Poll: Was the Moon Landing a Hoax?

[fschmidt]

Expresses my feeling pretty well.

[Moretorque]

Expresses my feeling pretty well.

You don't think it was another carefully crafted illusion by God and carried out by his tribal children ?

[Cornfed]

That guy should have taken the opportunity to beat the crap out of the lying coward.

[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.

On the other hand, a spacecraft on the way to the Moon, assuming it can hit 25K miles/hr to escape the Earth's gravitational force, does not need its over-thrusters running continuously to reach the Moon. That part is Newton's first law... an object in motion, stays in motion, unless acted upon by another force.

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

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

2 questions:

(1) Is it possible that manned moon landings WOULD have been feasible, if we had just taken our time to overcome the challenges? I.e. is it possible that we resorted to fakery only because we were in a hurry?

(2) Obviously the "moon rocks" collected by U.S, are fake (and everyone in the elite knows that, otherwise they would be worth more than diamonds, coveted by oligarchs everywhere). But I read that the Russians DID succeed in returning some moon rocks to earth on an early unmanned mision. What do you think?

[S_Parc]

2 questions:

(1) Is it possible that manned moon landings WOULD have been feasible, if we had just taken our time to overcome the challenges? I.e. is it possible that we resorted to fakery only because we were in a hurry?

(2) Obviously the "moon rocks" collected by U.S, are fake (and everyone in the elite knows that, otherwise they would be worth more than diamonds, coveted by oligarchs everywhere). But I read that the Russians DID succeed in returning some moon rocks to earth on an early unmanned mision. What do you think?

As for 1), perhaps, but the time may have been another decade, not one or two years, as was expected back then. Plus, I'd suspect that we'd also need to put a radiation spacecraft shield overcast, into orbit, before the astronauts would dock with it, before taking the journey beyond the radiation belts.

And for 2), unmanned, robotic missions are different, as there's no need to maintain two oxygenated vessels, lander and orbiter, for the mission. It would be more like the Mars Viking probe, where the lander would have the capability of landing (and then taking off, given the moon's lower gravity than Mars), with thrusters, without needing to worry about the safety of the crew.

[Jester]

Expresses my feeling pretty well.

Expresses your intellectual approach as well. Denial.

Here's a video you may have missed, wherein Neil Armstrong makes things as clear as he can:

[Winston]

Hi all,
I just did another interview about the Moon Landing Hoax. This time it was on the New American Dream Radio Show. I only spoke for 12 minutes though, along with two other guests. Here is the link to listen to it:

http://theshow.newamericandream.info/sh ... inston-wu/

[Luc Furr]

Saying one does not believe in conspiracy theories means you are either stupid, naive, or a traitorous dog agent (which for one of the germanic barbarian tribes is far worse than being stupid).

Okay, all I do is ask them why we haven't been to the moon in 40 years and the standard reply is pretty much been there done that. This just baffles me that a lot of people think like this. Do yall share the same opinion?

The answer is pretty obvious, we haven't been back because our culture is in decline. I think the moon landings will be remembered as the high point of our culture, after which we went into rapid decline.

Man you are a lot dumber than I thought.

Even if the moon landings were real, our culture being in decline has nothing to do with what NASA does. Man you know nothing about the real world and what runs things. I don't think there's any point in trying to educate you on the facts and evidence.

You probably believe in the official stories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 as well.

Why are you so rude? He didn´t say anything stupid at all...If the US are in decline they don´t have money to spend on projects like a moon landing. Thats simple logic really...

And to call somebody stupid because he doesn´t believe in conspiracy theories is a bit weird too...

[S_Parc]

Here's a video you may have missed, wherein Neil Armstrong makes things as clear as he can

Neil Armstrong had never looked comfortable, ever since the Apollo 11 mission. And no, I don't believe that it's just pure shyness.

Pretty much, anyone I knew, if he'd landed on the moon, would feel relaxed, at least relying the stories, w/o fanfare or excitement, esp if one's not a drama queen. I mean cmon, it's a significant achievement, not a Scarlett Letter to hide from.

