OT. Where they really on the moon? [Archive]

View Full Version : OT. Where they really on the moon?

minipol

March 5th, 2003, 12:54 AM

Today i saw a documentary about the first men on the moon. Apparently America wasn't ready yet to send pictures from the moon to home so they hired Kubrick to make a movie that showed the astronauts on the moon. Afterwards the CIA killed all people involved except Kubrick.

Now, the documentary didn't answer all the questions. Where they really on the moon?
I think so but they didn't have the capability to send live images home. So all people who watched the "live" landing on the moon where watching a movie http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Also, Nixon had already taped a speech for when the astronauts would die. Pretty lame.
I'm not sure on how accurate the documentary was.

Any insights/comments?

Phoenix-D

March 5th, 2003, 03:01 AM

Did this happen to be on FOX? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

That particular show has been shot down so many times, in so many different ways its not even funny.

Phoenix-D

minipol

March 5th, 2003, 03:09 AM

No, it was a French documentary shown on Belgian television. And the errors they showed in the movie from the moon where so enormous and rediculous it's hard not to believe it.

dogscoff

March 5th, 2003, 11:41 AM

I've heard all kinds of never-went-there arguments, and most of them can be discreditted except for one:

How did the astronauts survive outside the Van Allen belt? The Van Allen belt is an electromagnetic layer around the Earth that soaks up or deflects most of the harmful radiation from the Sun and makes life on Earth possible.

The moonshot spacecraft and/or spacesuits would not have offered any protection at all from that radiation- Neil Armstrong & co should have been turned to crispy bacon before they got anywhere near the moon...

PsychoTechFreak

March 5th, 2003, 12:26 PM

The space suits and the space craft are just not strong enough to fight off the radiation either on the Moon itself or through the Van Allen radiation belt. (They went through the Van Allen belt in an hour, this was not enough time to be affected by the radiation. The astronauts were affected by radiation, they just were not made ill by it as the doses were small.)

From:
http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/Conspiracy/moon.htm

oleg

March 5th, 2003, 12:53 PM

China is planning to send people to Moon in five years. Then we will know http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Is't it ironic - it is entirely possible that soon China will be the only nation who send manned space expeditions ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif (shuttles are ground, russian space program has no money)

dogscoff

March 5th, 2003, 12:58 PM

The space suits and the space craft are just not strong enough to fight off the radiation either on the Moon itself or through the Van Allen radiation belt. (They went through the Van Allen belt in an hour, this was not enough time to be affected by the radiation. The astronauts were affected by radiation, they just were not made ill by it as the doses were small.)
I think whoever wtrote this misunderstood the point being made. It's not the radiation *within* the Van Allen belt that's the problem- it's the unshielded radiation of the sun *beyond* the belt.

Ruatha

March 5th, 2003, 01:12 PM

Hey. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
They where on the moon.
This conspiracy theory has been been answered to every thinking persons satisfaction over and over again.

It was a badly built up conspiracy theory when it was launched and it hasn't aged very well either.

I'm sure you can find the facts on plenty of places on the internet, try NASA or someother site and look for conspiracy or any such keyword.

(EDIT: look up these sites:
http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/index.html
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon2.htm
)

[ March 05, 2003, 11:14: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

geoschmo

March 5th, 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
The space suits and the space craft are just not strong enough to fight off the radiation either on the Moon itself or through the Van Allen radiation belt. (They went through the Van Allen belt in an hour, this was not enough time to be affected by the radiation. The astronauts were affected by radiation, they just were not made ill by it as the doses were small.)
I think whoever wtrote this misunderstood the point being made. It's not the radiation *within* the Van Allen belt that's the problem- it's the unshielded radiation of the sun *beyond* the belt.<hr /></blockquote>No actually you are incorrect D. Look up Van Allen Belt on google or something. It's a band of radioactive particles trapped by the earths magnetic field. Being in it for long periods of time is harmful to humans and even intrumentation. Passing thgouh it though doesn't cause significant damage beacuse the levels just aren't that high.

You are thinking probably of the general background radiation in space that we are protected from by our atmosphere and the magnetic field of the earth. This is a concern, one that we will have to resolve if we want to do any long-term trips to mars or other planets. But for a trip of a few days to the moon it's just not an issue.

At least not one that we are aware of. There may be some long term health effects of even short term cosmic background radiation, like increased risks of cancer or something. It's hard to tell though because we have such a small sample of astronauts to study and they are in such extrodinary health otherwise. But it's not like being cooked in a microwave oven.

Geoschmo

Aloofi

March 5th, 2003, 04:20 PM

Oh well, I jus ran a search for the Moon thing and EVERY hit I got were for people flaming the "moon hoax theory" and calling them crazy.....
If is a not a hoax, why they pay so much attention and expend so much money on those Moon-hoax -believers?
I need more info to make my mind, but is not looking good for NASA.
Though I must keep in mind that I'm biased against all goverments.
Wow!
They never went to the Moon?!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif
This is better than the Evil Left Wing Conspiracy!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Suicide Junkie

March 5th, 2003, 04:36 PM

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Spending a lot of money and attention, you say?
Got this from seeing lots of websites?
Maybe if they formed an "anti-moon hoax" committee and put ads on TV or in papers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Just shooting holes in crackpot theories can be fun, and if you post it on the web maybe you can get your 15 minutes of fame...

Aloofi

March 5th, 2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Spending a lot of money and attention, you say?
Got this from seeing lots of websites?
Maybe if they formed an "anti-moon hoax" committee and put ads on TV or in papers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Just shooting holes in crackpot theories can be fun, and if you post it on the web maybe you can get your 15 minutes of fame...Oh no, my dear, these were NASA people, as in NASA payroll, as in Taxpayer money.

