Page 1 of 37 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 1726

Thread: I Will Prove The Moon Landings Were Hoaxed

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    307

    I Will Prove The Moon Landings Were Hoaxed

    Hello everyone. My name is Moon Man. Feel free to welcome me to this site.

    I am here to prove that NASA did not land on the moon nor did any man ever orbit it. In the coming days, weeks and months I will post the evidence that once and for all exposes the Great Lunar Lie.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,129
    Welcome, Moon Man. Let's hope your evidence isn't the same old stuff that's been completely discredited.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    307
    No, it isn't, Gwiz. I bring new evidence/arguments to the table. Some issues may have been discussed previously on here, I'm not sure, but I have not seen what I will discuss posted on any other bunk or debunking site. They are my own original points.

    I will begin posting tonight, tomorrow or as soon as possible.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,129
    You might like to try the Apollohoax forum as well. It's been a bit quiet there lately, the hoax believers seem to have given up and crept away.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    46
    Hi look forward to hearing your argument and sincerely hope you have a valid point that will be backed up with genuine evidence, I myself believe the usa have put a man on the moon but have a severe mistrust of any government agencies especially ones connected to the military ,yes I also believe that photos have been tampered with or falsely made to cover up something, what that something is I do not know or maybe it just my mistrust of governments or it could be silly little things such as the photo catalog no as17-134-20384 if you zoom in on the astronauts visor you see the flag and the astronaut taking the photo now lighten the photo and you will see the reflection of the earth above the flag, my problem with this is the fact that the earth is to the left and rear of the visor also it has a peek causing a shadow on the visor so how is it we can the earths reflection, maybe someone with experience in photography can clarify this point

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by jojo180
    ...things such as the photo catalog no as17-134-20384 if you zoom in on the astronauts visor you see the flag and the astronaut taking the photo now lighten the photo and you will see the reflection of the earth above the flag, my problem with this is the fact that the earth is to the left and rear of the visor also it has a peek causing a shadow on the visor so how is it we can the earths reflection, maybe someone with experience in photography can clarify this point
    A new one on me. No earth reflection that I can see, do you have a link to a "lightened" copy?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by gwiz
    A new one on me. No earth reflection that I can see, do you have a link to a "lightened" copy?
    i used paint shop pro to lighten the photo at setting 54 then zoomed in ,

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by jojo180
    ...the photo catalog no as17-134-20384 if you zoom in on the astronauts visor you see the flag and the astronaut taking the photo now lighten the photo and you will see the reflection of the earth above the flag, my problem with this is the fact that the earth is to the left and rear of the visor also it has a peek causing a shadow on the visor so how is it we can the earths reflection...
    First off, non-photographers should not analyse or criticise photos, nor look for "anomalies" in them (particularly by manipulating them in Photoshop), just as I should not analyse or criticise the work of brain surgeons, embroiderers, nuclear physicists, or chemists.

    Secondly, that is no reflection of the Earth above the flag, that is the Earth. Gene Cernan deliberately crouched down to include the Earth in the picture and can be seen doing this in footage from the rover's TV camera in the Spacecraft Films' DVDs of Apollo 17.

    Here is the caption for the photo from the
    Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
    :
    AS17-134-20384 ( 112k or 440k )
    118:25:54 EVA-1 at the LM. This is an excellent portrait of Jack with the U.S. flag and the Earth. We get a good view of Jack's chest-mounted RCU and the camera bracket. Using planetarium program Starry Night Deluxe, we see that, had cloud cover over the southwestern Pacific been lighter, the Antarctica would have been visible at the left and Australia would have been coming into view over the top. Four hours later, Earth's rotation would bring Australia to center stage. Scan courtesy NASA Johnson.

    Thirdly, the reflection on the upper right of Jack Schmitt's visor (upper right from his point of view) is of the sun, not the Earth. This can easily be worked out from the directions of the shadows in the photo and the position of the terminator (shadow line) on the Earth. Because the Earth is to Schmitt's upper left rear, there is no chance of it being reflected in his visor in that photo.

    I see nothing mysterious at all in this photo. All the elements appear exactly as they should, according to my knowledge of how the photo was taken. (I have been a photographer since 1968 and was professional for 15 years.)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    46
    [QUOTE=Kiwi]First off, non-photographers should not analyse or criticise photos, nor look for "anomalies" in them (particularly by manipulating them in Photoshop), just as I should not analyse or criticise the work of brain surgeons, embroiderers, nuclear physicists, or chemists.


