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

Moon Landing: Hoaxed?

The tripping astronaut

I've tracked down footage of the tripping astronaut, i.e. the one that alledgedly bounces back up because he's on wires.

Go to
http://www.apolloarchive.com/
Click on "Apollo Multimedia"
Scroll down to the Apollo 15 bit
Scroll down a bit further to "Scott photographs Hadley Rille then trips on a rock" and click on this for the original movie.

The guy trips, bounces, and then rolls out of shot. No wires involved here. :)
 
Also posted to the TV reminders thread:

a repeat on Channel 5 tomorrow (Wednesday) 8pm:

Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?

An in-depth look at various claims that have been made which suggest that the space race didn't actually take place and was simply faked to fool the general public. Featuring testimony from scientists who claim that the technology did not exist to facilitate a manned trip to the moon, and a look at the suspicious deaths surrounding various projects that add weight to some conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Just in case anyone was interested.

Steve.
 
Propaganda

Further anti-science propaganda promulgated by the religious right and the cynical politicians who want to render us all too damned stupid and uninformed to think, and thus much easier to bully and boss around.
 
The photos still look wrong to me. But that doesnt mean we didnt go, just that they might not be legit.
 
I must admit, to this day, with the moon's gravity at only a sixth of a G, I keep wondering why things don't bounce more, or the dust kicked up travel further?

:confused:
 
Physics

Either learn physics, folks, or keep wandering in your fog. It's really that simple.

This thread, which should never have existed, is exhausted and pathetic suddenly.

Bye.
 
tastyintestines said:
Dude, I dought many airheads work at nasa....................
Click to expand...

Are we at cross purposes here, are you saying there are people at nasa who don't beleive the moon landings happened?
 
I watched the footage of that bloke falling on the Moon but I can't see how this looks odd or that he's held by wires at all.
What I can see is an astronaut stumbling on a dip in the ground, flying forwards and falling, then rolling to the side with the original innertia.
Anyone..............?
 
spillage said:
I watched the footage of that bloke falling on the Moon but I can't see how this looks odd or that he's held by wires at all.
What I can see is an astronaut stumbling on a dip in the ground, flying forwards and falling, then rolling to the side with the original innertia.
Anyone..............?
Click to expand...
The point is that it doesn't really look odd, at all. The footage quite clearly shows shows the guy stumbling and the results, there is no evidence of trickery. That's why Fortis referrred us to the NASA link, in the first place.

I just happened to mention that, after all these years, I'm still surprised that things don't bounce more, or travel further, in a sixth of a G. I mean, how often do we actually get a chance to see things in motion under those conditions? I believe I'm experiencing what is called "natural scientific curiosity." :)
 
Why Not

Why not look things up, read physics texts, and even go to a local university and ask them to demonstrate things for you a bit? That would be scientific curiosity. Asking on a FTMB thread is not.
 
What I don't fully understand is why we keep going ove the same ground - this is the site for the Fortean Times magazine and FT did produce one of the best articles on this in reponse to the pro-hoax article in FT94. I think the least pro-hoax people could do is read that.

Bob Rickard's overview is here:

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/097_moon.shtml

but the main article (FT97:22-27) isn't. Would it be a good idea to also make this available on the site given the ongoing interest in this topic?
 
All Due Respect

All due respect to FT, but it's hardly a journal of record considered legitimate by anyone, including Forteans, who know it's all in good fun and to take all sides with a grain of lithium.

The more informed one is about Apollo and so on, the less patience one has for this sort of endless cud-chewing.
 
Re: All Due Respect

FraterLibre said:
All due respect to FT, but it's hardly a journal of record considered legitimate by anyone, including Forteans, who know it's all in good fun and to take all sides with a grain of lithium.
Click to expand...

My main point is that while not definitive it should be basic entry-level reading as it addresses a range of the most common questions which come up in this thread.
 
Re: Why Not

FraterLibre said:
Why not look things up, read physics texts, and even go to a local university and ask them to demonstrate things for you a bit? That would be scientific curiosity. Asking on a FTMB thread is not.
Click to expand...
Look things up? read texts? Get an university to demonstrate things for me? That's not science, that's learning by rote.

My, and I thought that the whole point of spending 10's of billions of dollars to get men to the moon was so the science could be demonstrated first hand.

I look at the NASA movies taken on the moon and I'm seeing something very rare: the actions of men and materials in an almost perfect vacuum, at about one sixth of Earth's gravity. That's not something one sees every day and I'd say it was worthy of a certain amount of wonder.

Originally posted by Emperor

What I don't fully understand is why we keep going ove the same ground - this is the site for the Fortean Times magazine and FT did produce one of the best articles on this in reponse to the pro-hoax article in FT94. I think the least pro-hoax people could do is read that.
Click to expand...
Don't forget there are plenty of young people out there coming to the whole topic (and the FTMB) fresh every time. As the actual events recede back into history they can only become more and more mythical.