[ March 05, 2003, 14:45: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

geoschmo

March 5th, 2003, 04:45 PM

If people don't expend a little effort showing the falacies of the conspiracy theorists then you start hearing stuff like, "See, it must be true cause they don't even try to deny it." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Aloofi

March 5th, 2003, 05:05 PM

Wow!
Now I know there is a conspiracy!
I've been clicking around in sites with names that suggest that they defend the Moon Hoax theory and it turns out that they are trying to convince me that the people behind the theory are evil and are doing this to get my money and are not qualified to "discredit" NASA's work!!!

Now I want to know how deep the rabbit hole goes!

Thanks Minipol for bringing this up.
I'm so happy that I live in the age of the internet and freedom......

Why would I believe in NASA?

Because they are the goverment?
Because everybody believe them?
Because I want to remain safely believing a lie?
Because I don't want to face the fact that NASA may have lie?
Because I don't want to be called crazy or stupid?
Because I don't want to disagree with the herd?

Hell no!
I want the truth!
Doesn't matter how much it hurts my dreams of reaching for the stars and offworld colonies.

Aloofi

March 5th, 2003, 05:31 PM

After searching through a ton of site with names like "Moon hoax", "Did we really land on the Moon?" and "The Great Moon Hoax" that were nothing more that counter-sites trying to silence the Moon Hoax theory, I finaly founded a real "Moon Hoax" site.

A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon (http://www.afunnythinghappenedonthewaytothemoon.com/usatoday.htm)

geoschmo

March 5th, 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Why would I believe in NASA?
Because the incentive to lie in this case is not nearly as great as the embarasment if they lie and are found out.

Because the effort required to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude would be easier and less expensive then actually going to the moon.

Because Nasa is run by scientists and engineers. Scientists and engineers can cetainly be wrong and like all humans they will frequently lie to themselves rather than face an unpleasant truth, but they don't make it a habit of lying to others.

Growltigger

March 5th, 2003, 05:40 PM

Aloofi

March 5th, 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
1-Because the incentive to lie in this case is not nearly as great as the embarasment if they lie and are found out.

2-Because the effort required to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude would be easier and less expensive then actually going to the moon.

3-Because Nasa is run by scientists and engineers. Scientists and engineers can cetainly be wrong and like all humans they will frequently lie to themselves rather than face an unpleasant truth, but they don't make it a habit of lying to others.[/QUOTE]

1-They are never going to be found out. For the herd, as long as the pack leaders doesn't say is true is not true.

2-You got to be kidding. Going to the Moon is the expesiest thing you can think of. And its not that a big conspiracy, just a 100 people or so, counting the movie crew and everything. Read the link i posted below for more info.

3-Nope, NASA is run by Politicians that were once engineers. You know that.

[ March 05, 2003, 15:58: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Me Loonn

March 5th, 2003, 06:27 PM

Oh, yes !

Good thing me is not only who dont take their medication ...

dogscoff

March 5th, 2003, 06:32 PM

Hey, let's all be thankful that it wasnt the "Van Halen" belt those poor astronauts had to go through, otherwise, having shaggy perms, playing loud guitar and wearing spandex troUsers may have seriously cramped NASA's style
Or even worse, The Van der Valk belt: The 70s Ducth detective in the bad shirts and flares would have played merry hell with the telemetry.

This is a thread-jack. Hand over the topic and no-one will get hurt...

[ March 05, 2003, 16:33: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Growltigger

March 5th, 2003, 06:37 PM

or possibly even the "Van Rental" belt?

"Houston, we have a problem, a large fat balding oik driving a white ford transit has just cut us up and is hogging our orbit, he is also reading the News of the World whilst sticking his fingers up at us",

"Atlantis, are you reporting an Unidentified Fat Object?"

Alpha Kodiak

March 5th, 2003, 06:41 PM

I certainly wouldn't put it past our government to try to fool us, but there is no way that they could cover up such a hoax. At the least, there would be Congressmen and Senators that were privy to that information, and that is a guarantee that it would be leaked.

Think of how much harder it would have been to cover up a fake moon landing than to cover up Watergate, and they were unable to do that.

geoschmo

March 5th, 2003, 06:43 PM

Or the Van Dyke belt?

"That's one small step for man, one giant lea....Ahhhhh!"

Uh Houston, this is Buzz. I think Neal tripped over something. Looks like a large footstool shaped rock. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Growltigger

March 5th, 2003, 06:48 PM

or the "Van Nuys" belt

"Houston, we have a problem, there is some hippy out here trying to sell Buzz some weed, two mexican gardeners are putting window boxes on the Eagle lander and two kids have stolen the moonbuggy and are joy-riding"

"Eagle? stone-groove man"

dogscoff

March 5th, 2003, 06:59 PM

Or the Van Dyke belt?
Not as bad as the Dick Van Dyke belt.

'Ere, 'ouston, we got a bit of an apples and pears problem 'ere, cor blimey guvnor bless my soul Merry Poppins...

henk brouwer

March 5th, 2003, 07:45 PM

Hey stop making fun of Dutch names!

(but yes it's true, names like Dick and Dirk are actually quite popular down here...most parents are probably unaware of what it translates to in English

Henk

dogscoff

March 5th, 2003, 07:54 PM

Hey stop making fun of Dutch names!
OK. That doesn't mean we have to stop taking the piss out of the Van Allen belt though. Watch:

Of course, worse than any of these is the Woody Allen belt (you see what I did there?). That's a field of neurotically charged particles ion orbit around New York...

gregebowman

March 5th, 2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by minipol:
Also, Nixon had already taped a speech for when the astronauts would die.

Any insights/comments?This is probably the only accurate statement that came from the documentary, as you described it. Nixon did indeed have a disaster script made ready. I heard about this years ago, so I can't quote you the source.

gregebowman

March 5th, 2003, 08:00 PM

I wonder. Did the makers of Capricorn One know something, or is this an example of art imitating life? Personally, I can't imagine anyone in NASA trying to do the fake moon landing. There would be just too many people in the know to keep silent, and after 30 years, you know someone would have blabbed by now.

