The Moon Landing - Hoax or Truth?

[ZacFields]

We had a decent discussion started up in another topic and I thought it was worthy of its own topic.

What do you think? Did we actually land on the moon or not?

Like I said in the other topic, I haven't yet seen anything that the conspiracy theorists have said about the moon landing that hasn't been debunked by somebody. Fox televised a moon landing conspiracy documentary at some point and there are a wealth of sources out on the internet that have debunked the entire documentary piece by piece.

The fact is that for the first and only time ever, we saw video footage from another world, and naturally things look different on the moon than they do on the earth. The reflective moon surface is the source of many of the debunked theories. A lot of the other theories had to do with not being able to see stars in the sky, shadows not angled the correct way, the flag "flapping", etc etc. All things that have been proven scientifically to be very possible.

The fun thing about the moon landing conspiracy theory is that it will be officially proven one way or the other in our lifetime. Plans for rovers on the moon and even manned moon missions are in the works. If the government was stupid enough to fake something they knew would eventually be unequivocally proven wrong, it'll happen sometime in the next 20 or 30 years.

[Scott]

If it was fake couldnt the russians have peeked up there with a big telescope or space ship to see if our flag, foot steps and tire tracks is there or not??

I have seen a UFO before too btw!! Out off hwy 80 in Nebraska somewhere

[allgo]

Ask Eddy B he was there...that fucker been everywhere

[clutchmuch]

You've seen a UFO? wtf. haha i believe it's true but there is one thing that throws me off, if they landed in 69' and its 2011 its been like 42 years, why haven't they once gone back to the moon?

[Scott]

You've seen a UFO? wtf. haha i believe it's true but there is one thing that throws me off, if they landed in 69' and its 2011 its been like 42 years, why haven't they once gone back to the moon?

Fuck that!! the moon is scary, like the hills have eyes.. Just ask Ed he'll tell ya

[sLoWnStEaDy]

Pretty sure everyone has seen a UFO at some point. I see them weekly, all kinds of stuff flying around up there, I don't know what the hell they are therefore, UFO...

[Scott]

and yeah I did, it was a long way away so we didnt get a real good look at it.. Me and my buddy Zack driving back from Wyotech. Just a really bright ass light taking off and moving around then flew straight up real fast till it was outta sight. Cool stuff huh?

[Scott]

So is that your GF in your pic or what??

[ZacFields]

You've seen a UFO? wtf. haha i believe it's true but there is one thing that throws me off, if they landed in 69' and its 2011 its been like 42 years, why haven't they once gone back to the moon?

It has a lot to do with money. From what we've found out over the years, the moon really has nothing that we're looking for. The space program asks a handful of fundamental questions, and if the answer is "no," then it's hard to justify spending any money on it. Mostly, we're looking for some form of life somewhere other than Earth. We know the moon doesn't have it. We don't think Mars has it right now but we're trying to find out if it had it in the past.

Right now, the big dollars are being spent on technology to discover habitable planets outside our solar system. As of today, there are officially 54 planets discovered outside our solar system that are in the "habitable zone" of their stars, meaning that they could have an atmosphere and liquid water. That's where all the money is going right now.

Obama actually scrapped George W Bush's Constellation Program that would have had another manned moon mission by 2020 and replaced it with a program that seeks to have a manned mission to an asteroid by 2025 and a manned mission to Mars by 2030. Personally, I think a manned moon mission will ultimately precede all of that (the next president will come in and probably make all new demands), as of right now there are no official plans to go back to the moon. I do believe there are plans for new rovers on the moon because recently it was discovered that the moon actually has an abundance of water, which means there is a possibility that a base could be built on the moon to drill for water and create hydrogen fuel right on the moon.... think of it as a lunar "gas station" for manned missions to other planets. Stop off at the moon, top off your tanks... clean the space-bugs off the windshield... and you're on your way. lol

Sorry for the long-winded answer. I have a fascination with space so I try to keep up on the news.

[Ricky]

yes

[sLoWnStEaDy]

Unobtainium?

[Drifte]

You've seen a UFO? wtf. haha i believe it's true but there is one thing that throws me off, if they landed in 69' and its 2011 its been like 42 years, why haven't they once gone back to the moon?

