Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?

[rainmaker]

No, I am not Issac Ru...

This site deals primarily with conspiracy theories relating to the United States' Apollo project which landed men on the lunar surface. It address specific arguments as well as provide background information and suggestions on how readers can verify my arguments themselves.

http://www.clavius.org/

[kendonewbie]

No, don't think we landed on the moon for several reasons.
1. There are no blast craters at any of the apollo landing sites
2. If overlap negatives of some of the "moon" scenery to some of the dune formations in nevada, they are identical
3. There are pictures where an astronaut is climbing down a ladder. The sun is on the opposite side of the lander, so the astronaut is in the shade. Normally, this would be a very dark, useless picture. Yet the picture shows even the most minute details of the astronuats suit/the lander. This would only be possible if there was another light source, which couldn't be from the lander, because there are no external lights on the lander
4. If the lander landed on the moon, it would have kick up tons of dirt/loose particals/dust, and would have been covered in such. Yet there isn't a speck of dust on the lander.
5. Radiation. It kept the russians from advancing their space program. You would need more protection from the radiation than what the spacesuits/spaceship offered then.
6. If you look closely at some of the pictures, the crosshairs are behind the content of the photo. Explaination:
+ +
----
---
+ +
the + represent the "crosshairs" placed in the ground to help mark the position the "astronaut" is supposed to stand. The astronaut is the ----, which overlaps the crosshair in the back..
7....theres more, but my hands hurt, so i'll wait a bit..

[piggy]

well, you have to think, if it was just a conspiracy to beat the russians, we sure wasted a lot of money on it.

i think that in that time of tension between us and the russians, we probably did land on the moon just so we could beat them. think of two highschool guys in an argument. if HG#1 dares HG#2 to jump off of a 3 story building to proove that he is a real man, theres no way HG#2 is going to just walk away. Hes going to jump off that building regardless of the danger. so i think that the attitude of the US and the Russians were similar to two highschool guys in that era. they both dared eachother to do something insane and regardless of the danger, we did it.

and there probably isnt dirt on the lander because the moon is dry so it wont stick to the astronauts shoes or suits and coming into the atmosphere, its hard for dust to stay on.

just my opinion.

[drizzt]

well, you have to think, if it was just a conspiracy to beat the russians, we sure wasted a lot of money on it.

i think that in that time of tension between us and the russians, we probably did land on the moon just so we could beat them. think of two highschool guys in an argument. if HG#1 dares HG#2 to jump off of a 3 story building to proove that he is a real man, theres no way HG#2 is going to just walk away. Hes going to jump off that building regardless of the danger. so i think that the attitude of the US and the Russians were similar to two highschool guys in that era. they both dared eachother to do something insane and regardless of the danger, we did it.

and there probably isnt dirt on the lander because the moon is dry so it wont stick to the astronauts shoes or suits and coming into the atmosphere, its hard for dust to stay on.

just my opinion.

yes they built a multimillion dollar rocket, launched it and a lander capable of landing on the moon, went out and jettisoned half of it, then risked mens lives landing it. that makes PERFECT sense. I guess the pictures of apollo thriteen were fake to? im sure lovell would love to debate that with you. Oh and the fact that russian satelites have seen the lander form a high lunar orbit is fake to.


At least yall are more entertaining than isaac was. This is just funny LOL, ot rude.

[Paikea]

We can't hide what the President did with his cigars - what makes you believe we could hide that? You can't get three engineers to agree about anything, let alone tell a consistent lie about it for 36 years.

I am always amazed at the things the world thinks we can do - and hope like hell they don't figure out most of it is pure sci-fi.

[h2o]

I saw the documentary. I laughed. Then I found a few sources that had also seen the documentary but they decided to really fry their arguments with science. Actually, all the proposed "facts" by the conspiratist can be scientifically explained.

Here is one of the sites I found. There are, I assure you, quite a lot more.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[shred_lord]

Heh, two things,

1, They left an experiment on the moon that allow you to shoot a laser from earth at the array left up there, it get modulated and bounced back and you can calculate the moon orbital distance. The experiment is still in use by some US uni. Explain that away.

