The MOON HOAX

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
ULTIMA1

Unread post by ULTIMA1 »

Facts about the Apollo missions protection against the Van Allen belt.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0630a.html
To develop shielding for the Apollo crews, Oak Ridge researchers recycled the Lab's Tower Shielding Facility, which had hoisted shielding experiments aloft for the 1950's nuclear-plane project.

Regards,
Laura Whitlock
for Ask an Astrophysicist
Thrifty
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:01 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Thrifty »

carcdr @ Oct 30 2009, 06:21 AM wrote: Wow! This reflector defies the physical theories of optics! Great invention!
The corner cube reflector is a primative but effective means of reflecting light or other radiation back to the sender. It can be used for a radar target or even a bicycle reflector. If deer had them on their sides, then I would be able to range them much farther than 300 yards with my laser range finder.

Here is a good link on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector
idschmyd
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:33 pm
Contact:

Unread post by idschmyd »

BrianV, (hopefully you're still able to tolerate this thread) I just read Dave's treatie on the matter: excellent. To be honest, I've always given this topic a wide birth (and on this forum that's a hefty admission), but Dave makes the case well indeed.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Please imagine this forum as a spaceship in which all useless and decayed material must be jettisoned to prevent contamination.

ULTIMA11 launched. If he makes it to the moon, we'll hear back from him.
idschmyd
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:33 pm
Contact:

Unread post by idschmyd »

Buen viaje, Ultima. Will be looking out for that dust cloud. :rolleyes:
excised
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:34 pm
Contact:

Unread post by excised »

Thrifty
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:01 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Thrifty »

idschmyd 4 Oct 30 2009, 09:36 PM wrote: .....but Dave makes the case well indeed.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Dave has a few holes in his arguements. He may want to update again soon.

J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, gave the rock to Mr Drees who then donated it to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988. The rock changed hands at least once before getting to the museum. It could have been switched.

Dave also makes the claim that NASA were the only ones who had “genuine” moon rocks. The Soviets also had some lunar samples that were claimed to have compared favorably to the American ones.
idschmyd
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:33 pm
Contact:

Unread post by idschmyd »

Thrifty 4 Oct 31 2009, 12:43 AM wrote:
idschmyd 4 Oct 30 2009, 09:36 PM wrote: .....but Dave makes the case well indeed.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

Dave has a few holes in his arguements. He may want to update again soon.

J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, gave the rock to Mr Drees who then donated it to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988. The rock changed hands at least once before getting to the museum. It could have been switched.

Dave also makes the claim that NASA were the only ones who had “genuine” moon rocks. The Soviets also had some lunar samples that were claimed to have compared favorably to the American ones.
Yip, that wooden lump may not be the original lump handed over by the US, which may qualify as a 'hole' in the man's detailed and compelling document. Where might the Rusky authorities (those other satans of spin and destruction) have obtained moon rock, bearing in mind they don't claim to have landed there?
Thrifty
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:01 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Thrifty »

idschmyd 4 Oct 31 2009, 12:59 AM wrote: Yip, that wooden lump may not be the original lump handed over by the US, which may qualify as a 'hole' in the man's detailed and compelling document. Where might the Rusky authorities (those other satans of spin and destruction) have obtained moon rock, bearing in mind they don't claim to have landed there?
What I was suggesting is that the original owner (after NASA) may have switched the rock and given up the fake instead.

I'm not sure where you get your info from, but the Soviets have indeed claimed to have landed on the moon and returned lunar samples. Check out Luna 16, 20, 24. Those were some of the unmanned Soviet lunar missions.
Thrifty
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:01 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Thrifty »

excised 4 Oct 31 2009, 12:14 AM wrote: http://www.vidchili.com/video/olkzzJk1U ... he_Ground/[/URL]
http://moonhoax.net/

and my personal favorite youtube video about the denunciation of the apollo missions by the russians...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHJEW6VU ... tube_gdata
Bart Sibrel would be much more convincing if he got his facts straight.

For instance, he claims that the Hubble could not focus properly, but it was successfully repaired by the same space program that launched it. I have watched his “Something funny happened on the way to the moon” and it is just completely full of errors. Errors which did not have to be made to convince anyone of the moon landing hoax.

You do realize that the other video you linked to is actually a part of the mocumentary called Dark Side of the Moon? This was a gag movie made purporting to be a documentary about faking some of the photos and film during the moon landing.

