electronics, lasers, carbon fiber, fiber optics, digital, micro chips, and etc. No, we have not been on the moon, and we should quit throwing tax dollars at such programs and focus on vehicles that don't use gasoline, and power plants that don't use coal! Now mars is the talk in the media, why should we spend money on that stuff when we have poverty in our country and homeless folks! The hubble telescope is a good thing for us but it cost a ton of tax dollars. That is the only science program that i have support for, and it has helped us explore and learn alot. Hubble has seen things that we the public will never see though. We as the greatest country on earth must slow down and take care of our people. We are in bad shape now and it's time to go back to the basics and see that we all have our health, a home, food to eat, go back to manufacturing our basic stuff like clothing and shoes etc without pollution. "Quit buying from China"! We must have jobs, and we need to care about each other. Our country went on a massive chemical industial run for 40yrs and we are lucky our country and earth are still here! Our country has alot of very rich people because of greed and corruption. The regular working people just getting by are the ones being taxed to death and our government is throwing alot of our hard earnrd money away or keeping it!!!! Man on the moon, heck it still takes forever to get around in our own country or world that still depends on oil and coal! Man has to go green but big business and government has their way of slowing it down!
Seriously watch MythBusters.
And why would the U.S. government spend billions of dollars on a hoax. A hoax would cost less, and where did all that extra money go?? (if it was a hoax)
And also; NASA has hundreds of thousands of people working for them. Why would they need
so many people to encorporate a hoax?!
And about the flag; the vaccuum in space is different than our atmosphere. There is hardly and friction, so the flag keeps swaying on the rod, after it has been moved.
You all just got pwned by a 14 year old - GIRL!
if Niel armstrong was the first one on the moon then who took his photo? plus even after 40 years no one else has landed on the moon .............. by this time we shd have landed on mars
Kushan talks about moon rocks. They were collected in the Antarctic and are are believed to have originated from the moon.I cannot say where they came from, I only know a German scientist was sent to collect them. The TV transmissions alledgedly from the surface of the moon were actually transmitted from Australia to NASA. A TV camera focussed on a monitor at NASA sent the pictures out to the World. Some idiot left a Coca Cola bottle "on the moon" which was kicked out of view. NASA having seen this on the film edited it out. Quite obviously a coke bottle could never have been there, but it may well have been on the film set at Area 51. We were living through difficult times during the sixties because of the cold war between the East and the West. America had to prove its supremacy over Russia and did so by alledgedly conquering space by going to the moon. Kennedy said man would land on the moon by the end of the sixties so if you believe we went there, his words came true. All conspiracy theories can be explained away by programs like Mythbusters, but they tend to ommit the evidence that they cant explain. Dont believe all the crap you see on TV use your own commonsense and look at all arguements for and against before having an opinion. Many conspriracy theories can never be settled although Mythbusters will try to convince you they have had the final say on the matter and proved they are right. As far as the alledged moon landing is concerned many investigaters/examiners for both sides argue about the photographic evidence. Then there are arguements about the flag and why the moonlander didnt move the moondust when it landed and took off. In stating my arguements I have avoided these issues, because for me they really dont matter. They are trivia as far as I am concerned because the moon environment with its high levels of radiation and the extremes of heat, and intense cold, make it impossible now never mind in 1969 to land men on the moon. Even moon orbit wasnt possible because to get there you have to pass through the Van Allen belts that have dangerously high levels of radiation. We are told the men travelled so fast they would have been subjected to no more than the dose of a hospital xray. That is complete rubbish. A hospital xray lasts only a few seconds and the dose of radiation is very small. The Van Allen Belts are thousands of miles across and would have taken hours to pass through. The module the men were in was not lead lined and could not have protected them from radiation as they passed through the belts. We know they orbitted the Earth 