It has a lot to do with money. From what we've found out over the years, the moon really has nothing that we're looking for. The space program asks a handful of fundamental questions, and if the answer is "no," then it's hard to justify spending any money on it. Mostly, we're looking for some form of life somewhere other than Earth. We know the moon doesn't have it. We don't think Mars has it right now but we're trying to find out if it had it in the past.

Right now, the big dollars are being spent on technology to discover habitable planets outside our solar system. As of today, there are officially 54 planets discovered outside our solar system that are in the "habitable zone" of their stars, meaning that they could have an atmosphere and liquid water. That's where all the money is going right now.

Obama actually scrapped George W Bush's Constellation Program that would have had another manned moon mission by 2020 and replaced it with a program that seeks to have a manned mission to an asteroid by 2025 and a manned mission to Mars by 2030. Personally, I think a manned moon mission will ultimately precede all of that (the next president will come in and probably make all new demands), as of right now there are no official plans to go back to the moon. I do believe there are plans for new rovers on the moon because recently it was discovered that the moon actually has an abundance of water, which means there is a possibility that a base could be built on the moon to drill for water and create hydrogen fuel right on the moon.... think of it as a lunar "gas station" for manned missions to other planets. Stop off at the moon, top off your tanks... clean the space-bugs off the windshield... and you're on your way. lol

Sorry for the long-winded answer. I have a fascination with space so I try to keep up on the news.

Mars has Transformers...

[Ricky]

You've seen a UFO? wtf. haha i believe it's true but there is one thing that throws me off, if they landed in 69' and its 2011 its been like 42 years, why haven't they once gone back to the moon?

It has a lot to do with money. From what we've found out over the years, the moon really has nothing that we're looking for. The space program asks a handful of fundamental questions, and if the answer is "no," then it's hard to justify spending any money on it. Mostly, we're looking for some form of life somewhere other than Earth. We know the moon doesn't have it. We don't think Mars has it right now but we're trying to find out if it had it in the past.

Right now, the big dollars are being spent on technology to discover habitable planets outside our solar system. As of today, there are officially 54 planets discovered outside our solar system that are in the "habitable zone" of their stars, meaning that they could have an atmosphere and liquid water. That's where all the money is going right now.

Obama actually scrapped George W Bush's Constellation Program that would have had another manned moon mission by 2020 and replaced it with a program that seeks to have a manned mission to an asteroid by 2025 and a manned mission to Mars by 2030. Personally, I think a manned moon mission will ultimately precede all of that (the next president will come in and probably make all new demands), as of right now there are no official plans to go back to the moon. I do believe there are plans for new rovers on the moon because recently it was discovered that the moon actually has an abundance of water, which means there is a possibility that a base could be built on the moon to drill for water and create hydrogen fuel right on the moon.... think of it as a lunar "gas station" for manned missions to other planets. Stop off at the moon, top off your tanks... clean the space-bugs off the windshield... and you're on your way. lol

Sorry for the long-winded answer. I have a fascination with space so I try to keep up on the news.

Mars has Transformers...


I want an Auto bot!

[Caleb]

Ok to start this little debate, I'm gonna go over something relevant to show what the government is capable of proposing and more than likely capable of carrying out if they wanted to.

Operation Northwoods:
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Scanned Document: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
(Read the Scanned Document Above and skip to the adobe sorted pages 8-11 to read it for yourself)

Overview of Proposition: In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations of the Cuba Project, Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the document listed methods, and outlined plans, that the authors believed would garner public and international support for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. These were to be staged attacks purported to be of Cuban origin

Original Text Taken from the Document Below:


.

1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.
2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
1. Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
2. Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
3. Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
4. Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).[13]
5. Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
6. Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
7. Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
8. Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
9. Capture militia group which storms the base.
10. Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires—napthalene.
11. Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be in lieu of (10)).
b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.


Again the only reason why I posted this is to reason why it isn't so outlandish to believe that the government would do anything such as lie or harm its own people to further its own agenda no matter the case or cause.




