Man on Moon..... A Consipracy??

[ripplefactor]

There is a lot of speculation about this theory and much of it can be found on the net. In fact, this is where I discovered the theory - I had never even considered the possibility of this before.What was happening in the world in 1969? Well, the US had just changed it's underwear after the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Space Race was well and truly under way.The Russians had already beaten the US by putting the first object in orbit, the first man in space, the first spacewalk and the first manmade object on the moon. The Americans were lagging well behind.President Kennedy had declared that America would put a man on the moon - at almost any cost. And he was determined to beat the Russians to it.
Much of the theory is based on some photographs that NASA released. These pictures appear to have either multiple shadows, i.e. multiple strong light sources, or else the single light source casts shadows of objects in different directions, as it would if it was very close.

I have not been able to find these pictures, though I believe, and it is said by some, that they could be pictures released by NASA that were actually promotional pictures, taken before the launch.

However, what I did find, were numerous pictures where the depth of the picture varied enormously. Taking only pictures contained on NASA's web sites there are quite a few pictures where the results are not consistent with other shots taken at the same location.

Some pictures show one or other of the astronauts with a depth of view that I'd estimate at about a mile or so, often with mountains visible in the background. Other pictures, taken in similar locations, have a field of view of about 25 yards - that's total darkness 25 yards behind the subject. I find this a little unlikely.

The pictures reminded me of pictures released during World War II, where part of the picture had been cut out, or censored, to conceal something essential to the war effort - had this happened with some of the moon shots? What could they have been concealing? Some would have it that there are studio equipment and props in the real pictures and these have been masked out.

Another inconsistency with the original moon landing is the matter of how they got the TV picture beamed to Earth from the Moon. Back in the 60's the TV companies had difficulty sending a stable picture 50 miles across relatively flat countryside - yet here we had pictures coming from over 150,000 miles away. Granted, NASA undoubtedly had great financial backing and could have invested millions of dollars in TV equipment, but it is worth thinking about.

Amateur radio operators sometimes use the moon to 'bounce' radio signals, in order to reach part of the Earth that they would not otherwise be able to reach, due to line of sight limitations. Was this same technique used by NASA to make the TV pictures appear to be coming from the moon itself? Given a highly directional antenna and large financial backing, this is a distinct possibility.

Some sources have suggested that in 1969 NASA's technology was not sufficiently advanced enough to put a man on the moon and get him back to Earth alive. It is said that the computing power used by the Apollo craft would have been less than that contained in a modern pocket calculator. One author, Bill Kaysing, who reputedly worked for NASA just before the time of the Apollo launches says that NASA commissioned a feasibility study to check the odds of completing the moon landings successfully. The odds were reported as being 0.0017% chance.

He alleges in his book, "We never went to the moon", that NASA and the Defense Intelligence Agency faked the moon landing at a remote, possibly underground site in Nevada - Area-51 perhaps?

Other hoax theorists say that although the intention was not to fake the moon landings, as soon as NASA realised that they could not perform this feat they opted to fake it rather than lose face to the Soviets. In turn this also generated a feeling of euphoria in the American people and would have assisted with funding for other space projects.

There was no independant coverage of the Apollo missions, apart from the actual launch stage, so how do we know that the astronauts were aboard the Saturn V rockets and how do we know that NASA didn't fake the footage we saw?

What do u wanna say bout this...........??





:devil:

[mf]

About the darkness: the landing was on the lit side of the moon, meaning the sun shined DIRECTLY on the surface. In order for the film not to be intensely overlit, you'd need a reflective lens and/or insensitive film. This reduces visibility a lot and hides the stars that conspiracy theorists believe should be visible. The same reason why the astronauts had reflective helmets.

[Kairk]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

[Latexxx]

I don't know about the truth but I've seen an interview in which Donald Rumsfeld admits that the photos were taken at 2001: Space Odyssey's set because the background radiation, which is stronger in Moon than Earth, destroyed the original negatives. I can't remember the programme's name but it also had Kissinger saying the same thing.

[ppera2]

I don't want to be harsh, but such nonsenses I heard 30 years ago from some mental unstable persons, and later from time to time.