250 miles up and we know the shuttle has gone beyond 300 miles. Thats really not very far when you consider the moon is around 240,000 miles from Earth. Earth orbit was actually a fantastic achievement given our level of technolgy back in 1969. The claim that we went on from there into deep space is too far fetched to believe, in fact its totally rediculous. We cant even do it 40 years on. I think the problem is most of you have grown up believing men walked on the moon as an established historical fact. In contrast I remember the cold war and race for space between America and Russia. The Russians were ahead then in a few short years America supposedly overtook the Russians and landed on the moon. It was all to do with politics and World power and he who ruled space, ruled the World. Consider this, 1959 the Russians crashed a craft on the surface of the moon, they were miles ahead of America. Just ten years later in 1969 America landed men on the moon and brought them back safe. Does that add up, is it credible, not to me it isnt. The current moon project was scheduled for 2017 but had to be put back several years while technical problems were sorted out. It probably wont happen at all now with the World financial crisis, so will man ever walk on the moon? In the 1990s a top scientist was asked how long would take before we could put men on the moon. He laughed and said, "about a 100 years, I should think"
Freebird has all the right idears, obviously a very caring human being, nice read. Matthew says we should be proud of those who went on the Appollo missions and I agree. Its a dangerous business and lives have been lost. I cannot agree however that they went to the moon. Please read my last post above.
To the WRITER: improve your english, this was supposed to be a good article but your english ruined it.
guys check this out:
An argument I see alot is the fact that it would be difficult for all of these people to keep a secret for this long if indeed it was a hoax. That is a very valid argument and one that I have to agree with. There is no way that all of these people could keep quiet about this hoax. We live in a greedy world, and money talks. So if you were to have information to prove the moon landing was a hoax, I would think someone would buckle under pressure at some point. So is it possible that only a few people knew of this hoax? If indeed this was a hoax, then the entire world was tricked into believing it, so is it possible that many of the people that worked on this project were tricked as well? I am posing this question to everyone whether you are a believer or not a believer. This might be a bad analogy, but this is kind of how I am viewing it these days. When I was kid, my parents had me convinced that Santa Clause was real. I never really questioned it because of course on Christmas morning I had presents waiting for me. I mean at the time I felt there was no way that my parents could bring me all of these gifts in the matter of one night. I kind of see alot of the employees for NASA to be just as ignorant to what was really going on. If you work in a corporate environment, there are a handful of big whigs in your company that make the ultimate decisions for your company, while the rest of the employees our certainly out of the loop, and believe everything that these big whigs will tell you for the good of the company. And questions are for the most part never asked. Information is only given out when deemed nessesary by the big whigs. Anyways, don't want to ramble anymore. I just wanted to hear both sides opinion on this issue.
Travis, As you say many thousands of people work for NASA and then there are thousands of companies, who supply parts and materials. Every company and every person makes their own small contribution and rather like a jigsaw puzzle they only have one peice. Further up in status and ability there are those who have a more full picture but even so they are not involved at the top level. Its the same situation at Area 51. Thousands work there but only a handful have access to the top secret areas within Area 51. Government departments have secrets they dont want us to know about. Commercial companies have secrets that they dont want their competitors to know about. Take for example specialist printers who print highly sensitive government documents. One way or another the information some people have, has to be kept secret at all costs. Its amazing how so many people who know things, from government departments to other organisations, never break their silence, even many years later. Maybe fear, sense of loyalty, threat of losing their pensions is what stops them telling all, I dont know. People have died suddenly, while others have gone missing which makes you wonder if they have been made an example of to deter others. I think most people say nothing.