Now that, that little thing is out of the way, some inconsistencies I don't get about the Lunar Landing and legitimate ones that have been brought up. Question I have is the integrity of the quality of the photos: Focal Points, depth of field, exposure and so forth.

The hard time I find is that these Hasselblad camera's they took up were:

1. The camera Hasselblad 500 EL is fixed on the chest of the astronaut suit.
2. The astronauts cannot look through the seeker because it's not possible to look downwards with the helmet
3. The mirror of the camera is removed so the astronauts cannot see the object in the seeker
4. The cameras are fixed on the chest so the perspective is absolutely restricted for any photo
5. The cameras have no automatic device, all has to be adjusted by hand: illumination, shutter, sharpness, but it's not possible to look into the seeker where is an illumination measuring device installed (Wisnewski, p.153).
(Source: http://letsrollforums.com/moon-landing- ... 942p2.html (http://letsrollforums.com/moon-landing-hoax-t18942p2.html))

Regarding those circumstances, despite of taking hundreds of photos and only publishing the good ones. It just seems quite a few photos are "near" perfectly centered with very good focuses despite the technology of those camera's back then and the need for manual adjustments to get things right.

Photos Such as examples:

Click: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html and then click on Apollo 11 and then search for ctrl+f: The photos.

Apollo 11:
A Couple Before the Landing:

AS11-37-5454
AS11-37-5458

You can see the depth of field in the photos being off which you would expect in more photos depending on where the lighting/focus is prioritized in the picture.

More After They Land:

First Picture off the Lander:
AS11-40-5850

More:
AS11-40-5851
AS11-40-5863
AS11-40-5864
AS11-40-5865

It just bothers me how many photos are near perfect (loosely used), with the objects being close centered, focused, exposed properly. Regarding all the circumstances they face using the cameras with all the adjustments they need without having a seeker/viewfinder. I just find the probability to be very low of it all if the cameras back then were that sensitive to adjustments and focus.

Question of Integrity/Probability (and maybe someone that's good with Cameras can answer this honestly, I would like to know): How hard is it and how many pictures do you have to take doing manual adjustments to a current camera to get a shot just right, WITHOUT having the privilege of reviewing or using a viewfinder on your camera?

This has also been mentioned in documentaries as well, The Lunar Module Foot with absolutely no dust on it and being spotless, after it had landed despite of all the dust (keep in mind being fine and powdery) being pushed around because of the landing.

This has been mentioned in documentaries as well

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/a ... -staub.jpg (http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/013-apollo-11-AS11-40-5918-Landefuss-der-mondlandefaehre-o-staub.jpg)


Plus Looking at the structural integrity of the Landing Modules, they dont look like they could survive a moon descent, especially after all the failed attempts to pilot one on earth by Armstrong and others.

Apollo 16:

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/a ... faehre.jpg (http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/025-apollo-16-AS16-113-18332-mondlandefaehre.jpg)

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/a ... strahl.jpg (http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/026-apollo-16-AS16-122-19533-kaputte-aufstiegsstufe-o-triebwerkstrahl.jpg)

Idk, I'm done for now, but I just wanna hear some input.

[TbTalon94]

I'm on my phone right now but tomorrow ill flood this thread with shit that if you actually pay attention to will change your mind about A L O T of stuff. That is if you can think outside the box and with an open mind.

[Caleb]

Oh I will, I'm open to lots of stuff.

[ZacFields]

At least you didn't bring up the very popular "Can't see stars in the photos" argument. I hate that argument with a passion. Even with today's hi-res digital cameras, you will have a hard time finding a photo from space where you can see stars (that wasn't from a telescope). Every one of them just shows a black background... no stars.

The biggest issue with the hoax theories is that most of them are using the things they know and have learned on Earth to formulate their opinion. The dust argument can be explained by the fact that the moon does not have an atmosphere. On earth, if you kick a big pile of dust, it will form a cloud and you'll probably get it all in your face and all over your clothes. On the moon (and you can confirm this by watching the footage of the actual landing) dirt particles follow a ballistic path when moved. If you were to kick a pile of dust on the moon, it would be like kicking a football... it would just go straight where you kicked it until gravity takes it back down to the ground. The pressure created by the boosters on the ground would have sent the dust outward, thus a clean landing gear is exactly what you'd expect.