[ March 05, 2003, 18:02: Message edited by: gregebowman ]

Aloofi

March 5th, 2003, 08:03 PM

They never went to the moon
They never went to the moon
They never went to the moon
They never went to the moon
They never went to the moon

I'm trying to put it in my head, to erase all that false information I got in school.
And the crap I got from Hollywood.

Oh my, who can I trust now?
What can I believe?
Why did I ever click on this thread?
I want my life back!!!

raynfala

March 5th, 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
You are thinking probably of the general background radiation in space that we are protected from by our atmosphere and the magnetic field of the earth. This is a concern, one that we will have to resolve if we want to do any long-term trips to mars or other planets. But for a trip of a few days to the moon it's just not an issue.

At least not one that we are aware of. There may be some long term health effects of even short term cosmic background radiation, like increased risks of cancer or something. It's hard to tell though because we have such a small sample of astronauts to study and they are in such extrodinary health otherwise. But it's not like being cooked in a microwave oven.
I do recall reading on one of the "moon-hoax-debunking" sites that the astronauts probably were bombarded by this radiation. The astronauts mentioned that, during their moonwalks, they would occasionally see these odd, inexplicable flashes of light. In all likelihood, this was the occasional cosmic ray penetrating their helmet and striking somewhere along the retina or optic nerve.

--Raynfala

Ruatha

March 5th, 2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by raynfala:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by geoschmo:
You are thinking probably of the general background radiation in space that we are protected from by our atmosphere and the magnetic field of the earth. This is a concern, one that we will have to resolve if we want to do any long-term trips to mars or other planets. But for a trip of a few days to the moon it's just not an issue.

At least not one that we are aware of. There may be some long term health effects of even short term cosmic background radiation, like increased risks of cancer or something. It's hard to tell though because we have such a small sample of astronauts to study and they are in such extrodinary health otherwise. But it's not like being cooked in a microwave oven.
I do recall reading on one of the "moon-hoax-debunking" sites that the astronauts probably were bombarded by this radiation. The astronauts mentioned that, during their moonwalks, they would occasionally see these odd, inexplicable flashes of light. In all likelihood, this was the occasional cosmic ray penetrating their helmet and striking somewhere along the retina or optic nerve.

--Raynfala<hr /></blockquote>I don't see how that would casue them to see light. Cosmic radiation does not induce synapzic potential if I remember correctly, neither should it excite the receptors in the retina.

PsychoTechFreak

March 5th, 2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
China is planning to send people to Moon in five years. Then we will know http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Is't it ironic - it is entirely possible that soon China will be the only nation who send manned space expeditions ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif (shuttles are ground, russian space program has no money)Really? I haven't heard about it yet, just about Japanese plan to send a probe.
But what is the profit out of a money grave like a manned expedition to the boring trabant? Science?

Ruatha

March 5th, 2003, 09:58 PM

From what I've heard China (sic) has plans to send a probe to the moon, but no actual plans for a manned voyage.

[ March 05, 2003, 19:59: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

QuarianRex

March 5th, 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I certainly wouldn't put it past our government to try to fool us, but there is no way that they could cover up such a hoax. At the least, there would be Congressmen and Senators that were privy to that information, and that is a guarantee that it would be leaked.

Think of how much harder it would have been to cover up a fake moon landing than to cover up Watergate, and they were unable to do that.Ahh... but think of the motivation. The Last pledge of a recently assassinated president was that americans would reach the moon before the end of the decade (and before those commie bastards too). The end of the decade draws nigh and there is no way you can do it. Failure would betray the memory of a dead president who had virtually been canonized by the american people and be an unbearable embarassment and show of weakness during the cold war (something that could NOT be allowed).

Taking all this into consideration perhaps it would be wise to, shall we say, bluff. And besides, its just so we can meet a deadline... yeah, thats the ticket. We would have gotten it eventually...

Let a generation or so pass and look how that one little event has so impacted the national psyche. Most of the people who were there are dead now so who is to say ant different? Besides, people want to believe it. How long can you lie to yourself before it becomes truth?

Saying that such a hoax could never have been perpetrated shows a gross lack of understanding of the human psyche, both of the perpetrators and of those who would be duped. Comparing it to watergate is pointless. People want to see powerful individuals fall. People are more than willing to believe in corruption. Now, you show people that they can do the impossible (giving them credit for it, however small) and you'll have to use the jaws of life and a cattle-prod to pry that belief from them.

Fyron

March 5th, 2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I certainly wouldn't put it past our government to try to fool us, but there is no way that they could cover up such a hoax. At the least, there would be Congressmen and Senators that were privy to that information, and that is a guarantee that it would be leaked.

Think of how much harder it would have been to cover up a fake moon landing than to cover up Watergate, and they were unable to do that.Ahh... but think of the motivation. The Last pledge of a recently assassinated president was that americans would reach the moon before the end of the decade (and before those commie bastards too). The end of the decade draws nigh and there is no way you can do it. Failure would betray the memory of a dead president who had virtually been canonized by the american people and be an unbearable embarassment and show of weakness during the cold war (something that could NOT be allowed).

Taking all this into consideration perhaps it would be wise to, shall we say, bluff. And besides, its just so we can meet a deadline... yeah, thats the ticket. We would have gotten it eventually...

Let a generation or so pass and look how that one little event has so impacted the national psyche. Most of the people who were there are dead now so who is to say ant different? Besides, people want to believe it. How long can you lie to yourself before it becomes truth?

Saying that such a hoax could never have been perpetrated shows a gross lack of understanding of the human psyche, both of the perpetrators and of those who would be duped. Comparing it to watergate is pointless. People want to see powerful individuals fall. People are more than willing to believe in corruption. Now, you show people that they can do the impossible (giving them credit for it, however small) and you'll have to use the jaws of life and a cattle-prod to pry that belief from them.<hr /></blockquote>Too bad that such a hoax was never perpertrated, and we did indeed send people to the moon.

