Poll: Was the Moon Landing a Hoax?

[Jester]

For those of you who are able to see the big picture and able to connect the dots, and willing to consider that they may be wrong, here are three facts for you to contemplate. Look over them and tell me if you don't think there's anything fishy about it. Think about them and see if you aren't scratching your head.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm

– FACT: Every major technological accomplishment in history has been repeated well under forty years, all except one. Within forty years of Christopher Columbus setting foot in America in 1492, thousands of other Europeans had done the same. Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903, thousands of other people had done the same. Within forty years of Sir Edmond Hillary reaching the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, thousands of other explorers had done the same. And within forty years of Yuri Gagarin’s orbit of the earth in 1961, many others had done the same. Yet forty years after 12 men allegedly set foot on the moon in 1969-72, not a single person or country has done it, nor attempted to do so (including the Russians who were ahead of us in the space race). Does this not seem highly strange and illogical?

– FACT: Since the Apollo Moon Missions in 1969-72, which sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, no one has ever gone higher than 400 miles above the Earth. Even the Space Shuttle missions have gone below that, remaining well under 400 miles.

– FACT: So far, 14 astronauts have died in Space Shuttle missions that went 200 miles above the Earth, yet during the Apollo program NASA allegedly sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, with no loss of life at all? In other words: 200 miles = 14 casualties, 240,000 miles = 0 casualties. Does that seem odd? Would you buy that? Can you fathom the enormous difference between 200 and 240,000 and how big of a stretch that is?

If these don’t leave you scratching your head, then nothing will. What all this means is that inexplicably, NASA was able to send men 600 times farther in 1969 than it can today! How believable is that? Have you ever heard of technology going backward by such an extreme magnitude?! It’s totally illogical and nonsensical.

To give you an idea of the proportions we are talking about, picture this: The Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter and the moon is 240,000 miles away. That means that you’d have to line up 30 Earth globes to equal the distance to the moon (since 8,000 x 30 = 240,000). What this means is that in 1969, NASA could send men the distance of 30 Earth globes, but today, it can only send humans barely above the Earth under 400 miles! (If you have a model globe in your home, 400 miles would be about an inch above it.)

Look at the implications here: Today, NASA does not have the technology to go higher than 400 miles above Earth, and has indirectly admitted it by their actions (in not doing so) and words. In a press release, NASA stated that the Van Allen Radiation Belts that surround the Earth are too dangerous to send humans through and is trying to figure out how to solve this problem. See here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/ ... 7820080331

Good summary for big-picture types, thanks for posting.

[Jester]

Winston, I concur about the Moon conspiracy and the possibility that the highly decorated veteran pilot Gus Grissom was assassinated because he was going to go public back in '67.

A real hero. He should be the patron saint of astronauts.

And apparently they left him (them) in the capsule AFTER the fire long enough to make sure he was dead, unable to say any last words.

The problem, however, is that this object then slows down, forms an orbit around the Moon, and then sends off a lander, which lands perfectly. And then, the two ships re-attach, and then, break off from the Moon's escape velocity, to get back to Earth. That's where I have serious doubts that such a logistical feat could be pulled off by simple thrusters in an early computer era machinery without some defect, misfiring, or even a miscalculation somewhere, without a supercomputer on Earth verifying all the parameters.

....If the two crafts (orbiter and lander), missed by a simple fraction of a foot, the lander and the orbiter may have collided and the mission would have been over right there and then. Thus, I'm skeptical of the mission.

Right.

And now I'm getting excited. if this was the "tall pole" that thwarted Werner Von Braun from meeting JFK's timeline authentically, then that would mean that we COULD get there today, or one day soon, starting of course with robots.

...Realize, robotic satellites to the Moon have not returned to Earth....

There are reports here and there that the Russians got a vehicle of some kind to return soil to the Earth back around 1960 or something. if that's real, then that soil is the most valuable mineral anywhere, worth billions. A piece of the moon!

Have you read that story? Do you think it is true? Any trustworthy or at least mainstream" sources for it? Or... was this just Soviet moonfakery", that then gave von Braun the idea to do his own moonfakery, beat the Russians at their own game?

And yes, the radiation belts and all is another issue which has never been addressed properly.

Radiation belts, plus I guess maybe highly radioactive soil on the moon. (NASA recently admitted radioactive surface of Mars was a problem.) Plus perhaps surface temperature like a frying pan on the sunny side. But those problems seem like they could be solved with heavy shielding on the spacecraft and perhaps on the lunar ground. Just needs a huge launch vehicle to carry all that, or assembly at a space station like Arthur C Clarke's "2001".

