Moon Landing is a Fake

[BrandonD]

So now I have this absurd idea and you'd better respect it or you're an arrogant bastard.

Maybe that. Or maybe I'm just wrong.

Yes, adults actually respect other people's ideas, even if they consider them wrong. If I respect another person's ideas it does not mean I agree with them, it means I'm admitting that I'm in fact *not* an arrogant bastard. I'm a person just like them who DOES NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.

But in case you've still failed to grasp the point I'm trying to make, let's consider this hypothetical possibility:

A group of people are discussing and wondering about the truth of a subject. Some of us believe one way or the other, and some of us are uncertain but interested. But you, Mr Vaeni, happen to be the one man who actually knows the truth about it.

An intelligent and moral adult would want to help his fellow man understand the truth that he himself understands, so how would he best go about doing this?

Perhaps by butting into the discussion and making a flippant comment that implies everyone else is stupid? Bill O Reilly can illustrate for us the benefits of this fantastic teaching technique.

Like I said in the initial post, you should consider the remote possibility that this approach is just a means of stroking one's ego to inflate your own self importance and intelligence. I do it and everyone else does from time to time, and it doesn't help in any way.

If you actually care about converting us "loons" who take this subject seriously, then discuss the subject rationally. If you don't care, then don't participate.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable request.

 

[mike]

Besides: How do we know there ever was a genuine "space race"? In 1975, the joint Apollo-Soyuz mission betrayed no hint of animosities between the Russian and US space agencies. There are some pretty well informed people who argue that the "space race" was no more than friendly competition

thats double speak.

you say how do we know there was a space race, and then go on to confirm the competition took place albiet "freindly"
thats having it both ways, and i cant argue against that.


but accepting your premise there was a "freindly competition" i still stand by my view the competitors would have denounced a hoax for the following reason

 

[BrandonD]

i listened to part of the paracast today and heard dB once again talk about the moon landing issue.

I think he handled it fine, he didn't throw insults or anything, he just said that he considers it an unproductive issue to discuss. If someone's not interested in a subject then there's really no reason why they should discuss it.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Now that could possibly inspire some to fake the landing when they couldn't make the deadline, but consider this: If you can find blatant holes in those photos and other evidence of the trip, what about the Russians? They would have known as well, and they would have exposed this grand scheme and embarrassed the U.S.A. on the world stage and gained the upper hand.

What did they really do but congratulate us?

Explain.

So, let us rewind back to 1969, America celebrates it's greatest achievement and Russia, who we are to believe having been beaten to the moon 'just gave up', then declare to the world that the USA faked it. Now, my question is - who at that time would have believed them? The American people? Would NASA, having been caught out, own up and come clean about the whole thing?

If Russia never made it to the Moon, then there's no way they could know for sure whether America got there anyway - so Gene, even if they suspected that the Americans faked it, they lacked credibility to dispute it.

Is that unreasonable?

 

[mike]

[If Russia never made it to the Moon, then there's no way they could know for sure whether America got there anyway - so Gene, even if they suspected that the Americans faked it, they lacked credibility to dispute it.

Is that unreasonable?

from a wikipedia entry on moon rocks

"Also the Apollo lunar soil samples chemically matched the Russian Luna space probe’s lunar soil samples. "

physical evidence tends to carry more weight in a court than hearsay

 

[Rick Deckard]

from a wikipedia entry on moon rocks

"Also the Apollo lunar soil samples chemically matched the Russian Luna space probe’s lunar soil samples. "

physical evidence tends to carry more weight in a court than hearsay

Actually, my post was in response to Gene's assumption that the Russians would cry 'foul' if they thought the landings were fake.

Everyone keeps talking about Moon rocks - how can I verify that little 'fact' that you posted? We can create diamonds here on Earth, is it so far-fetched to suggest that you could 'bake' the right combination of minerals here on Earth to fake Moon rock too?

Who's to say that the Americans didn't also send unmanned probes to bring back Moon rock?

At worst, they faked it and at best they've squandered the technology - space travel appears to be going backwards, technologically speaking.

All I want is some independent verification - I don't want the landings to be a hoax. But I am truly puzzled by the lack of photographic evidence from the numerous probes that have flown over the landing sites since.

 

[musictomyears]

The primary charge against NASA is that photos and film footage are not a true record of the Apollo missions. Photos and film appear to have been produced under artificial conditions in a studio environment. This being the case, the logical question is whether or not NASA has genuine photos and film material from the landings. The landings may have still taken place, however we have yet to see any evidence that supports this idea.

The "Moon rocks" may have been gathered during unmanned missions, or they may have been created here on Earth. There is no way of knowing which is correct, since we have no means for independent analysis.