ZeroAdunn

March 5th, 2003, 10:35 PM

Well, I have yet to see any proof that we didn't go to the moon, all the evidence against it that I have seen and read is either grossly innacurate or people jumping on the bandwagon and not noing anything about it.

Maybe his video shows full proof that there was a fake, unfortunately, he is asking $20 dollars for it, which proves to me he is no fighter for truth and justice, just a man out to make a buck, and probably just as morraly banckrupt as the people he claimed perpetrated this hoax.

George Washington, the "Father" of our country, considered it a disgrace to his office to lie about the complete depravity of the condition of his army's morale, competence, resources and numbers against the attacking British army. He refused to "white wash" his dispatches to congress in order to boost their pride or spirits. This kind of leadership, "I cannot tell a lie," is sorely missed in our government. -Wow, this is grossly innacurate, this really makes me question his credebility.

geoschmo

March 5th, 2003, 10:38 PM

If it was all just a hoax, why go to all the trouble of fabricating the near disaster of Apoolo 13?

If it was all a hoax, why stop with Apollo 17, instead of continuing the charade through all of the originally planned lunar missions?

If it was all a hoax, why didn't the numerous Soviet spies within Nasa reveal it for what it is? They would have been thrilled to expose such shenaigans to the rest of the world during the middle of the cold war.

Alpha Kodiak

March 5th, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I certainly wouldn't put it past our government to try to fool us, but there is no way that they could cover up such a hoax. At the least, there would be Congressmen and Senators that were privy to that information, and that is a guarantee that it would be leaked.

Think of how much harder it would have been to cover up a fake moon landing than to cover up Watergate, and they were unable to do that.Ahh... but think of the motivation. The Last pledge of a recently assassinated president was that americans would reach the moon before the end of the decade (and before those commie bastards too). The end of the decade draws nigh and there is no way you can do it. Failure would betray the memory of a dead president who had virtually been canonized by the american people and be an unbearable embarassment and show of weakness during the cold war (something that could NOT be allowed).

Taking all this into consideration perhaps it would be wise to, shall we say, bluff. And besides, its just so we can meet a deadline... yeah, thats the ticket. We would have gotten it eventually...

Let a generation or so pass and look how that one little event has so impacted the national psyche. Most of the people who were there are dead now so who is to say ant different? Besides, people want to believe it. How long can you lie to yourself before it becomes truth?

Saying that such a hoax could never have been perpetrated shows a gross lack of understanding of the human psyche, both of the perpetrators and of those who would be duped. Comparing it to watergate is pointless. People want to see powerful individuals fall. People are more than willing to believe in corruption. Now, you show people that they can do the impossible (giving them credit for it, however small) and you'll have to use the jaws of life and a cattle-prod to pry that belief from them.<hr /></blockquote>I would say, rather that it is currently in vogue (perhaps it always has been) to try to rewrite history more than it is that people of an era are so easily duped. It is not popular for Americans to have actually accomplished something significant, so therefore it must not have happened.

I do believe that the space program took the wrong turn at the point when President Kennedy made the pledge to put a man on the moon. We lost the development of reusable spacecraft in favor of the quicker-to-produce, one-time mortar shots that we got. Nonetheless, they did work, and I will need to see and hear far better evidence than I have seen to believe that the moon landings were fake.

Incidently, if the moon landings were fake, the Russians would have known about it, as they must have been tracking the spacecraft by radar. I doubt if they were in on the conspiracy.

And one final thought: if the program were a fake, Apollo 13 was sure an odd exercise to go through.

Alpha Kodiak

March 5th, 2003, 10:41 PM

Beat me to it, Geo!

minipol

March 6th, 2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by growltigger:
Hey, let's all be thankful that it wasnt the "Van Halen" belt those poor astronauts had to go through, otherwise, having shaggy perms, playing loud guitar and wearing spandex troUsers may have seriously cramped NASA's style http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Hehehehehe, now this is a good one. The "Van Halen" belt:

"Houston, we have a problem. An undertermined abstract whining noise is pounding our eardrums. NOOOO, the pain.. NOOOOO....." ... and then silence...
Van Halen did it again . Hehe. Nice one Tiger! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Edit: hhmmm one should read the whole thread before responding. there are already a zillion jokes in here going "Houston we have a problem". If i weren't so darn lazy i would delete mine. If you read this far: sorry for waisting your time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
But why are you still reading this?

[ March 05, 2003, 22:43: Message edited by: minipol ]

minipol

March 6th, 2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Too bad that such a hoax was never perpertrated, and we did indeed send people to the moon.Where's the proof? In one of your books?

* minipol just couldn't resist and now hides in the closet with one of Fyron's physics books as his only weapon *

Oh by the way, as i said before i think they did go to the moon but that the movie was fake. Big difference off course. The camera they had with them, seen in a few of those shots in the movie was incapable of making the shots at that kind of temperature or better differences in temperature.

[ March 05, 2003, 22:50: Message edited by: minipol ]

Alpha Kodiak

March 6th, 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by minipol:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Too bad that such a hoax was never perpertrated, and we did indeed send people to the moon.Where's the proof? In one of your books?

* minipol just couldn't resist and now hides in the closet with one of Fyron's physics books as his only weapon *

Oh by the way, as i said before i think they did go to the moon but that the movie was fake. Big difference off course. The camera they had with them, seen in a few of those shots in the movie was incapable of making the shots at that kind of temperature or better differences in temperature.<hr /></blockquote>At the time, much of the news coverage was specifically labelled as "Simulation". The actual live pictures I remember were of rather poor quality, to say the least.

minipol

March 6th, 2003, 02:09 AM

Ruatha, i'll check out the links

Wanderer

March 6th, 2003, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by gregebowman:
I wonder. Did the makers of Capricorn One know something, or is this an example of art imitating life?I thought the guy (not that I know who that was, I'm just stabbing in the dark) who was behind Capricorn One was someone who believed the moon landings were a hoax and wanted to make a film on a similar issue to 'show how it could be done'.

