Were the moon landings faked? - Capricorn One (1978) Discussion

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lseybold-2 16 years ago

Maybe you could start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_land ings
A Japanese spacecraft saw evidence of the Apollo 15 landing. How's that?
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e.html

__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Judger 16 years ago

Yes, the moon landing was fake.
Not only that ....
The Tri-lateral Commission rules the world.
Lyndon Johnson had Kennedy killed.
9/11 was an inside job.
Saddam Hussein was completely misunderstood.
Lincoln was a transvestite.
Seward had Lincoln killed because he found out.
The Jews killed Christ because they found out he was on the Tri-lateral Commission.

Does that cover everything?

reply

[–] ObscureAuteur 16 years ago

Nothing that complex with so many living participants can stay secret. All in all, I agree with the summation that it would be so hard to fake the moon landing and get away with it, that it was simply much easier to land on the moon.

CB

Good Times, Noodle Salad

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HAMMERTHROW 16 years ago

How to expalin the Rover and all the junk they left up there...???

Triple Irons-"I could have easily have beaten you, if I had three swords"

reply

[–] richt76 16 years ago

The Moon landings are --so far-- one of our most incredible achievements.

Today, anyone on Earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system may bounce laser beams off of these devices, verifying deployment of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment at historically documented Apollo moon landing sites.

reply

[–] bobvious 16 years ago

richt76 - these bumpkins never let facts get in the way.

reply

[–] Doom 16 years ago

Today, anyone on Earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system may bounce laser beams off of these devices, verifying deployment of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment at historically documented Apollo moon landing sites.

Is this true? Very interesting. I never knew that. What sort of equipment would be needed? Could someone do this as a 'hobby' or are you referring to 'high end' equipment (government facilities, etc.)? I'm seriously asking.

------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

reply

[–] bobvious 16 years ago

I'm interested too. I'm guessing the telescope laser system is high-end though not necessarily out of reach. If you're just curious it might be more than you want to spend....

reply

[–] ta_naemhni 16 years ago

Yes, it's true, and you're right, it is quite interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment

Here's one such facility that actually does it:
http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html

Actually performing the experiment is a lot more involved than just shining a laser pointer at a mirror and looking at the reflection, as the site explains. Notice, for example, that they talk about getting only 2400 photons back from the moon every half hour (i.e., slightly more than one photon per second), which means you need very sensitive photon detection equipment. In theory, though, with enough money, you could set up such an experiment yourself. (APOLLO is not a federal government entity, it's a collaboration between various universities and scientific laboratories.)

They do provide a list of all the equipment that's necessary for the experiment to run... I'm curious as to the total cost, but I'm not in the mood to do that much Googling right now, especially since this electrical storm is currently making my DSL connection flaky. *grumble*

reply

[–] NebLWeffah 16 years ago

Astronaut Charlie Duke said it best. He was the LM pilot on Apollo 16 with John Young as the Commander (yes, they really did go to the moon.....)

Charlie said, "We went to the moon nine times. If we wanted to fake it, why would we fake in nine times?"

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lseybold-2 15 years ago

Just a few seconds in the radiation belt would fry a human.
Do you think the International Space Station is fake too, then?
__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lseybold-2 15 years ago

The belts surrond [sic] the earth at so many miles up the space station is in orbit below where the belts start

Nope. The ISS regularly passes through a region of the belts called the South Atlantic Anomaly.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/South_Atlantic_Anomaly
__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

[–] ta_naemhni 14 years ago

"When a reporter called Buzz Aldrin a liar he punched the reporter in the mouth."

I don't blame him.

By way of comparison: I'm an IT professional, and as such, I hold a number of industry certifications from CompTIA, Microsoft, Dell, and Apple. Getting those certifications required hundreds of hours of study and thousands of dollars for study materials and exam fees. I remember one guy asking me once, "Do you really have those certifications, or is it all bulls---?" I am not a violent person myself, but when he said that, literally the first thing that went thru my head was an image of myself punching him in the mouth. I was highly offended. I can only imagine how Aldrin must have felt about being accused of lying about an accomplishment that was obviously far, far more challenging than anything I've ever done.