I really think that this is not place for such (and yet so long) posts.
Should I start here thread about my mother-in-law? :)

[ultimatebilly]

Latexxx, what you mean was a documentation about this conspiracy theory, it was called (in german) "Kubrick, Nixon & der Mann im Mond".
It was produced by the french/german tv-station ARTE and was absolutely great!!
If you have the chance to watch it, you should absolutely do so...
Even if you don't speak french/german, I think you will still enjoy it because the interviews with Kissinger, Rumsfeld and the like are in english of course.
The theory they tried to prove in this documentation was that Kubrick needed a special lens that was designed for satellites by the NASA for shooting "Barry Lyndon", because he wanted to shoot most of it by candlelight.
So he agreed to shoot a few scenes where the landing on the moon was faked, which was no problem since he was working on 2001, and had everything he needed right on the set.
Once again, if you have the chance to see it, do so!!

I heard some rumours from a friend, that there are networks out there where you can download movies...
I suppose if something like that would exist you would probably be able to find the documentation there.

[Latexxx]

Originally posted by ultimatebilly
If you have the chance to watch it, you should absolutely do so...
Even if you don't speak french/german, I think you will still enjoy it because the interviews with Kissinger, Rumsfeld and the like are in english of course.
I've seen it. It was presented so that the narrator spoke French and everything else was in original language. It is the only good film shown by MTV3 in Finland in last ten years.

BTW Ich kann Deutsch sprechen/schreiben, aber je ne parle pas français.

[mpucoder]

I never doubted that man went to the moon, but I often wondered about that shot of the landing. Were we to believe they threw a camera overboard and it landed in the correct orientation to capture the event?
But for the conspiracy theorists, how do you explain the retro-reflectors placed on the moon? They are still in use today, and were positioned by men. http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

[fccHandler]

You say there's film of the landing from the exterior? I haven't seen that. My memory of the landing and "one small step" is a B/W film shot from the interior of the craft, looking out a window or something...

For the record, I don't believe the moon landing was fake.

[adam]

The funniest part of this whole conspiracy theory is when that guy kept harrassing Buzz Aldrin about it and finally he decked him. Even at 72 he's still a badass.

http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/

[r6d2]

The truth is that Space Odyssey 2001 has footage actually shot on the Moon. Kubrick and part of his crew were traveling in the trunk of Apollo 11, in very uncomfortable conditions.

On a recent interview, Armstrong told how easy it had been to install the big metal black block on the Moon surface due to the reduced gravity. A previous unmanned mission took the cargo there, along with some food and supplies.

Audio was dubbed when back on Earth though, because as you may be aware, sound does not travel without a physical medium and the Moon has no atmosphere. Besides, they saved the trip of the audio guys, which did not fit into the trunk anyway due to the heavy equipment they always take everywhere with them.

Kubrick never revealed this secret because he made a very good deal with NASA. They gave him founding to build a time machine to go to the Stone Age and shoot the apes shaking the bones.

Another fact not widely known is that the Viking I took Jimmy Hoffa's body to Mars so it would never be found.

[fccHandler]

On second thought, it must have been fake. Everyone knows the moon is made of cheese, so how do you land all that heavy equipment? Wouldn't it sink into the cheese? Besides that, there are flying green monkeys on the moon that eat humans.

[GIR]

I don't know about the truth but I've seen an interview in which Donald Rumsfeld admits that the photos were taken at 2001: Space Odyssey's set because the background radiation, which is stronger in Moon than Earth, destroyed the original negatives. I can't remember the programme's name but it also had Kissinger saying the same thing.

This show was called "The Cutting Edge: Dark Side of the Moon" they usually do serious documentaries, but this one was just one big joke on the people that think man didn't land on the moon, it wasn't real. It was shown in Australia last year on April Fools day, I found it to be very funny and humorous even though I am one of the people that is not entirely convinced man did land on the moon. BTW Donald Rumsfeld should have really been and actor he's far better at it than what he's doing now, oh wait nevermind :D

[dragongodz]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ah that feels better. its good to start the year off with a good laugh. :D

[mf]

Originally posted by dragongodz
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ah that feels better. its good to start the year off with a good laugh. :D
You didn't laugh for 23 days? :eek: What were you doing at newyear's then ? Drink cleaning acid like I did ? :D Man that was funny, 12 o'clock and all and I was thinking "this tastes so sour..." And the back of the package even said "in case of ingestion contact a doctor immediately" :rolleyes:.

[smok3]

was /is/ there any special reason to land on the moon? (except politics or saying 'look at me momy'), on the other hand i read somewhere that one would get a brand new hasselblad camera if you deliver one of those that were left on the moon ;)

[Angelus]

The noble reason the U.S. decided to land on the moon was to make a statement that was going to explore the universe. It also sent a message to the American people and everyone else that it was one small step for MAN (not just Americans)...It was also a needed victory in the race to space between the USSR and the US...I think after that point the tide was turning in favor of the US and well, we aren't speaking Russian now :)

One last thing...we get so much from the space program in general terms of electronics and technology...so I'm glad we have a program and maybe one day I'll be going to mars for vacation ;)

[r6d2]

Breaking News...
NASA is puzzled by the last message received from Spirit before it went offline. It read: "5370H55V 0773H".

Some of the brightest minds of the international community were gathered to study the message, supposed to be somehow encrypted. Even the author of DeCSS is being looked after but has not been found.

Asked by NASA for collaboration, ESA pointed Mars Express to the Spirit landing zone. After carefull analysis of high resolution pictures provided by Mar Express, they found a weird allocation of rocks which, by means of high amplification, was determined to read: "TURN IT UPSIDE DOWN. J.HOFFA".

[mf]

Originally posted by r6d2
Breaking News...
NASA is puzzled by the last message received from Spirit before it went offline. It read: "5370H55V 0773H".
setohssv otteh - weird message indeed.

[dimitrius]

rofl 5370H55V 0773H :D :D the funninest thing I read this year...
mf obviously didn't get it.

on serious side - has anyone considered that because moon doesn't have an atmosphere light would have different properties. To start with light would travel at it's full speed (not being slowed down by air), what about polarisation (I'm guessing that EM properties of the moon are different than of earth). Also what would happen to the film in the camera's if there was abnormal pressure (abnormal to usual earth conditions) inside the camera casing. But I don't mind believing that those cowboys really did land on that rock.

on a more personal note directed mainly at american readers:

HA HA HA HA HA - we beat you!!!!
The Russians had already beaten the US by putting the first object in orbit, the first man in space, the first spacewalk and the first manmade object on the moon. and the first animals in space - we will never forget you Zuchka while you only went to the moon and even that is still contested by your own citizens.

yeah, I'm Russian

[Latexxx]

Originally posted by GIR
BTW Donald Rumsfeld should have really been and actor he's far better at it than what he's doing now, oh wait nevermind :D

But Rumsfeld is already one of the greatest actors of all time - a politician.

[mf]

Originally posted by dimitrius
mf obviously didn't get it.
I think it was so obvious after that explanation, that I'd make another joke regarding l33t. But obviously, you didn't get that :D.

[sarahjh69]

I have photos showing different shadows.... u want em??
you forgot to mention

How can Neil and Buzz give a live commentry of the landing
while sitting in a tin can perched on a 40,000lb rocket motor??
(all i would expect to hear would be ROOOOOOOOOOOAR)

How did they take pictures of each other from above using a
camera fixed to their chests??

How did they frame the photos so well when the cameras had no viewfinders??

How can you see details in the shadows, when there is no atmosphere
to provide backlighting by sun reflecting off dust in the atmosphere??

Why did the jet not blow the dust away from the lander, forming a crater...look at footprints in the dust beside the lander??

Lots of very interesting questions.....very few answers......

[Nic]

"very few answers......"
Lots of answers...
http://www.bestofcolumbus.com/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm

[Angelus]

Quote:

"HA HA HA HA HA - we beat you!!!! The Russians had already beaten the US by putting the first object in orbit, the first man in space, the first spacewalk and the first manmade object on the moon. and the first animals in space - we will never forget you Zuchka while you only went to the moon and even that is still contested by your own citizens."