As one of the British kids who sat up into the small hours of the morning in July 1969 waiting for the landing and first moon walk, I'm not surprised that subsequent generations are finding the whole event harder and harder to believe in.

Why, they still had vinyl gramophone records and black & white tellies. Back then, computers were the size of a house.

:D
 
Andro

Tell you what Andro Man, you want pure science, put your money where your mouth is and recreate the entire Geminii / Mercury / Apollo missions, all the infrastructure, and all the science, and send yourself to the moon half a dozen times, and then come tell us what's up.

How's that for rote, Mr. Original? lol
 
Re: Andro

FraterLibre said:
Tell you what Andro Man, you want pure science, put your money where your mouth is and recreate the entire Geminii / Mercury / Apollo missions, all the infrastructure, and all the science, and send yourself to the moon half a dozen times, and then come tell us what's up.

How's that for rote, Mr. Original? lol
Click to expand...
Shouldn't there be a comma after the "Mr" and not a full stop?
 
Re: Re: Andro

AndroMan said:
Shouldn't there be a comma after the "Mr" and not a full stop?
Click to expand...
There'll be a bleedin "Thread Closed again" sign in a minute if you two don't behave.

Honestly.. I expect better of the two of you. I expect an essay on the topic "Some people don't believe NASA went to the moon, and more venerable members of this MB won't convince them very quickly by bickering among themselves".

My desk, by the morning. And stop sniggering at the back.

You can tell I've gone back to work now, can you?
 
Re: Re: Andro

AndroMan said:
Shouldn't there be a comma after the "Mr" and not a full stop?
Click to expand...
There should be neither a comma nor a full stop after Mr in the sentence quoted above.

As he is addressing you as "Mr Original", then the phrase should not be divided. As Mr is a contraction of Mister, rather than a truncation, no full stop should appear after the "r" (unless, of course, it is at the end of a sentence).
 
Re: Re: Re: Andro

anome said:
There should be neither a comma nor a full stop after Mr in the sentence quoted above.

As he is addressing you as "Mr Original", then the phrase should not be divided. As Mr is a contraction of Mister, rather than a truncation, no full stop should appear after the "r" (unless, of course, it is at the end of a sentence).
Click to expand...
DUH! :rolleyes:

I have desisted, from this futile badinage and interplay, after Stu the Moderator's timely intervention. I would suggest that others do the same.
 
Re: Re: Why Not

In a potentially vain effort to drag this thread back in some semblance of the right direction:

AndroMan said:
Don't forget there are plenty of young people out there coming to the whole topic (and the FTMB) fresh every time. As the actual events recede back into history they can only become more and more mythical.
Click to expand...

Granted but when I come to a subject I don't know anything about I'll read around the subject or ask questions - rather than jump in with "I don't believe this is true" it would help if they knew both sides of the arguement and as this is the FT's message baord and the FT has done an article examining a lot of the claims that might be a good start. Why NASA ever backed out from producing that book I'll never know - that has really set the debate back considerably. So if anyone has anymore good links like the ones posted above we can get them together as some recommended reading.

I never saw the moon landing myself (being even less than a glint in my father's eye) but I don't have any problem with the idea that we sent men to the moon.
 
I bet they did'nt want to write it, assuming it would only add fodder to con. theories. ex(It must have been faked if they went to the extent to make a book refuting what actually happened and so on,etc..)
 
I find the existence of doubt about the Moon landings fascinating.

I guess the principle reason is that it is astonishing anybody could doubt something so iconic, so integral to the concensus view of history. And yet, when I read the article in the FT, I realised my belief in the Moon Landings was uncritical - I accepted it without ever having bothered to seek confirmation.

The value of the debate (for me, at least) lies in that uncomfortable jolt to sense; until it was challenged, my belief in the events was effectively superstitious. It serves to underline how much of what we take for 'knowledge' is nothing of the sort - rather, it has been taken on trust and adopted without question.

So, is an uncritical belief in the Moon landings less superstitious than an uncritical belief in the power of prayer?
 
I don't think my belief has been uncritical, I've looked at the evidence and found it to be totally credible.
As for prayer, I believe in that too but not in a theological sense.
 
Some of Us

Some of us grew up paying attention to the entire space program from Goddard onward, and were intimately interested in the minutiae, and paid attention, and so were neither believing nor uncritical, but rather knowledgeable and informed and quite scientifically grounded.

How many times must we "prove" a thing to anyone who has not done their homework. It is fascinating that there is doubt, yes, because it's fascinating how people believe rather than finding out how to know.
 
Most of Us

...but most of us just took the whole thing for granted, like a great many things, for that is human nature.

Of course, it is an aspect of human nature that leads us into trouble, which is why issues drawing attention to the trait are a good thing. This is one of those issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top