Take a look at the whole thing on youtube. Search for Kubrick dark side of the moon. It is very funny.
terbates
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:05 pm
Contact:

Unread post by terbates »

ULTIMA1 @ Oct 30 2009, 08:35 AM wrote:
godzilla 4 Oct 30 2009, 08:30 AM wrote: I agree with Simon that debating this subject detracts from looking at the heaps of evidence (and common sense) that prove there were no manned moon flights 40 years ago. I think it is a great place to deposit those heaps for all to see. I vote we use this thread for research and discussion of the fakery of the events without getting bogged down with any posters who choose for whatever reason to argue that the moon missions were real events.
You do know that several other countries were involved in trackng and were watching the Apollo missions. If the moon landings were faked why didn't countries like Russia blow the whistle on us?

Are you trying to say that other countries were involved in a conspiracy with us?
You do know that several other countries were involved in trackng and were watching the Apollo missions.

How is it that other countries were watching the Apollo missions, when ALL the alleged missions occurred on the far side of the moon?

Perhaps when I learn how to post actual NASA pix here you could point out such abnormalities as parked lunar rovers with nor tire marks leading up to or under neath the rovers? Or the constant pix of astro-NOTS with the sun shooting from the back and yet we see full frontal detail of them when it should be in the shade.

Perhaps you could clue us in on how emulsion film survived not only the temperature shifts on the moon but survived the Van Allen Belts twice?

If you could.....I have hundreds of more questions.
carcdr
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:11 am
Contact:

Unread post by carcdr »

ULTIMA2 4 Oct 31 2009, 03:52 AM wrote: Let the record show that no one has been able to show evidence to debate the fact of the relfectors being put on the moon by the Apollo missions.

Also for skeptics of the moon landings. The McDonald observatory has an open challenge for anyone to come see the reflectors on the moon in action.

I guess now i will be banned because i can show facts and evidence of the moon landings, like so many sites who are biased against people who question and show facts and evidnece that go against the opnions of many of the people on a thread..
Let the record show that no one has been able to show that these glorified bicycle reflectors could only have been placed on the moon by humans.

I.E. the existence of the reflectors on the surface of the moon is insufficient evidence for a manned moon landing.

Let the record show that ULTIMA1 has admitted that at least some reflectors were successfully dropped onto the moon using unmanned craft.

Let the record show that I was wrong in my sweeping statement about the optics. It is possible to use a corner cube to reflect light back to the source. I don't think that it is possible to reflect from a corner cube with 100% efficiency, due to phase and interference effects.

Let the record show that a disco-ball composed of corner cubes, dropped by an unmanned probe onto the surface of the moon would be sufficient to explain the effect of the reflectors as seen from Earth.

Let the record show that no answer has been given about how the lunar rovers arrived on the surface of the moon.
Thrifty
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:01 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Thrifty »

carcdr 4 Oct 30 2009, 06:21 AM wrote: ps. Extra marks. Exactly how did the lunar rovers - the dune buggies - get transported to the moon? Were they stored in the LEM or what?
Perhaps they were folded up and attached to the exterior of the LEM? The astronauts lowered them from the LEM and unfolded/assembled it on the lunar surface? There are pictures on the net that show it being done.
Thrifty
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:01 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Thrifty »

carcdr 4 Oct 31 2009, 05:26 AM wrote: Let the record show that a disco-ball composed of corner cubes, dropped by an unmanned probe onto the surface of the moon would be sufficient to explain the effect of the reflectors as seen from Earth.
Sure about that? Can you put your math on the record to prove it? All the photos I have seen of the reflectors, NASA and the Soviet's, were cubes arranged on a flat panal, not a disco ball.

I thought everyone knew the Soviet's had claimed to deploy unmanned vehicles on the lunar surface that had reflector's.
Thrifty
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:01 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Thrifty »

terbates @ Oct 31 2009, 04:59 AM wrote: How is it that other countries were watching the Apollo missions, when ALL the alleged missions occurred on the far side of the moon?

Or the constant pix of astro-NOTS with the sun shooting from the back and yet we see full frontal detail of them when it should be in the shade.

Perhaps you could clue us in on how emulsion film survived not only the temperature shifts on the moon but survived the Van Allen Belts twice?
Why do you think the missions occurred on the far side? I have never seen this claim before from anyone.

One of the basic things that photographers learn when setting up a shot is fill light. Fill light can be reflected from most any surface. It does not have to be a highly reflective surface. The moon's surface reflects enough light to provide some fill. It certainly lights up the night sky a lot when it is full.

The nuclear power industry used to use film badges to record radiation exposure. This meant they used film that had varying sensitivities to radiation. If all photographic film was ruined by exposure to some unspecified dose of radiation, then the use of film badges would have been a waste of time.

The key to asking your radiation/film question (not answering it) is to determine how much radiation the film is exposed to, then determine how much it takes to fog or otherwise damage it. Got that data for us? It is available. It has to be to determine that the film was not up to the task. I need this in your question. Thanks.
Post Reply