Neil, on the other hand, looks like a kid, who'd never been taught to lie, spew lies for much of his adult life for the sake of Natl Security. Seriously, he's probably the most depressed, national hero out there.

[Winston]

Here's a video you may have missed, wherein Neil Armstrong makes things as clear as he can

Neil Armstrong had never looked comfortable, ever since the Apollo 11 mission. And no, I don't believe that it's just pure shyness.

Pretty much, anyone I knew, if he'd landed on the moon, would feel relaxed, at least relying the stories, w/o fanfare or excitement, esp if one's not a drama queen. I mean cmon, it's a significant achievement, not a Scarlett Letter to hide from.

Neil, on the other hand, looks like a kid, who'd never been taught to lie, spew lies for much of his adult life for the sake of Natl Security. Seriously, he's probably the most depressed, national hero out there.

Yeah, a shy guy does not risk his life as a test pilot. Neil Armstrong clearly looked sad and reluctant at the Apollo 11 press conference, which you can see on YouTube. If he wasn't a good liar, why did they pick him? Why didn't they pick someone else who reveled in lying? Buzz Aldrin seemed to enjoy lying, but even he looked uncomfortable at the press conference. I wonder why Neil Armstrong never confessed.

[S_Parc]

Here's a video you may have missed, wherein Neil Armstrong makes things as clear as he can

Neil Armstrong had never looked comfortable, ever since the Apollo 11 mission. And no, I don't believe that it's just pure shyness.

Pretty much, anyone I knew, if he'd landed on the moon, would feel relaxed, at least relying the stories, w/o fanfare or excitement, esp if one's not a drama queen. I mean cmon, it's a significant achievement, not a Scarlett Letter to hide from.

Neil, on the other hand, looks like a kid, who'd never been taught to lie, spew lies for much of his adult life for the sake of Natl Security. Seriously, he's probably the most depressed, national hero out there.

Yeah, a shy guy does not risk his life as a test pilot. Neil Armstrong clearly looked sad and reluctant at the Apollo 11 press conference, which you can see on YouTube. If he wasn't a good liar, why did they pick him? Why didn't they pick someone else who reveled in lying? Buzz Aldrin seemed to enjoy lying, but even he looked uncomfortable at the press conference. I wonder why Neil Armstrong never confessed.

Most likely for his family, as he'd probably realized that his so-called achievement had enhanced his immediate family's life, for over 40 years, and a deathbed confession would only serve to dis-empower or hurt them.

I'm sure that Armstrong was socially shy but his scant body language goes way beyond being gun shy. It's like he wants everyone to forget the Apollo missions. He's almost in interrogation mode where the Natl Sec answer is ...

I can neither confirm nor deny anything, about an alleged Lunar project

And that's exactly the impression he gives at the press conference and just about every interview afterwards.

[fschmidt]

Maybe someone can post a poll about this. I think the idea what the moon landing was a hoax is probably the craziest idea I have seen posted on this site. Anyway, anyone sane here may enjoy this video about how our space program has progressed.

[S_Parc]

Maybe someone can post a poll about this. I think the idea what the moon landing was a hoax is probably the craziest idea I have seen posted on this site.

Some of it stems from the idea that Gus Grissom was murdered, which is also what his son, Scott, believes.

http://news.discovery.com/space/history ... 130204.htm

From 1/27/67 to 7/20/69, between the Apollo 1 incident and the Moon landing date, was a mere 1.5 years. And this after a serious accident (if it wasn't sabotage, as Scott Grissom & others have claimed) had occurred, which in itself, requires a lot of investigation, just to make sure that something like that, never happens again.

Since the landing deadline was 1970, it suggests that drastic measures needed to be taken, so that a success story could be generated. There's no point in three guys going out there, just to die during the journey.

So there you have the origins of the hoax theory.

[Winston]

Here is Michael Tsarion explaining the Moon Hoax with a deeper perspective on it.

[S_Parc]

Here is Michael Tsarion explaining the Moon Hoax with a deeper perspective on it.

This is too diffused, for a good expose. The Van Allen radiation belt is his best argument. Every thing else is a mix of conjecture and over-analysis of power plays by elites.