Did we really land on the moon....?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 0
From: Huntsville
I currently work for a small telecommunications company, but I worked as a civil servant for Marshall Space Flight Center in the 90's in the Astrionics Lab and for a brief time in the Space Sciences Lab. I got so fed up with govt bureaucracy, that I resigned in 98 when they were offering "buyouts," basically paying people to leave. 
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by dcak,Mar 8 2005, 09:12 AM
What the hell does this even mean?
He was posting because he was bored and wanted to start conversation. not because he neccessarily believes it. That must have gone over your head.
He was posting because he was bored and wanted to start conversation. not because he neccessarily believes it. That must have gone over your head.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,830
Likes: 0
From: Johnson City
Cool.. Dad got fed up as well working for the Gov. He was doing consulting work for ORNL in knoxville in controls after AEDC and took the first opportunity to leave that as well. Unfortunately he still works for the Gov at a university as a teacher..
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,759
Likes: 1
From: Sun★Works
I have seen enough explanantion using orginal pictures and other conspiracy theories to allow me to believe it was faked. I like it better that way, it is more fun to think it was done on earth as a hoax.
Going to space and coming home and or launching a satellite is not sending a man to the moon or some other celestial body. Taking deep space pictures from hubble is not sending a man to the moon. Landing an RC car on mars is not sending a man to the moon. Having the Terra Server is not sending a man to the moon.
It has been almost 40 years why have we not returned. it was a piece of cake the first time right, we should be having holiday Ins on the bitch by now LOL
Going to space and coming home and or launching a satellite is not sending a man to the moon or some other celestial body. Taking deep space pictures from hubble is not sending a man to the moon. Landing an RC car on mars is not sending a man to the moon. Having the Terra Server is not sending a man to the moon.
It has been almost 40 years why have we not returned. it was a piece of cake the first time right, we should be having holiday Ins on the bitch by now LOL
Thread Starter
Former Moderator
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,852
Likes: 1
From: New York
Well, since I am a retard according to some of you....
I dont believe we ever went to the moon. If you read above, all the rebuttals are pulled straight out of NASAs a$$. All the comments you say about dust, sunlight, vaccuums, etc, are total BS. They have no way of knowing ANY of it if they have never actually went to the moon.
The fact that you say, the C was a hair (total BS)
The fact you say all that stuff about the suits (when the person who built them states they cant take those temps)
The fact that film survived at 280+F
All the lighting mistakes
Hubble cant see landing craters....are you kidding? They have pics of craters on jupiter, let alone the moon.
The fact that NOONE ever went to the moon, including the US, except that one time....in 1969 no less.
You would be surprised what the government would to for national security.
Like I said, in 1969, if anyone was going to the moon, Russia would have done it. The US didnt have any real space programs in 1969.
And all of you with the "government would never do such a thing"
The US government STILL DENIES the existence of area 51, although russian/chinese satellites clearly show its existence.
Everything about the landing is so vague, its almost impossible to believe any of it.
I guess we'll never know.
I dont believe we ever went to the moon. If you read above, all the rebuttals are pulled straight out of NASAs a$$. All the comments you say about dust, sunlight, vaccuums, etc, are total BS. They have no way of knowing ANY of it if they have never actually went to the moon.
The fact that you say, the C was a hair (total BS)
The fact you say all that stuff about the suits (when the person who built them states they cant take those temps)
The fact that film survived at 280+F
All the lighting mistakes
Hubble cant see landing craters....are you kidding? They have pics of craters on jupiter, let alone the moon.
The fact that NOONE ever went to the moon, including the US, except that one time....in 1969 no less.
You would be surprised what the government would to for national security.
Like I said, in 1969, if anyone was going to the moon, Russia would have done it. The US didnt have any real space programs in 1969.
And all of you with the "government would never do such a thing"
The US government STILL DENIES the existence of area 51, although russian/chinese satellites clearly show its existence.
Everything about the landing is so vague, its almost impossible to believe any of it.
I guess we'll never know.
Thread Starter
Former Moderator
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,852
Likes: 1
From: New York
Just to add more to the discussion.....
This is a real NASA published photograph.....
As we can see, the sun is BEHIND him. Based on the shadow, with basic knowledge of light physics and photography, we all know, this is impossible.
