Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

area 51 is also linked to the ''fake moon landing'' as i and my reschers found out that the area was a fliming ground for the moon landing we will scan for new videos and pics and do the best we can

At 2/13/06 10:52 PM, viper_xeon wrote: area 51 is also linked to the ''fake moon landing'' as i and my reschers found out that the area was a fliming ground for the moon landing we will scan for new videos and pics and do the best we can

Use google earth and try to match as many terrain similarities as you can. Maybe you can even see the module and the flag, somewere in area 51, there still standing there.

Some of you dont bother to look at wikipedia it seems. Even tho it's probly been posted 5 times.

To me, the terrains dont look like a match, they just look similar.

At 2/14/06 12:17 AM, AccessCode wrote: Some of you dont bother to look at wikipedia it seems. Even tho it's probly been posted 5 times.

To me, the terrains dont look like a match, they just look similar.

Isn't wikipedia a government supported site? Plus, they got their info from NASA. You can't ask NASA about the moon landing and anticipate an honest responce. Just think about it. If you really did land on the moon, then yes, good job, you sure showed us, no harm done, sorry for my inconvinience. But if you've faked the whole thing, what a disgrace. You should be ashamed. If the government faked it, they would never admit that they did. Unless someone goes to the exact location on the moon where they "landed" and proves that no human has ever set foot there. Then they won't have much of a choice, but until then they will reject any accusations.

At 2/14/06 12:26 AM, facksfunny wrote:

At 2/14/06 12:17 AM, AccessCode wrote: Some of you dont bother to look at wikipedia it seems. Even tho it's probly been posted 5 times.
To me, the terrains dont look like a match, they just look similar.

Isn't wikipedia a government supported site?

Actually, they are supported by the porn industry and donations.

Plus, they got their info from NASA. You can't ask NASA about the moon landing and anticipate an honest responce.

You can't ask conspiracy buffs and expect an honest responce either.

If the government faked it, they would never admit that they did. Unless someone goes to the exact location on the moon where they "landed" and proves that no human has ever set foot there. Then they won't have much of a choice, but until then they will reject any accusations.

Consider: If you were the one to land on the moon and prove that no human footstep ever touched there, and people found minor, meaningless flaws in your footage, would you reject their accusations?

Wait I just remembered one more thing. Isn't China planning to go to the moon? And now NASA wants to go there all of a sudden. After all these years. I wounder why. No matter how you twist this you must admit that Area 51 is a pretty big secret. Ya it is a military test base. But why so secret? Russia has some secret bases too, but nothing this "famous." Everyone knows about Area 51, they are hidding something there, and I doubt it is alien life forms. Probably something else. I'm sure it is a bit more than a military airbase if it is still classified.

At 2/14/06 12:33 AM, bakem0n0 wrote:

Actually, they are supported by the porn industry and donations.

They still get their info from the government.

You can't ask conspiracy buffs and expect an honest responce either.

Well, I did some calculations too. They didn't leap into the air high enough, read back a few pages.

Consider: If you were the one to land on the moon and prove that no human footstep ever touched there, and people found minor, meaningless flaws in your footage, would you reject their accusations?

Well our accusations aren't that minor. Plus there is close to one hundred of them. If I were to go to the moon for real, then there wouldn't be that many flaws. I certanly would provide valid, well thoughtout responces for each one of those accusations, and not do what NASA did and remove all the evidence from public eyes. Seriously I do not agree with some of the wikipedia's answers. Still alot unanswered. I can honestly say that the Hoax buffs (janitors working at McDonalds with no science degree what soever) have more convincing evidence than NASA (the country's top scientists, etc.) The Hoax buffs were able to provide better proof. They convinced me, NASA failed to convince me.

At 2/14/06 12:43 AM, facksfunny wrote:

At 2/14/06 12:33 AM, bakem0n0 wrote:

They still get their info from the government.

They get their info from anyone who signs up.

You can't ask conspiracy buffs and expect an honest responce either.

Well, I did some calculations too. They didn't leap into the air high enough, read back a few pages.

Yes, and consider the mobility allowed in the space suits. Also someone posted some actual calculas with a cool graph . . . and it was actually accurate.
Do you see the astonauts bend their knees when jumping? No. And if you were to jump without any major bending of the knees, . . . you wouldn't get very high. Amazing how it works out huh?