The camera stance is interesting, but remember that NASA paid big time money to send astronauts to the moon. They received extensive training on how to use these cameras so as to send the best quality photos back to Earth. And as you said, only the best photos were publicized.

Now just a few thoughts to ponder:

1. If they were going to fake the moon landing, why would they have taken so many pictures/video? They knew the video and photos would be scrutinized especially by people in other countries. Why give them so much data to work with?

2. There were thousands of people involved in the Apollo missions, yet over 30 years later, nobody has ever come forth to admit it was a hoax. Isn't it reasonable to believe that someone on their death bed would spill the beans?

3. Over 800 pounds of moon rock was returned to Earth during these moon missions. Even with today's technology, robotic rovers can only collect very small portions of dirt/rock at a time.

4. Why has Russia never challenged the moon landing? It was a very contentious race to the moon at the time, so if it's such an obvious hoax, why has Russia never called us out on it? You'd think if there were even the slightest possibility that a hoax is the right answer, Russia would have jumped at the opportunity to rain on our parade.

Just a handful of thoughts to ponder. Like I said before, I am open minded to conspiracy theories. But the vast majority of the arguments for this one are un-scientific (or using incorrect scientific assumptions) and are easily explained away by science.

[ZacFields]

Oh I will, I'm open to lots of stuff.

Trevor is a really reliable source with stuff like this because he really is somewhat of a conspiracy theorist himself. I've known him to do a LOT of research on this kind of stuff. He has enlightened me at least a couple times.

For me personally, I follow the most reliable explanations. I've read lots of articles of very well educated scientists/professors debunking the hoax theory regarding the moon landing that I'm 100% sure that it happened. Again, it's mostly because the vast majority of arguments against it are simplistic and use poor or incorrect science.

Just a funny spin here: I watched a youtube video today that claimed that the moon landing was real, but that it wasn't Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin that actually walked on it. The youtube video suggested that NASA hired four guys to essentially impersonate the astronauts while they sat safe and sound in low earth orbit the entire time. They said NASA knew the only possible scenario for a moon landing would end in the deaths of the astronauts, so they say there are 4 dead bodies sitting in a lunar module out there in space while Neil, Buzz and the others got to take all the credit.

Like I said.... crazy stuff sometimes.

[TbTalon94]

Ok so let me give you a few things to think about before I get into linking things and things i've researched and so on.

Just like Caleb posted, the government has covered things...BIG things...and will always do so because they determine what is "national security" and what the public needs to know. I'm not necessarily a Conspiracy theorist but i'm the type of person that doesn't just take what someone says and believe it to be true no matter who it is. Case in point the govnm't cannot be trusted and anything they say should be taken as a grain of salt.

The govnm't is so compartmentalized people are in on an operation may be working with someone in the SAME operation but not know what the other does. That's the way they like it and that's the way it has to be in order for things to be covered. Just like in a famous movie the line "plausible deniability". It's the truth and anyone who doesn't just follow the masses should realize that.

Now I could throw out things that will make most people think i'm just a goofy crazy guy that reads too much. That may be, but i've read A LOT of stuff. I don't take everything as proof or 100% concrete evidence unless it can be backed up from multiple sources.

I can tell you there were/are structures on the moon that are not natural. They are man built. Weather it be by us, an ancient civilization or of an extra-terrestrial race. Either way, they are there. You can take 60's/70's NASA photos and find the clearly edited areas where the structures exist. They are blatently air-brushed. If you dig deeper they claimed they were just "anomolies" because of the photo technology at the time. Of course current photos released with the latest technology don't need to be "airbrushed" so you cannot tell if anything were there unless you have a pretty decent telescope.

I believe this is why we first went to the moon and have gone since. I also believe all of the nations work together to make sure the public does not find out about these things. There are power at be that make the final decisions no matter what nation is involved and who is on top. The officials we see in office are pons, they are the face for the people to see but they make no decisions that determine these types of things. The last president that knew about these things felt it as his duty to let the public know about these hidden secrets...and he was shot in the head in his car for it (that's another story).