Also left out of the story, by the way, is that when the reporter, Bart Sibrel, first accused Aldrin of lying, Aldrin simply got up and walked out of the interview. Sibrel then followed him and continued to harass him... again, Aldrin tried to withdraw. Sibrel finally cornered him and left him with no avenue of escape, then initiated the assault. Aldrin punched him in self-defense. Frankly, I think his response was pretty restrained, and apparently the State Attorney's office agreed, since Aldrin was never charged with a crime.

reply

[–] NebLWeffah 15 years ago

Wendil4501

You need to go back to school and learn basic math and science. 1/6th gravity doesn't mean the physical size changes to 1/6th, but the 'weight' of an object does. If you were standing on the moon, you would weigh 1/6th of what you do now but your height wouldn't change. You'd still be as tall as you are now and just as misinformed.

reply

[–] dragmio 14 years ago

Oh so it is true but we can't test it. We have to believe it. Typical.

reply

[–] lseybold-2 15 years ago

Just for starters, pictures of the Apollo Lunar Module descent stages on the Moon's surface.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites .html

Why do you think they didn't go?
__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lseybold-2 15 years ago

Actually, the crews of Apollo 11, 12 and 14 did sleep with their spacesuits on while they were on the Moon, although they took off their helmets and gloves. The Apollo 15 LM crew (Dave Scott and James Irwin) were the first to take off their suits to sleep:

"For the first time, no bulky spacesuit would compromise an astronaut's sleep on the Moon. The newly designed suits not only offered more mobility, to aid the work on the surface, but were easier to put on and take off, affording [Irwin] and Scott the luxury of stripping down to their long johns and placing the suits, like stowaways, in the back of the tiny cabin." Page 415-16 of A Man On The Moon by Andrew Chaikin.
__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lseybold-2 15 years ago

Can we get footage of after they left?

Here's a short clip from Apollo 17. The cameraman (Ed Fendell) pans around the lunar surface after the LM lifts off. You need Real Player though.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1880034.rm

If you don't have Real Player, there's a shorter version of this clip at the Apollo Archive site. Click on 'Apollo Multimedia' and scroll down to Apollo 17.
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_archive.html
__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

[–] lseybold-2 15 years ago

Also, how did they get in and out of the Apollo?

I assume you mean how did they get into and out of Apollo Lunar Module while they were on the Moon's surface. From Jay Windley's site Clavius:
The forward hatch occupied the middle segment of the front wall of the cabin (Fig. 2), beneath the center instrument panel. The commander normally stood to its left and the lunar module pilot (LMP) stood to the right. After donning their suits and PLSSes, the pressure was bled away into space and the LMP opened the door. It was hinged on his side, so he had to crowd toward his side of the cabin and hold the door open against his legs. The commander would then turn round, get down on his hands and knees, and back out onto the porch. After he had gone down the ladder, the LMP could close the door, move to the commander's side of the cabin, open the door again, and repeat the commander's procedure.

The ingress procedure was the reverse. The LMP entered first on hands and knees, stood up and closed the door so that he could move to his side of the cabin, then held the door open for the commander. After the commander was in and standing, the door could be sealed and the cabin again filled with oxygen.
http://www.clavius.org/lmdoors.html

Photographs of Buzz Aldrin crawling out of the LM:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5862
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5863
__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HapHazzard 15 years ago

The pertified wood is pretty simple to explain, and it's true it doesn't paint NASA in a good light - but Bearing in mind the world climate and attitudes in the 70's, I'm not surprised that they wanted to keep as much of the moon material they could. While I expect the rocks given to more prestigious universities were genuine, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few they handed out were similar fakes. As to the landing site photos you can see tracks in the dust and pretty obvious man-made items sitting ON THE LANDING SITES. While photoshop is good, it's not good enough to fool all the independant scientists pouring over that data right now.....and they were just the first photo's from it's highest orbit. The satellite is due to move closer and get higher resolution photos before the mission is over.