Kind of like going to the bottom of the ocean. Hard but not impossible. You can't scuba dive there, but you can visit in the right vehicle.

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

https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=film ... 67&bih=457

[Jester]

i LIKE THIS ONE

[droid]

He's full of s**t

[S_Parc]

A real hero. He should be the patron saint of astronauts.

And apparently they left him (them) in the capsule AFTER the fire long enough to make sure he was dead, unable to say any last words.

What's a bit suspicious was that federal agents scoured Grissom's home for all of his documents and writings, after the incident. Sorry, but I don't buy Natl Sec nonsense there. If there were incriminating evidence against the program, the Feds didn't want it surfacing in the future, via Scott or some other member of his immediate family. And the fact that Scott and Gus's wife always believed that he was murdered and neither of them were conspiracy types, makes me wonder. One of the things which Gus told his wife was that, "if there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me."

There are reports here and there that the Russians got a vehicle of some kind to return soil to the Earth back around 1960 or something. if that's real, then that soil is the most valuable mineral anywhere, worth billions. A piece of the moon!

Have you read that story? Do you think it is true? Any trustworthy or at least mainstream" sources for it? Or... was this just Soviet moonfakery", that then gave von Braun the idea to do his own moonfakery, beat the Russians at their own game?

Radiation belts, plus I guess maybe highly radioactive soil on the moon. (NASA recently admitted radioactive surface of Mars was a problem.) Plus perhaps surface temperature like a frying pan on the sunny side. But those problems seem like they could be solved with heavy shielding on the spacecraft and perhaps on the lunar ground. Just needs a huge launch vehicle to carry all that, or assembly at a space station like Arthur C Clarke's "2001".

Kind of like going to the bottom of the ocean. Hard but not impossible. You can't scuba dive there, but you can visit in the right vehicle.

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

https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=film ... 67&bih=457

During the months before the actual launch, the lander tests on earth were continually crashing. Did they ever actually record a successful stable "lander" test before the mission, itself? So yes, technically speaking, mid-69 was way too early for a launch. Most likely, the lander thing was fixed (or perhaps not, as it was an unmanned craft) via the Viking Mars missions in the mid-70s.

And I concur with the radiation shield. It needs to be in orbit already (as it would be heavy/bulky on earth), and then, a vessel needs to dock with it, before venturing out into space.

[Winston]

Here in this discussion about the Apollo moon hoax, Jim Fetzer, who interviewed me before, mentions my name at 10:35 as a great researcher.

[FusionX20]

This question has intrigued me for years. I'm no expert, but I have no idea how'd they'd make a trip to the moon and back perfectly with a single rocket. P.S. talking about mythbusters, what makes you think they're any different than other propagandist that claim all facts?

They claim talking stimulant drugs from a doctor will lower the chance of patients who are supposedly ADD from self-medicating or using recreation drugs later on in their life, which I find to be the contrary. In fact, not only do I believe they're more likely to do harder drugs, those patients are likely to be there for life because that's the goal of the pharmaceutical industry, the goal is to keep you dependent on drugs forever.

[Winston]

The most obvious reason the moon landing is obviously a hoax is because if it was real, then we would have moon bases and hotels and daily flights to there by now. Technology ALWAYS moves forward, it NEVER moves backward, at least in recorded history. There's no way in hell it could move backward that much especially. This is common sense.

Today NASA admits that it does not know how to safely get back to the moon. And President Obama has publicly said that "We don't need to go to the moon because we've already been there". WTF? What an insult to our intelligence! That's the dumbest statement any president can make. Did Europe say after Columbus, "We don't need to sail to the New World again, because we've already been there"? Obama is the stupidest liar ever.

Momopi believes in the Apollo moon landing. He keeps saying it will happen again, yet it never does. There's always some excuse. When will people like him realize that we've been hoaxed?

Another thing is that the Apollo astronauts were never able to jump more than a foot high on the moon, which is not more than they could have on Earth. Yet the moon is 1/6 earth gravity, so they should have been able to jump much higher, even if their space suits were heavy. Instead, they could not jump any higher on the moon than on the earth! That's another obvious giveaway of fraud. NASA cannot explain this, so it doesn't even try. It just runs away or ignores such questions.