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that there are two space programmes: The official programme that uses ineffective and essential obsolete technology, and a covert programme, which uses cutting-edge flying saucer-type technology. I think it is quite possible that there have been manned missions to the Moon and other planets, using unconventional technologies. However, this is pure speculation and shouldn't distract from the fact that the Apollo images appear to be the result of an elaborate hoax. Only NASA can answer the question as to why they went through such lengths to deceive the public.

 

[valiens]

So now I have this absurd idea and you'd better respect it or you're an arrogant bastard.

Maybe that. Or maybe I'm just wrong.

Yes, adults actually respect other people's ideas, even if they consider them wrong. If I respect another person's ideas it does not mean I agree with them, it means I'm admitting that I'm in fact *not* an arrogant bastard. I'm a person just like them who DOES NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.

But in case you've still failed to grasp the point I'm trying to make, let's consider this hypothetical possibility:

A group of people are discussing and wondering about the truth of a subject. Some of us believe one way or the other, and some of us are uncertain but interested. But you, Mr Vaeni, happen to be the one man who actually knows the truth about it.

An intelligent and moral adult would want to help his fellow man understand the truth that he himself understands, so how would he best go about doing this?

Perhaps by butting into the discussion and making a flippant comment that implies everyone else is stupid? Bill O Reilly can illustrate for us the benefits of this fantastic teaching technique.

Like I said in the initial post, you should consider the remote possibility that this approach is just a means of stroking one's ego to inflate your own self importance and intelligence. I do it and everyone else does from time to time, and it doesn't help in any way.

If you actually care about converting us "loons" who take this subject seriously, then discuss the subject rationally. If you don't care, then don't participate.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable request.

You're right. I take it back. Forgive me, Brandon. The answer is, THE MOON LANDING HAPPENED. I sincerely hope that helps you on your journey into the greater possibilities.

 

[mike]

from a wikipedia entry on moon rocks

"Also the Apollo lunar soil samples chemically matched the Russian Luna space probe’s lunar soil samples. "

physical evidence tends to carry more weight in a court than hearsay

Actually, my post was in response to Gene's assumption that the Russians would cry 'foul' if they thought the landings were fake.

Everyone keeps talking about Moon rocks - how can I verify that little 'fact' that you posted? We can create diamonds here on Earth, is it so far-fetched to suggest that you could 'bake' the right combination of minerals here on Earth to fake Moon rock too?

Who's to say that the Americans didn't also send unmanned probes to bring back Moon rock?

At worst, they faked it and at best they've squandered the technology - space travel appears to be going backwards, technologically speaking.

All I want is some independent verification - I don't want the landings to be a hoax. But I am truly puzzled by the lack of photographic evidence from the numerous probes that have flown over the landing sites since.

ok, so now the suggestion is russia and america "baked" (half baked is the word that springs to mind) some rocks and the resulting products ,russian and american "match" each other ? and lunites collected here (sans the rentry damage seen on lunites)

In general, the rocks collected from the Moon are extremely old compared to rocks found on Earth, as measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.16 billion years old for the basaltic samples derived from the lunar maria, up to about 4.5 billion years old for rocks derived from the highlands.[1] Based on the age dating technique of "crater counting," the youngest basaltic eruptions are believed to have occurred about 1.2 billion years ago,[2] but we do not possess samples of these lavas. In contrast, the oldest ages of rocks from the Earth are about 3.8 billion years old, a vastly different value from that of the moon.

i suppose they used a time machine to artificially "age" these hoax rocks too ?


or better yet we built those massive saturn v rockets put 3 men on top of each and then sent a robotic probe as well to send back samples ?
why would america send samples of this rock to the worlds govts ?
surely that would increase the risk of exposure if it were hoaxed
apart from suggestioning the russions were involved or tricked samples were sent to the british, are we suggesting british scientists are idiots too ? and cant do a scientific analysis on these samples ? i think the british Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council would have twigged to a hoax myself

these hoax theorys may convince some high school diploma holding citizens, but until i see prominent british and russian SCIENTISTS scream hoax en masse then on the balance of probibility id say we went

"In contrast, the oldest ages of rocks from the Earth are about 3.8 billion years old, a vastly different value from that of the moon."

does "baking" rock add millions of years "age" to it ?


please use the link below and have a good read

Moon rock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[musictomyears]

410 posts into this thread, and I am still waiting for an answer as to why Buzz Aldrin is standing in a spotlight.

Well?