At this point, it really does beggar my mind why some people want to hold onto this idiotic belief that the missions never happened. There is no evidence whatsoever that that is the case - all the usual arguments (Van Allen belt, photo's touched, flags moving, not going back since) have been shot down with actual scientific explanations as opposed to the conjecture of the arguments themselves, and you are now getting photos of the landing sites themselves. The simple fact is a government put the entire resources of it's engineering community into a massive project to beat the Russians at a time when that had a meaning - but the project ended up being for all mankind, and it succeeded.

It was a great moment in history and all the doubters are, frankly, idiots. If the President of the United States couldn't cover up his knowledge of a break-in that downed a Presidency - if another President couldn't cover up the fact a war he started was effectively illegal - how the hell does anyone believe that a project involving hundreds of thousands of workers, billions of tax payers dollars, set on a stage watched by all that countries enemies for any slip up or sign of irregularity they could use as propoganda could be faked without any genuine evidence or confessions coming to light? In this case, it's ludicrous beyond belief. And more proof against it comes in all the time while nothing substantial supports it. Moronic.

It's a tender love song, very beautiful. {Whats it called?} Lick my love pump.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] efen 15 years ago

Of course the moon landings are fake. If we landed on the moon 40 years ago, then why can't we do it again in 2009? Because NASA still hasn't figured out how to safely land on the moon.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lseybold-2 15 years ago

Of course the moon landings are fake. If we landed on the moon 40 years ago, then why can't we do it again in 2009? Because NASA still hasn't figured out how to safely land on the moon.

Do you think that NASA has the same budget they had in the 1960s? Well, they don't.
__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

[–] HapHazzard 15 years ago

Of course the moon landings are fake. If we landed on the moon 40 years ago, then why can't we do it again in 2009? Because NASA still hasn't figured out how to safely land on the moon.

Stupidity on this level truly amazes me. Here's the thing - the satellite in orbit around the moon right now has imaged the landing sites just a couple of months ago. It's even picked up the tracks the astronauts made in the dust. These photos are being examined by scientists all over the world and are also in the public domain - and none have been shown to be anything other than genuine photos. Kind of kills the moronic argument once and for all.

It's a tender love song, very beautiful. {Whats it called?} Lick my love pump.

reply

[–] NebLWeffah 15 years ago

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC)!! HALLEH-FREAKIN'-LOOYAH!!!!!

Now maybe all the nut cases will shut up for awhile. The latest image of Apollo 12 landing site shows the LM decent stage clearly with shadow, the Surveyor 3 in the crater right where it was supposed to be and Pete Conrad's and Al Bean's tracks. Very cool pictures actually.

Look here: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] videojohn 15 years ago

Dear Hap;

Very good point there, Sir.
------

Here's what (I believe) got
this all started to begin with,
as I used to live in La Canada
where many of the JPL folks do
and had 'first hand' knowledge.

Were the Moon "landings" faked??

In a word NO. Our spacecraft and
Astronauhts walked on it as well.

Various "Ham Radio" stations heard
it & recorded (world wide) the audio
at the time. This could NOT ever
be "faked".
-------

Were the Moon "landings" faked in
photographic image?? I'm sure
some were, for a variety of reasons.

1) Actual photos distorted, damaged,
lost, or destroyed by accident.

2) Photos were inhanced/altered for
the creation of foreign propaganda.

3) Photos were altered for the purpose
of "national security" etc.

4) Photos were altered/created for a
variety of presentations to Congress
to gain funding for the program.

The two topics are different.
-------

The film titled; Capricorn One (1977),
was for entertainment only and was a
story to make money for the Producers.

"That's all folks"; Buggs Bunny.

Happy trails to all...

reply

[–] Cognoscente (2778) 4 years ago

Tom Cruise definitely won't make a movie on the moon, that's for sure.

reply

[–] suzycreamcheese1 15 years ago

uh huh! I live in Houston and NASA isnt really here!

RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

reply

[–] stratdax 15 years ago

Yes, they landed on the moon. Any amateur astrologist with gear could track the ship. They also left a retro-reflector on the surface of the moon that people and universities all over the world began using immediately.

And the arguements saying "well why haven't we been back?" is stupid. Not only because they went back lots of times, but...I've been to Sweden once, but I'm likely never going to go back... does that mean I've NEVER been there? No, of course it doesn't.

reply