Moon Landings Conspiracy Theories

George1 wrote:it wasnt a hoax. On the contrary maybe there were secret landings also

But for some reason NASA decided to produce a slew of photographs that were obvious studio fakes. These
have been the basis of the landing skepticism. I recall downloading some of these from NASA web servers
and there is no way they were legit. Some of these specimens had planar focus transitions that are physically
impossible with any lens optics and were obviously prop boundaries. Others had a lander that had zero dust
disturbance under the rocket nozzle used to land it, there should have been a radial blast pattern in the Moon
dust layer.

Even the Moon buggy video looks fake. The altitude of the dust ejected by the wheels is something you would
get on Earth under a gravity 6 times larger than on the Moon. On the Moon the dust should have been flying higher
than any of the astronauts. There is no air resistance to stop it. Also, the Moon dust is compose of minerals
much like on Earth so it is not super heavy.

Then there is the funny case of the TV studios not being allowed to broadcast a direct video signal but having
to aim the cameras at a screen projecting the supposed Moon videos. This decreased video quality by a significant
fraction and clearly had nothing to do with any attempt to avoid embarrassing live stream situations.

We are now going to have Moon landings in the 2030s. That is over 60 years after the supposed original landings.
A rather strange gap.

My initial reaction was that NASA screwed up its filming and photographing so it had to resort to fakes. But then
other questions crept up. For example, the solar wind radiation of any capsule going to the Moon. The astronauts
would not be shielded from high energy CME-associated electrons and protons. They would also not be shielded form
the relativistic electrons in the Van Allen belts. The capsule aluminum skin thickness was about 1/4 inch. The range-energy
relations for electrons in aluminum easily show that this is too thin to stop even 600 keV electrons let alone MeV range electrons.
Why did none of the Moon astronauts report seeing sparkles in their eyes? They should have experienced prolonged cases of this
on their flight through the Earth's geomagnetic envelope and beyond it on the way to the Moon. During the 1980s
Shuttle astronauts reported this when they took the Shuttle up to about 1000 km. Watch some of the press conferences
given by the Moon astronauts and see if their facial expressions are consistent with history makers or fraudsters.

I was initially generous to NASA and the USA and believed the claims. But we live in a rotten world of lies and deceit
and there are too many questions in this case to be ignored and for credulity.

I think some strange photo shooting was a part of cover-up what exists in moon, not part of fake lunar landing

Back in 2009, for the 40 years of the Apollo 11 mission, I read a very good interview with veteran cosmonaut Aleksei Leonov, I think in RIA Novosti. Perhaps it is still available. Anyway, who had a chance of being the first man, or at least the first Soviet citizen, in the Moon had the N1-L3 system worked, never put into doubt the reality of the American Moon landings. If it was all a fake, it wouldn't be difficult for Soviet intelligence to get hard evidence and completely discredit the US - too many people involved, and especially after so much time someone would have come forward and produced evidence. And still, Soviet officials never denied, Soviet press published information on the US Moon missions (though these weren't shown on TV live, as in many countries), so we can only be sure that they didn't have any evidence of a set up.

Svyatoslavich wrote:Back in 2009, for the 40 years of the Apollo 11 mission, I read a very good interview with veteran cosmonaut Aleksei Leonov, I think in RIA Novosti. Perhaps it is still available. Anyway, who had a chance of being the first man, or at least the first Soviet citizen, in the Moon had the N1-L3 system worked, never put into doubt the reality of the American Moon landings. If it was all a fake, it wouldn't be difficult for Soviet intelligence to get hard evidence and completely discredit the US - too many people involved, and especially after so much time someone would have come forward and produced evidence. And still, Soviet officials never denied, Soviet press published information on the US Moon missions (though these weren't shown on TV live, as in many countries), so we can only be sure that they didn't have any evidence of a set up.

No way that any intelligence would work. All accusations by state actors have an extreme discounting by people. Most Americans would just conclude
that the Soviets were engaged in sour grapes and faked the "counter-evidence". Compared to the physics questions I am raising these political possibilities
are a joke.

kvs wrote:We are now going to have Moon landings in the 2030s.   That is over 60 years after the supposed original landings.
A rather strange gap.

Well, you don't have to wait the Chinese provided HD footage and images just two years ago to compare.

whir wrote:

kvs wrote:We are now going to have Moon landings in the 2030s.   That is over 60 years after the supposed original landings.
A rather strange gap.

Well, you don't have to wait the Chinese provided HD footage and images just two years ago to compare.

And your point is?

GarryB wrote:The American government needs to reread the story of the boy who cried wolf.

If they want the right to lie when it is in their interests to do so then they cannot expect anyone to believe anything they say.

These conspiracy theories are their own stupid fault.