Not that I've heard any convincing arguments that the landings were actually faked - on Amazon.co.uk (not .com) try searching for the book Dark Moon and its reviews for a good example of pseudo-science being used to sell books (and being viciously debunked by those who know better).

Try here (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/1898541108/customer-reviews/3/ref=cm_rev_next/202-7789877-5010217?show=-submittime)
(second review on this page really has a go at the book)

QuarianRex

March 6th, 2003, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Too bad that such a hoax was never perpertrated, and we did indeed send people to the moon.I personally think that we did get to the moon. I was just responding to the notion that the perpetration of such a hoax would be impossible.

Nothing is really impossible. Probable? Well now, there's the kicker.

Andr�s

March 6th, 2003, 05:58 AM

FX weren't that good back then, a fake wouldn't have been believable.
But it's quite plausible it wasn't live, and the astronauts were secretly safe back home before they dared to make it public.

Graeme Dice

March 6th, 2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Too bad that such a hoax was never perpertrated, and we did indeed send people to the moon.[/QB]Of course, the best proof is that the astronauts left reflectors on the moon that had signals bounced off of them quite regularly.

Fyron

March 6th, 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
FX weren't that good back then, a fake wouldn't have been believable.
But it's quite plausible it wasn't live, and the astronauts were secretly safe back home before they dared to make it public.That is believable. Why would they want to show them getting to the Moon, but dying before they got back? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Too bad that such a hoax was never perpertrated, and we did indeed send people to the moon.Of course, the best proof is that the astronauts left reflectors on the moon that had signals bounced off of them quite regularly.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>That is indeed good proof. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 06, 2003, 05:48: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Alpha Kodiak

March 6th, 2003, 08:04 AM

Wyvern

March 6th, 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Oh well, I jus ran a search for the Moon thing and EVERY hit I got were for people flaming the "moon hoax theory" and calling them crazy.....
If is a not a hoax, why they pay so much attention and expend so much money on those Moon-hoax -believers?So if everybody says that it's not true, that proves it *must* be true? That's probably the most twisted logic I've ever heard.

I don't suppose you bothered to actually *read* any of the pages debunking the "moon hoax" claims to see if their arguments were reasonable?

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Though I must keep in mind that I'm biased against all goverments.Which makes you supremely qualified to form an objective opinion about the subject, naturally.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Oh no, my dear, these were NASA people, as in NASA payroll, as in Taxpayer money.How about a providing a link to show us an example of one of these NASA pages you claim you found?

Originally posted by Aloofi:
After searching through a ton of site with names like "Moon hoax", "Did we really land on the Moon?" and "The Great Moon Hoax" that were nothing more that counter-sites trying to silence the Moon Hoax theory, I finaly founded a real "Moon Hoax" site.As opposed to what? A *fake* moon hoax site?

The guy quoted on that page is the guy (or at least one of them) who *started* the whole moon hoax rumor. So of *course* he's going to agree with his own claims. That doesn't make them true. For someone who claims to distrust authority, you sure are quick to assume that this guy is an authority on the subject.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
I'm trying to put it in my head, to erase all that false information I got in school.Oh please. More like all the false information you got from Bart Sibrel.

Originally posted by minipol:
Where's the proof? In one of your books?Right here (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html). And when you're through reading that page, take a look at this one (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/sibrel.html), which will show you just what kind of unethical tactics Mr. Sibrel resorts to in promoting his claims.

Aloofi

March 6th, 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
So does anyone here believe the moon landings were fake? Gees I read this whole thread looking for just one example of why people belive they were fake. Other than the radiation belt that was it. Is that all you moon hoax believers have?Here it goes, unedited, for all of you that missed the link.

"RESPONSE TO MICHAEL MEDVED'S USA TODAY ARTICLE BY BART W. SIBREL

Many of my colleagues have encouraged me to write a response to Michael Medved's recent USA Today article in which he suggests that anyone who holds an opinion that the United States' lunar landings of the late 1960's and early 1970's were falsified for strategic benefit must be completely insane or mentally deficient. I, Bart Winfield Sibrel, am the writer, producer and director of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, the documentary which inspired the recent Fox special, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, for which I served as senior consultant and key interviewee.

Suggesting that the greatest event in human history was staged as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into a reserved nuclear posture, is, on the surface, seemingly preposterous. However, I, not Mr. Medved, have spent half a decade and $500,000 on research into just the possibility, as remote as it may be, that the boastful goal of a non-engineer politician in 1961 (John Kennedy) to "put a man on the moon by the end of the decade (December 31, 1969)" was a bite too large to chew.

After all, two decades later, with much improved and superior technology to that of 1969, a mission only 1/100th as complicated, the Earth orbit of a telescope (Hubble), was nearly as many years behind schedule as the entire duration of the lunar landing goal, and then, after its sixth launch attempt, didn't even work when it arrived at its destination which was 1/1000th the distance to the moon. In addition, it took another two years to make the necessary repairs to get it operational. Even today, an unmanned probe (to Mars), the size of a large toaster, requires nearly ten years to develop. Mr. Medved, where is the logic in this?

Unfortunately, Mr. Medved composed his article without even reviewing my film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (moonmovie.com) which contains newly discovered, unprecedented evidence consisting of a previously unseen, mislabeled, 31-year old unedited reel of footage from the first mission to the moon, Apollo 11, dated three days into the flight. In this footage Neil Armstrong himself is clearly visible staging part of the mission photography. Before I uncovered this mislabeled lost footage, and after three and a half years of research, I estimated the possibility of a government fraud of the lunar landings to be about 25%. After viewing this footage: 100%.

It is a fact. Humankind has not stepped foot on the moon. End of story. Proof of this is in my film. This whole endeavor really pushes peoples' buttons when it comes to national pride. That is why I open my controversial documentary with a Renaissance painting of the Tower of Babel and a Biblical quote, "When pride comes, then comes disgrace." (Proverbs 11:2) Rivalry among nations began with which civilization could build the tallest building. Sound familiar? I then show the Titanic and the quote, "The Ship that God Himself could not sink!" Finally, I quote Nixon referring to Apollo 11's landing on the moon as the greatest event since creation.