Consider: If you were the one to land on the moon and prove that no human footstep ever touched there, and people found minor, meaningless flaws in your footage, would you reject their accusations?

Well our accusations aren't that minor. Plus there is close to one hundred of them.

Quantity does not equal quality.

If I were to go to the moon for real, then there wouldn't be that many flaws. I certanly would provide valid, well thoughtout responces for each one of those accusations, and not do what NASA did and remove all the evidence from public eyes.

So, what would be your responce to someone saying that a rock is disproof? Since you have "valid, well thoughtout [sic] responces," you ought to be able to come up with something better than your fellows are now.

Seriously I do not agree with some of the wikipedia's answers.

I disagree with you. Disagreement don't prove anything.

Still alot unanswered. I can honestly say that the Hoax buffs (janitors working at McDonalds with no science degree what soever) have more convincing evidence than NASA (the country's top scientists, etc.) The Hoax buffs were able to provide better proof. They convinced me, NASA failed to convince me.

Yes, great, amazing, irrefutable proof that stands dispite multiple trials . . . and I haven't seen any of it.

Actually you can see the atranauts bending their knees. How high will you be able to jump without bending your knees too much on Earth? Atleast 1.5 ft. On the moon in full gear, you weigh half as much as you do on earth without any gear. You should've seen jumps of 3 ft minimum. And these guys were trained, they are physically fit. Watch Neil doing the bunny hop. You will see how flexible the suits really are.

We were all neutral about the moonlanding at some point, then we read articles and got opinions. Don't think that I only read the pro Hoax articles. I've searched google alot on this. The Hoaxers convinved me and 41% of the other people who visit their websites. That's right there is a poll on one of them. Over 40,000 voted. 41% is quite alot for "meaningless" proof don't you think?

Here's what I mean by NASA not being clear with their accusations. The "c" on one of the rocks.

1) One skeptic on his website assured everyone that it is a camera flaw.
2) I've visited another website, and they said it was a fibre on the lens.
3) One more website said that there is no "c" on the original photos.

1) Camera flaw? Weren't these skeptics saying earlier that NASA had spent years developing top of the line cameras? Isn't that how they withstood the suvere temperature changers? Oh what, the cameras are crappy now? Also this "flaw" only seemed to be affecting this rock, in the exact same spot from multiple angles.

2) Again, a fibre just happened to appear on the exact same spot? If there was a fibre on the lens, the camera will focus either on the fibre, or the rock. One of the two would be blurry, yet both are perfectly clear. Oh wait, so the camera was actually good after all? It was good enough to take a clear picture of the fibre and the rock at the same time? If the cameras were good, then how do you eplain the variations in the shadow direction? Absence of stars? Didn't you blame that on the camera too? If it was a fibre, it would've also appeared on most of the other photos. Did they notice the fibre and remove it? The astranauts had the cameras attached to their chests, they didn't look through the camera. They had no idea if something this small was on the lens.

3) One of the official NASA photos has the NASA logo on it, and is protected by copyright laws. Yet if these photos were altered and used against NASA, the people who altered the photos would go to jail. And we also have no proof that NASA themselves didn't alter the photos to remove the "c"

So from 3 different people we get 3 different answers, yet they got their info from the same source. Why? Either they have no idea what it is, or they won't tell you.

That's a pretty big flaw right there. And there are lots of them. Each one better than the last.

About the claculus graph. Did you even read his post? Did you get what he was saying?

Wiki[edia.org

Source material
1)The Project Apollo Archive – Collection of publicly released Apollo photography
2)The Apollo Image Atlas at The Lunar and Planetary Institute – Thumbnails of images taken during the Apollo Saturn missions
3)Description by ground station engineers at Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station of receiving images from Apollo 11 from the Moon
4)A copy of the moon landing hoax parody
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_
landing_hoax_accusations"

1) And who do you supose took these photos? Official NASA photos are the ones being used agains them
2) Again I wounder if the Hoaxsters actually took these photos and altered them before NASA could get their hands on them.
3) Who funds their Station, the Hoaxsters? I wounder who these engineers support more, the people who fund them or random people they've never met. If it was faked, they either new it, or were already receiving the fake images.
4) Did the Hoaxsters write this?

Clear these sources favour NASA. Especially the last 2.

At 2/12/06 07:17 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 2/12/06 04:09 PM, facksfunny wrote: Actually the soviets DO know that it was a fake. US government paid them to keep their mouth's shut.