Now on the UFO topic. I don't care who you are or what you think you know, there are MANY difference races of beings that we KNOW where they come from, how they are, what they look like etc. etc. It's a fact that won't be realized for a LONG time because of mass histeria due to Religion. The very thing that is supposed to give us hope and unity, also segregates us and feeds us with lies. Religion is beyond corrupt. I'm not saying people who believe in a certain religion are wrong or things don't exist. BUT the powers that control religion hold us back from out true origin and our true place here in this universe. Most people I tell this too just look at me like i'm a loon but I'm also not the type of person to tell someone that what they believe in is wrong.

We came in contact with entities way before the Roswell crashes. The roswell crash was basically luck for us as we "recovered" craft, basically stole it, and disected it to get everything we could out of it. Everything you saw develop from that crash on, ALL was reverse engineered from that craft or stemmed from it. We have also made deals with certain beings that we trade "livestock" (both humans and animals) for technology. Again sounds crazy, but if you dig deep enough you can find the GOVERNMENT documents proving this. We have and will continue to be in contact with "extra-terrestrial" beings for years. They help us and we try to help them. Now E.T. doesn't mean some little green guy or some creepy 6 armed horned beast. IT simply means an intelligent being that does not originate from Earth. Therefor you can realize it STILL can be human. There are a lot of Human races from other star systems. If you can't grasp that there are other intelligent beings in this vast universe then you need to go back to watching Obama.

I'll go on if you guys want me to, or link you to a few things showing what I am trying to get at. Just stiring up the pot for more stuff :) Zac knows a few things i've shown him. It get's deep and get's deep quick.

[Drifte]

dood, it was all reverse engineered using Megatron. The All Spark is what makes it all work.

[Sledge_WS6]

dood, it was all reverse engineered using Megatron. The All Spark is what makes it all work.

+1

[Ricky]

I think my brain exploded

[TbTalon94]

Where do you think Hollywood get's their ideas?

One good thing about movies is it's a good way to gauge the reaction of the public. Also to slowly get the public accustom to this type of thing.

It's something like 75% of the general public believe there are extra-terrestrials. And like 65% of that population that think they have visited here.

Now, honest question. What would you think if tomorrow on every channel there was an announcement that we are not alone in the universe and they've been here for years. We cooperate with them and everything you've ever been told was a lie to "protect" you. How do you honestly think the public would react. It's not logical to dump that kind information on the mass idiots.

[85XR7Project]

To be quite honest I am loving this shit.

[Drifte]

I almost pooped a hammer when I saw Optimus Prime on Mars. Rover didn't have a chance.

btw the aliens were pals with the nazis, who borrowed all the scientists who made everything we see today.

[85XR7Project]

I almost pooped a hammer when I saw Optimus Prime on Mars. Rover didn't have a chance.

btw the aliens were pals with the nazis, who borrowed all the scientists who made everything we see today.

Now you're working into my interest realm, check out the nazi's Die Glocke project. Hitler was very much so into the occult and wanted to expirement in that realm and not many really talk about things like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Glocke

[Ricky]

I almost pooped a hammer when I saw Optimus Prime on Mars. Rover didn't have a chance.

btw the aliens were pals with the nazis, who borrowed all the scientists who made everything we see today.


Thank god they reverse engineered the blender!

[TbTalon94]

Now you're working into my interest realm, check out the nazi's Die Glocke project. Hitler was very much so into the occult and wanted to expirement in that realm and not many really talk about things like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Glocke

I've also done research on many of these topics.

Here's my take on the Bell:

It was an attempt to reverse engineer a craft that was "recovered" by them or "blueprints" give to them by beings they made deals with. They were definatly on the right path and some think they figured it out which is why the caves they were operating out of were demolished from the inside. People believe the people who worked there died along with the Bell when they closed the shafts.

There was a german scientest years before the Nazi's that built a craft he claimed could fly without an internal combustion engine (think of the time they were in) and without wings. It could also fly so fast you wouldn't know you were gone (aka: time travel). It had two counter-rotating discs filled with a mercury like substance and had strong earth magnets place it certain locations. The Magnets were turned/rotated in sequence to "direct" the flight. He tried to do many demonstrations but always had things go wrong as if someone was sabotaging him. In the end he came up missing and his factory burned to the ground. Funny how that happens.