Also, NASA can't explain how the space suits and the camera offered any protection against the radiation and extreme heat on the daylight side of the moon. It can't, because the suits and camera didn't. So again, it ignores the question, because it cannot admit that it was a hoax or else all public trust in the US government and NASA would come tumbling down.

[fschmidt]

Okay, who is the other "No" vote? I am always on the lookout for sane people, since they are on the verge of extinction.

[Moretorque]

Okay, who is the other "No" vote? I am always on the lookout for sane people, since they are on the verge of extinction.

The first 3 minutes of the Apollo 11 press conference with the astronauts says it all in my book as far as them going to the moon.

[Moretorque]

i LIKE THIS ONE

Mr. Wu is very handsome as a astronaut.

[S_Parc]

The first 3 minutes of the Apollo 11 press conference with the astronauts says it all in my book as far as them going to the moon.

Yes, but I believe that only Armstrong was never able to adapt to the storyline, over the years. The rest of the astronauts seemed to get with the program over time.

As for Schmidt's basic assertions on ppl's level of education and intelligence, both Jester and I have science and engineering backgrounds, magna cum laude. In fact, Jester was almost a child prodigy.

I'd worked with unit operations, like milling resins for coating and drug delivery and yes, if there's enough dispersal energy, meaning the energy generated by the equipment with minimal opposing gravity & no competing layers of air, there's no way to stop it from dusting the entire area and clogging up systems within the vicinity. And even on earth, containing dust is extremely important for any production site. If NASA is admitting that this is a *present day* concern then it's clear that they'd never addressed this during the original landings. Plus, the original lander didn't even have a proper airlock. And if dust was a problem, how did they get these crystal clear photos? This is how a photo is suppose to look, in the mist of a dust storm ...



The common denominator here is low visibility. Instead, we had dust free, perfectly focused snapshots of astronauts, their equipment, and the same-same background of those hills.

[S_Parc]

The most obvious reason the moon landing is obviously a hoax is because if it was real, then we would have moon bases and hotels and daily flights to there by now. Technology ALWAYS moves forward, it NEVER moves backward, at least in recorded history. There's no way in hell it could move backward that much especially. This is common sense.

Today NASA admits that it does not know how to safely get back to the moon. And President Obama has publicly said that "We don't need to go to the moon because we've already been there". WTF? What an insult to our intelligence! That's the dumbest statement any president can make. Did Europe say after Columbus, "We don't need to sail to the New World again, because we've already been there"? Obama is the stupidest liar ever.

Momopi believes in the Apollo moon landing. He keeps saying it will happen again, yet it never does. There's always some excuse. When will people like him realize that we've been hoaxed?

Winston, you don't need to jump to the emotional conclusions. Yes, the Apollo project was not economical and thus, no one would do it on one's own dime. In fact, even the successful Viking lander on Mars, costed $1B by mid-70s dollars. Clearly, NASA and contractors were given a blank check to burn whatever money they wanted for prestige.

All you need to do is look at the logistics and see if it fits the storyline. For one, during the 80s, the Challenger explosion grounded the space shuttle for nearly 3 years. In contrast, the Apollo 1 "accident" in '67, which didn't even happen in the sky but on a launchpad (and Scott Grissom is claiming sabotage), resulted in a successful lunar mission in 1.5 years. During that probationary period, can anyone find one successful test of the lander component w/o it crashing? Realize, that piece of equipment needed to work flawlessly without technicians around to tweak it.

And finally, today, more and more experts are warning about dusts and radiation shielding in deep space. Where were these concerns back in the days? So if you take the unaddressed concerns, the near infeasibility of the logistics of the equipment working with precise accuracy w/o a supercomputer to verify all calculations, along with the perfect photo ops ... this is where things don't add up.

As for emotions, even my dad, the ultra right wing conservative, was miffed at Neil Armstrong's behavior. My dad said that if it were him, he'd have been in full jubilation of having pushed his country into the future. So yes, even a firm believer in the landings was taken back by the first man on the moon and his scant body language. And he was alive back then, I only know this from the video footage.

[Moretorque]

What happened I believe is they new they could not get the project even close to done before the 60's was up and the bankers who have been running America pretty much completely since the great depression decided to see if they could fool the people and test their deception methods with their clever media tatics.

[Jester]

One of the things which Gus told his wife was that, "if there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me."

He was a smart dude, watching his back. But probably could not conceive they would simultaneously murder two other men and also destroy a spacecraft to get him.