Any evidence of this what so ever?

Theorist Ralph Rene responds that "shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR." <<Quote, check the history it is true.

Also you people keep asking for proof. Not so hard to say "proof please" to every argument placed before you.

These links that you keep posting don't provide any actual proof. They are just theories that COULD explain these accusations. They are only plausable. Infact these eplanations vary from site to site. And there seems to be alot of flaws for something that wasn't fake, no?

Fine I'll do what you guys do. I don't believe you that the flag was waving only when they were moving it. Prove it.

Prove that there would be no blast crator. Dust is dust, and it doesn't take that much force to move it. The dust wasn't too dense if even the astranauts managed to leave deep footprints.

Prove to me that the "c" is just a fibre.

Prove to me that the weird shadows were caused by the cameras.

Prove to me that the space suits were 100% radiation proof.

Prove to me that astranauts were able to take over 100 profesional photos with the cameras attached to their CHESTS.

All I've seen so far are plausable eplanations with no evidence.

facksfunny has influenced me to go dig around some more about the hoax of the lunar landings. im not really much of a conspiracy fan because technically, you believe one, you need to believe all. each conspiracy plot has enough evidence to exist, yet not enough to be recognized.

my question of true and honest critique to facksfunny: if your just the average blogger with the CCCP stamp on your foot, then why doesnt any of the top scientists in the astronomical community come out and prove it as well? if not american, there are plenty of forienge scientists that want to make the US look bad no matter how much money is offered. do you think that maybe, MAYBE some of the details in the moonlanding hoax are a bit due to.. an overactive imagination? the human psyche does funny things and yes this type of data analysis can be wrong sometimes due ot the self fulfilling prophecy and the ingroup bias.

just a thought, answer if you want. its just if you answer, i can feel a little better about the whole thing. its kinda hard to swallow if you know what i mean

At 2/15/06 10:41 PM, S_W_A_R_M-generation wrote: facksfunny has influenced me to go dig around some more about the hoax of the lunar landings. im not really much of a conspiracy fan because technically, you believe one, you need to believe all. each conspiracy plot has enough evidence to exist, yet not enough to be recognized. Etc.....

Good point there. You don't see any scientist trying to prove that it was a hoax. It will not be an easy proof though. There have been lots interviews with NASA on this issue, and all they said was that the moon landing was real and the pioctures aren't false. They reject any evidence we have. Also it is hard to obtain any original videos and photographs. As you can see with the "c" on the rock. There are versions of this photo without the "c" on it yet there are with the "c." Obivuosly one or the other was altered. Proving this will be near to imposible. For any scientist, but not for people working at NASA. They should still have the original film rolls from the apollo 11 mission. Why don't they show everyone these rolls to prove that it really happened? It will be easy to check whether the films were edited or not, and when the photo was taken. You also don't see any scientist proving that hoax never happened at all. There are some explanations for these accusations, but not for all. And most of these explanation don't really prove anything. They are just possibilities.

For instance, if there was no blast crator due to the low presure of the jet engines and the dense compostion of the soil, then how did the astranauts manage to leave such fine and clear prints? These explanation only raise more questions.

Here's some more info I've found.

Time spent on moon durin apollo 11: 151 minutes
Pictures taken: 121
Mission objectives: Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

That doesn't leave too much time for picture taking. Considering the fact that they took the picture from cameras on their chests, and all of the pictures seem to be perfect, i.e. no parts of the astranauts being cut off, etc. Even if they completly ingored the mission objectives, they only had 72 seconds to take every picture.

At 2/15/06 11:13 PM, facksfunny wrote:

Edit

You also don't see any scientist proving that hoax never happened at all.

Edit
You also don't see any scientists trying to prove that it was real.

At 2/15/06 11:13 PM, facksfunny wrote:

At 2/15/06 10:41 PM, S_W_A_R_M-generation wrote: facksfunny has influenced me to go dig around some more about the hoax of the lunar landings. im not really much of a conspiracy fan because technically, you believe one, you need to believe all. each conspiracy plot has enough evidence to exist, yet not enough to be recognized. Etc.....