BTW I have heard all sorts of stories proving the landings were fake including things like the shadows on the moon should be parallel... which of course is absurd... any photo with any depth perspective with a single point source of light (ie the sun) will not produce parallel shadows... the same way a single light bulb in a room will create radial shadows.

Other bollocks like astronauts in shadow should not be visible... of course ignoring the intense sunlight on everything else reflecting all over the place...

I agree that there are a lot of crap tin foil hat "theories" (more like claims, since theories have more rigour than any conspiracy BS). And
the US, including NASA, deserves a lot of the blame for the uncertainty. But I can't dismiss all questions about what really went down
because "I know that they really landed". For all I know they got to orbit around the Moon and never made it to the surface. It should
all have been technologically feasible so I don't see it as some stupid test of state manhood. But something went wrong.

Garry, the hoax DID NOT require that 400,000 people keep their mouths shut. NASA and mission control have so many specialized positions that as long as person A does what person A does, and B does his or her job, then only when you get to the top of project do a select few people – probably fewer than 100 – need to know the real deal. That’s true for ANY fabrication on a large scale. It happens all the time, in business, government, down to mom and pop shops – how do you think investment companies pull off Ponzi schemes? Does the receptionist know? Do ALL of the auditors know? Of course not. This is not a matter of science, it’s a matter of manipulating and controlling others. I beg you to examine the evidence with an unbiased eye and you will at least come away scratching your head. And not just the Fox TV Special – there are dozens if not hundreds of people who have done their homework. Read a few books on the subject. The motive was there.  – if a modern day calculator has more computing power than did the lunar module…..and there are NASA scientists today who, if caught off guard, will say that we don’t have the technology to get through the Van Allen belts. Not now, not then.Adolf Hitler once said that if you tell a big enough lie for a long enough time, people will believe it. One day we will know the truth. But I fear that by then, no one will care.

I have grave doubts that we ever put men on the moon. Why has NASA been unable to find the tapes? (Or, written over them, destroyed them, whatever its excuse was for this grossly irresponsible act.) Why did Wernher von Braun suddenly make a trip to Antarctica in 1967, when he was in the midst of planning for the great moon landing? (Hmm, this trip could explain why the “moon rocks” have been found to be chemically identical to meteorites from Antarctica.) And, most important, why have we never been back? Instead, we’ve had massive disasters just trying to put a shuttle into Earth orbit. Geez, how come the technology was so much better in 1968 than it is today? We saw, in “Apollo 13,” these engineers computing orbits with slide rules, by golly!

kvs wrote:And your point is?

Exactly that.

This is a more interesting stuff: https://flybynews.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/moon-landing-hoax/

http://shatteringthematrix.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2127676%3ABlogPost%3A700730&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post#.VkL4RtKrRR0

This is a very interesting by Jarrah White in that he discusses the probable reasons for Russian silence.
http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html

Robert Braeunig has attempted to downplay James Van Allen’s original dire warnings about the radiation belts being deadly within a short period of time.

Scans of both articles by Van Allen are provided below so that readers can evaluate the science for themselves. Particularly, the conclusion at the end of the first article:

“Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space travelers against the effects of radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles.”

This hardly seems to be arguing that short term radiation belt exposure is safe. Especially when coupled with his later declaration that “effective shielding is quite beyond engineering feasibility in the near future”, it’s hard to imagine why anyone would think Van Allen’s articles only discuss long-term radiation exposure and not short-term radiation exposure.

Braeunig also neglects to tell his readers that Jarrah’s reference for 10-100 MeV electrons in the outer Van Allen belt was a NASA site that specifically covers the MAARBLE (Monitoring, Analyzing and Assessing Radiation Belt Loss and Energization) project. Instead keeping it conveniently anonymous and calling it a “dubious source” that “shouldn’t be trusted”.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/JWhite.htm

Did the Russian government just expose the moon landing hoax?





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYETGJ3OGE



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZzFemBUJQ

andalusia wrote:This is a very interesting by Jarrah White in that he discusses the probable reasons for Russian silence.

Silence for wheat, sounds legit.

andalusia wrote:Did the Russian government just expose the moon landing hoax?





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYETGJ3OGE



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZzFemBUJQ

There is no point showing such show stopper examples of fakes to the true believers.   The cross hair ones are a laugh riot just like
the crossing shadows.   Too many people can cut and paste fragments of facts in their brains and come up with a plausible, to them,
set of excuses.  