There are so many conspiracy theories. Kennedy, the moon landing, Marylin Monroe, 911, 7/7 and there are more. History tells us the bare facts, and that for many is how it happened. They have blind faith in what is written and believe the official word is gospel, and must not be questioned. Many trust our governments and cannot accept they would snuff out any individual who crossed the line and didnt keep his mouth shut. In 1963 the UK suffered a very high level government scandal known as the Profumo affair. It involved the British war minister, John Profumo, a Harley Street doctor, the Russians and two high society prostitutes. I dont want to go into the details of the case, you can read about it on Wikipedia if you want to. What you wont read is this. Some time before the Scandal,Dr.Stephen Ward and his good friend a member of the Royal family went to the Hippodrome in Golders Green London. There they met a young entertainer, Michael Bentine who was appearing with a young dancer Julie Andrews (Mary Poppins). As the three men talked Ward mentioned parties that were held at a lodge owned by a lord, and Bentine was subsequently invited. He was told there would be a cabinet minister, other government people, another Royal and two prostitutes. Bentine declined saying "not a party I could take the wife and kids to then". Ward and A-J then left. The court case was very high profile to say the least and made the front page on newspapers every day. Then on the day Dr.Stephen Ward was to take the stand and name, names, he was found dead. Suicide, that is the historical fact, but was it. We shall never know, and to the best of my knowledge it has never been questioned. One of the prostitutes, Christine Keeler keeps her mouth shut through fear, and admitted it back in the 90s. She said she would never talk about it ever. Profumo died in 2006 taking his secrets to the grave. Can we trust those who govern us, do they tell us the truth, do they in extreme circumstances "remove" people who can destroy them? Its food for thought, but nothing can be proven either way. This story is all about politics and power and so is the alledged moon landing, and funnily enough both stories involve the Russians. I am no crank and as I have said before I am not a scientist or an expert of any kind. I enjoy researching and if I need scientific facts I talk to the right people not scientists employed by NASA or any government whose job it is to mislead you. Believe what you want to, we can discuss it forever, but logic and true scientific evidence, say a moon landing in 1969 was absolutely impossible.
Thanks fellow truth seeker! Well said. Peace.
Thanks fellow truth seeker! Well said. Peace.
we did not land on the moon i bet you they shot that area 51 NASA SUCKS THERE NOTING BUT A BUNCH OF NERDS i remember seeing it on tv once and i could tell tell that it was a fack yes am saying the next time your child says i wanna be a astronaut there siging up to float around that footage is a fack becues nasa dosent have the money and they say well o lets pretend to go to the moon and air it on tv they suck they all do is go around talking about the solor system they must think america is stupid.
Never Answer Serious Allegations (NASA) recorded over/misplaced/fill in excuse those tapes so they would not be exposed to world as fabrications! NASA told us audio transmissions were live (real time). Later we were told there was a special MEDICAL frequency for medical and other(?) delicate messages not meant for public ears. Thankfully many independent listeners on Earth heard these transmissions. Damn taxpayers who finance these crooks were kept in dark! Anyone else ever notice terribly slow response to questions plus mysterious non-responses? Responses were made but not on open frequency! All astro-nots have flatly refused (with many becoming downright hostile) to attest under oath that they landed on moon! Why? Mighty strange behavior unless THEY DID NOT do so! Still think Buzz "Sucker Punch" Aldrin is a criminal thug for his unprovoked assault on a private American citizen. Peace.
Stendek has made another valuable contribution to this thread, with another angle on how the World was conned. The visual transmissions came from Australia NOT THE MOON.
I BELIEVE IN ABOVE DRAWING IMAGE
i would luv to know if theres a telescope floating around up there that is good enough to see across galaxeys WHY NOT SHOW PICTURES OF THE LANDING AREA ON THE MOON TO SHOW THE WORLD IT REALLY HAPPEND ?????? after all nobody else has been there so it'll remain as it was left 40 years ago
Its a good point, what about the hubble telescope? but I dont know the technical issues involved, so maybe not. Thing is though computer graphics are so good now, pictures could be produced that would yet again fool the World, if NASA so wished. Filming technology has become so advanced they could even fake a manned mission to Mars, that would be totally convincing if they wanted to. You just cant trust what you see and what you are told. Anyway NASA has no reasons to lie anymore, except to defend their claim that they went to the moon. The alledged moon landing was all about politics and proving a point to the Russians. Thats all over now and America and Russia are working together in space. Having said that although in space, they are still in Earths orbit and no further. That is 250 miles up, while the moon is approx 240,000 miles away.
