Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 79

Thread: Could Hanger 18 be the moon hoax set?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1
    Hello everybody! This is my first post, so please don't be too hard on me...
    I have been reading several posts about the faking of Moon landings, Moon walks and many others related to the Apollo missions. Many people, smarter than I am, have repeatedly said that faking is obvious in pictures, movies and last but not the least, inconsistency of NASA statements and official standings. But I say faking would have costed far more than the real thing. There has been proven, and believe me, it was a lot of common sense in it, that faking was in certain aspects impossible at that time, given the technical means and/or technology. 'Capricorn One' may have been a good movie at its time, but the idea was the actions depicted in the movie could have happened, not it has happened. It raises a question mark on how a big scale cover-up COULD be built, not that it actually happened. But what about 'Hangar 18' ?! This might be, in my oppinion, a much more disturbing sign of a POSSIBLE cover-up or government-supervised conspiracy. In my country, in 1986, a Romanian military pilot had the courage to write a book on this matter - the UFOs throughout the human history, starting from stone age or even before, to the year 1986. He was also saying something about his personal experiences, about the disappearance of several pilots - people he knew - when getting too close to the UFOs with their MiGs, and so on. A military pilot's view over the matter, including the oppinion that 'Hangar 18' may very well have depicted real things, along with fiction facts. But let me stop now and wait for comments, if there will be any, if someone's interested in trying to tell real from fake.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,784
    I have moved this from the Moon Questions thread as it is off topic.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    14,125
    Do you have a link to "hangar 18" information?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    492
    As far as I know, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base has less than 18 hangers. I'd love to know where the HB's get the idea that there are 18.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by valeriuginghina
    Many people, smarter than I am...
    I'm pretty sure they're not.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,724
    Let's just say that Hangar 18 would have to be pretty freakin' big, have gravity 1/6 that of Earth, and be a vacuum chamber. Question answered?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,004
    As far as I can tell, "Hangar 18" is supposed to be located at the Groom Lake facility (Area 51). It was also a 1980 movie flop (as well as a Megadeth song, and hip-hop group). I can't tell if the ideas about the hangar came from the movie, or the idea for the movie came from existing conspiracy theories.

    Here's a page with a couple pictures, and it indicates that the size is 300x300x100 feet. :shrug:

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,785

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd
    Hey, a woowoo-site that actually looks cool.
    Not the usual eyesore.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren
    Let's just say that Hangar 18 would have to be pretty freakin' big...
    Yep...and as I have posted before (somewhere, here ) The Lunar liftoff film from (for example) Apollo 15 is most telling...the filmed view literally covers hundreds of miles. It could not have been filmed inside any hanger...

    ...unless "hanger 18" is like the TARDIS...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,653
    well 300x300x100 isn't anywhere big enough. At least 200 feet too small minimum

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,083
    In answer to the question, one would first have to prove that there was any evidence to support the 'faked moon landings' theory. Any evidence put forward to support this theory has so far been completely debunked, and the Moon landings have been totally proven. There are many other threads devoted to this subject on this site, if you doubt what I'm saying, it may be worth a bit of research on your part on the subject before responding.

    So as the Moon landings did actually happen, then the answer to your question is a very firm 'No'. As the Moon landings happened,then they couldn't have been faked in hangar 18, Atlantis or any other mythical place. They took place on the Moon!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd
    As far as I can tell, "Hangar 18" is supposed to be located at the Groom Lake facility (Area 51).
    When I first heard of 'Hangar 18' it was definitely supposed to be located at Wright-Patterson AFB.

    As I remember one of the Games Designer Workshop's 'Twilight 2000' scenarios published in their house magazine was set in the vicinity of Wright-Patterson and there was a specific reference to 'Hangar 18' as still being under guard.

    The above is admittedly from memory () and if anyone can confirm this I would be very grateful.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,297
    Welcome, valeriuginghina!

    The first problem with the alleged "Hangar 18" idea is that there is really no evidence at all that this particular hangar even exists; but if there was, there is no evidence that it was used for an attempted hoax. None. Just unsupported claims.

    Secondly, it immediately doesn't fit what we observe about the Apollo film record. The lighting of a single bright distant source does not look like lighting one would find in a hangar. The behavior of dust in Apollo motion imagery clearly indicates a vacuum, but the idea that a hangar hundreds of feet on a side could sustain a vacuum is ludicrous. All motion observed (dust, astronauts, dropped tools) is compatible with 1/6 Earth gravity, but antigravity doesn't exist and you can't fake the motion of dust with wires. And, as R.A.F. pointed out, the lunar module liftoff was tracked miles into the sky.

    So the hoax hangar idea just doesn't fit reality. That's before you get to the mountains of other evidence supporting Apollo.