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2228/2281660495_71a0f4760d.jpg" >

 

[mike]

First and foremost musictomyears, i enjoy your posts and those of everyone else. i would NEVER want anything i say here to discourage you or anyone else from posting. and what im about to say next is not an attack on you just my view on things
i share them only to demostrate why i am still in camp A as opposed to camp B.

hoax theory aside you have demsontrated to me that you can happily embrace obvious contradictions and spin them so they line up.

i just cant get past your suggestion it wasnt a space race it was more of (coming from those in the know) a freindly competition.

you expressed both values as if they were opposites.

when ppl start doing that and then using this messed logic as an argument, i have be wary of what they propose.

a race, space ,foot, boat, car, plane any race you can name is a freindly competition. they are one in the same thing but you seem happy to express them as opposites and use that as an argument for a hoax.
you tried to "debunk" the idea there was a space race, but the term
space race appears a lot in the article below
Space Race - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

your trying to propose the moon landing was hoaxed and there wasnt a "space race" ?

for me the credibility for the said proposal goes out the window then , Sorry

as for the picture all i can think of is "to get a good picture"

are there mysteries surrounding the moon ?
always have been, old as man himself you could say lol

those who say "you cant see the equipment" may have a point, but then i doubt aliens can see the roswell or corona "equipment" either

think about if, if its perfectly natural for us as a species to collect unattened vehicles, why wouldnt the same apply especially if the moon was "inhabited"

im not saying this is the case, just that as a theory it works as well if not better than the hoax theory

 

[valiens]

MUSICTOMYEARS:

Clavius: Photo Analysis - man on the moon

Does that explain it?

 

[musictomyears]

i would NEVER want anything i say here to discourage you or anyone else from posting.

That's very kind of you, considering you don't own this forum.

a race, space ,foot, boat, car, plane any race you can name is a freindly competition. they are one in the same thing but you seem happy to express them as opposites and use that as an argument for a hoax.

I am sorry that I didn't explain this well enough so you could understand it. I was making the point that, far from behaving like mortal enemies, the US and Russian space agencies have a long history of co-operating closely, up until this day. You may want to read up on that.

as for the picture all i can think of is "to get a good picture"

You mean to say that the astronauts took artificial lighting equipment with them, all the way to the Moon, so they could take "good pictures"? May I ask you if you ever spent any time researching the technicalities of Apollo? If you had, you would know that there was no additional lighting equipment on board.

I am sorry to say, your posts reveal almost complete ignorance of Apollo.

 

[pixelsmith]

musictomyears it is the magic moon dust. it is normal property of this dust to illuminate objects perfectly for photographs. i wish i had some in my studio. i wouldnt need any lights.

 

[valiens]

If the link I gave does answer it then can I say 411 posts and not one conspiracy theorist decided to do a google search?

 

[musictomyears]

MUSICTOMYEARS:

Clavius: Photo Analysis - man on the moon

Does that explain it?

I'm afraid it doesn't. I have seen this site before. What's up with lines like "Fig. 1 is a GIF image reproduced from a conspiracist web site and has been color-enhanced"? Sounds to me like the producer of this site is a bit paranoid. The image I posted was taken from Wikipedia, and they have it from NASA:

Buzz Aldrin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Aldrin Apollo 11.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[valiens]

But isn't it the same photo? Doesn't the same analysis apply? (The sun is hitting a reflective surface and presto, there's your effect, right?)

 

[musictomyears]

MUSICTOMYEARS:

Clavius: Photo Analysis - man on the moon

Does that explain it?

There's nothing like a debunking site that doesn't even remotely care for what the facts are:

"... it also stirs up subsurface dust, which was observed to be darker in color than surface dust."

Huh?

"Because the spot behind Aldrin is smoother than its surroundings, it appears brighter especially when photographed up-sun."

He must be talking about a different photo... Or he simply makes it up as he goes along.

 

[valiens]

But wait a sec: The basic premise is that the module has a reflective surface that bounces back 50% of the sunlight. That, coupled with the fact that he's standing in a shallow crater, is the answer, is it not?

 

[mike]

Besides: How do we know there ever was a genuine "space race"? In 1975, the joint Apollo-Soyuz mission betrayed no hint of animosities between the Russian and US space agencies. There are some pretty well informed people who argue that the "space race" was no more than friendly competition

you ask "How do we know there ever was a genuine "space race"?"

going further you imply that a race has to have an element of animosity, and wind up proposing the space race was no more than freindly competition, which is all that a race ever is anyway.

you seem happy to debunk the idea of a space race actually taking place as historical reality and have used it in an argument to support the idea the we didnt go to the moon

i dont think i misunderstood your logic or argument at all

you asked the question How do we know there ever was a genuine "space race", and then provide your answer which ultimatly winds up proving the space race did take place ?????

between that an the wikipedia ref for space race im going to fall in the "space race" did take place camp

which brings me back full circle, there was a space race, and im being asked to beleive that the russians couldnt send a camera into lunar orbit that would provide proof the landings didnt take place ?

the video below seems to make more sense than that idea

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="

"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>