Good point there. You don't see any scientist trying to prove that it was a hoax. It will not be an easy proof though. There have been lots interviews with NASA on this issue, and all they said was that the moon landing was real and the pioctures aren't false. They reject any evidence we have. Also it is hard to obtain any original videos and photographs. As you can see with the "c" on the rock. There are versions of this photo without the "c" on it yet there are with the "c." Obivuosly one or the other was altered. Proving this will be near to imposible. For any scientist, but not for people working at NASA. They should still have the original film rolls from the apollo 11 mission. Why don't they show everyone these rolls to prove that it really happened? It will be easy to check whether the films were edited or not, and when the photo was taken. You also don't see any scientist proving that hoax never happened at all. There are some explanations for these accusations, but not for all. And most of these explanation don't really prove anything. They are just possibilities.

For instance, if there was no blast crator due to the low presure of the jet engines and the dense compostion of the soil, then how did the astranauts manage to leave such fine and clear prints? These explanation only raise more questions.

Here's some more info I've found.

Time spent on moon durin apollo 11: 151 minutes
Pictures taken: 121
Mission objectives: Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

That doesn't leave too much time for picture taking. Considering the fact that they took the picture from cameras on their chests, and all of the pictures seem to be perfect, i.e. no parts of the astranauts being cut off, etc. Even if they completly ingored the mission objectives, they only had 72 seconds to take every picture.

The bit about the pictures I think is kinda questionable because its not that hard to take a picture with you chest, u kinda just look in the general direction and sqeeze. plus if I were on the moon, yeah I would take pictures as fast as i could.

What really does leave me in serious doubt is the issue concerning a blast crater. I read every single line of this post, including the counter argument against the fact that there was no blast crater. To that I say what you said: how can astronauts leave such fine prints in the dust while the craft touching down did not stir anything up? Even if there was no wind, the thing landing would have had at least enough force to creat a tri ring of dust around the three prongs due to shockwaves of the landing itself. The groud should have had some kind of circle or so coming off of the legs of the craft, but there ws none. Aside from that, I think the rest is relativly well explained, including the C on the rock, I chalk that up to the overactive human imagination. People have said many a stupid things over an overactive imagination, not saying what your saying is stupid, but that the C on the rock is very very miniscule in my minds. Distortions happen.

I'm still digging around to find a reason as to why the 1ton craft did not, by means of momentum, leave at least 3 circular shockwaves around the craft's legs. After I find out the answer, I think I can bury this.

At 2/16/06 08:29 PM, S_W_A_R_M-generation wrote: The bit about the pictures I think is kinda questionable because its not that hard to take a picture with you chest, u kinda just look in the general direction and sqeeze. plus if I were on the moon, yeah I would take pictures as fast as i could.

It is not that hard to take a picture, but taking a good picture is different. All the pictures seem to be perfect. And they had other objectives besides taking pictures. It took them about two hour, according to the video, to complete all their tasks. So they only had half an hour to take 121 pictures from their chests. Also the fact that none of the pictures match the video is unexplained.

Oh and the module weighed 17 tons, not one. Some sites claim that there is no crator because the dust was all blown away. Well if the dust was blown away, how did the astranauts leave footprints all around the landings site. Also there was one footprint right under the module.

Here's a few more Q's to tickle your mind:

1) When mission control was talking to the astranauts, they(the astranauts) respopnded instanly, radio waves will take about 2 seconds to reach the moon.

2) A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

3) One picture is looking up at Neil coming down the ladder of the module as he is about to take his first step. If he was the first man on the moon, then who took that picture?

4) A balloon in a vacuum will pop instantly, because there is no air to outside to counter the air pressure inside. Same goes for the astranauts on the moon, no air means their suits will swell up alot. They would look like giant balloons, yet you see folds of fabric hanging loose, and they seem to move freely.

5) The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.

6) Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7) Non of the atranauts recieved any radiation damage, nothing is 100% radiation proof. And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter?

At 2/14/06 08:19 PM, anitsirc wrote: Fine I'll do what you guys do. I don't believe you that the flag was waving only when they were moving it. Prove it.

Try shaking something springy. You'll notice that it keeps going for a bit after you shake it. The flag they used should have acted similar.

Prove that there would be no blast crator. Dust is dust, and it doesn't take that much force to move it. The dust wasn't too dense if even the astranauts managed to leave deep footprints.

The dust layer on the moon is thin, and underneath is solid rock. Why do you think the astronaut footprints didn't go further down on any step for something so soft? There is a blast crater under the module, as shown in the pictures, but only to the depth of the dust.

Prove to me that the "c" is just a fibre.