When the USA Today writer refers to the crewmembers he doesn't even know as "brave astronauts" he clearly discloses his environmentally conditioned prejudice toward viewing this topic without any objectivity. If questioning the integrity of our government is so unpatriotic in his mind, he is forgetting that this is precisely how our nation was founded, questioning the ethics and motives of mother England. George Washington, the "Father" of our country, considered it a disgrace to his office to lie about the complete depravity of the condition of his army's morale, competence, resources and numbers against the attacking British army. He refused to "white wash" his dispatches to congress in order to boost their pride or spirits. This kind of leadership, "I cannot tell a lie," is sorely missed in our government.

Furthermore, I can only assume Mr. Medved was referring to me as the "utterly uncredentialed investigative journalist." Funny, isn't it, that those making such accusations about such emotionally provocative topics are often guilty of the very charges they unthoughtfully assert against others. Had he done his research before writing the article (I spent 5 years on this subject, interviewing hundreds of sources), he would have discovered that the "uncredentialed" affiliation I had at the time of the commencement of my investigative journalist's research was none other than NBC News.

A little further investigation on Mr. Medved's part would have discovered that the NASA spokesperson on the program, Brian Welsh, definitely agreed with him in that he felt that his performance of impatient dismissive generalizations did not seem very convincing; rather, a point-for-point rebuttal would have been more appropriate. Apparently, in an effort to be better prepared in the future, Brian Welsh did his own off-the-record investigation with the special access privileges entitled to him in his position. Coincidentally, while his efforts were underway, he had a fatal heart attack in November 2000 at age 42.

When Fox pointed out that eleven Apollo astronauts all had non-space related fatal accidents within a twenty-two month period of one another, he failed to mention that the odds of this happening were 1 in 10,000. Oddly enough, these were the same odds given to a successful manned moon landing on its first attempt by a senior space program employee in the mid-1960's. Nevertheless, Mr. Medved does raise some very good questions that should be addressed. The first is, "why did the Russians not blow the whistle on such a fraud?"

Because I strongly believe that the chief motive for the cover-up was to fool the Soviet Union into thinking that the US had superior missile technology that did not really exist, we need to understand how urgent and unprecedented a motive this was, note past occasions of now disclosed United States misinformation, analyze whether or not the Soviets had the capability to uncover it, and, if they did, question whether or not they would really broadcast this finding to the world. It is important to note, that at the dawn of the space race never before in human history had two "superpowers" each possessed the intercontinental nuclear missile capability of annihilating the other several times over from a location half way around the world.

Perhaps a reminder is in order as well to mention the fact that during this period the Russians launched the first artificial satellite, the first human in space, the first human to orbit the Earth, the first space walk, the first woman in space, the first crew of three into space, and the first of two simultaneously orbiting spacecraft rendezvousing. For every twenty hours the US had spent in space at the time the Soviets had spent one hundred. Five times the experience and expertise!

In 1994, our own government's watchdog agency, the General Accounting Office, reported, "The Star Wars Missile Defense System rigged tests to make it seem more advanced than it really was. The aim was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the Cold War." How much more so was there the need in 1969 when there was genuine concern that "Sputnik 3" might have nuclear missiles on it for a first strike that would put the weapons within less than ten minutes from major targets in America? Furthermore, if the Soviets discovered the cover-up, at that time or years later, would it really be in their best interest to announce their finding to the world and thereby further escalate the tension between the superpowers? Better, in my opinion, to hold on to such a juicy morsel and use it year after year to blackmail each succeeding US administration.

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.

For the USA Today writer to equate believing in this cover-up with denying the Jewish holocaust of World War II simply proves the superficiality of his investigation caused by his misdirected patriotism, or as it has been historically noted, "Zeal without knowledge." Were there only three witnesses to World War II? Of course not, yet this is the total number of witnesses to landing on the moon in 1969. Never before in history had such an historic event been without independent press coverage. Whatever sound and pictures were distributed to the public were strictly controlled and previewed by the Federal Government.

Could a fuzzy black-and-white television image be used to fool the public? Let's look at history. In the mid 1950's Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America" who was the latest winner on the popular TV game show The Sixty-four Thousand Dollar Question. It was later proven in a court of law that the man knew the answers in advance. Time Magazine was wrong! They were fooled just like the rest of us. In fact, in the Grand Jury investigation, it was later proven that one hundred twenty people who swore to God that they were telling the truth at the start of the investigation, in fact, lied to the Grand Jury!

What about Apollo 13? When America allegedly put humans on the moon for the second time (Apollo 12), several TV viewers telephoned the networks and complained that reruns of I Love Lucy were being interrupted. What a coincidence that the very next mission to the moon involved "life and death" jeopardy. Peoples' interest in return trips to the moon was rekindled!

What about the moon rocks? The Soviet Union never sent a manned mission to the moon, yet they have moon rocks. How did they get them? By unmanned probes and meteorites! The only time in history that an astronaut, Soviet or American, is said to have left the relative safety of Earth orbit and ventured through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, a twenty-five thousand mile thick band of intense radiation which surrounds the Earth beginning at an altitude of about one thousand miles, is going to the moon. The Soviets, with a five-to-one advantage in the early part of the space race, never once sent a human through the radiation belts to even orbit the moon.

In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred 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 an hour and a half of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminum shielding!

After this new generation of NASA astronauts encountered this unpredicted surprise, CNN (another "uncredentialed" source) 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."

It isn't an "utterly uncredentialed journalist" who is asserting that the Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967 that 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. It is the dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, and who has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions), who is making this accusation. Mr. Medved, have you personally retrieved evidence from the space capsule to support your theory that this credible first hand assertion is unfounded?

Anyone with the slightest open mind and truly objective thinking can conclude that when the assassin of President Kennedy was assassinated himself three days later, that something was awry. The moon landings cover-up is even grander, yet, obviously, not the first, and it is certainly not the first time, or the Last, that the press at large was completely wrong.

I sent a copy of this lost footage to every United States Senator and Congress Member (five hundred thirty-five), plus the president and the current director of the General Accounting Office. I have heard back from only four. In my letter I challenge them to summon Neil Armstrong himself to testify, under oath, whether or not he actually set foot on the moon in 1969. I caution them to get ready for the shock of their life. Oddly enough, in the thirty plus years since the event, Neil Armstrong has not granted, not even once, an on camera or independent print interview. Not to CNN, not to NBC, not to CBS, not to ABC, not to Time, Life or Newsweek. It is my conviction that he refuses to be interviewed because he does not want to lie. How does the lyric go? "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies."

Recently, however, I had the good fortune to show this falsified mission footage to Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Neil Armstrong's fellow crewmate. Quite startled and angry, he was most interested in how I attained this lost footage. He also threatened to sue me if I showed it publicly. Why? Because it is meaningless? If Mr. Medved is courageous, why not challenge me to a duel of the wits on his radio show for an open debate on this subject?"

geoschmo

March 6th, 2003, 05:15 PM

Ok, I am going to respond to some of the glaring errors in judgment in Mr. Sibrels article here. Obviously Mr. Sibrel will never see this, but it's for the benefit of Allofi or anyone else in danger of being duped by him.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
"RESPONSE TO MICHAEL MEDVED'S USA TODAY ARTICLE BY BART W. SIBREL

After all, two decades later, with much improved and superior technology to that of 1969, a mission only 1/100th as complicated, the Earth orbit of a telescope (Hubble), was nearly as many years behind schedule as the entire duration of the lunar landing goal, and then, after its sixth launch attempt, didn't even work when it arrived at its destination which was 1/1000th the distance to the moon. In addition, it took another two years to make the necessary repairs to get it operational. Even today, an unmanned probe (to Mars), the size of a large toaster, requires nearly ten years to develop. Mr. Medved, where is the logic in this?

The mere fact that we went to the moon is not an indication that the missions were flawless or more easily done then the Hubble telescope. In terms of 1960's dollars a much larger investment in money and manpower was put into the Moon landing effort than into the Hubble space telescope. Systems were double triple, quadruple checked, and redunant systems were in place in case they still failed. All that being said errors still happend, mistakes were made, and equipment failed. Each moon landing had a multitude of objectives, some engineering, some pure science. Not everything that was planned to be done was done.

The Hubble was in total perhaps a less complex endevor, but the equipent was vastly more complex and sensitive than anything that was part of the Appolo missions. Most of the delays in the Hubble program were due to the Chalanger disaster pushing back the entire shuttle program. A fact that is not really indicitive of the Hubble program at all. With Hubble we were just not as lucky in that the one piece of the mission that failed was a critical piece of the whole project. Despite that though we have been able to deal with the problem and Hubble is producing images beyond the expectations of the astromomers even before the fault in the mirror was found.

The Mars failures again were due to programs not as well funded then the Appolo program. This fact led to errors that did not get caught by suficent cross checking.

This kind of faulty logic is the kind of stuff people throw out and say that aliens must have made the pyramids because we couldn't do it today. Of course we could make pyramids today, it would just be too expensive and we aren't all that interested in doing it. Apollo is the same kind of thing.

A little further investigation on Mr. Medved's part would have discovered that the NASA spokesperson on the program, Brian Welsh, definitely agreed with him in that he felt that his performance of impatient dismissive generalizations did not seem very convincing; rather, a point-for-point rebuttal would have been more appropriate. Apparently, in an effort to be better prepared in the future, Brian Welsh did his own off-the-record investigation with the special access privileges entitled to him in his position. Coincidentally, while his efforts were underway, he had a fatal heart attack in November 2000 at age 42.

When Fox pointed out that eleven Apollo astronauts all had non-space related fatal accidents within a twenty-two month period of one another, he failed to mention that the odds of this happening were 1 in 10,000. Oddly enough, these were the same odds given to a successful manned moon landing on its first attempt by a senior space program employee in the mid-1960's. So now we've gone beyond accusing Nasa of a general coverup and lying to the public, and are saying that there is mass muder occuring?

42 year olds have heart attacks. And Astronauts are healthy active people, even into their old age. Active people sometimes have accidents. The odds given are not only suspect (How exactly were they calculated?) they are irrelevant. Odds don't tell you something didn't happen that you can see did.

In 1994, our own government's watchdog agency, the General Accounting Office, reported, "The Star Wars Missile Defense System rigged tests to make it seem more advanced than it really was. The aim was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the Cold War." How much more so was there the need in 1969 when there was genuine concern that "Sputnik 3" might have nuclear missiles on it for a first strike that would put the weapons within less than ten minutes from major targets in America? Furthermore, if the Soviets discovered the cover-up, at that time or years later, would it really be in their best interest to announce their finding to the world and thereby further escalate the tension between the superpowers? Better, in my opinion, to hold on to such a juicy morsel and use it year after year to blackmail each succeeding US administration.

And where is the evidence of this blackmail? To what purpose? There were many occasions during the cold war such evidence would be damaging to the US, yet it was never used. What was it being held back for? Was it supposed to keep us from launching a first strike? If the US felt the need to start a nuclear war and wipe out a goodly portion of the human race, we would care about being embarased when the charred remains of humanity found out we faked the moon landings? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

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.

If this were happening, don't you think one of the thousands of Nasa engineers that were part of the program but weren't one of the hundred or so that knew it was fake would have realized it? "Hey, how come it takes us 32 seconds to get a response from the astronauts on the moon when it should only take 16?" All these Messages are time stamped. You can look at the recods and see for yourself. Oh, I know, Nasa couldn't land a man on the moon, but they figured out a way to send radio waves at exactly two times faster than the speed of light. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

What about Apollo 13? When America allegedly put humans on the moon for the second time (Apollo 12), several TV viewers telephoned the networks and complained that reruns of I Love Lucy were being interrupted. What a coincidence that the very next mission to the moon involved "life and death" jeopardy. Peoples' interest in return trips to the moon was rekindled!

