• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Moon Landing: Hoaxed?

It'll probably be a red-rag to some, but I really care not whether one, or any of the moon landings were faked. Bygones as far as I'm concerned. Meh.

(sorry)
 
One of the new episodes of the brilliant Richplanet was all about the conspiracy that the moon landing was a hoax, and went into great detail about Kubrick's alleged involvement. I found it interesting with the in depth theories and all that, but it would be a bit sad if someone took any of it seriously.

 
Peripart said:
The moon-based conspiracy which tugs at my imagination more is the idea that Apollo 17 was not the last manned lunar mission, and that men have continued to visit, in secret, since 1972. It seems to me quite unlikely that, with the advances in technology over the intervening years, that the entirety of manned trips to the Moon spanned only 3 years, with nothing in the last 43.
Click to expand...
You would have to hide an awfully large rocket, it's production and launch. That seems.... non-trivial. The technology may have advanced, but the laws of physics for the thrust to get us there haven't.
 
Ermintrude said:
@Peripart , thank you. Looking at what appears to be contradictory or unrealistic imagery that officially depicts key events such as Apollo does not necessarily deny the entire existence of what happened. It can, however, raise much-more complex alternative possibilities....and intentions.

In a nutshell...if (for the purposes of this point) it is accepted that I am not a gullible fool, and neither are at least some of the analysts that, similarly, can detect potential fraudulence: might there be substance, on a per-case basis, to what is being asserted?

Perhaps I'll resist the slings and arrows a little longer, and post (for example) some of the research carried-out a few years back by a maths academic at the University of Warwick http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/ftp/hadley.pdf .

This uses some almost-comprehensible trigonometry to prove (at least to the satisfaction of the author) that the backgrounds in the pictures analysed simply do not change sufficiently, when reconciled against moving vantage points within a purported physical reality.They correspond with 2D backdrops inside a massive film-set.

Whilst this may (no, will) be viewed as utterly-unacceptable nonsense by many reading this, I respond by saying: so just what is going on?

If I'm not tarred and feathered, I'll then possibly post about the lunar horizon drop-rate. Oddly enough, as depicted within the official photographic record, it again corresponds to (massive but non-lunar) studio dimensions....but not to the trig-tangents of a real uninterrupted moon surface.

What to do, what to say....but, counter-facts, even refuted, if undisprovable, are...still there
Click to expand...
Shouldn't the backgrounds not actually change much, due to being very far away. Less change than expected would be evidence that the backgrounds are farther, not closer.
 
Mythopoeika said:
I have the same sneaking suspicions too (but with no foundation for such thoughts).
Click to expand...

The excuse for not going back was always to do with money I thought, with NASA not receiving enough cash from the government because of all the money going to fund killing people in various wars. I once heard somewhere that if it wasn't for the Vietnam war the US would have a permanent base on Mars by now. And if it wasn't for the War on Terror they would have also have had a Lunar base by now too.
 
Assuming that's where the money would have gone instead. The general public lost it's appetite for space, that's one of the reasons the budget dried up.
 
FrKadash said:
The excuse for not going back was always to do with money I thought, with NASA not receiving enough cash from the government because of all the money going to fund killing people in various wars. I once heard somewhere that if it wasn't for the Vietnam war the US would have a permanent base on Mars by now. And if it wasn't for the War on Terror they would have also have had a Lunar base by now too.
Click to expand...

According to some conspiracy buffs they do...despite not going to the Moon! o_O
 
All the talk about some pictures possibly having been tampered with fails to address the core problem - what was the motive for such tampering? At the time of the landings, nobody doubted the landings had taken place, not even the Russians, who obviously had the technology to track the Apollo missions to the Moon and back. (Britain too, with Jodrell Bank, was able to track a wide variety of space missions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8150000/8150469.stm )

Seems to me this conspiracy thing didn't get going until a couple of decades after the landings, when a new generation had grown up who weren't born when space history was made. What's more, this generation had home computers and the internet to play with, so felt free to rewrite history as they chose! But their product was similar to that of many modern ghost hunters, who would pick on minute 'anomalies' in photographs as proof of 'ghosts'. It's hard for me to say which type of piffle is the most loony! :twisted:
 
Roland Deschain said:
Anyone who thinks the moon shots were faked needs to read some personal history along the lines of "Carrying the fire". If your a denier and can keep hold of your misconceptions in the face of an avalanche of technical reality then your reason for doubting is not based on anything tangible.