Early copies of the photo do not have the "c" on it. Also, if you simply look at the photos with the "c" on it, the "c" is two-dimensional while everything else in every photo is three-dimensional. Any experienced photographer can recognize an introduced error like that with ease.

Prove to me that the weird shadows were caused by the cameras.

The "weird" shadows are a figment of your imagination. Nothing is weird about them, and there is nothing even odd about them, you just imagine shapes in the clouds.

Prove to me that the space suits were 100% radiation proof.

Why would they be? The lowest radiation dosage that will have any noticeable effect or cause cancer is 50 Rems. The astronauts recorded a radiation level of 12 Rems. That's not a dangerous level.

The legal limit for year-equivalent radiation dosages for nuclear plant workers or uranium miners is 20 Rems. If they can do it safely, why should Astronauts worry about a 2 hour exposure while in thick suits?

Prove to me that astranauts were able to take over 100 profesional photos with the cameras attached to their CHESTS.

What makes a photo "professional"? Clarity and crispness. When there is no air, there is no blurring, and every photo with a super-expensive camera will be "professional."

All I've seen so far are plausable eplanations with no evidence.

All I've seen so far are implausible claims with no solid evidence.

At 2/16/06 08:55 PM, facksfunny wrote: It is not that hard to take a picture, but taking a good picture is different. All the pictures seem to be perfect.

Taking pictures using a wide-view lense in the crystal clarity of vacuum is amazingly easy. A very simple, smart alignment system would be to set the cameras so anything visible through the astronaut's faceplate shows up in the picture. However, I don't know if that specific idea was employed.

It took them about two hour, according to the video, to complete all their tasks. So they only had half an hour to take 121 pictures from their chests.

Wrong. They took photos while working. They had two hours to take photos and then thirty spare for "publicity shoots" and other random images.

Oh and the module weighed 17 tons, not one. Some sites claim that there is no crator because the dust was all blown away. Well if the dust was blown away, how did the astranauts leave footprints all around the landings site. Also there was one footprint right under the module.

17 tons in 1/6 gravity is only 3 tons. The module was a focused-nozzle engine, which means any dust blasted directly should go up and out, but there should be very little disturbance beyond the direct blast radius. That "footprint" under the module wasn't a footprint.

Here's a few more Q's to tickle your mind:

1) When mission control was talking to the astranauts, they(the astranauts) respopnded instanly, radio waves will take about 2 seconds to reach the moon.

The total delay for a message to reach the Moon and his message to return is almost exact 2.40 seconds, not 2 seconds each way. The delay in the talking is approximately 2-3 seconds each time.

2) A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

Remote deployed cameras. Duh. They had a ton of time to plan the mission, so they obviously knew to plan for events like that.

3) One picture is looking up at Neil coming down the ladder of the module as he is about to take his first step. If he was the first man on the moon, then who took that picture?

Remote deployed cameras. Already toldya. It was the same one that saw it lifting off.

4) A balloon in a vacuum will pop instantly, because there is no air to outside to counter the air pressure inside. Same goes for the astranauts on the moon, no air means their suits will swell up alot. They would look like giant balloons, yet you see folds of fabric hanging loose, and they seem to move freely.

The inner layer of an astronaut's suit contains the pressurized air. There are multiple loose layers on top of that layer. The outermost, which you see floating around, is completely unaffected by the pressurized air within the innermost layer. Duh. Just look at a suit design, it's obvious.

5) The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.

First of all, don't forget the perfect clarity from vacuum. Second, they had a slick advertising agency spend months for planning them. The astronauts were acting out a "play" they practiced hundreds of times before the mission.

6) Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

Remote deployed cameras. Already told you that. It should be obvious by now.

7) Non of the atranauts recieved any radiation damage, nothing is 100% radiation proof. And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter?

The radiation dosages measured on the moon clocked in at 12 Rems. No noticeable negative effects occur until 50 Rems. The suits were made of lots of material, so the dose was probably down at 10 Rems, and that shouldn't have mattered one bit if it was only a 2 hour exposure.

For comparison, the background radiation which we receive constantly is 3 Rems, and the Chernobyl accident gave doses from 300 to 400 Rems.

At 2/14/06 02:02 AM, facksfunny wrote: Here's what I mean by NASA not being clear with their accusations. The "c" on one of the rocks.