    I'd also have to disagree that it takes "courage" to write a book making wild and unsupported claims about UFOs or Apollo or whatever. Drop by your local bookstore and take a look at the stacks and stacks of drivel touting UFOs, astrology, gubmint coverups, homeopathy, crystal healing, channeling, the "Philadelphia incident", and so on ad nauseum. Turn on your television and see the vast buffet of psychic detective this, ghost hunter that, witches whatnot. No, no, friend; these days it takes more courage to challenge such notions publicly. And it's been that way for a while. I read lots of UFO books when I was a kid, enjoyed Close Encounters, etc., and I've been around for some time.

    Lastly, I'll also dispute the notion that Crapicorn One was either a "good" movie (it stunk, though that's rather subjective) or that it showed that such a conspiracy was possible (it didn't, and that's a fact).

    Those are general comments, of course - if you want to discuss the "Hangar 18" idea in detail, we'd be happy to, but I think you need to provide more specifics to chew on.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,448
    I enjoyed Capricorn One because I like Sam Waterston. But it terms of plot etc. it left somewhat to be desired. But that's all purely subject.

    The major problem in using an aircraft hangar as a moon hoax set depends on whether a vacuum would have to be achieved inside of it. Hangars employ gracile, efficient structural methods thereby spanning great distances unsupported yet providing almost no live load bearing capacity. The additional load imposed by atmospheric pressure were the interior rendered a vacuum would exceed the structural capacity of the typical hangar by at least two orders of magnitude. Hence structures intended as vacuum chambers are very robust. There is no advantage to be gained in trying to convert a hangar to a vacuum chamber; the effort and cost would be tantamount to new construction.

    Aircraft handling facilities are often used in filmmaking and much prized by filmmakers for their ability to enclose a large volume in which sets may be constructed without using forced-perspective techniques that restrict camera angles. However, as has been noted, the Apollo video includes scenes that demonstrably occur in an environment extending hundreds of meters from the camera in several directions, a feat not possible with any unsupported structure in the 1960s. Even if you concede that the vacuum effects were achieved by some means other than creating an actual vacuum, the scale of the Apollo films still does not fit Hangar 18 or any other structure. With no points of correspondence and several points of content, the "airplane hangar" argument simply fails to rise to the challenge.

    Don't be so sure that those who propose a moon hoax are "smarter than you". A few minutes' questioning of them reveals that they certainly know far less than I and others here, and probably less than you. But they go to great lengths to inflate the appearance of their knowledge hoping that you'll draw the precise conclusion that they "must" know what they're talking about. It's a tactic carefully calculated to win converts, not to arrive reliably at the truth.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Graham2001

    As I remember one of the Games Designer Workshop's 'Twilight 2000' scenarios published in their house magazine was set in the vicinity of Wright-Patterson and there was a specific reference to 'Hangar 18' as still being under guard.

    The above is admittedly from memory () and if anyone can confirm this I would be very grateful.
    Man, I had to dig way back in my memory for that one. But yeah, I sorta, kinda, remember it too. Anybody here remember GDW game "Triplanetary"?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,448
    I'd also have to disagree that it takes "courage" to write a book making wild and unsupported claims about UFOs or Apollo or whatever.

    I also disagree. The presumption misapplied to these authors is that they care what people think. Many of these authors see their readers as only one thing: a figure on a balance sheet. Still others, especially those who self-publish, are desperate for attention. Making fools out of themselves is a small price to pay to get the notoreity they think they need.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    733
    I bought this last year and the idea that the footage of Eagle rendezvousing with Columbia is faked I find a tough sell. The shot is like 15 minutes long, no cuts. Not to mention the notion that it was faked in a small hanger [sic].

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Graham2001
    When I first heard of 'Hangar 18' it was definitely supposed to be located at Wright-Patterson AFB.

    As I remember one of the Games Designer Workshop's 'Twilight 2000' scenarios published in their house magazine was set in the vicinity of Wright-Patterson and there was a specific reference to 'Hangar 18' as still being under guard.

    The above is admittedly from memory () and if anyone can confirm this I would be very grateful.
    You're most likely correct. Those pictures I linked to are definitely not the usual quality you'd see from Area 51 photos. I also do vaguely remember some link to Roswell.

    Rereading the short Wikipedia article, I'm pretty sure now that it was just the movie that was somewhat related to Area 51.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Graham2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd
    As far as I can tell, "Hangar 18" is supposed to be located at the Groom Lake facility (Area 51).
    When I first heard of 'Hangar 18' it was definitely supposed to be located at Wright-Patterson AFB.
    I too have always heard that Hanger 18 is allegedly at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. It is where debris and bodies from the supposed 1947 Roswell crash were taken and stored. I live near WPAFB, so the story is kind of a local legend around here. I don’t know how the story was portrayed in the 1980 movie, but according to ufologists the “real” Hanger 18 is definitely at WPAFB.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,149
    Mind you, if we're accepting for the moment that "Hanger 18" actually does what the alien believers claim, then we might as well accept the other claim by the very same people that W-P AFB has an artificial zero-gravity facility that can hold a vacuum. One that isn't in Hanger 18.