The picture should have come out like this.....
Another one like this....the lander should be in complete darkness....without a secondary light source, which NASA claims WAS NOT USED...
A few for the skeptics....
On NASAs rebuttal sites, (badastronomy etc...)
They all agree that flame cannot burn in a vaccuum, this seeing flames is impossible, thus NO CRATERS......ok, ill bite....
Here is a video of the LEM launching
http://www.tntleague.com/misc/lem.rm (Real Format)
Now, the fact that there IS a flame, proves it wasnt done on the moon, but on earth.
Finally, the questions that noone in history has ever answered...
1) Sceptics say there are no stars in the black sky, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. The first man in Space, Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface.
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?
3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?
4) When the LEMs were supposedly leaving the Moon, they should have produced a large bright exhaust flame from the rocket propellant. Instead, zero exhaust. (I have turned this one around and have found evidence of a flame on one ascent of the LEM... just to prove the sceptics wrong!)
5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.
7) In most Apollo photos, there is a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background.
8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles.
9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?
10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would
rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.
12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully? Would you send a relative to the Moon in a vehicle that had never been driven before?
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low
gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts traveled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.
15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.
16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Why didn't
the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation?
17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of
air since even a pinhole deflates a tire in short order.
18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked
like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? in the documentary 'PaperMoon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM...
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapor discharges. They never did.
21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.
22) With a more than two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?
23) Why did NASA's administrator resigned just days before the first Apollo mission?
24) Another overlooked intriguing fact is that NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.
25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!
26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions).
27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."
28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently maps the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?
30) In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.
31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".
32) Why did ALL of the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?
This is a real NASA published photograph.....
As we can see, the sun is BEHIND him. Based on the shadow, with basic knowledge of light physics and photography, we all know, this is impossible.
The picture should have come out like this.....
Another one like this....the lander should be in complete darkness....without a secondary light source, which NASA claims WAS NOT USED...
A few for the skeptics....
On NASAs rebuttal sites, (badastronomy etc...)
They all agree that flame cannot burn in a vaccuum, this seeing flames is impossible, thus NO CRATERS......ok, ill bite....
Here is a video of the LEM launching
http://www.tntleague.com/misc/lem.rm (Real Format)
Now, the fact that there IS a flame, proves it wasnt done on the moon, but on earth.
Finally, the questions that noone in history has ever answered...
1) Sceptics say there are no stars in the black sky, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. The first man in Space, Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface.
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?
3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?
4) When the LEMs were supposedly leaving the Moon, they should have produced a large bright exhaust flame from the rocket propellant. Instead, zero exhaust. (I have turned this one around and have found evidence of a flame on one ascent of the LEM... just to prove the sceptics wrong!)
5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.
7) In most Apollo photos, there is a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background.
8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles.
9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?
10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would
rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.
12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully? Would you send a relative to the Moon in a vehicle that had never been driven before?
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low
gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts traveled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.
15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.
16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Why didn't
the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation?
17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of
air since even a pinhole deflates a tire in short order.
18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked
like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? in the documentary 'PaperMoon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM...
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapor discharges. They never did.
21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.
22) With a more than two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?
23) Why did NASA's administrator resigned just days before the first Apollo mission?
24) Another overlooked intriguing fact is that NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.
25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!
26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions).
27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."
28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently maps the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?
30) In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.
31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".
32) Why did ALL of the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by dcak,Mar 8 2005, 09:12 AM
What the hell does this even mean?
He was posting because he was bored and wanted to start conversation. not because he neccessarily believes it. That must have gone over your head.
He was posting because he was bored and wanted to start conversation. not because he neccessarily believes it. That must have gone over your head.
Thread Starter
Former Moderator
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,852
Likes: 1
From: New York
Thank you for contributing to this thread with your vast intelligence. I just posted this for discussion....I thought it was an interesting topic. Funny thing is, some people get so mad when someone doesnt believe in the same things you do.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Your 2 + 2 = 75 logic is wrong. your just plain wrong you can argue it all you want but there isn't any proof and NASA has explained all these a$$ine things over and over again. I'd like to putr you in a room wiht Buzz and see him punch you in the face for calling him a liar when you weren't there and he was. Beeotch!