For me, it is the Moon dust scatter that kills all of these alleged Moon videos stone cold dead as genuine items.   Unless the Moon
is covered in a lead dust layer of a rather coarse grain, these are all clearly Earth based videos.   It is critical to note that there
are no processes removing the fine grain (under 10 microns) dust on the Moon but there are processes that form very find dust.
In particular, solar weathering or exfoliation due to thermal expansion and contraction (this is why you have the dust there in
the first place).  The other process is meteor impacts.   Even if they blast most of the fine stuff beyond the gravitational control
of the Moon, they will leave some small fraction behind.   These processes have been working over billions of years.   The Moon
dust size distribution will have a tail spanning into the sub micron size range.

The presence of fine grain dust on the Moon would produce curtains of dust behind the Moon buggy.   All grains of dust would fall out
at the same rate since there is no air resistance but

1) they would be easy to launch to very high altitudes because of the low gravity and the lack of air,

2) the smaller ones would be easier to launch due to smaller inertia so the dust thrown up by the wheels would be from
the small radius end of the spectrum; so on top of being able to throw the dust six times higher for the same initial
launch velocity as on Earth, the spectrum of initial dust velocities would be higher,

3) their settling under free fall would be slow enough to be captured on these videos and would not be instantaneous even
if there is no terminal velocity due to air drag.  If you time the fall of a large rock thrown in the air on Earth, it would fall about 2.5
times slower on the Moon in the sense of the total amount of time taken.

Look at the picture of the shoe prints on the moon and the actual shoe that NASA says Armstrong wore; they look nothing alike look at the picture of both bottom shoes, just scroll down.  To me this is probably better evidence that the moon dust that kvs and Garry B are talking about.

http://shatteringthematrix.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2127676%3ABlogPost%3A700730&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post#.VkVks9KrRR0




     This is a writing from the website: It looks nothing like the photo NASA said is the first “boot print” on the moon, (BELOW RIGHT). NASA eventually backtracked for this slip up and now claims the boots Armstrong wore on the moon were “jettisoned” before the LEM took off from the lunar surface and weren’t returned to earth…….SHUUUUUUURE they were!!

So Garry B, Do you really believe the US moon landings were real or potentially a hoax? The American government has a history of lieing and it wouldn't surprise me that they lied about this. People who have studied the JFK assasination know that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the long gunman and the US has a history of lieing and underrating the effectiveness of Russian military equipment in war and overrating their own equipment which has been well documented on this forum.

I originally believed the people who questioned the moon landings were insane but many of their critiques are valid. I pride myself on being an independent thinker and like to hear alternative theories about a lot of subjects to see if they are valid.  It's how I stumbled across this website.   It is pure insanity to question the superiority of American weapons where I live but by reading alternative non-mainstream sites like this one; I have a profound appreciation of Russian military power.

Do you think it was a hoax?

Like Garry said earlier, they really need to re-read the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."

6-7 years ago I thought the US were the saviors of the free world, using their military power to depose of totalitarian dictatorships and free those poor country's citizens. I thought Russia in the 21st century was essentially a shithole, and their entire military had simply been a facade during the Cold War, I thought (and had been lead to believe through my school curricular, my family's TV, my country's news media, my own father and grandfather) that if it had really come to World War III then the USA and the superior power of the West would easily have destroyed the Soviet bluff that was their military. They simply didn't because they had sympathy for the poor oppressed Russian people (no, I'm not joking).

Fast-forward 6 months and and as a young lad of 15 I had developed an obsession with the Russian beauties that were the Su-27 and MiG-29 after reading about them in an old Aviation magazine. After studying them more through the power of the internet, I was soon developing a (obviously unhealthy in my family's eyes) interest with Russia itself. I still couldn't get past the brain block that was that the US wasn't actually all good, and I saw it as irrelevant to my interest anyway.

Fast-forward some more years and I had practically come 180 on everything, and I knew the US were certainly not the paladins of humanity in the 21st century, and that Russia has been in a fight for its survival since WWI.

2014 and I'm now positive the US inflicted "9/11" on themselves.

2015 and now I would not be surprised in the slightest if they faked the moon landing. I'll just leave it as (shakily) true, until proven false.

It's bizarre how these things are not discussed, simply because they are too taboo so to speak. Even with my acceptance of the US being inherently evil with their actions, I wasn't willing to accept that they had killed 3000 of their own people in an event that would change the way the world operated so dramatically, until last year.

Moral of the story is that how can you believe anything that comes out of that country now? How can you not question their vaunted achievements? They have destroyed every shred of their integrity, so much so it calls their very history into question.

Just a quick driveby shooting from me...

The notion that "if they could do it then, why can't we do it now..therefore it didn't happen" argument is silly.
There are a host of reasons why things change, not least for reasons of money/budget.

A simple example will suffice to show how silly the argument is:

40 years ago I could buy a ticket to fly on a commercial airline flight that travelled at twice the speed of sound.
I could get to my destination twice as quickly.
I can't do that today.
Therefore, the Tu-144 and Concorde were obviously fake.