    Firstly I am not a photographer and I did state clearly on my statement that I was seeking the advise of someone who was in the know about photography, also I did not state that the earth above the flag was a reflection what I did say was that you could see a reflected earth in the top middle section under the visor above the reflection of the flag not to the right side of the astronauts visor as a fool can clearly see that is a reflection of the sun, I do wish that if someone was going to comment on my statements they would at least give me the courteously of reading it properlyAlso your point on criticism, in Britain we are entitled to free speech that means we are entitled to criticize it is not a case of being a expert in a certain field or being a total fool it is the freedom of being able to do so, or would you rather we where all in communist Russia gagged and caged with no right to free speech.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,686

    Re: I Will Prove The Moon Landing Were Hoaxed

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Man
    Hello everyone. My name is Moon Man. Feel free to welcome me to this site.
    As a government disinformation agent, I'm not free to do anything, so you're out of luck. Funny how what you wrote seems to be almost a demand to be welcomed. Huh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Man
    I am here to prove that NASA did not land on the moon nor did any man ever orbit it. In the coming days, weeks and months I will post the evidence that once and for all exposes the Great Lunar Lie.
    Days, weeks and months, eh? I just can't wait.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Man
    I Will Prove The Moon Landing Were Hoaxed
    Does this have anything to do with proving the moon landings was hoaxed?

    Somehow there's an immediate recollection of Yogi Berra: déjā vu all over again. Have you ever visited Clavius Moon Base?

    Be that as it may, new (really new) and substantiated, objective evidence would be intriguing.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,083
    Moon Man, I will look at your evidence with an open mind. I don't for a minute think that you'll prove that the moon landings were fake. My reason?

    Quite simple really, the moon landings have been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be real. Feel free to read the evidence on this site from the experts.

    So in fairness you have your work cut out.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by Jakenorrish
    Feel free to read the evidence on this site from the experts.
    I want to spend a few days reading here before I start to see what has been discussed. I look forward to the so-called experts trying to disprove the actual reality of the Great Lunar Lie.

    In the mean time, I challenge Neil Armstrong to take a lie detector test at my entire expense.

    I also challenge NASA to flight around the moon on any of their next shuttle missions. They don't need to land on it, just fly around it.

    It'll never happen because it's not possible, and never was. If it was doable it would've already been done.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,129
    It's certainly not possible with the Shuttle. I hope that comment isn't typical of your general level of knowledge of space technology.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    307
    It's not possible to do, period.

    It's 2005, does anyone have the ability to do it..?

    No!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Man
    It's not possible to do, period.

    It's 2005, does anyone have the ability to do it..?

    No!

    QED

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Man
    It's not possible to do, period.

    It's 2005, does anyone have the ability to do it..?

    No!

    Oh, by the way, yes. The Chinese will be doing it within the next decade. Or will they be hoaxing as well?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Man
    It's not possible to do, period.

    It's 2005, does anyone have the ability to do it..?

    No!
    No-one currently has the ability to fly a passenger jet beyond the speed of sound either. Does that mean that no one was ever able to do it?

    It's 2005 why can't they?

    Purely going on what current craft are able to do and claiming that they must be able to do more than anything in the past is silly. Craft are only kept if there is an active program demanding them. The Shuttle's were never designed to go to the moon and the Apollo program which could was canned by the Politicians who cared more about their jobs than the program. You are going to have to do a heck of a lot better than this to prove anything other then your ignorance of the space program.

    Be warned, most of us here know the space program very well and hand waving and merely stating things isn't going to fly.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Man
    If it was doable it would've already been done.
    smart thinking batman.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,083
    Oh, and I'll welcome no-body who demands it.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by Jakenorrish
    Oh, and I'll welcome no-body who demands it.
    I'm following your lead. I answer to no one who demands it.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,083
    Erm, yes. It has been done. A number of times. The Apollo probes were designed to go to the moon. The Space Shuttle wasn't.