2, My girlfriend knows the guy who runs Manchester uni's Jodrell Bank radio telescope. He was a post grad (i think) there when they tracked apollo 13 (they did this independently). I've seen the trace, you can see where Armstrong took manual control cause the previously smooth trace line goes crazy. Explain that away.

I am in NO doubt that the americans did it.

[naskendo]

For those people who don't believe that men landed on moon at 1969 I suggest u all go this website there ur doubts will be answered http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[h2o]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Which is exactly the same link that I posted six hours ago :P

[Hank]

We can't hide what the President did with his cigars - what makes you believe we could hide that? You can't get three engineers to agree about anything, let alone tell a consistent lie about it for 36 years.This has always been my best argument (to myself) against the conspiracy theory. Someone would blab - so many people would have to be involved in the filming and such. Yet no one has.

That and the laser reflector, yeah.

Hank.

[LNGUYEN]

No, we didn't land on the Moon, here is my prove. Tom Hanks is not an astronault, he is an actor and actor didn't land on the Moon :smiley: Hey another question, what year do you think we have Kendo on the Moon?

[nikolaj]

I actually saw a documentary on this as well, wich came off as quite convincing. Alot of it was about the connections nasa had with kubrick, who appereantly helped in setting up a moon-scenery to make pictures of a moon-landing, should the real one fail. (even the look of the astronauts-suit you know today, they say, was based on kubrick's 2001 a space-oddessey.)
The rest of it was mainly about how badass the cia was (or is, whatever) and who they killed to keep their mouthes shut.

just like with the 9/11-issue, i don't know if anything was fishy about it, and I'm pretty sure we'll never know, so don't put too much thought into it...

[kendonewbie]

yes they built a multimillion dollar rocket, launched it and a lander capable of landing on the moon, went out and jettisoned half of it, then risked mens lives landing it. that makes PERFECT sense. Remember, the apollo programs took place during the cold war, when the US and Russia were constantly trying to prove they were better than the other. Landing on the moon not only provedd (in a sense) that American technology was superiour then, it also demoralized Russia. Also, i think people were beginning to question whether or not the space program was even worth the millions of dollars the government was spending on it.

[piggy]

:smiley: Hey another question, what year do you think we have Kendo on the Moon?


little gravity would make it kindof difficult but i'll put 20$ on 2065. which by then, 20$ will be equal to $1.25.

[LNGUYEN]

little gravity would make it kindof difficult.

Are you kidding me? with little gravity, you will have beautiful zanshin. Just imagine the follow through after you hit Men, Just like Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon, oh Men! just think about it make me drool.

[drizzt]

Remember, the apollo programs took place during the cold war, when the US and Russia were constantly trying to prove they were better than the other. Landing on the moon not only provedd (in a sense) that American technology was superiour then, it also demoralized Russia. Also, i think people were beginning to question whether or not the space program was even worth the millions of dollars the government was spending on it.

I absolutley HATE what weve done to our sace program, and i think the rush to the moon was an uneccessary risk. It cost(or nearly cost) to many mens lives, and were damn lucky it didnt cost more. The space shuttle is the most useless piece of **** ever dreamed up. It costs more that a nonreusable system would, its not as effecient, and has cost WAY to many good men and women there lives, and has not advaned the science of spaceflight any beyond what it real was when skylab was up.

I do however KNOW we landed on the moon. let me see if i can find the pictures a RUSSIAN satelite took of the lander. or better yet the close in high res pictures that were taken during the orbiting of the moon.


Btw "1. There are no blast craters at any of the apollo landing sites"
You realise the lander did not fire its descent engine right at the ground.. they shut down a good ways up, and when it jettisoned it fired a short burst ejection charge, then fired it ascent engine as it climbed. they designed the dumb thing NOT to kick up dust because they didnt know what was on the surface.


BTW man, it was 12 that did it first. 13 was the one who had the explosion in the CSM.

[kendonewbie]

I agree with you that the space program is a huge was of money. We spend millions of dollars to send...what...parts and equipment for a space station that will just crash into the earth in the next 50 years? (all satlites orbiting earth are slowly drawn towards the earth, and eventually fall through the atmosphere and crash...the space station is no exception).

Speaking of the russian space program, i remember reading an article about how the russians didn't try landing on the moon because they were aware of the high levels of radiation in space..which gets worse on the surface of the moon.

The first several inches or so of the moon is made up almost entirely of dust and loose particles. Things like (small) meteors and rocks have constantly bombarded the moons surface, which ground a good amount of the solid surface to dust. There are several layers to the moon i recall..the first one being dust and loose particles. If anything landed on it, it would have kicked up at least some dust, regardless of how it was designed.

One more thing..the lander. They did several tests runs on it. The tests were held in a controlled enviornment, in calm, clear weather. These test involved landing/piloting the lander. During the test runs, it was nearly impossible to control. I know there was at least one incident during the tests where the pilot completely lost control and was forced to eject before the lander crashed. If it was that hard to control on earth, in a controlled environment, it would have been much, much harder to do in space, where even the slightest movements can send you spinning out of control.

btw: thank you drizzit for correcting me about the apollo landing #

[Andou]

Hey...while we're at it...who shot JFK?

[Paikea]

Wow Kendonewbie, where do you get your information - almost all of it is completely wrong, right down to the fact that Apollo 11 landed on the moon - not 12.

[LNGUYEN]

Ok, if you don't belive we landed on the Moon, just fly to Japan, meet N. Eiga and tell him he is suck. You will land in the Moon in no time and then, you can prove the American flag is up there or not.

[kendonewbie]

Wow Kendonewbie, where do you get your information - almost all of it is completely wrong, right down to the fact that Apollo 11 landed on the moon - not 12.whats wrong? Other than me screwing up with the apollo #s..and this:

even the slightest movements can send you spinning out of control.
yeah...i exaggerated when i was writing this. Where did i learn all this (possibly wrong) info?...astronomy class, ironicly...

[Paikea]

I agree with you that the space program is a huge was of money. We spend millions of dollars to send...what...parts and equipment for a space station that will just crash into the earth in the next 50 years?

While the scale and cost of manned space flight are certainly open for debate, a great deal of knowledge about space systems and manned spaceflight has been gained. The computer you are reading this from is a direct result of the space program, as are a huge variety of things you use and need every day.



(all satlites orbiting earth are slowly drawn towards the earth, and eventually fall through the atmosphere and crash...the space station is no exception).

Eventually, yes, but it's designed to be moved higher periodically to compensate for the atmospheric drag (which is what brings it down)



Speaking of the russian space program, i remember reading an article about how the russians didn't try landing on the moon because they were aware of the high levels of radiation in space..which gets worse on the surface of the moon.

Nope, the Russians did not go to the moon because their N-1 rocket blew up on the pad. Radiation levels are no higher on the surface of the moon than they are in space (beyond the Van Allen belts). The moon has a negligible magnetic field, and so charged particles are not concentrated like they are near the earth's poles.



The first several inches or so of the moon is made up almost entirely of dust and loose particles. Things like (small) meteors and rocks have constantly bombarded the moons surface, which ground a good amount of the solid surface to dust. There are several layers to the moon i recall..the first one being dust and loose particles. If anything landed on it, it would have kicked up at least some dust, regardless of how it was designed.
Yes and no. People forget that there's no air on the moon, so the "blast" from a descent motor will kick the dust out and away - not up and around like it would in air. The crater you expect is a product of Hollywood movies, not real life physics.



One more thing..the lander. They did several tests runs on it. The tests were held in a controlled enviornment, in calm, clear weather. These test involved landing/piloting the lander. During the test runs, it was nearly impossible to control. I know there was at least one incident during the tests where the pilot completely lost control and was forced to eject before the lander crashed. If it was that hard to control on earth, in a controlled environment, it would have been much, much harder to do in space, where even the slightest movements can send you spinning out of control.
Nope, the LEM was absolutely incapable of operating in 1G, it was never tested until Apollo 10 test flew it down to 50,000 ft above the lunar surface. What you saw was a simulator piloted by Neil Armstrong that was notoriously unstable. It got pushed by a gust of wind past where it could recover and Armstrong wisely decided it was time to be somewhere else. The supposition that it would be harder to do in 1/6G and zero wind is just wrong. Fewer variables, easier to fly.


btw: thank you drizzit for correcting me about the apollo landing #That was just funny.