    So, even if Hanger 18 were to exist with a bunch of little green corpses in it, I doubt it would be used as the soundstage for any fake moon footage.

    Besides, if you were to really believe that the US military have access to interstellar spacecraft (even broken ones), then why would you simultaneously believe it's impossible for them to travel merely as far as the moon?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    136
    yeah, that's a great point, lol. If we captured alien spaceaft that led to all the "inventions" of our modern time, then believing they used that reverse engineered technology to go to the moon 20 years after roswell should be pretty believable, lol.

    That's great logic for sure. I love it when you can use several woo-woo consiracy theories together when engaed in woo-woo talk soup battles.

    good stuff, got a good laugh out of it for sure!

  22. #22
    My question here is this:

    How old are folks who say the Moon Landings never happened or might be faked? I was 12 1/2 during Apollo 11.

    I just can not believe that any kid at that time believed that this was a hoax!
    Possibly some idiot teens who were older than me strung out on their drug of choice perhaps.

    But the rest of humanity, that had TV sets saw the same things that I saw.

    At any rate, one of my Uncles helped design the computer for the Apollo spacecraft.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,297
    I too have always heard that Hanger 18 is allegedly at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. It is where debris and bodies from the supposed 1947 Roswell crash were taken and stored.

    Well, it's been a couple of years - time to once again drag out the quote that perfectly sums up my feelings on the matter:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Barry
    It's not that I don't believe the government would try to hide dead aliens; it's that I don't think the government would succeed, since every time the government tries to do anything secretly, as in the Iran-contra arms deal, it winds up displaying all the finesse and stealth of an exploding cigar at a state funeral. If there really were dead aliens, I figure, there also would be daily leaks about it from High-level Officials, and huge arguments among influential congresspersons over whose district the multimillion-dollar Federal Dead Alien Storage Facility would be located in.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,612
    Many people, smarter than I am, have repeatedly said that faking is obvious in pictures, movies and last but not the least, inconsistency of NASA statements and official standings.

    Don't confuse the ability to write a book or a website with intelligence. Don't assume that the authors of such published material are smarter than you. That is precisely what they want you to think. You are supposed to read their leading narrative and arrive at the conclusons they present, whether or not that conclusion has any actual basis in reality.

    But I say faking would have costed far more than the real thing.

    Never mind the cost, faking the Moon landing would require re-writing the laws of physics.

    'Capricorn One' may have been a good movie at its time, but the idea was the actions depicted in the movie could have happened,

    Leaving aside the fact that Capricorn One is fiction, and therefore anything contained therein happens because the author says so, not because reality dictates it, people who use Capricorn One as support for a conspiracy have obviously never seen the film. At the very end of the film one of the characters turns up at his own memorial service, thus blowing the whole cover-up wide open. So, Capricorn One if anything shows that such a conspiracy cannot be kept secret even for a couple of weeks.

    But what about 'Hangar 18' ?! This might be, in my oppinion, a much more disturbing sign of a POSSIBLE cover-up or government-supervised conspiracy.

    If a 'Hangar 18' exists, so what? Are we supposed to find it suspicious that any government would undertake classified research and have the odd facility where only a select few have access?

    In my country, in 1986, a Romanian military pilot had the courage to write a book on this matter - the UFOs throughout the human history, starting from stone age or even before, to the year 1986.

    Do not confuse writing a book with courage. I can write a book. I can write one about absolutely anything. If I write about certain things it might seem like I am putting my career or life on the line, but am I really?

    He was also saying something about his personal experiences, about the disappearance of several pilots - people he knew - when getting too close to the UFOs with their MiGs, and so on.

    First we would need evidence that these anecdotes are real and that he has not simply made them up. Second, a UFO can be anything as long as it flies. Now, getting too close to any flying object, identified or otherwise, in a high-speed jet is a very bad idea. Get too close to a goose and your aircraft can end up falling to bits, ploughing into the ground, turning into a large fireball, or some combination of those things, and if conditions are right there may not be much left to identify or recover.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,448
    Never mind the cost, faking the Moon landing would require re-writing the laws of physics.

    I tend to agree, but you have to be very careful making this argument. It is tantamount to arguing that it wasn't done because it can't be done, and things that can't be done obviously weren't done. But this refutation plays right into the hands of conspiracists, who can generally only argue that faking it was possible. They don't accept the burden of proof that the moon landings were faked; only that it is possible they were faked. And that generally boils down to showing that it's not impossible, which is enough to sell a surprising number of books.