One of the reasons the Apollo 13 is so compelling is that the events that happened were so outrageous that nobody could have or would have imagined them. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. If Nasa was going to fake a near disaster it would have been mroe "scripted", more believeable. It would have been one of the myriad of scenarios that everybody planned for and considered, rather then some off the wall set of circumstances that wouldn't even been considered by a Hollywood producer if it hadn't really happened.

It isn't an "utterly uncredentialed journalist" who is asserting that the Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967 that 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. It is the dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, and who has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions), who is making this accusation. Mr. Medved, have you personally retrieved evidence from the space capsule to support your theory that this credible first hand assertion is unfounded?

More muders. My these Nasa guys are bloodthirsty bastards.

Recently, however, I had the good fortune to show this falsified mission footage to Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Neil Armstrong's fellow crewmate. Quite startled and angry, he was most interested in how I attained this lost footage. He also threatened to sue me if I showed it publicly. Why? Because it is meaningless? If Mr. Medved is courageous, why not challenge me to a duel of the wits on his radio show for an open debate on this subject?"Actually Mr. Sibrel, if he threatened to sue you it was not to stop you from showing your innocuous footage and error filled commentary. You threatened to press charges against him because he punched you in the mouth for being an obmoxious press hungy charlatan who lied about having press credentials so you could confront him with your "Swear on a bible" gag. But the local authorities decided you got what you deserved and wouldn't go through with it. He didn't care how you got public domain footage, all he cared about was why you were harrasing him and lying to the public to sell your 25 dollar movies.

Geoschmo

[ March 06, 2003, 15:17: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

DavidG

March 6th, 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DavidG:
So does anyone here believe the moon landings were fake? Gees I read this whole thread looking for just one example of why people belive they were fake. Other than the radiation belt that was it. Is that all you moon hoax believers have?Here it goes, unedited, for all of you that missed the link.

"RESPONSE TO MICHAEL MEDVED'S USA TODAY ARTICLE BY BART W. SIBREL

< snip >
<hr /></blockquote>Well I'd be happy to point out what is wrong with this article when I get off work but my point was what does the SE4 comunity think? I could care less what Bart Sibrel thinks.

kalthalior

March 6th, 2003, 05:33 PM

The moon landings could not possibly have been faked -- HBO did a docudrama miniseries about them!

Wyvern

March 6th, 2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
Let a generation or so pass and look how that one little event has so impacted the national psyche. Most of the people who were there are dead now so who is to say ant different?Like who? Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are still alive, as far as I know. So's Jim Lovell (the guy Tom Hanks played in Apollo 13.) I'm sure there are lots of other people still alive who were "there", I just can't name them. Can you name any that are dead?

Alpha Kodiak

March 6th, 2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Wyvern:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by QuarianRex:
Let a generation or so pass and look how that one little event has so impacted the national psyche. Most of the people who were there are dead now so who is to say ant different?Like who? Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are still alive, as far as I know. So's Jim Lovell (the guy Tom Hanks played in Apollo 13.) I'm sure there are lots of other people still alive who were "there", I just can't name them. Can you name any that are dead?<hr /></blockquote>The sad thing is that eventually they will be, as will everyone who was around when the landings occured. Then it will be easier to assert that they didn't happen, just as it is becoming easier for those who deny the occurence of the Holocost. "Gee no one is around that saw it, so it must not have happened." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Wyvern

March 6th, 2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Could a fuzzy black-and-white television image be used to fool the public? Let's look at history. In the mid 1950's Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America" who was the latest winner on the popular TV game show The Sixty-four Thousand Dollar Question. It was later proven in a court of law that the man knew the answers in advance.Completely irrelevant. Proving that a guy can lie on national television and get away with it (for a while) isn't remotely close to proving that you can fake a moon landing.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
It isn't an "utterly uncredentialed journalist" who is asserting that the Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967 that 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.Read this sentence carefully and you'll notice a funny thing; he doesn't actually say what Grissom's son is "asserting". We can infer what he means from context, but the fact that he trails off without finishing his sentence shows that either a) he's being deliberately misleading or b) he's a lousy writer. Of course, it could be both.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
It is the dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, and who has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions), who is making this accusation.What accusation? What kind of forensic evidence?

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Mr. Medved, have you personally retrieved evidence from the space capsule to support your theory that this credible first hand assertion is unfounded?*What* credible first hand assertion? And what makes it credible? The fact that Sidrel believes it? No, that just makes *him* credulous.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Anyone with the slightest open mind and truly objective thinking can conclude that when the assassin of President Kennedy was assassinated himself three days later, that something was awry.In other words, if you're not a conspiracy theorist like Sibrel, you're close-minded and unobjective. Sorry, don't buy it. Of course, that's just the sort of thing we would *expect* a conspiracy theorist to say, isn't it? It must be evidence of a sinister conspiracy by conspiracy theorists to dupe the unsuspecting public into buying their stupid books and videotapes!

Originally posted by Aloofi:
The moon landings cover-up is even grander, yet, obviously, not the first, and it is certainly not the first time, or the Last, that the press at large was completely wrong.And I doubt it's the first time, nor the Last, that Bart Sibrel has been completely wrong.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
I sent a copy of this lost footage to every United States Senator and Congress Member (five hundred thirty-five), plus the president and the current director of the General Accounting Office. I have heard back from only four.Maybe that's because they have better things to do than waste their time trying to argue with attention hounds like Sibrel.

DavidG

March 7th, 2003, 02:10 AM

So does anyone here believe the moon landings were fake? Gees I read this whole thread looking for just one example of why people belive they were fake. Other than the radiation belt that was it. Is that all you moon hoax believers have?