[kendonewbie]

Thank you paikea for correcting me. I learned about all of this years ago and my memory of this topic is...rusty to say the least.

On my first post, i talked about how pictures of the astronauts going down the lander were clear, but since they were in the shadow, they should be dark unless there was another light source other than the sun. I found some of the pictures..
http://www.1960erne.dk/grafik/armstrong.jpg,

[Paikea]

Thank you paikea for correcting me. I learned about all of this years ago and my memory of this topic is...rusty to say the least.

On my first post, i talked about how pictures of the astronauts going down the lander were clear, but since they were in the shadow, they should be dark unless there was another light source other than the sun. I found some of the pictures..
http://www.1960erne.dk/grafik/armstrong.jpg, The word for that is "albedo" - the moon is a reflective place. The direct sunlight may be behind an object but the reflected light is plenty bright. Remember when you are out at night on a full moon it's pretty easy to see, imagine how it is up close. They also had damn fine Hasselblad 2 1/4" format cameras to play with.

BTW - I'm pretty sure that would be Aldrin, not Armstrong. When Armstrong got down, there was only a video camera on the LEM and no camera on the surface like that.

[kendonewbie]

Sorry about the double post. I got cut off in the middle of writing the last post...anyway. Here are more pics..
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5886.jpg, and
http://www.poorwilliam.net/pix/moon-landing.jpg. The lander is between the sun and the astronaut. If the sun was the only light source, the astronaut would be dark, and certainly no where near as clear as he is in these pics. There were no external lights on the lander.

Another thing that gets me is that every time i see a video of the astronuats planting the flag on the moon, its waving around, like there's a breeze. The moons gravity is too weak to hold an atmosphere...so there's no wind. Can anyone explain that?

[Paikea]

Sorry about the double post. I got cut off in the middle of writing the last post...anyway. Here are more pics..
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5886.jpg, and
http://www.poorwilliam.net/pix/moon-landing.jpg. The lander is between the sun and the astronaut. If the sun was the only light source, the astronaut would be dark, and certainly no where near as clear as he is in these pics. There were no external lights on the lander.

Another thing that gets me is that every time i see a video of the astronuats planting the flag on the moon, its waving around, like there's a breeze. The moons gravity is too weak to hold an atmosphere...so there's no wind. Can anyone explain that?The flag waves because the pole is moving and the flag is flexible. Nothing magical there either.

From the horse's mouth, as it were: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

[kendonewbie]

...sigh...i give up. Paikea, drizzit, congrats. You've managed to change my view on this whole topic from "i know for a fact we didn't" to "i have no idea what to think of this topic anymore". Have either of you considered a career as a lawyer? Or some other job that requires you to get people to change their minds on things like this?

[kendonewbie]

i don't suppose anyone else is willing to take over for me?

[drizzt]

...sigh...i give up. Paikea, drizzit, congrats. You've managed to change my view on this whole topic from "i know for a fact we didn't" to "i have no idea what to think of this topic anymore". Have either of you considered a career as a lawyer? Or some other job that requires you to get people to change their minds on things like this?

yes, but i would end up pissed and taking a shinai to a judges head for letting a murderer walk by dismissing evidence

[T.Lee]

its not hard to change someones mind when their basis of belief is totally unfounded and they did no research for themself.

really? do kids think we didnt land on the moon?

[drizzt]

its not hard to change someones mind when their basis of belief is totally unfounded and they did no research for themself.

really? do kids think we didnt land on the moon?

Its amazing how a theory like this becomes a common myth. Then you have people telling you its truth because "soandso told me"

[kendonewbie]

oh....that hurts...*cry*. Just kidding. I learned this in astronomy class, and the teacher taught like it was 3rd grade, so it was kind of hard to understand. Looking back and reading this thread, tho', i understand why you think i did no research/assumed what i did. good debate, tho'. And to answer your question, yes, there are kids and adults who think we never landed on the moon. There are also people who think elvis is still alive in America. Go figure.