What happens is the counter rotating discs create a "void" if you will in space time. The effects of gravity, time, physics all negate and the craft moves about freely in "hyper-space" for lack of a better term. Now you can achieve the same effect with out the time-travel part with slower rotation of the discs and other parts. This is what most see as UFO's. They make no noise besides a slight humming because of the counter rotating discs. The light emitted is because of the effect of creating a void. Think of what you see when a Jet hits the speed of sound and leaves a sonic boom and appears to have a funnel around it. Same concept.

This means faster then light travel, it does not break the laws of physics because the craft isn't actually moving. The void is and the craft is basically sliding down an endless hill. This is also why the craft can do zero-point turns at extremely high speeds and not effect the operator. Again there is no gravity in the craft so the operator feels no G forces or anything of that nature. The Mercury like substance is like a superconductor magnet but in liquid form with the exception that it doesn't need -150+ temps to reach it's magnetism. Obviously this substance isn't known in the general public and most of the scientific community. Hence why no one has built a craft in their garage or has time traveled...that we know of anyway.

This guy has a lot of good videos and backs it up with math. Explaining how things work on a scientific level. You can pick through the videos but they are almost all good: http://www.youtube.com/user/alienscientist?blend=1&ob=4

[85XR7Project]

You have made my damn day, no joke.

[Caleb]

At least you didn't bring up the very popular "Can't see stars in the photos" argument. I hate that argument with a passion. Even with today's hi-res digital cameras, you will have a hard time finding a photo from space where you can see stars (that wasn't from a telescope). Every one of them just shows a black background... no stars.

The biggest issue with the hoax theories is that most of them are using the things they know and have learned on Earth to formulate their opinion. The dust argument can be explained by the fact that the moon does not have an atmosphere. On earth, if you kick a big pile of dust, it will form a cloud and you'll probably get it all in your face and all over your clothes. On the moon (and you can confirm this by watching the footage of the actual landing) dirt particles follow a ballistic path when moved. If you were to kick a pile of dust on the moon, it would be like kicking a football... it would just go straight where you kicked it until gravity takes it back down to the ground. The pressure created by the boosters on the ground would have sent the dust outward, thus a clean landing gear is exactly what you'd expect.

The camera stance is interesting, but remember that NASA paid big time money to send astronauts to the moon. They received extensive training on how to use these cameras so as to send the best quality photos back to Earth. And as you said, only the best photos were publicized.


Now just a few thoughts to ponder:

1. If they were going to fake the moon landing, why would they have taken so many pictures/video? They knew the video and photos would be scrutinized especially by people in other countries. Why give them so much data to work with?

Just like any good illusionist or liar...Authenticity, how far would you take a lie to make people believe it? Same goes with large scale items/agenda's, the public needs to be bullshitted to be swayed to lean to back its government etc. Its the same reason why I posted that Operation Northwoods Document, government and government sponsored programs fall under the same roof of bullshit this country had been plagued with for many years. They had a budget and a bill to burn, so they did. Its a reasonable believable argument.


2. There were thousands of people involved in the Apollo missions, yet over 30 years later, nobody has ever come forth to admit it was a hoax. Isn't it reasonable to believe that someone on their death bed would spill the beans?

Its plausible to think that, you'd think someone would spill the beans on their death bed. But for any reason, who knows what the consequences are behind saying something, especially if what you could be saying could jeopardize your family. But moot point, who knows. Just like what most people have said, with all the fame and recognition, these people will take whatever they know to the grave because they more than likely live a comfortable life and why ruin it?


3. Over 800 pounds of moon rock was returned to Earth during these moon missions. Even with today's technology, robotic rovers can only collect very small portions of dirt/rock at a time.

I honestly can't think of anything logical to counter argument this one without giving you an outlandish answer that would seem crazy, but i don't know for sure. Most people would say that the Lunar Lander's were very weight sensitive and couldn't handle excess weight and couldn't bring much on board because of maneuverability issues. But idk if you can apply the issues in a earth vs vacuum argument because they would be completely different. But who knows.