1) One skeptic on his website assured everyone that it is a camera flaw.
2) I've visited another website, and they said it was a fibre on the lens.
3) One more website said that there is no "c" on the original photos.

1) Camera flaw? Weren't these skeptics saying earlier that NASA had spent years developing top of the line cameras?

Stop here, don't sound any more stupid. The images you view are NOT the originals. The "c" was introduced on a copy. All three are true. While copying the originals, which have no "c," a fibre on the copying lens produced an image flaw. Ever notice how the "c" is two-dimensional, but everything else nearby is three-dimensional?

It's that simple: the entire issue of impossibility comes from your ignorance, not any real issue. While copying the originals, the flaw was introduced. That's why most photos for that particular scene do not show the fibre.

If the cameras were good, then how do you eplain the variations in the shadow direction?

Stark lighting of vacuum. No general diffusion of light, only specific, bright reflection from surfaces.

Absence of stars?

Cameras tuned to high-brightness and close focus can't see extremely distant, tiny stars. You yourself complained that camera focus matters for the "c" but you ignore it for stars.

At 2/16/06 11:14 PM, Draconias wrote:

Try shaking something springy. You'll notice that it keeps going for a bit after you shake it. The flag they used should have acted similar.

Also because there is no air, the flag doesn't create drag which accelerates it. Nothing also holds the flag against gravity. The flag was made of thin almost seethrough fabric, it wasn't springy

The dust layer on the moon is thin, and underneath is solid rock. Why do you think the astronaut footprints didn't go further down on any step for something so soft? There is a blast crater under the module, as shown in the pictures, but only to the depth of the dust.

The "thin" layer of dust on the moon is 1km "thin." There is absolutley no evidence of any crator. Also there is no evidence of the engine even running. If it is a thin layer and all the dust was blown away around the site, then how did the astranauts leave prints.

Early copies of the photo do not have the "c" on it. Also, if you simply look at the photos with the "c" on it, the "c" is two-dimensional while everything else in every photo is three-dimensional. Any experienced photographer can recognize an introduced error like that with ease.

Prove that the "original" photos haven't been altered by NASA.

The "weird" shadows are a figment of your imagination. Nothing is weird about them, and there is nothing even odd about them, you just imagine shapes in the clouds.

Actually their shadows point in different directions. When the two atranauts are standing almost side by side, Neil's shadow is twice as long.

Why would they be? The lowest radiation dosage that will have any noticeable effect or cause cancer is 50 Rems. The astronauts recorded a radiation level of 12 Rems. That's not a dangerous level.

Proof, please. During the apollo 11 mission the lowest radiation level recorded was 25 Rem.

1 rem- no symptoms.
10 rem-Changes appear in lymphocytes(white blood cells) produced by bone marrow.
100 rem-Nausea and vomiting. Reduced cell formation in bone marrow, temporary reduction in white blood cells.

The legal limit for year-equivalent radiation dosages for nuclear plant workers or uranium miners is 20 Rems. If they can do it safely, why should Astronauts worry about a 2 hour exposure while in thick suits?

My dad knows one of these workers. He had throat membrane cancer, and is suffering from blood disease.

What makes a photo "professional"? Clarity and crispness. When there is no air, there is no blurring, and every photo with a super-expensive camera will be "professional."

Proof, please.
No, I mean the photos were to accurate, no body parts cut off from the picture. How did they manage to aim so well with their chest. Did you know that they took 121 pictures in 30 mins (considering they accomplished their mission objectives which took 120 minutes).

All I've seen so far are implausible claims with no solid evidence.

Picture provided by me: around 12
Pictures provided by everyone else: 0

Accurate calculations done by me: 4
Accurate calculations done by others: 0

Sweet mother of god, I cant believe this is on the forum. OF COURSE WE FUCKIN LANDED ON THE MOON! Haven't you heard of the laser mirror? Surely you cant think the government UNDER JFK was corrupt enough to lie about something like that. And what about the thousands of LIVE WITNESSES at the launch site?

At 2/16/06 11:59 PM, LordPatracos wrote: Sweet mother of god, I cant believe this is on the forum. OF COURSE WE FUCKIN LANDED ON THE MOON! Haven't you heard of the laser mirror? Surely you cant think the government UNDER JFK was corrupt enough to lie about something like that. And what about the thousands of LIVE WITNESSES at the launch site?

Did they see any actual people entering the rocket? No, they were too far to see anything. If they were right under the rocket all the witnesses would get fried.