    If your argument that it was impossible ends up being more of a straw man than you intended, then the refutation becomes rather weak. For example, we point out that a hangar cannot structurally act also as a vacuum chamber. That presumes the hoaxsters would achieve vacuum effects by actually creating a vacuum. Since all their arguments are conjectural, they would come back with other speculation on how visible effects of vacuum could be achieved: "magic" sand or weighted feathers. And, from a logical point of view, that would turn the vacuum chamber explanation into a straw man.

    The proper approach to this is to keep putting the burden of proof back to where it belongs: on the conspiracists' burden to show the landings were actually hoaxed, not simply that it wasn't impossible to have done it. The latter is a uselessly low standard of proof. If I favor Explanation A, and you favor Explanation B, you cannot establish B merely by saying B is "not impossible". That would create a burden of proof for A requiring me to show not just that it is the best explanation -- even perhaps by a large margin -- but also that it is the only possible explanation. In real-world historical investigation, that isn't an attainable standard of proof.

    And so the real burden of proof is not to show that Explanation B fails to be impossible, but that it stacks up better than Explanation A in a head-to-head contest.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,031
    In short, here is what it would've taken to fake a single Apollo moon mission.

    1. You'd have to launch a Saturn V in full view of several hundred thousand spectators (and millions watching on TV).

    2. The Saturn V 3rd stage/SM/CM stack would have to enter orbit where it could be tracked by space surveillance radars (and human eyes on the ground)

    3. After 2 revs, you'd have to launch the stack on a translunar trajectory, broadcasting telemetry, audio, and occassional video signals that could be picked up not only by governments but in some cases by ham radio operators. You couldn't leave anything in Earth orbit because it would've been tracked.

    4. After a few days, your faked moon ship would have to enter orbit around the moon (detectable by doppler effects and by signal loss of roughly 40 minutes ever two hours as the vehicle passed behind the moon.) There's no way you could fake it from Earth orbit.

    5. While one piece stayed in orbit around the moon, another piece would have to descend and land on the moon (detectable again by doppler effects). While one piece remains in orbit, the other piece has to transmit signals from the moon's surface.

    6. While on the moon, the fake lander would have to transmit "fake" video and audio of astronauts working on the surface. It'd also have to deploy scientific instruments like the laser refelectors that are still operational today.

    7. Eventually, part of your fake lander would have to lift off from the lunar surface and rendezvous with the orbiting component.

    8. You'd have to then fly back to Earth (transmitting the whole way), reenter the atmosphere, and somehow have the crew appear. This will be especially tricky given that the reentry was tracked the whole way.

    Now, repeat this several more times, once for each mission. You'd have to do it well enough to fool the Soviet Union and every other nation that had space surveillance capabilities back in 1969-1972. You'd also have to be able to fool the ham radio operators who could receive the signals. You'd have to fake the moon rocks well enough to keep geologists fooled to this day.

    Is such a scenario impossible? Well, maybe not. Was it possible with the technology available in 1969-1972? Not really. In many ways, it would've been more difficult to successfully fake the missions than to actually fly them. Occam's razor comes to the fore once again.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    14,125
    If not more difficult, faking the missions would have been so close to performing them that it would have been rather pointless .

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,863
    ahh.. someone mentioned the Megadeth song. one of the coolest music videos ever made, and the first time i ever heard of this mythical "Hangar 18".

    welcome to our fortress tall
    i'll take some time to show you around
    impossible to break these walls
    for you see the steel is much to strong
    computer banks to rule the world
    instruments to sight the stars

    possibly i've seen too much
    hangar 18 i know to much

    foreign life forms inventory
    suspended state of cryogenics
    selective amnesia's the story
    believed foretold, but who'd suspect
    military intelligence
    two words combined that can't make sense

    possibly i've seen too much
    hangar 18 i know too much

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas
    If not more difficult, faking the missions would have been so close to performing them that it would have been rather pointless .
    This is why so many HBs end up relying on the old 'deadly' radiation argument. This way NASA can have the technological capability needed to pull off the hoax but still not be able to put a man on the moon.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,653
    I always find it amazing how they'll claim that NASA didn't have the tech to get a human to the moon in a craft that was piloted by a human, but then turn around and claim that they did [edited to fix] have the tech to automatically land a space craft.
    Last edited by PhantomWolf; 2006-Mar-24 at 02:52 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Summer Triangle and Coat Hanger Cluster
    By ScottieM3 in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-Jan-01, 07:30 PM
  2. Eerie Sun setting over Hanger Hill
    By Glom in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-Apr-16, 12:55 PM
  3. "Apollo Moon Hoax" Hoax Planetarium Show - Boulder, CO
    By stu in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-17, 12:55 AM
  4. THE END OF THE MOON HOAX
    By BigJim in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 2003-May-18, 05:34 PM
  5. It's Moon Madness! - Phil's Moon Hoax talk at Sudekum planet
    By AstroMike in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2002-Apr-21, 03:23 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: