View Full Version : A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon...

07-23-2004, 05:44 AM
What? What's this? [Fair] Is making a thread in a serious forum? No way! YES WAY!

I was watching one of my favorite talk shows, (You've Never Heard Of It, Trust Me...) and they had This Guy (http://www.moonmovie.com/) on...

According to him, the US never went to the moon. Instead, it was all made up. In his own words, "The goal was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the height of the cold war.".

On his site, he has the 15 reasons why he thinks it was all one giant hoax. They can be found HERE (http://www.moonmovie.com/15things.html)... But, in order to help everybody in their ongoing quest to be lazy, here they are, again, in his own words.

"15. "Tricky Dick" Richard Nixon was president at the time. He was the king of cover-up, secret tapes and scandal. Think about all of his potential antics that were not discovered.

14. A successful manned mission to the moon offered a wonderful pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the US citizens over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War.

13. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones:

First manmade satellite in earth orbit…
First man in space…
First man to orbit the earth…
First woman in space…
The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft…
The first space walk…
The first of two orbiting space craft rendezvousing…
This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War.

12. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies." Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone. See streaming video: "Buzz says, "Buzz Off!"

11. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?

With Prop ID "C": http://www.moonmovie.com/images/5A.jpg
After: "C" Removed : http://www.moonmovie.com/images/topten5B.jpg

10. Rediscovered lost footage shows the American flag blowing in the wind. The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated, space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for earth's six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over. See streaming video: "Flag blowing in the wind."

9. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander's 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere (except for the flag blowing in the wind - see # 10!)

8. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect. See our streaming video: "Photographic Analysis" for some eye opening examples.

7. The moon is 250,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind. See streaming video: "Radiation Belts."

6. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous.

5. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions.

4. Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical shape with a high center of gravity and one big thrust engine at the bottom. Upon just looking at this design, to think it would not immediately pinwheel and crash, as the lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on Earth, is absurd.

3. After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a wrong answer to a question he should not have been answering. The relevant portion of this clip is in my documentary; viewing it with an understanding of the circumstances makes it clear they were lying about having traveled to the moon. I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic. Furthermore, if you obtain a written transcript of the press conference you'll see that the comment is erroneously attributed to Aldrin. Honest mistake or cover-up?

2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. How could they have made such a large improvement in "quality control" in such a short period of time.

1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in our documentary, proves they did not leave low-earth orbit. You won't see this anywhere else!"

So, what do you think? Is it real or not?

07-23-2004, 06:28 AM
The evidence is very convincing but I would have to say:

Honestly, why would some guy be so obsessed with finding out information proving that a past event is a hoax. Although the evidence is very convincing, I still don't know why he would even care about that matter. I mean, it's 2004, the Soviet Union has long since collapsed and NASA has vastly improved although there were a few "incidents" in the past few shuttle missions.

If the event had been really a hoax he would most likely be shot dead by the government since nobody should know that information. Either that or nobody really cares anymore. The event may be a hoax, but proving that a long time after it happened doesn't really change anything anymore.

If I were in front of him and he told me all of that I'd ask him:
"And your point of showing evidence of a 30 year old event being a hoax is...?"

Yes it may change the history books a little but it is not like an almighty transaction. I wouldn't go delerious if the landing on the moon was a hoax. People who look deep into things like that...it's just not right.

Agent Orange
07-23-2004, 12:23 PM
Ok, first of all....

"Think about all of his potential antics that were not discovered."

How can we think about his antics if they werent discovered?

Now, The evidence is quite strong, but I have a feeling that this guy is pulling a hoax of his own. As Duke brought up, why would a guy risk being locked up or executed to proove something false that happened so long ago?

07-23-2004, 08:13 PM
I also think we have never landed on the moon. It just seems so fake with all of those pictures.

07-23-2004, 10:35 PM
I believe that the moon landings were indeed faked. A few years ago I got this book called Investigating the Unexplained by Paul Roland which covers some very interesting topics including the moon landings. In it it mentioned many of the same reasons as previously stated as well as some things that were not. Here's a few sections from the book which argue both sides of the case. Well the last two do anyway.

"NASA is known to have carried out a feasibility study in the early 60's which is said to have revealed a less than 1 per cent chance of success. Yet by the end of the decade we are led to believe that men landed on the moon in a rocket whose computer had less processing power than a modern pocket calculator."

The X-Ray Factor

"IN ORDER TO reach the moon the astronaits had to pass beyond the Van Allen Belt, a protective barrier of charged particles created by cosmic rays which have been trapped by the earth's magnetic fields. This natural phenomenon shields the earth from the sun's lethal radiation. Once beyond this barrier the crew would be exposed to intense and sustained doses of radiation with only a thing lead lining in the rocket to shield them. NASA has never explained how they overcame this fundamental problem."

"Some of the conspiracy theorists have seized on this fact [that no other mission has passed through the belt] and suggest that Apollo 11 did not go beyond the Van Allen Belt, but simply circled the earth until the schedualed splashdown. They suspect that the moon landing was faked by NASA which was under intense pressure to put a man on the moon by the end of the 60's to meet President Kennedy's much publicised deadline. For propaganda purposes America had to be seen to have beaten the Russians in the space race while NASA knew that its future funding depended on success. Whether of not NASA scientists overcame this fundamental problem in time for later landings is still a matter of intense debate and speculation amoung sceptics."

The Photographic Evidence

"MORE CONCRETE EVIDENCE of a cover-up is said to be found in the official NASA photographs of the Apollo 11 landing and also of later missions which, if true, suggests a continuing conspiracy to deceive the public."

"If anyone was foolish enough to store photographic film in their freezer and then grill it in the oven after taking their pictures they would not expect to see very good results. But that is effectively how the astronauts treated their film when they took it from an area of deep shade into the brilliant sunlight on the surface of the moon where temperatures vary from one extreme to the other. It is not unreasonable to assume that the extreme temperatures would have made it impossible to lad the film which would have been fused into a sticky morass. Moreover, photographic film is highly sensitive to X-rays, as anyone unfortunate enough to have had their holiday snaps 'fogged' by the early airport security systems will know to their cost. The astronauts' shots should have been adversely affected by the sun's radiation in a similar way during the journey beyond the Belt, but they were all perfect. Perhaps too perfect. On the Apollo 11 mission Armstrong and his colleague Buzz Aldrin were fitted with professional, fixed focus Hasselblad cameras strapped to their chests which had 250mm telephoto lenses and viewfinders on the top. The procedure for loading a Hasselblad with film is similar to that which was used in the earliest days of photography when changing old-fashioned photographic plates. It is a delicate and tricky operation which requires steady hands and nimble fingers. The Apollo astronauts wore thick rubber gloves which would have made reloading quite a problem."

(Then it talks about some of the pictures)

"[T]he shadow on Aldrin's right side is too light for the greater contrast that is characteristic of the moon. The sun on his left should put his right side into deep shade and yet we can clearly see every wrinkle on his spacesuit. More curiously, the terrain behind Aldrin fades into darkness but it should be quite distinct all the way to the horizon as there is no atmosphere on the moon to affect the light."

"[A] Mysterious object reflected in Aldrin's visor in the same photograph. It can be seen clearly against the blackness above the horizon where one might expect to glimpse a piece of film equipment if the shots had been faked in the studio."

"If the shots had been faked in a studio this would also explain why details such as the United States nameplates on the side of the lunar module are highlighted when they should be in deep shade as there is no refracted light on the moon and the sun was streaming in from the opposite side."

"Other oddities include the absence of stars in the sky in many of the official space agency photographs. ...the lack of atmosphere on the moon should make these clearly visible"

"These unexplained irregularities make a convincing case for the photos having been faked, but there is one piece of concrete evidence for which the conspiracy theoriest do not have a ready explanation--the 340kg pieve of radioactive moon rock which NASA proudly displayed for the scrutiny of the public and independent experts on the astronauts' return."

Cock-Up or Cover-Up?

"ONE THEORY WHICH no one seems to have considered is the possibility that the landings did take place, but that NASA was embarrassed when its film did not survive the journey for the reasons already stated. In its desperation to satisfy public expectation, exploit its propaganda coup and secure its future funding it foolishly faked photographs in a studio, perhaps where the landing had previously been rehearsed. Or maybe photographs taken during those rehearsals were used."

Even though they have that moon rock I'm still not convinced. The rocket as well as the technology just wasn't advanced enough for it to be believable.

07-25-2004, 12:11 PM
I think this guy is a lying fraud out for publicity and possibly cash.

And even if men hasn't landed on the moon, big deal!

08-18-2004, 04:55 PM
I was going to write a bunch of stuff that I knew about this, but this site I found explains it much better than I could
We really did (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm)

08-18-2004, 09:01 PM
I think we did land on the moon. He has some very good arguements but he just does not have enough. Every statement he makes could have an awnser. I think he doesn't have enough to prove NASA wrong. Neil Armstrong might just not like Camera's. He could be advised by the goverment not to be interviewed because of top secret projects that were going on during there time in space.