Sorry to be so strident but this hoax thing is *ollox.
Click to expand...

Yes,indeed. I remember when the moon hoax idea first surfaced... sometime in the mid- to late nineties. I believe Channel 5 broadcast a show based on the rumour and it was the talk of the town for some time after that. Well, I was intrigued by some of the claims ,but I didn't have my own fully fledged internet access at that time, so I got myself down to a reference library -i.e the part of the library that doesn't lend out books but allows you to access documents on the premises. I poured over some technical tomes that were published at the time of the moon shots - and not in response to conspiracy claims -and which explained in-depth what was going on.

Let me assure you that pretty much all of the issues that your moon-conspiracist of today holds up as `proof` of a conspiracy were inadvertently dealt with then - in advance, as it were.

So how is it that you can see Armstrong descend onto the moon's surface when there was no-one to film the proceedings? Because NASA had thought of this, and had installed a camera on the door of the moon-lander which was activated by a lanyard by Armstrong on opening the door.

Why is the American flag waving in a atmosphereless environment? Because - again- it was made that way. A wire was places along the top half of the flag (which you can easily see in the photos) which kept it up - and after that any twisting motion of the flagpole would make it look like it was waving even when there was no air.

And so on, and so on... ad nauseaum. It is very tedious to go over all this stuff, and,of course doing so makes one sound defensive - (which is why the conspiracists adopt such elaborate arguments and come on with such a cocksure tone).

Conspiracy theories are a product of the interweb age, when you have a whole generation which is cut off from their own past and which regards the net as the sole worthy source of information, and which sees images as more important than other forms of testimony.

It astonishes, and dismays me though, when you have someone with the obvious intelligence of Ermintrude who can find no better outlet for his talents than to indulge in this sort of tripe! And, meanwhile, the word is so clearly full of genuine enigmas waiting to be explored!
 
Can anyone explain to me, how does combustion work in space if there is no oxygen?
 
The rockets carry their own oxidizers. Hydrogen peroxide for example, the stuff you use for bleaching your hair.
 
Xanatic* said:
The rockets carry their own oxidizers. Hydrogen peroxide for example, the stuff you use for bleaching your hair.
Click to expand...
Ermintrude said:
I am not saying that the entire Apollo programme was hoaxed (though some do clearly believe this). I am pointing-out that there appear to be many anomalies in the depicted photographic and video records of the missions.

It worries me that Fortean-minded individuals would define this area of consideration as being an absolute "red line"....despite valid mathematical analyses and apparently-methodological approaches.

Perhaps they don't entirely share the possible sentiment/intent conveyed within that curious speech, delivered by Neil Armstrong on 20 July 2004

"There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth's protective layers"

For those of you, that unquestioningly-accept the gospel reality of every single Apollo picture: what on earth do you think that quiet, awkward man was trying to say??
Click to expand...
Fortean- Minded agents, I just like aggravating them by telling the truth. I know, its childish of me but tricks are for kids and don't tell the rabbit.
 
Elsupremo said:
Can anyone explain to me, how does combustion work in space if there is no oxygen?
Click to expand...
Quite a few rockets use LOX, Liquid Oxygen.

But it really worries me that in this day and age someone can actually ask this question!

The all-knowing internet seems somehow inaccessible to some people, so no wonder they latch on to fuckwit conspiracy theories instead!

The WWII German V2 rocket, the A-4, "used a 74% ethanol/water mixture (B-Stoff) for fuel and liquid oxygen (LOX) (A-Stoff) for oxidizer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket
 
rynner2 said:
Quite a few rockets use LOX, Liquid Oxygen.

But it really worries me that in this day and age someone can actually ask this question!

The all-knowing internet seems somehow inaccessible to some people, so no wonder they latch on to fuckwit conspiracy theories instead!

The WWII German V2 rocket, the A-4, "used a 74% ethanol/water mixture (B-Stoff) for fuel and liquid oxygen (LOX) (A-Stoff) for oxidizer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket
Click to expand...
I didn't know V2s made it to outer space.
 
Elsupremo said:
I didn't know V2s made it to outer space.
Click to expand...
The V-2 rocket became the first artificial object to cross the boundary of space with the vertical launch of V-177 on 20 June 1944.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Operation Paperclip.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Operation Paperclip the scheme to bring Nazi scientists to the USA to use their knowledge in their programmes? I don't believe Werner von Braun actually set up a moonbase.
 