If man did land on the moon weres the footge but if man did'nt land on the moon why didnt land on the moon why dos'nt sombody stnd up and saybody stand up and say if sombody whos reading this knows if man did or did not land on the moon plese say but untill then the mystery as big as the moon itself DID WE LAND ON THE MOON mayby thts why presedent kennedy ws killed mayby he was trying to tell the worldbb that it was a hoax.i agry with sqwerty 1 why dont the use the hubble space telloscope to look at thespot were they landed .neil armstrong knows'buzz aldrin knows but for me after all the prove i would say its a hoax.
1 more thing dose barack oboma know? he should,does all the lower ranked nasa workers know more importntly do you know
Its impossible to say who today knows the truth. A few years ago I spoke to a man in his 70s who was living in Navada. He said he had worked at area 51 during the 1960s and knew for a fact, the moon landing had been filmed there. He would not say more, no matter how many questions I asked. People are afraid to tell their story and you cant blame them. I am certain people who work at the highest levels are selected not just for their specialist skills but because they have families that they love. Who is likely to blab putting the lives of their family at risk. I think every government worldwide uses the same principle. In other words a man who has no family, or one that he cares about is a liability and a huge risk.
Does Obama know the truth, I doubt it. Polititions are advised by top officials with permanent jobs. They tell presidents, prime ministers and heads of departments what they need to know and no more. Polititions come and go and are just figure heads who have to make decisions based on the informaion they are given during their time in office. They dont have unlimited access to information as many think they do. If the official JFK story is false as many believe it is, Obama isnt likely to be told.
ahm..hai to all.. i just wanna say, tnx for the clue or evidence that you've shared.. i appreciated it a lot...
maybebecause of your evidence,you convince that not to beleive in it..
No comments man landed on the moon.
No comments man landed on the moon.
People like Brian remind me of Jehovas Witnesses. They believe in the impossible, but that is their right, so fair play to them.
hmm..can i ask a questions?
is neil armstrong change to muslim?
how did he saw a mecca or medinah?
hmm..can i ask a questions?
is neil armstrong change to muslim?
how did he saw a mecca or medinah?
hmm..can i ask a questions?
is neil armstrong change to muslim?
how did he saw a mecca or medinah?
then why are the men casting shaows?
furthermore, if you watch the video, the flag is "blowing in the wind".
most importantly, if man "landed on the moon" decades ago, why havent they gone back with the better technology we jhave today?
a hoax.
The matter of the shadows is a complex one. The flag has been discussed many times and there are various opinions. You can go on forever with those arguements and get nowhere. A moon landing was planned for 2017 but because there are so many problems to resolve first they have had to put it back to the mid 2020s. The greatest height man has ever achieved is 300 miles above the Earths surface with the shuttle. The moon is around a quarter of a million miles away. In 1969 the astronauts orbitted the Earth 250 miles up, which was one hell of an acheivement for the time. If we do ever manage to overcome the problems of going to the moon there is very little point. It would cost a fortune and what would be the purpose for doing so. The moon landings were hoaxed for political reasons that no longer exist. Its quite amazing that so many people still believe it happened.
the moon landing was hoaxed so Russia does not land on the moon first. Russians were well ahead of Americans back in the 60's in terms of the advanced technology they had. they were so close to taking off but then America decides to spontaneously land on the moon. Society needs to open there mind and think logically about this controversy. how will anyone ever have an opinion of there own when the media and US government constantly drill fabricated ideas into the public. They have no logical evidence or proof of the landing. the physics of the situation does not ad up. so don't believe everything you see or hear, we are living in one messed up world that YOU can make a change to.
If man trully landed on the moon, why is it proving deficult to land on the moon in our time, with the advancement of technology, it just dont add up.
You are quite correct, it doesnt add up at all. NASA has just announced that there may be a water source on the moon and plan to crash land a probe which they hope will tell them more about the moons environment. I dont believe there is any water there and I dont accept that is the reason for sending the probe. I am certain NASA needs more informaion about the moons surface to see if a manned mission there will ever be possible. They obviously cant admit that while having us believe they have already landed men on the moon, 40 years ago. This is an interesting development.
It seems the water is in crystal form mixed in with the moon dust. Extracting it would be rather impractical because you would need to process a huge amount of moon dust to achieve a very small quantity of water. A bit like having to grow a massive field of wheat to produce just one loaf of bread. So although interesting, it isnt a lot to get excited about. Talking about if theres water there then people could live on the moon is quite rediculous. Somebody said there is a lot more water in a desert on earth than there is on the whole surface of the moon. Man has to land on the moon first, never mind silly daft scenarios about turning moon dust into water. This is the real World not Star Trek and some of the things they come out with makes them sound like idiots rather than serious scientists. The only place man can live off this planet is in a space station. Living on a base on the moon similar to those we have in the Arctic is pure science fiction, it isnt going to happen. Imagine how many trips it would take to get the building materials up there. Its all too silly to consider seriously. A manned mission to the moon is still a very long way off. In the 1990s a scientist involved in rocket science was asked how long he thought it would take before a manned moon landing would be possible. He replied saying "not for at least a 100 years, and maybe never"
Hilarious lack of stars you say?
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=hp&
Spot a star any star. I might also add the moon photos were taken during the daytime. A black sky, even a night time sky on Earth, does not guarantee stars in a photo.
As for the last two photos, yes it is the same background but there may have been standing either further forward or back. You really need to understand how much affect an atmosphere has on the appearance of a landscape and our sense of distance. Plus the lack of landmarks doesn’t help.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=hp&
Just look at some of them, there is a fog that builds up the further back you get. You would not have this on the moon. The point at which the two photos where taken could be miles apart.
Jodrell bank in the uk never tracked the rocket !!
Something this big and it was not tracked why not.
Simple they did go up and went in orbit for 8 days and then all the films are clear and in colour !!!
Simple they never went and also you tube has several videos that shoe blue sky !!! thus in earths orbit.
Look for simple things like engine on full blast and you can hear them talk no way even the NASA interviews claim they could not hear the thrust was so great.
And Neil had to use a pen lid to make a switch work!!
What please no way.
Moon rock presented to Dutch VERIFIED to be nothing more than wood! Need additional proof of lying Never Address Serious Allegations (NASA) deception? Never landed on moon! Astro-nots liars and cowards bound by military secrecy oaths. They know what happened to outspoken hero Virgil Grissom! Ask his son and family. They will tell you too! ++STENDEC++
I like Jays post and his use of the word "simple". Too many people look for highly technical, complicated issues, that can be debated forever. Its the simple straightforward facts that tell us it never happened. Stendek states the moon rocks were verified by the Dutch as being nothing more than wood. I cant say I have heard of this so I am unable to comment. I am aware a German scientist employed by NASA collected rocks from the arctic, prior to the alledged moon landings, which are said to be of extra terrestrial origin. Many believe these were the rocks NASA claimed were collected from the moon by the astronauts.
Waylon, United States media covers up anything which might embarrass Never Address Serious Allegations (NASA). Not surprised you have not heard about this national disgrace. Here is link to my Hub page:
http://hubpages.com/hub/NASA-Moon-Hoax-Exposed-Wit
No NASA apology/explanation has been forthcoming. American media almost totally suppressed embarrassment. Thankfully federal government control does not extend to worldwide news agencies.
Please read my other NASA hubs. Especially one about Vurgil Grissom. NASA us not a good guy. More like NASA of Capricorn One. Peace. ++STENDEK++
Stendek. I have checked out your link as well as finding something else on the net about the petrified wood that says exactly the same. Its unbelievable that NASA cant or wont explain how a piece of wood could be given to the Dutch purporting to be a sample of moon rock. All very interesting stuff.
Ask and ye shall receive! Complaints of no photographic verification of NASA moon landing sites have allegedly been put to rest. Courtesy of? You guessed it! A NASA probe which just happens to take impossibly clear images. These photos are too good to be true. Because they are! More fabrications to get NASA off got seat! First supposed genuine moon rocks made from wood now this. Once a liar...+++STENDEK+++
Ask and ye shall receive! Complaints of no photographic verification of NASA moon landing sites have allegedly been put to rest. Courtesy of? You guessed it! A NASA probe which just happens to take impossibly clear images. These photos are too good to be true. Because they are! More fabrications to get NASA off got seat! First supposed genuine moon rocks made from wood now this. Once a liar...+++STENDEK+++
I would love to see these clear images of the moon landing sites. Have you a link please?
Waylon, NASA produces evidence vindicating NASA?
Where is INDEPENDENT verification?
Oh well, here is link you requested:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.h
Personally stopped believing in fairy tales myself long ago.
Best.
Peace.
++STENDEK++
Waylon, NASA produces evidence vindicating NASA?
Where is INDEPENDENT verification?
Oh well, here is link you requested:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.h
Personally stopped believing in fairy tales myself long ago.
Best.
Peace.
++STENDEK++
Many thanks. Its not really all that convincing, is it. NASA have been known to tamper with photographs before. All the tests they are doing now are to see if a landing could be possible for THE FIRST TIME. We are still not able land men on the moon,yet our history books say we did it 40 years ago.As you say STENDECK its just a fairy tale, and utter rubbish. Who would be able to provlde independant verification?
I don't think so! If US landed on moon when there much development in technology why can't they go to moon when technology has developed so much? And why is the flag fluttering? And why are stars not there? And what about the shadow?????????????? If you can give real good answers for these question then i will believe it.
The flag, the absence of stars and the shadows have all been debated many times, and answers have been given. Take the stars for instance. The surface of the moon is very bright so if you adjust the camera to let in less light so you can see details, the camera cannot pick up the stars as they are far too dim by comparison. Look back and read what I and others have said. Its avery complex subject and there are better ways of proving man has never been there.
Ask Nasa for the width of the door on the LEM module.
32 inches. Then ask for the width of neil in his space suit at 5 psi and he is too wide to fit in the gap.
Simple easy and logical.
The edges of the LEM door are too rough as well if the door damaged the suit then suit will lose pressure fast.
Also look at the movement they claim they had and then look at the real movement that can be had with a psi of 5 in a suit, no way the lack of grip and coordination is simple.
Thus we never went and a big cover up.
Not one photo shows the space suits sending waste gases out via the back packs !!! why not answer they were not breathing via the back packs.
Nice one Jay. Its the simple things that prove man never landed on the moon. Too many people go into difficult, technical issues that can be argued forever. I have seen the actual space suits and although I am no expert but I am certain the materials used were nowhere near as advanced as the overalls worn by F1 drivers today. Tin foil sewn into the suits would not have helped the astronauts one little bit and thats all they had, cotton and tin foil. Its complete nonsense as the moons surface temperatures are far more extreme than anywhere on Earth. In the shadows its twice as cold as Antarctica, and in the light, as hot as inside a domestic oven. Thats not all, Armstrong would have needed 4 feet of lead to protect him from the moons radiation. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to see the whole thing was impossible. Surely anyone can see its impossible now, never mind 40 years ago. People are so gullible listening to NASA.