One thing that bothers me though as I said, when you look at the structural integrity of some of the Landers, it makes you wonder how those things would NOT fall apart or have some sort of leak in them, especially the cabins when they show the sides and so forth:

Apollo 16 Lander:

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/025-apollo-16-AS16-113-18332-mondlandefaehre.jpg

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/026-apollo-16-AS16-122-19533-kaputte-aufstiegsstufe-o-triebwerkstrahl.jpg

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/027-apollo-16-AS16-122-19535-kaputte-aufstiegsstufe-o-triebwerkstrahl.jpg

The rest of them weren't "as" beat up as Apollo 16 LM Lander but they still look pretty bad. But at the same time the same time, you'll never know whats under the reflective aluminum foil looking shielding, when its supposed to be something like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/LM_illustration_02.jpg



4. Why has Russia never challenged the moon landing? It was a very contentious race to the moon at the time, so if it's such an obvious hoax, why has Russia never called us out on it? You'd think if there were even the slightest possibility that a hoax is the right answer, Russia would have jumped at the opportunity to rain on our parade. [/quote]

Who knows what Soviet Russia was thinking back then, They may not have saw it as an obvious hoax, who knows, its all speculation like most shit is. One thing I just find coincidentally interesting is that the first man in space was a Soviet in 1961 for under 2 hours, and JFK in 1962 declared were going to the moon within the decade. Sure enough within 7 years, we end up going moon not once, but several times traveling over 500,000mi there and back, with little to no major complications on each mission, other than Apollo 13. Maybe its just me but the progression of sorts went too fast and it seems a little far fetched when in reality, we were still young when it came to space orbiting and such. Its takes an average of 8-12 years for a drug to be cleared through the FDA. "Evolution is slow, small pox is fast" - George Carlin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sp ... _incidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents)

And just one more picture question and maybe someone can answer this.

If the astronauts worked on the moon in the day light time while the surface of the moon is completely illuminated with light:

http://moonpark.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/moon32.jpg

My Question is, why is this picture of Mr. Aldrin shown below, where the lightning is dark very spotty and selective in certain areas?(uncropped) Even the reflection in the helmet is selective with the lightning. Its something I've never really understood. Maybe its not the original photo? Idk, I've seen a couple variations of the photo, one brightened where it looks more authentic to what I'm referring to ( but its cropped at the top, aside from the darker one)

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/020-apollo-11-AS-11-40-5903-Aldrin-von-oben-fotografiert-unmoeglich.jpg



From the: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html Click Apollo 11: and then search for AS11-40-5903 ( the brighter cropped photo )

Idk Zac, I could counter argue all day, but as you said, unless it happens in our life time and we get evidence that other lunar landers are up there ( and no dead bodies around anywhere lolololol ) then I would say, "America! Fuck Yeah"

[Deimos]

Tbtalon do you believe in ley (or leigh) lines for earths magnetism as a means for UFO's to travel. The fourth kind is a freaky movie. i do believe we are not alone for the simple fact that we have already discovered that there is life on another planet.

I too have heard the wingless flying machine from the Nazi's they had alot going for them in the research and development department but wasn't all there. But on the same token with enough electromagnetism I could even make Caleb float. I think that time travel or perhaps dimensional travel was more than likely the cause of the philidelphia experiment.

BTW for all those that said we went to the moon how did they block the lethal amounts of RADS from the Van Allen Radiation belts.

In essence this discussion is about as useful and Einsteins theory of relativity with its affects on quarks, but is quite entertaining and I enjoy the read.

[Caleb]

The claim I've read is that the astronauts had enough shielding in the Apollo's while traveling at 24,000mph to the moon, belts span up to roughly 40,389 miles in stretch. 4 hours total there and back with enough shielding was enough to keep them safe.

[TbTalon94]

Like I said in the other thread. We went to the moon several times. Just not how you saw in the 60s. We sure as hell didn't go in those death paper traps they call the modules.

Think we supposably went to the moon with the computing power of a digital watch. Think what we have now and what wwe should be capable of. Yet we still basically have the same rocket technology we did then with a little more gizmos and higher safety rating.