I really don't feel like starting something over something that ended 15 years ago but I'm glad you have your Russian pride. And I have my American. In your own quote you touched upon one of the keys of American society: the freedom of speech. People ARE allowed to contest the moon findings. They ARE allowed to publish such articles if deemed somewhat credible. Now, how many USSR citizens had the right to do that during all of the Soviets "advances" in space? Perhaps all these claims by the former USSR are false as well, like the Soviet Army parading around Moscow or Stalingrad with huge missiles made of wood. And if i wanted to, I could say, "HA HA HA HA HA - we beat you!!!!" We're still around and thriving today, and where's the USSR?

I found this article I read on CNN a while back. Here (http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/19/nasa.moon/)

[fccHandler]

Relive the entire moon landing (with audio and video) here:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11.step.html

[smok3]

angelous, you are mixing brute force and some real inteligence..., you dont have to land on moon to achieve anything, even from a tech perspective..., there are way better ways to spend the money. But there is no need to reply, i dont wanna start some silly conflict which would bring 0 results.

As for the language groups,
Top 10 - Languages Spoken
1 Chinese
2 Hindustani
3 English
4 Spanish
5 Russian
6 Arabic
7 Bengali
8 Portuguese
9 Malay-Indonesian
10 French

i wonder why not speak Chinese instead, for real ;)

[markrb]

In the language department you really need to clarify as treating all the different Chinese dialects as one language is really not true.
There are many different dialects. I have friends from different parts of China that have to speak in English to understand one another. One of my friends has a father that his own son cannot understand his native dialect. His father can speak Cantonese and English though and my friend can speak both of them.

I am actually surprised that English is ahead of Spanish.

I do believe man went to the moon and back. Take Apollo 13 as an example. Would the whole government go to such lengths to show a failed mission that almost killed the crew?

There was a movie with O.J. Simpson as one of the stars that at it's core was that the whole moon thing was a hoax. It was either in the late 70's or early 80's I don't remember.

Mark

[mpucoder]

That was Capricorn I

[r6d2]

Originally posted by fccHandler
Relive the entire moon landing (with audio and video) here:
Very interesting link, fccHandler, :thanks:

Looking after the funny urban legend of Mr. Gorsky, I found this (http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html) site. Interesting too.

P.S.: @mf, I didn't get your l33t joke either. :confused:

[cypher_soundz]

after reading the evidence (considering that the page i just read is true and all facts) then i believe we did go to the moon, before reading it i didn't , but i am still sceptical. It all comes down to trust and with all these viruses and spam pretending to be people we know and scams left right and centre its not at all a surprise that we are all paranoid :p, by the way ripplefactor please don't tell me you believe in lizard people controlling the world? i have a few friend who are in to conspiracy theories, and you should here the stuff they come out with...some thing to do with the puff puff pass i think though :p.
but as i said, i am still in doubt of the moon landings, the C-rock seems a little too convenient though...think that might be a cover up :confused:
Regards
cyph

[dragongodz]

"You didn't laugh for 23 days?"
no a very busy xmas meant a few chortles but no big gufaw that this thread provoked. :)

"sent a message to the American people and everyone else that it was one small step for MAN (not just Americans)"
rubbish.
"It was also a needed victory in the race to space between the USSR and the US"
and theres the real reason. the US didnt want to be beaten by the USSR at anything. they still dont want to be beat by anyone today.
this could all fall under political discussion so should be stopped right now.

for people who feel like throwing up more "but how about" questions please read the links already provided first.

i am curious though, do people think because we talk about backing up x-files dvds etc that we believe in them ? :devil:

[DigitAl56K]

Nevermind whether we went to the moon or not... Did NASA really lose contact with the Mars lander, or did they actually find some extra-terrestrial life there?

Afterall, they did find ice at the South Pole, right? :)

[Barker]

Afterall, they did find ice at the South Pole, right?

Yes, and their conclusion was "If it's yellow, don't eat it..."

[Neo Neko]

A rather simple way to provide rather convincing proof would be to get a basic telescope and scan the area for signs of tell-tail disturbance. Hell why not spend a bit more than 50 bucks and get some high tech radar equipment and generate accurate 3d computer maps of the landing site, foot prints, rover tracks etc. The only winds there are solar and the features have remained the same for thousands of years. So all the stuff should be exactly as they left it. Either the landing was a fake or this solution is blindingly obvious.