New idea. All the new people to this thread, please read every post, then post your opinion/argument. I'm getting tired of posting the same calculations, info, pictures for everyone new who comes here. Read over everything, then tell me what you think is wrong, or what you don't agree with, etc. Please.

At 2/17/06 12:06 AM, facksfunny wrote: New idea. All the new people to this thread, please read every post, then post your opinion/argument. I'm getting tired of posting the same calculations, info, pictures for everyone new who comes here. Read over everything, then tell me what you think is wrong, or what you don't agree with, etc. Please.

I have read through the entire thread. You have posted little of any worth, ignored every shread of valid argument, demanded facts, then said those facts were irrelevent, your arguments are at least as flimsy as any others here, and you then procede to make demands?

You, sir, are an asshole.

At 2/17/06 12:28 AM, bakem0n0 wrote:

I have read through the entire thread. You have posted little of any worth, ignored every shread of valid argument, demanded facts, then said those facts were irrelevent, your arguments are at least as flimsy as any others here, and you then procede to make demands?

You, sir, are an asshole.

1) I never called anyone an asshole on this thread.
2) If you don't understand my calculations then you are the asshole.
3) No has any facts, only theories, which COULD explain some accusations I guess, but they raise further questions.
4) You guys are the ones ignoring valid arguments. Too many flaws with the moon landing, if it was real there would be no or very little flaws.
5) If it happened why doesn't NASA prove it? Why don't they show the origianl "unaltered" rolls of film from the "moon?" Chemical test can be done on the film to check when the picture was taken, and a close examination through a microscope will prove if the film was altered. Instead all NASA said was that the moon landing was real.

With the scientific proof that I have seen, I personaly don't belive in it, you are entitled to your own opnion. I've provided lots of proof. All you guys provided was possible explanations.

One more photo, shows just how heavy the space suits are.

I guess man never did land on the moon....i even guess today that we never go into space really.

The idea that there should be a lot of dust on the moon is a myth. There is geological activity on the moon. It isn't much, but it is enough to cause unsettlements on the surface. The geologic activity are cause by the lava is within the moon and the pull of the Earth and Sun(much like Earth tides). The side of the moon that we see is not the side with the craters and highlands on it. The side we see have mostly marine on it. The marine are pretty much volcanic plains if you don't know. The rocks brought back from the two moonwalkers were given to hundreds of scientific people from around the world. We already have a general idea what the moon was made off because we have metorites to compare with and they found that the rocks are lunar rocks. These scientist consisted of geologic experts to. They would be able to identify the make up and origins of any rock. Since the moon lacks the geologic activity that we have and the atmosphere that we have a lunar rock would look different from any rock on this planet. I can keep on going if you want me to.

Maybe we did, maybe we didnt but either wat you look at it hey we fooled the world. Haha.

Radiation level? Not high enough to kill. Camera to chests? I dont care because they had remote cameras, slick advertising companies and besides, they probobly released only the pictures that were good out of the hundred or so taken. A waving flag? It is called momemtum and even with no drag, it will still wave sideways due to the direction of the wave generated. (The gravity on the moon is very weak and as facksfunny addressed, the flag was indeed paper thin.) And loose suits? Who says that the suits were only one piece; there could have been underlying layers. (proof, look at design of suit, google it, dont be lazy.)

My biggest issue right now is why there is no shockwave of dust under the craft? Taking into consideration the theory that they turned off the rocket boosters and landed softly, the craft itself holds alot of momentum and I think it should have left at least some kind of circular wave around the legs holding it up. Also, the theory that the dust was blown away is stupid; there is indeed a footprint right next to the craft.

Either this entire mission was hoaxed (which I still highly doubt) or I am missing some tidbit of information pertaining to the laws of physics that allowed the craft to land without causing dust waves next to the three prongs. Maybe the dust on the moon is not a good medium for waves, I dont know, but althought the theories presented by facksfunny are intresting, they revolve around the "whatif" phenomenon.

As a side note, the astronauts coming home had severe alchoholic and cognitive disorders and the radiation was blamed. This type of mental disorder was very commonly associated with people who worked at the old nuclear power stations before stricter measures of security were introduced. the REM level of the old power stations usually ran anywhere from 8-16 REMs, which is very similar to the level of radition the astronauts faced upon landing.

Two Words Space Rockets.