The moon hoax.

The moon a hoax/or not

  • It was a hoax

    Votes: 7 5.6%
  • We went to the Moon.

    Votes: 118 94.4%

  • Total voters
    125
He completely ignored me when I presented evidence that the shuttle isn't making "secret space station visits" between launch and docking to the ISS and then again after undocking before landing.

I'm just curious, what sort of evidence did you present him with? Being only a very, very casualy interested in spaceflight, I didn't even know that there was a conspiracy theory that the Shuttle did that. I know that they do classified stuff for the Department of Defence (I have proof! It says that at the Kennedy Space Center, where I went about a year ago), but I'm just curious what proof he had of the visits occuring, and you of them not.
 
I am just saying that it is not impossible that something happend up there that we wern't supposed to know about.

That is already your own logical fallacy. because you think A is not impossible, and there is no evidence for A being impossible, A must be true.


I do however wish to ask anyone who has put that above question to me..
Do you believe everything you hear from your government? YOu have accused me of swallowing what i have read very quickly yet you ahve essentially done the same.

No, there is one important difference. Many of us for example know what spaceflight is about. We have engineers here and aerospace technology students. So, people here can evaluate the facts presented on a website.

I don't believe anything my government tells me, but I also believe that the stuff, I don't know, is caused by human weaknesses and not some sort of strange multi-national agenda.

Laziness and corruption are the strongest driving forces in anything my government did without telling me about it, before it got covered up.


I know that conspiracy theory's are easy to come up with because people like to believe that the Big-brother government is really against them. But remember we are dealing with politicians. people who lie and cheat and tell you what you want to hear so that you vote for them in the next election.
as well as directors of organisations such as CIA whose joba and reputation may depend on certain information becoming public.

Yes - and when one director looses his job, somebody else has the chance to get his job. Ever thought so far in your conspiracy mind? Oh yes, all are lying to the public, but not among themselves. How pathetic! If a director could get fired by only exposing that NASA is faking the moon landings, guess how many people will take the chance - many. Not even in the department, but other departments will also take the first chance to claim power and funds.

But it is easier to believe, that the politicians and bureaucrats join forces against the public right?

Aside from that, most democracies have "official secrets acts" which allow governments to withold information from their people in the interests of national security. Who is to say that politicians who are untrustworthy to begin with, would not find a way to manipulate this law for their own personal agenda.

It is simple. It does happen that these acts are abused. But not for covering up technology or historic events. Also not by politicians. Simple Bureaucrats are usually the worst kind of people for violating transparency rules.

But again, remember my rule: If it happens, it happens out of human weaknesses. Politicians want to cover up, who paid the bill for his new car. Bureaucrats want to hide, that they gave the contract for building the road to their brother, without following proper procedures.

Im not stupid, i know that keeping a lid on (was it quoted somewhere here 400,000?) people involved in the project would be difficult. But remember at the end of the day there were only three people in space, and the talked to one person on the ground.

Please repeat: I have no clue on real spaceflight and promise by the book of Newton, that I will change this in the next three weeks.

Three people in space is correct, but they did not talk to only one person. That is really stupid. Only one person (CAPCOM) has the right to talk directly to them, to avoid confusion, but all people in mission control are listening. Then, next, there are many shifts, not just always the same group of persons during a mission.

Finally: This what the astronauts talk got also recorded by:
- Onboard recorders (CVR)
- magnetic tape on the ground in mission control.
- magnetic tape on the ground in all TV stations broadcasting this.

That's why I posted the link to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. It contains transcripts of these recorders and you can verify the data rather quickly with other sources.

I dont beleive everything i read on the net but i want people to admit that there is at least the posibilty that their government could be capable of lying to them about what really happend.

No. My government is even incapable of lying in their own favor. Single politicians can lie and keep secrets, maybe even a full department for a short time (whistleblowers are eveywhere). But a government, made of many different interests and own agendas? Have you ever read the newspaper lately?

If Apollo would be faked for lot's of money by the department of science (or how it was called), while the DoD is requiring lot's of money for war in Vietnam, how long do you think will it take somebody from DoD to expose this charade? Or any other department.
 
I do think it is fair to point out at this stage that I do believe there is a 99 percent chance that I am wrong. I am merely trying to put out another theory in order to create a thread of discussion. It has created some great results.

And just because something is possible doesn't mean that it has to have happened. That was never what I was advocating. I was merely stating that it has a small chance of happening.

I am sorry though, I still find the irony funny in that you can dismiss one theory out of hand(the hoax theory) and yet still take the officially released version without the slightest question.

For instance, the Apollo 11 flight logs were provided as evidence against a coverup/hoax. But where is the evidence that they are a COMPLETE 100 percent true and accurate record.

I think this is the point i have been trying to make all along, unfortunately i think faster than I type and I don't articulate very well. Hence why my point may have been missed.

No hard feelings though eh? this thread is starting to feel quite hot.
 
I am sorry though, I still find the irony funny in that you can dismiss one theory out of hand(the hoax theory) and yet still take the officially released version without the slightest question.

For instance, the Apollo 11 flight logs were provided as evidence against a coverup/hoax. But where is the evidence that they are a COMPLETE 100 percent true and accurate record.

You can always check the flight logs with the real observed events. It is just like lying to the police: The more you say, the easier it is for them to prove you wrong.
 
For instance, the Apollo 11 flight logs were provided as evidence against a coverup/hoax. But where is the evidence that they are a COMPLETE 100 percent true and accurate record.

Where is the evidence that all of our observations of objects falling and orbiting, altering the path of starlight, etc... provide a complete 100% proof that gravity exists?

Therefore, since gravity has not been proven 100% true, there's a slight chance that I'll float off into space later this evening, right?
 
I think two things point to the Moon landing as being real 1. The Laser Ranging Retro Reflector left by Apollo 11, 14 and 15 can be hit by anyone using a large enough telescope and laser. 2. The Soviets have never tried to discredit the Apollo Moon landing. In fact they sent a message of congratulations following the Apollo 11 landing.
 
I am sorry though, I still find the irony funny in that you can dismiss one theory out of hand (the hoax theory) and yet still take the officially released version without the slightest question.

I don't think there's something like a "hoax theory", i.e. a complete, consistent and correct theory explaining all the Apollo evidence without containing the actual landings on the moon, at least I never found one. All I found are accusations without any proof that the "officially released theory" is wrong, that's something different.

Cheers
Tschachim
 
I think two things point to the Moon landing as being real 1. The Laser Ranging Retro Reflector left by Apollo 11, 14 and 15 can be hit by anyone using a large enough telescope and laser. 2. The Soviets have never tried to discredit the Apollo Moon landing. In fact they sent a message of congratulations following the Apollo 11 landing.
They believe those mirrors were set up by unmanned robots
 
They believe those mirrors were set up by unmanned robots

Which is of course possible, but it is hard to make a unmanned robot with 1960s tech place a laser reflector with exact alignment.

Also the many other experiments done in that time and documented in scientific papers would have been impossible.
 
^

I completely agree, no way robotic technology could have done that in the 60s.


PS: Thank you everyone for keeping this topic civil. It could have turned nasty easily, but you all have done a great job of keeping the discussions on topic and civil. Thanks folks, keep the discussions going. :cheers:
 
[ame="http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=t2-hwlXNyHw&feature=related"]YouTube - Astronauts Address Moon Conspiracies[/ame]

That's it. Anything else just is blabbing
 
For instance, the Apollo 11 flight logs were provided as evidence against a coverup/hoax. But where is the evidence that they are a COMPLETE 100 percent true and accurate record.

Well, the evidence IS that many independent entities tracked all the Apollo missions AND their data is consistent with the "official" version ( as you call it). Another big example is Orbiter itself ( as in AMSO and NASSP ). All the information in the official data as well as those from others can be used to accurately simulate an Apollo flight exactly as it took place( with only minor variations in time if done correctly ). You keep saying that believing the government info is the problem.

But just for one moment, think about it. Where the HELL did the spacecrat go after it launched? Do you think the Russians weren't listening in onj the convo AND tracking it ? Remeber that they had sent unmenned probes to the Moon before and had the technology to track spacecraft. They would have been able to verify the light-speed time lag with accuracy and if it was off by a fraction of a second, they would shouted FOUL.

And then, two words: Moon Rocks. Period

All this hoax crap came up in 2001 IIRC. All the data, and the samples ( 362 kg of it) returned from the moon were analysed by the top scientists of the wolrld for 30 years and no one had any prbolem until an a**hole called Bart Sibrel decided he wanted to make some money.
 
the hoax theory had been around for a long time before before the fox documentary and and that arse face, Sibrel and his bible. I first heard of it when i was in school in the mid 90's
 
And the reason there are no stars is because it was too bright! A probe (I think it was Surveyor) used star maps to figure out where it was. it took three minutes for the camera to see any hint of those million-mile magnificent cosmic barbecues. I'm pretty sure the cameras weren't made for cosmic barbecue watching either.
 
I read theres one thing that would be hard for a hoax believer to explain, and thats the way the lunar dust behaves when its kicked up by the lunar rover. I'm not well versed in physics or anything of the like, but it was something to do with particle behaviour in a vacuum, and it would have been near impossible to reproduce on earth.
 
Yes, the dust kicked up by the rover's wheels go in perfect parabolas exactly as predicted by Newton. The feather and hammer experiment in Apollo 15 is another
thing.

And now, the photographs of Apollo15 site by SELENE.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/0...-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/

ike pete.dakota said in this thread :http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=3002

IN YOUR FACE!!!
Their reconstructed image looks EXACTLY like the photos from Apollo 15. They have also spotted the halo pattern left by Apollo 15's exhaust EXACTLY where its supposed to be.

~
Thomas
 
It makes no sense at all to argue against conspiracy theories. We'll always meet people who 'believe' Apollo or even manned space flight is fake.

Concerning the latest lunar fotos and HD videos of JAXA: people also believe that JAXA faiked the fotos and videos taken by Selene.

Man, this view of the moon is different than than Apollo's [or should I say the Orbiters']

It is so different, it seems fake

i think these jaxa images are all fakes

That looks so F'en fake and plastic, when will any of these nations admit that they cannot send manmade spacecraft into deep space!

...
 
Please tell me you made those quotes up...

I'd agree that it makes no sense in arguing against conspiracy theories to the full on, I-refuse-to-see-logic hardcore folk, but there are many, who are perfectly able to see reason, who'll be taken in by the "evidence" that the hoax believers present, because they don't know the full story. Its up to people clued up on the science of the matter to present the case back, and ensure that people who might be swayed the other way, are able to see the evidence in full.
 
Back
Top