Peripart said:
The moon-based conspiracy which tugs at my imagination more is the idea that Apollo 17 was not the last manned lunar mission, and that men have continued to visit, in secret, since 1972. It seems to me quite unlikely that, with the advances in technology over the intervening years, that the entirety of manned trips to the Moon spanned only 3 years, with nothing in the last 43.
Click to expand...

Well to keep getting to the moon they'd need to keep on blasting off Saturn Five's - and it's difficult to see how they could do that without a whole lot of people knowing about it!

However, you have put your finger on the nub of this matter: the widespread feeling of perplexity that we didn't keep on going to the moon. It is ironic that Kubrick should be the one accused of forging a moon landing when it is his own film -2001: A space Odyssey - which has done so much to fuel the conspiracy mentality.By this I mean that it so much encapsulated the aspirations of the `Space Age` that those of us who grew up in the seventies thought we were entering. There were going to be bases on the moon, right?

Then when this failed to materialise - and all that we got instead was machines that go `ping` -people looked for dark explanations. Perhaps (a) we had been warned away by E.T or, (b) we never really went there in the first place.

I think we can say now that the true reasons were rather more banal.The moon-shots were a product of the cold war, and the Americans had `won` that part of it, but at great expense. Going to the moon did not confer such a great strategic advantage and there was no oil on the moon or anything else of great interest. The Russians weren't going to bother going, and Joe Public was getting bored of the whole thing.

The `space race` did continue, but took the form of less headline-grabbingly spectacular ventures such as joint space stations, space shuttles and unmanned interplanetary probes.These developed and improved on the technology of the moon landings and are great achievements, but don't have the visceral appeal of landing a human being on another planet.

So we get the rise and rise of the Armchair Experts: they know far better than everybody else what a skyscraper ought to do when hit by a passenger jet,what a night-club ought to look like when attacked by terrorists, how a properly run gas chamber ought to look like - and what it would really look like if we landed on the moon.

The preferred technology of these people is the internet: a technology developed, in part, as a bi-product of the moon landings.
 
Despite all the exasperated protests by some members, this topic has been opened again! Isn't it about time this old chesnut was put to bed? Let's just agree they never landed on the moon and forget it!;)
 
jimv1 said:
Obviously it cannot. What is never covered in science coverage of the docking routine of the ISS involves a fishing reel, some 20lb monofilament line with a sink plunger tied on the end.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, because obviously it cannot. What it can do is penetrate the space between your ears with a cathode boob tube and tell us just about anything.
 
Well, obviously it's 'Case Closed' then, just because Buzz Aldrin and his cronies in government say so. But let's examine an apparently light-hearted 'pop culture' comedy skit:


Notice that, purely by chance (lol) at ELEVEN* seconds into the clip, David Mitchell 'breaks the fourth wall' as if simulating eye contact with the viewer, but clearly nervous of someone (or something) just right of the camera. We can only speculate what he is attempting to communicate, but the signal is unmistakeable. I hardly need point out that this occurs just after he utters the words 'ALL AFRAID'.

Nevertheless, a brave attempt to expose the flimsy charade of BBC** brainwashing to those who are open-minded enough to see what's hidden in plain sight. Of course the BBC have been in on this from the beginning, even going as far as to cover the 'landings' on live television. Which is why they had Patrick Moore bumped off.

David Mitchell has every reason be to be afraid. You heard it here first.

DMsignal.png


*Er, Apollo 11? Hello??

** BBC, publisher of the 'Radio Times'...B x B x C ( or 2 TIMES 2 TIMES 3=12; the approximate number of LUNAR months in a year!!!)
 
Last edited:
Andy_X said:
Of course the BBC have been in on this from the beginning, even going as far as to cover the 'landings' on live television. Which is why they had Patrick Moore bumped off.

** BBC, publisher of the 'Radio Times'...B x B x C ( or 2 TIMES 2 TIMES 3=12; the approximate number of LUNAR months in a year!!!)
Click to expand...

Get your facts right - there are approximately 13 lunar months in a Year!

As for Patrick Moore, if the Moon landings were faked, he was probably one of the chief hoaxers! :p

"Moore’s lunar research was used by both the U.S. and Soviets space programs. In 1959, the Soviets used his research to correlate the never-seen-before Luna 3 pictures from the far side of the Moon. Before the NASA Apollo missions, he was also directly involved in lunar mapping."

http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/space-on-earth/everyday-life/obituary-patrick-moore/

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top