Nice one Jay. Its the simple things that prove man never landed on the moon. Too many people go into difficult, technical issues that can be argued forever. I have seen the actual space suits and although I am no expert but I am certain the materials used were nowhere near as advanced as the overalls worn by F1 drivers today. Tin foil sewn into the suits would not have helped the astronauts one little bit and thats all they had, cotton and tin foil. Its complete nonsense as the moons surface temperatures are far more extreme than anywhere on Earth. In the shadows its twice as cold as Antarctica, and in the light, as hot as inside a domestic oven. Thats not all, Armstrong would have needed 4 feet of lead to protect him from the moons radiation. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to see the whole thing was impossible. Surely anyone can see its impossible now, never mind 40 years ago. People are so gullible listening to NASA.
was man on the moon check the hammer and feather, yes they hit ground at the same time, yes it could be faked in a vacume chamber. But one thing forgoten is you can not fake
gravity. on earth the hammer takes 0.5 seconds to hit ground.
if you time the video the hammer takes 1.2seconds which calculates the gravity to 1.63m or 1/6th earths gravity.
Has anyone noticed this.
Roy the video has been edited.
The live footage was never a direct feed NASA had full control.
Just look for simple evidence the best i have seen is the 360 deg view in the NASA books and yep guess what is mising in the photo yep the LEM what the rover is in shot but not the LEM this is because the photos are staged and thus all footage is false.
Please ask Neil how he could fit in a 2 ft by 2ft door which is the LEM door size and with his spacesuit and backpack on.
Also not one single phto showing him going through the door!!
Ask NASA what can they say?
Umm we forgot the size of the door and the width of Neil with his back pack on!!!
Also the NASA footage on both NASA videos and on you tube shows blue sky !!! no way unless in low eart orbit.
Again simple and logical.
The Russians were way ahead in the space race. I can remember my headmaster back in 1959 telling us in assembly that the Russians had just crash landed, a sputnik, I think it was, on the surface of the moon. This was a massive achievement for mankind at that time. The Russians were also the first to put a man into space and bring him back. In just 10 short years from a crash landing by the Russians the Americans who were way behind in technology are supposed to have landed men on the moon. I watched my TV that night in 1969 and believed there and then that the whole thing was a hoax. I bought American machinery back in the 70s and it either didnt do the job properly or it was forever breaking down. The Americans were known for marketing many things that hadnt been tested properly. We were often saying, how the hell could America have sent rockets to the moon when they couldnt even make factory machines that worked properly. Something German built with Japanese electronics might have stood a better chance. Actually the Americans did very well to put men into earth orbit which of course, the Russians had already achieved. The simple plain facts say it could never have happened.
All the Nasa photos with the helmets on and off show the same layout of the space suit,how if the suit is under 5 psi!!!!
Ans no photos taken under pressure even on the moon !!! they never went ask the spacemen what a suit feels like and looks like under 5 psi.
Also moon buggy battery is designed to work from 40 deg f to 125deg f yet temp on moon is from -387 deg f to 255 deg f.
Impossible for the battery to work.Also battery had a pressure vent how would this work in space.What was the reference pressure???? Have a look at the Lunar recon Orbiter photos what a joke foot prints they claim but no tyre tracks rubbish total rubbish.Not one photo of them taking the rover out and setting it up!! why not first car on the moon and no photo!!! umm staged on earth thats why.
The NASA lunar manual states 14 hrs cool down for batts with what medium to act as the cooling ie NO AIR!!!!
Also the same Manual talks about fans to cool down parts how with no air the fans will not move the air particles and thus the heat will not move.
Simple o level physics no air movment in a vaccum thus fans will not work.
Come on NASA WAKE UP.
How can NASA explain to the World that the whole thing was a hoax? They have to try and defend the greatest lie ever told, there isnt any other way. Many things are written in our history books that are not true, but having been established as historical facts none of the details will ever be changed. Politics determines how history is written which is why the truth is rarely told. The alledged moon landings were all about politics, the cold war between Russia and the West.
*sigh* Anotherone of these guys.. says:
2 years ago
You sir are sadly lacking in your investigative skills. All your presented arguments have long since been proven flase.