[h2o]

Another quite fun hoax was when there was a documentary in Sweden that claimed that the world soccer championships in Stockholm 1958 (the year might be off, I'm no soccer fan) never happened.
They interviewed people with "proof" that it never existed, but in the end they revealed that everything was an experiment to see how people would react (the ending titles revealed this).

Some people, however, didn't watch the whole show, and were actually a bit unsure if it happened or not.

So, I guess there are people who believe anything they see on tv, whether it is a documentary with serious scientific flaws or anime about swordsmen :rolleyes:

[Hank]

[re: orbiting stuff]
Eventually, yes, but it's designed to be moved higher periodically to compensate for the atmospheric drag (which is what brings it down)I thought orbits decayed because it was not possible to place something in a perfect orbit. All things that orbit eventually crash into the thing they orbit, iirc. I'll do a bit more research.

Hank.

[Paikea]

I thought orbits decayed because it was not possible to place something in a perfect orbit. All things that orbit eventually crash into the thing they orbit, iirc. I'll do a bit more research.

Hank.Without friction, there's no decay. However, there's always friction...

[Amish_Samurai]

This is what the CIA wants you to think

[Paikea]

...sigh...i give up. Paikea, drizzit, congrats. You've managed to change my view on this whole topic from "i know for a fact we didn't" to "i have no idea what to think of this topic anymore". Have either of you considered a career as a lawyer? Or some other job that requires you to get people to change their minds on things like this?I'm already a serious geek that builds missiles in my garage for fun. Want to three rounds on the Loch Ness Monster?

[Hank]

Without friction, there's no decay. However, there's always friction...Bah, you're absolutely right - I'm wrong on all accounts. Orbits can be stable for an eternity if there is no drag. Too bad this was after breakfast.

Hank.

[drizzt]

I'm already a serious geek that builds missiles in my garage for fun. Want to three rounds on the Loch Ness Monster?


are you lvl 3(i beleive thats the top)certified lol? i had a friend who was, but he says some of the new homeland security bs is screwing with his ability to launch.......

[Paikea]

are you lvl 3(i beleive thats the top)certified lol? i had a friend who was, but he says some of the new homeland security bs is screwing with his ability to launch.......Tripoli-II. DHS and BATF have emotional problems about my ability to take out an airliner.

Party-poopers.

[Lloromannic]

Tripoli-II. DHS and BATF have emotional problems about my ability to take out an airliner.

Party-poopers.
I would be worried more about you in shiai. Imagine it:

You are facing Paikea and suddenly a there is a bang and a flash of smoke and off with your head. How would they mark a strike to the head if it is missing?

[Hisham]

I would be worried more about you in shiai. Imagine it:

You are facing Paikea and suddenly a there is a bang and a flash of smoke and off with your head. How would they mark a strike to the head if it is missing?

A rocket propelled flying kensen equipped with a tsuki sensor, how about it Paikea?:D

[Paikea]

A rocket propelled flying kensen equipped with a tsuki sensor, how about it Paikea?:DThe sensor would be quite pricey, and they'd take my license away. However, now you've got me thinking how much fun a shinai might be with a booster. Hmmm...

[Satan]

We can't hide what the President did with his cigars

Not the Monica Lewinsky story again!

[Satan]

Hey...while we're at it...who shot JFK?

It was either that or nuclear conflict. So I had no choice, I'm the only one thats going to toast mankind.

[rainmaker]

wheee, Go away Satan...




It was either that or nuclear conflict. So I had no choice, I'm the only one thats going to toast mankind.

[cresentmoon]

umm did u guys know that even if we did land on the moon, Armstrong wasnt the 1st man on the moon...it was the guy vedio recording him..now think abt that.

[h2o]

umm did u guys know that even if we did land on the moon, Armstrong wasnt the 1st man on the moon...it was the guy vedio recording him..now think abt that.
I think that was recorded with a camera attatched to the outer hull of the lunar lander.

[cresentmoon]

I think that was recorded with a camera attatched to the outer hull of the lunar lander.

but the video footage of him was from afar, and that we saw the whole ladder

[drizzt]

not realy....camera was on an attached limb of the lander..look at how the replicas are set up