[fccHandler]

According to one of the links given above, the most powerful telescopes yet made (including Hubble) lack the resolution to detect mankind's imprint on the moon. If so, we are faced with an ironic situation; we have to go there again just to prove that we were there the first time...

[mf]

Originally posted by r6d2
P.S.: @mf, I didn't get your l33t joke either. :confused:
There are several variants of l33t. The oldest one to my knowledge, simply replaced as much letters as possible with numbers.
where: ELEET (misspelling of elite) would become 31337. From this substitution of characters, you can read 5370H55V 0773H as SETOHSSV OTTEH. It was just another interpretation of it.

[mpucoder]

I still don't think you got it. What's so funny about "SETOHSSV OTTEH". Now "HELLO A******S", that's funny.

[Kedirekin]

HETTO ^SSHOTES? Darn, what are those martians trying to say? Hetero what? What the heck is a ^SSHOTE? Is that what they call themselves, ^sshotes? I wonder what sound ^ is. Maybe it was a kid painting graffiti - HETTO ^SSHOTES RULE - but he got caught before he was done.

Maybe it's a softdrink. Who can figure out those darn martians.

[mf]

Originally posted by mpucoder
I still don't think you got it. What's so funny about "SETOHSSV OTTEH". Now "HELLO A******S", that's funny.
Let's not argue about sense of humor or lack of it ;). And yes, I already stated above that I got the joke. Just because I do a corny attempt at making another one means I don't get the joke?

[r6d2]

Originally posted by mf
Just because I do a corny attempt at making another one means I don't get the joke?
@mf, let's face it... You know, this dog of mine... He is not wagging, so to speak. ;)

But anyway, you did get that it was Hoffa, who somehow survived, the one which composed the message with martian rocks, didn't you? :D:D:D

[mf]

Originally posted by r6d2
But anyway, you did get that it was Hoffa, who somehow survived, the one which composed the message with martian rocks, didn't you? :D:D:D
And my cat is not purring ;). Images.google.com tells me I'm priviledged not to know wtf Hoffa is :D.

[Zhnujm]

Originally posted by fccHandler
According to one of the links given above, the most powerful telescopes yet made (including Hubble) lack the resolution to detect mankind's imprint on the moon.

As far as i know they land on the back side of the moon so as long as you cannot move a telescope behind the moon you wont see anything.
Or try to rotate the moon 180 degree.

But well, im not so sure about what i talk :D

[mf]

Originally posted by Zhnujm
As far as i know they land on the back side of the moon so as long as you cannot move a telescope behind the moon you wont see anything.
Or try to rotate the moon 180 degree.

But well, im not so sure about what i talk :D
If they landed on the dark side, how could they see earth and have all that sunlight? :D

[r6d2]

Originally posted by mf
If they landed on the dark side, how could they [...] have all that sunlight? :D
The dark side is dark to us, but not to the moon inhabitants or visitors. ;)

[mf]

Originally posted by r6d2
The dark side is dark to us, but not to the moon inhabitants or visitors. ;)
The dark side is the permanently unlit one. You know, where they found the subsurface ice.

[r6d2]

Originally posted by mf
The dark side is the permanently unlit one.
The Moon rotates in sync with the Earth, showing us the very same face all the time. So we call the opposite side the dark one. But guess what, when our face is dark (new moon), the "dark one" is lit.

You may have had too much of Pink Floyd. :)

[Zhnujm]

Always good to have an encarta at home, the landing place was on the "front" side. ;)
If there ever was one. :D :rolleyes:

Now i go and dig out my old telescope....

[mf]

Originally posted by r6d2
The Moon rotates in sync with the Earth, showing us the very same face all the time. So we call the opposite side the dark one. But guess what, when our face is dark (new moon), the "dark one" is lit.

You may have had too much of Pink Floyd. :)
The real dark sides are the poles ;).

[ppera2]

Wondering why people accept so easy diverse pseudo-science 'explanations' and spectacular 'discoverages' ?

Just read last 7-8 posts of well educated and informed posters in this thread, and you will get the picture.