    Are you going to tell me why the Apollo probes didn't do it then or is this the limit to your argument? How do you debunk the fact that not only did the Americans track their own spacecraft, but the Russians did too. If anyone was looking for the hoax then it would have been the Russians. If the Americans weren't going to the moon, then the Russians would have certainly been able to detect it.

    Moon Man you'll have to do a hell of a lot better than that.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,083
    Give evidence Moon Man, not just broad statements of no scientific value whatsoever.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    4,115
    Moon Man, I've read such big-mouthed announcements from time to time. Until now, they all went pooooffff.
    Why don't you give your argument now? Evasive manoeuvres from the beginning?
    And when you ask a space shuttle to go to the moon, you show an appalling lack of technical knowledge.
    Just because we don't any longer fly to the moon isn't evidence we never did. Can you book a supersonic passenger flight from N.Y. to London these days? No? Does this proves that the Concorde was a fake?
    After Scott and Amundsen were at the south pole, nobody else went there for another 40 years.
    Since the Trieste reached the ground of the Challenger Deep in 1960, no one ever returned to such depths.
    You understand what I want to say?
    Okay, show your "evidence". And don't evade after a few days with saying "The audience on this board is biased, I don't want to waste my time." I've seen this manoeuvre, too. Too often.
    We are not biased. Except for the bias that in doubt we stick to facts and don't start to fantasize.

    Of course, I'm a disinfo agent, too.
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/kucharek.html

    Who are you?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,083
    Kucharek, welcome. I for one am grateful to get the chance to speak with you.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,885

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,275
    moon man has made such an amazing argument he must be a paid moonhoax agent.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,083
    Now, now, don't discourage him. I want to hear this amazing new theory which will no doubt change my mind, and prove what fakes the likes of Aldrin Armstrong et al were!

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    307
    For some reason I was booted from this site and had to reset my password. I want to read some threads here before I begin posting. I also knew there would be many of you welcoming me so I want to get all of that out of the way first. Once we begin I would like it if we can stay on topic and not troll the thread.

    Your claims about the concorde and other things holds no water. Sure we once had a plane that did super sonic speed and even though it's currently grounded we still have the blueprints of the jets. The apollo saturn rockets and lunar lander blueprints were destroyed. Imagine that. The only country in the world to do the impossible and they destroy the evidence.

    I don't think so.

    It was destroyed because it never happened and had they kept the blueprints they would be forced at some point in the future to do it again to prove they actually did it, which they didn't.

    I'm also glad you mentioned the Concorde. The Concorde that crashed and brought the plane to retirement was caused by a fire in the tire well.

    Guess what..?

    The shuttle Columbia was downed by a fire/explosion in the tire well. The concorde disaster was a test run for bringing down Columbia. Columbia was the only mission to fly without the Canadarm on board, because it's an expensive tool that they didn't want to waste, since they knew the shuttle was going to be destroyed.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,885
    So now NASA is a gang of murderers? They care more about a mechanical arm than they do about seven people? Are you sure you have something new?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Man
    The shuttle Columbia was downed by a fire/explosion in the tire well. The concorde disaster was a test run for bringing down Columbia. Columbia was the only mission to fly without the Canadarm on board, because it's an expensive tool that they didn't want to waste, since they knew the shuttle was going to be destroyed.
    I'd like to quote and rip to shreds the entire content of that last message Moon Man, but lets start with the above.

    Columbia was downed as there was a hole in the leading edge of its wing. Super hot gasses caused the wing to disintegrate upon re-entry leading to the tragic loss of several astronauts.

    The link that you have made with Concorde has ignored all the facts and concentrated soley on your bizarre notion that the two are linked. You have not provided a shred of evidence. The sensors on Columbia's wing are the best evidence I can provide, so either come up with something like that or keep your ideas to yourself.

Similar Threads

  1. do you support a conference to PROVE the apollo landings were REAL
    By FinalFrontier500 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2011-Jun-19, 03:16 AM
  2. I Will Prove The Mars Landings Were Hoaxed
    By Mars Man in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 2007-Aug-17, 01:59 PM
  3. A way to prove or disprove lunar landings
    By Goody in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-01, 08:56 PM
  4. Hoaxed Moon landings?
    By xXxDarkSkyNitexzxXx in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2004-Aug-27, 09:15 AM
  5. Some small facts which help prove the moon landings.
    By jrkeller in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2003-Oct-12, 11:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: