The Truth Behind the Moon Landings

Ratings: 6.77/10 from 102 users.


The Truth Behind the Moon LandingsDocumentary debunking the conspiracy theories surrounding the first moon landing. Amid an era of global political suspicion the greatest conspiracy theory of all time casts doubt on what should be the greatest achievement of the age.

Did the Apollo 11 astronauts really land on the moon, or was this an elaborate hoax by NASA to satisfy political demands?

Bill Kaysing the former head of technical publications for Rocketdyne is considered, by many, to be the father of moon conspiracy theorists.

Both he and Ralph René the author of NASA Mooned America set out their stall with all the evidence supporting their theory:

Contradicting shadows in photographs, moon walk was a slow motion film, no stars in night sky, flag fluttering in a breeze, lack of Computing power to land the lunar module, can't manipulate camera to take photographs, dust below lunar module should have been disturbed, film would be damaged by radiation... etc.

More great documentaries

479 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Johannes_wl

    After seeing the most awesome doc, "For all mankind" yesterday, I'm looking forward to see this one!

  2. steve

    at 6:00 narrator says the guy lives low profile,yet here he is on national television,this is made purely for the ratings.

  3. vinny

    this is the best site, the only thing i dont like is that there is so many things to watch haha thank you for the great site now back to the video

  4. pushpender Pannu

    Video links not working. Saying page not found

  5. Mdr

    working fine for me, thanks Vlatko!

  6. Marie

    Yeah, I like how the narrator says Bill Kaysing is keeping a low profile, and then goes on to tell us where in Nevada he lives.
    Loved this doc! The mythbusters epi on this subject was interesting too.

  7. Achems Razor

    Ongoing saga to refute the refuters, ask the deniers about the corner cube reflectors that are in place on the Moon, they disregard that, because they do not know what to say, and have not even visited where the data is collected from such, on Earth.

    And of course the deniers think that the Russians are st00pid. That they would not know in a heartbeat that there was no manned Moon landing! Right!

    The onus is on the deniers to prove that there was no manned Moon landing. It is the same as the religee's having to prove that there is a God! not the other way around!

  8. Brett

    Interesting video.
    It is unfortunate that a program that promotes itself as objectively examining the evidence seems seems to fail to provide clear explanations for each of the doubts raised.
    The supposed anomolies are presented reasonably well but the explanations are short and somewhat lacking in detail. I would have prefered more of the science relating to each point.
    As I am still a doubter of the maned moon landing based on what I would say are reasonable grounds, I felt the pro moon landing people in the video lost credability when they turned to some name calling near the end.
    I don't consider myself a "cultural vandal" and I am not reticent to learn more about the laser or what the Soviets believed. I would like to learn more about those aspects.
    To me, name calling means that someone is not confident in their own argument.
    I and many others are not "conspiracy theorists" we are simply ordinary imperfect people, who are not convinced by the evidence provided by some governments and agencies of some events that are alleged to have taken place. That we express these doubts in forums like this I think is good. So it would be nice if people could please refrain from name calling and catagorising us. I am no more a conspiracy theorist than these people are apologists.
    I think the question at the end of the program asking what would be easier, going to all the trouble of making an elaborate hoax or simply building a rocket and going to the moon betrays the lack of objectivity of the producers.
    I think that somehow puting men on the moon may have involved a bit more than that .....


  9. insomniac

    Conspiracy theorist is derogatory only because you see it as such. The fact is that these people are advancing the THEORY that there was a CONSPIRACY to fake the moon landing. Conspiracy theorist seems a dead on description to me in this particular case.

  10. Brett

    Thanks for the response.
    Then equally people on both sides of the argument are conspiracy theorists.
    Those who say it was faked say there was a conspiracy by some people to fake it.
    Those who say it was real say there is now a conspiracy by some people to disprove it.
    How about we agree on just "theorists"?
    That way both sides are treated fairly as they try to establish the truth. Because that is what we want isn't it? Or do we just want to be proven right?

    @Achems Razor
    With regards to your point on religion.
    I think both sides neither have to prove or disprove anything except for themselves.
    Faith is such a personal thing. If one is to either believe in the existance of God or not, then wouldn't one have to only prove it, or disprove it, to themselves?
    Point: If you have examined the question and have concluded there is no God and that satisfies you - Good for you!
    If I on the other hand have examined it and reach the conclusion that there is a God - Good for me!

    Funny though, one of the most compelling reasons I have for believing there is a God is from looking at the earth, moon & stars. Yet others may say that these are the reasons they believe there is not a God.



  11. Sweevo

    Well said Achems Razor

  12. gero2006

    I met Sir Patrick Moore some years ago. He seemed to be about seven foot tall and six foot wide; was covered in shapeless, rumpled clothes; and had the eccentric energy of a hyperactive child. He was making a journey and needed assistance boarding his train. I helped him out but it was a shattering experience. It was like meeting the Honey Monster (Suger Puffs advert - UK breakfast cereal beloved by children of all ages). Don't get me wrong, he was charming but in a small space like a train carriage it was a bit overwhelming.

  13. Achems Razor


    If religion is a personal thing of faith that you keep to yourself, so be it.

    How about telling that to the countless others that push their religions, like JW's or Mormons that literally chase people down the street, or ones that bang on doors forever to push their unwanted beliefs, to name a few.

    Or the religee's that intersperse their holier than thou, cat ate the canary type attitude on some of these doc's that have nothing to do with any type of religion.

    And at @Laz: unclear verbalizations that remind me of a b1tch dog biting on the heels and running away.

  14. Charles B.

    My wife wants me to take her to a meeting . . . documentary or making the love of my life happy?!? Moon landing or keeping the Mrs. from being upset at me?!? Man! What a choice.

    . . . . of course I'll choose TDF! But, later, after I take the Mrs. to her meeting. I've been forbidden to baby sit even (least the house be made into a disaster area), so I better log off if I know what's good for me!

  15. insomniac

    @Brett: sorry but that makes absolutely no sense at all. No one is saying there is "a conspiracy to disprove it". That would be like saying atheism is a conspiracy to disprove the bible. I suggest you look up what the word conspiracy means.

  16. Brett

    @ Achems Razor
    I actually dont mind discussing religion with anyone.
    I dont think the world would be half as bad as it is if people could rationaly discuss religious beliefs or whatever subject they want. As long as it is done with respect.
    I cant say I have ever been chassed down the street by anyone. I think it is too easy to characterise certain groups in a negative way. I have had many good discussions in my 50 years with all sorts. Not once can I recall having experienced any of these common negative characterisations. Most have been ordinary people with ordinary beliefs. We may agree to disagree but almost always we end shaking hands and wishing each other peace.
    Why the reluctance to talk about such things and be tollerant of others viewpoint?

    Back on the matter of the onus of proof. What level would you prefer, "beyond reasonable doubt" as in criminal cases or "on the balance of probability" as in civil matters?

    The higher level doesn't necessarily get to the truth. It just requires reasonable doubt to be raised. I think on the balance of probability would be best. Then at least it can be measured. Eg. 51% - 49%

    What do you think?


  17. Brett

    @ Insomniac
    Point taken. I was using a broader definition of the word rather than its literal interpretation. I'll try to be more careful in the words i use.
    Thanks for clarifying that for me.

    The point I was trying to make though is that some people dont believe that it happened as the authorities are saying. So, they are labeled "conspiracy theorists"

    On the other hand, there is a collective of people & agencies (as shown in the video) that say that these "conspiracy theorists" are knowingly not availing themselves of all the facts yet publish their belief that the moon landing was fake. By so doing, these "conspiracy theorists" are acused of trying to damage the government and individuals involved.
    It is in this capacity that I made the "conspiracy" link. In that some government agencies and individuals believe that "conspiracy theorists" are involved in acts that could be defined as- "a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act" against those involved in the moon landings ie: a conspiracy against the government & individuals etc.

    Sorry if this was long winded but semantics is a minefield.

    Getting back to my original point, it is easy to dismiss "conspiracy theorists" by attaching a label to them. Instead why not use the logic of the argument to answer the valid questions raised. After all, if we don't question, we are no more than sheep ...

  18. coyote03

    @ Brett

    I'm just interested to know which parts of this documentary didn't satisfy you? I felt all the theories were debunked quite well, and the fact that Van Allen himself debunks the radiation claims (in other writings) and the fact that the 'debunkers' have nothing to say about the laser reflectors on the moon (which provide us with scientific data every single day), just adds to the scientific proof that we did in fact go to the moon.

  19. Brett

    I just thought that they dismissed the claims with very little evidence.
    The shaddows for instance. Whilst saying that shadows can go in different directions because of the topography they showed the angles produced when a shadow goes over a kerb.
    OK, in that type of situation it can change angles over the ground at the point where the land changes, but it still extends beyond that point following the same original angle away from the light source. The many suspect moon shadow photos don't show this like in the kerb example. Rather, they show the shadows heading off at various angles not related to the only light source (sun)
    That is just one.

    But I think people need to really listen and take in what these "experts" are saying. Like the chap who was talking about the contingency plan to escape the effects of the solar flare radiation. Quite matter of factly he said that they would have "hours if not days" to do something about them. He didn't mention that the LM was foil thin and the fuel tanks were not full having already used almost half their fuel when landing on the moon. But he basicaly implied that they would have just quickly launched the LM off the moon and turned its back on the radiation confident that some tin foil and a partialy full fuel tank would protect them.

    Would you entrust your life in that contingency plan? Would you risk the life of others like that?

    With regard to the reflectors, they probably are there on the moon. The lenses are multi faceted so I believe they don't require aiming from the moon. Actually that would have been just about impossible to do anyway given the circumstanstances. The lenses could have been placed there by unmaned craft. They do that too.

    I think it is important to note the producers presentation of the information to see what I mean too. The producers really try to emote a cynical reaction from the audience in their reference near the end about people once not believing the Earth being round and implying that anyone who isn't convinced that man walked on the moon is in the same mind.

    The producers viewpoint is very clearly presented.

    Go back & watch it again and you will notice that the scripting is very cleverly worded to prompt a particular response from the viewer. An emotional response at that. I have seen this type of scripting and been a victim of it myself many years ago. People tend to go along with the narative without giving the content too much thought at the time. Once that emotional response to the words is developed, certain opinions are established in the viewers mind. The facts tend to get lost or dismissed to some extent via the emotional response.

    Its an old one that works well.

    I guess all I am saying is look at it with open eyes and questions should arise

    Thanks for taking the time to read my lengthy blurb!



  20. jay

    surely the chinese will video all the "junk" left behind by the apollo missions proving once an for all whether we did or not go to the moon

  21. beetee

    what about the lights of the capsile itself?? wouldn't a space shuttle have an external light source ?

  22. Ron


    Man walked on the moon. People watched the rockets go up. Mythbusters showed that all the predominant theories against the man landing were just that myths. Every astronaut that went there lived a long life and had ample time to cave on the theory as did everyone who built the rockets designed the rockets did the communications at mission control worked out the formula's for appollo 13 being able to make the proper trajectory etc. If it was a hoax would appollo 13 even have been necessary? why would anyone say....Houston we have a problem.

    If you don't believe something like this happened then there is only one label for you. A conspiracy theorist on a man landing on the moon.

    I personally think religion is the biggest conspiracy out there and you can call me whatever you want on that I have no problem with that label because I have absolutely no sound proof that God had anything to do with a very dense about of matter exploding and creating the universe. That event is simply explained in some book of fairy tales that is not even logical with the knowledge we have on how things began or work in the cosmos.

    and Jay has it correct. when the Chinese video all the junk left behind it will make those who think this was some conspiracy simple have one big cup of shut the blank up.

  23. karliah

    wow Brett you pretty much said everything I was thinking. Their arguments that the moonlanding happened were really weak and the people they interviewed who did not believe in the moon landing gave extremely good arguments but were somehow made to look foolish. I really liked that man with all those cats, since I have eight myself.
    Oh by the way im a Jehovah Witness and ive never chased anyone down a street and have never forced my beliefs onto anyone, our aim is to just tell people what we believe and to discuss it in a respectful polite manner. I have always been respectful of other religions and love asking questions about their beliefs.

  24. Brett

    Thanks Ron!
    You are welcome to call me what you want.
    Although name calling doesn't really achieve anything.
    Rather than bore you with answers to your questions I would just ask you to think of reasons why yourself. Any reasoning person should be able to come up with some semi plausable reasons. They don't have to be true. But they do show that it may be within the realms of possibility, no matter how far fetched
    Here, I'll get you started.
    Because NASA departments were so compartmentalised and often operated independently of each other it may have made it easy to acomplish a "conspiracy" by having the various departments "do their thing" whilst believing it was all being brought together at a higher level.

    Now, I'm not asking you to believe it. I'm simply asking that you consider it as a possibility, no matter how remote.

    With regards to your comment about religion can I suggest that you read the "book of fairy tales" that you euphamisticaly refer to. I have read it and apart from the creation account (which incidently, scientist appear to generally agree with the sequence of creative periods as mentioned in "the book") it contains lots of useful guidelines on good sanitation, family & personal development etc. I would recomment it as a good read, although the geneology in the Hebrew & Aramaic bits can get a bit tedious.

    @ Karliah
    Isa 43:10,11 :)

  25. joe

    This is an extremly biased documentary. The fact that much of the conditions they replicated on Earth match the pictures taken on the lunar surface still dosnt mean that man went to the moon. It only means that NASA thought about the physics surrounding the event before they shot filming. A lot of these conspiracy theorists have made valid points in the past, such as some of the cross hairs on the camera passing behind objects in the pictures. And as for the moon rock evidence, plenty of moon rocks can be found here on earth as the result of shoot offs from asteroid impacts on the moons surface. I dont think that this documentary took the conspiracy theorists seriously and was basicaly an attempt to label anyone with an alternative view about this subject as a hick.

  26. joe

    One other thing, the fact that there are mirrors on the moon also dosnt prove that man went to the moon, it just proves that there are mirrors on the moon. The Luna 9 space probe, which was a soviet probe, was the first object to touch down on the moon in 1966 and it was completly unmanned.

  27. Andrew Mead

    If you value your sanity don't watch this video--or--find some way to edit-out the background music. For one thing--it's incredibly weird and unsuited to the subject of the documentary. The text is far too short and it ends-up repeating so many times it drives into your skull like a corkscrew connected to a pneumatic drill. It's been a week and I can't get the stinking tune out of my head-it's driving me nutz! AHHHHHHHH!

    Seriously --the music is a severe annoyance.

  28. Charles B.

    That was wonderful! It answered every question I had. Loved the music. Combind with the Mythbuster one, I'm fully convinced the moon landing was real (but in fact I never doubted).

  29. corey

    i am now undecided.but A plus for the music

  30. Simon

    Awfully one-sided view documentary made to ridicule people who question things, things which are indeed questionable. The example of the converging shadows is recreated with the same studio settings as the supposedly real footage. Why are they converging? Because the light source was near the subject in both the original and the replica. The sun never gets that near.

  31. Achems Razor


    What you said about the light does not make sense! It does not matter how far the light is away, might only vary in brightness, for one thing the sun light would be far brighter than any artificial light source would be. Still the brightness would not matter one iota, with the converging shadows.

  32. Masher1

    I cannot believe that rational mind still thing man WALKED on the moon. Two words "Cosmic Radiation" are all you need to know. Forget the FACT we never did it again. If we had done it in 1967 We would have been back, There would be a base... Heck there would be a casino and a Starbucks at every base IF WE HAD GONE THERE in 1967.

    At the time 30 BILLION dollars was a handsome sum. You all don't think they bombed the hell out of Vietnam with the cash they said they used do you? How many times have you hear "Well if we can put a man on the moon!" Billions of more dollars have been sucked out of your lives because of a NASA movie shot in the Sixty's.

    Look at the photo of every satellite depicted above the globe and you can see the limits of man and his machines. Anything above 190 miles high needs so much shielding it is cost prohibitive to operate anywhere over 500 miles high on account of the high levels of cosmic radiation. find the photo have a look for your own self.

    The claim that the Apollo 13 boys toured from the Earth to the Moon AND back inside the Eagle lander is so beyond the realm of realistic i cannot fathom the propaganda needed to sell it to science and it's followers. Being conned and covering up the lies are a staple of American culture. Lies about the Apollo program have been Blatantly obvious since i was in school some 20 years ago and everyone i have tried to tell thinks i am nuts but they are WRONG.

    If you get OUTSIDE the protection of the Van Allen belts without enough shielding to protect you YOU DIE.

    The Saturn V rocket Can't launch enough mass to do the job ONCE forget many times. Go ahead do the MATH. See the lies?

    Have you ever wondered WHY there is ZERO photos from orbit of the sites? Why there is ZERO historical photos of Footprint tracks at those sites?? That's because they could not be bothered to produce them. If Google can image my back yard in clear enough detail to see a tarp and a picnic table there the the boys with the heavy gear can surely image EVERY SINGLE FOOT PRINT THERE. Japan KNOWS. Russia KNOWS. China KNOWS. But the BS is Cost effective to maintain for future rip-off power.

    Some day an intrepid INDEPENDENT explorer is going to do this set of surveys and i will laugh my ass off once i am proved correct. Footprints and lander remains,Experiments and other things Or the lack thereof will tell the tail. You can't fake footprints on the moon too easy can you? Forget Thousands of em! Gear that SHOULD be there is not going ANYWHERE is it? T

    he target one commenter is referring to could be a field of cube reflective powders dispersed over a wide area and still do the trick. Hell a laser beam shot from earth to the moon from the most accurate laser would still be miles wide once it got there anyway and the return would be wider sill.

    Many things abound on the moon shot and BS surrounding it but Cosmic Radiation will get man every time. And don't get me started on MARS....!

  33. Charles B.

    I agree with Razor:

    Landscape plays the biggest part in the way a shadow falls, doesn't it? Optical illusion is a part also as a hillside will change the shape of the shadow also. Thay showed that in the clip on that part.

    Multiple light sources give multiple shadows. When there is one shadow for each object, then there is one light source no matter how the shodows appear to fall. Put two lights in a room and stand in the middle. You have two shadows, not one. In the pictures we see all the rocks, etc. have one shadow each, not two. The angles vary due to the uneven terrain they were on.

  34. Charles B.

    Simon: Shadows DIVERGE with a close light source. They CONVERGE from a distant light source. Try it yourself at home with two cups or something on a table. Move a light closer and then further away. See what the shadows do. They 'split" apart with a close light, and "come together" with a distant light. The moon pictures are consistent with a distant single light source, not a close one. :-)

    Peace to you.

  35. Peckar

    Obama will be on Mythbusters, after proving one of the U.S.A's greatest feets, ironic huh.

  36. jack

    Dammit Vlatko!!! You make it very easy to lose oneself for hours at a time!!!! Ca't complain tho... this is muy awesome and informative site. Keep it coming

    Vlatko for speaker of the House!!!!!!!!!!

  37. corey

    know i know for sure Masher1 thx alot your my new hero.jk you forgot to mention that thered be nuclear bases.Thats pretty much the best reason to have a base there.

  38. Ron

    Brett I called you a label not a name.

    Look. People by the thousands were there in person to watch the rocket lift off. A receiver dish was located in Australia to keep communications going. And I could go on but it is pointless because of your fixation on the possiblity of a conspiracy which you take offence to being attached to though you want others here to get on the program. (?????)

    I have read nor seen any scientist who says the events that created the planet took 6 days. I know you will respond back that maybe it meant X million or billions of years for 1 day in the book. Well maybe it meant 6 Days and therefore the rest of the book stands in question to legitimacy. And then lets take a look at Noah and how every living thing on the planet from every corner and every climate including insects etc got on a boat while the rest of the planet flooded and perished. If the glove don't fit you must aquit.

    Nice try but I think the whole planet could learn a lot and grow a lot from getting to know what Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins are preeching. And then maybe a little John Lennon ....Imagine. Rather than eye for an eye and stone the woman to death and kill the people who are standing on my god given land etc etc etc while you talk to me about the good morals in your book.

  39. Ron


    Well it should be interesting to see the Chinese pull off the same hoax.

  40. Ron

    Brett from post #8

    "we are simply ordinary imperfect people, who are not convinced by the evidence provided by some governments and agencies of some events that are alleged to have taken place."

    People are not name calling you are admitting to believing a theory that what most people believe to be believe differently and that an organization manipulated the what others say as the truth.

    Conspiracy - an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

    Theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

    Uh that would be you

    So you can lay off the you calling me names stuff. Read what you post and stay on track.

  41. corey

    actually there was an anchient flood that is proven to have occured in the middle east a long time ago.and its also been told in the egyptian relgeon as well.a good documentary that i would recomend for you is zietgiest.make sure though that you watch the first 1 though.

  42. corey

    ps i am not trying to stick up for any fairytale,just the facts.

  43. David

    At 8:00 look at the top of the backpack, there is an aerial looking thing that glints in the light. Strangely this is some shots and photos but not others.

  44. Izyk

    OK, so to prove that man actually landed on the moon, they built a "moon set"... on earth. Doesn't that actually lend credibility to the theory that the moon landing was done on a "moon set" in 1969?

    The fact that our government consistently lies to us about EVERYTHING, leads me to believe that man walking on the moon was indeed a hoax. The insecure, childish nature of the corrupt souls in charge of this country is proof in my opinion. Also, the fact that "we" haven't been back to the moon since then, should make you think.

    "We can't let the Russians win, we're the United States of America damn it!!" I imagine that as the opening line in a meeting which is then followed up with the idea of creating the moon landing. It probably originated as a joke, but then quickly turned into reality once they realized that getting a man to the moon and back was impossible.

    You don't have to believe what I believe, but if you can't entertain the idea of a possible deception, then all you are is one of the many mindless sheep bringing shame to our country and humanity as a whole. Learn to think for yourselves and stop allowing the establishment of evil known as the United States government do your thinking for you.

  45. Brett

    @ Ron
    OK - Being gentle doesn't seem to get through.

    Gloves are off!

    i think you may have misunderstood me. I don't have any fixation with being called a conspiracy theorist. I am just trying to get you to realise that just as people dismiss an alternative theory as a conspiracy theory, the 9/11 Commission reports finding are also, by definition, a conspiracy theory -

    19 hijackers conspired to commit an offence armed with knives & box cutters crashing 2 planes into 2 buildings in NY and bringing 3 buildings down (2 in less than 2 hours and all three at free fall speed and into their own footprint)+

    One of the hijackers (who his instructor said he would struggle to fly a single engine light aircraft) manages to fly a commercial jet aircraft & pull of a virtually impossible piece of flying to crash into the Pentagon (the most heavily defended & watched building in the world yet no attempt to intercept any of the planes was made and no video of a plane hitting the Pentagon has been released)+

    The 4th plane crashes into the ground and disappears completely leaving no debri (9/11 report says it disappeared completely into soft ground leaving no wreckage at all! The report actually says that the plane hit the ground and went straight through and the reason no wreckage was visable was that the plabe was completely underground)

    None of these types of events have ever happened before or since anywhere in the world - only on that one particular day

    Coincidently, the entire US defence system was rendered useless due to a number of military "exercises" that confussed the military

    Now, these are just a few of the hundreds of obvious discrepencies in the official 9/11 Commission report. I've read it!

    Oh! And you think an administration wouldn't be involved in something so evil as killing their own.

    Think again. There is clear, undeniable evidence that they would - Undeniable evidence that they have!

    After the 9/11 attack, the White House instructed the EPA to reverse its public warning that the area around ground zero was toxic. The EPA obediently did what they were told and released public statements advising people that it was safe to breath the air (smoke & dust).

    40,000 workers (heros) were told it was safe to undertake their rescue & clean up work without respirators. The air was full of asbestos and other deadly contaminates and the White House sent the trusting workers in to ground zero knowing full well that they were at extremely high risk.

    It is estimated that more people will die of the resultant cancers than will have died in the innitial attack.

    Wake up and smell the flowers Ron!
    The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable

    It was a set up!
    And you have fallen for it! Hook, line & sinker!
    They orchestrated their "New Pearl Harbour" (their words, not mine!)

    Cheney & the others lied all along and they didn't care one bit about who died as a result. And they still dont care.
    Thousands still die in the supposed "war on terror" nearly 10 years on & with no end in site.

    I can't believe that you & others don't really look at the facts. I can't believe that no doubt whatsover comes up in your mind about the validity of the US governments conspiracy theory.

    You rather believe the ?official" conspiracy theory

    Like lambs to the slaughter...

  46. Brett

    Now that I have shown that governments do conspire for their own reasons.
    Don't you think that it is possible that during the cold war that it may have been advantagious for one superpower to hoodwink the other over its capabilities.

    So perhaps an alternative theory about the moon landings isn't so weird after all?

    Governments do lie and they tell really big ones sometimes too!

  47. Ron


    You are a sociopath

    I labeled you a conspiracy theorist and then you came back at me with "you calling me names"

    Now you say you don't have any fixation with it???

    You are nuts

    Good day to you

  48. Ron



  49. Brett

    @ Ron
    I thought you were looking for some serious dialog.

    I gave you so much info that you could have commented on but you only come back with calling me a couple of names - oops! sorry, "labels"

    I get it.

    You are making the point that once the 9/11 apologists loose the argument they ignore the facts and attack the person.

    Very clever!

  50. corey

    @ron the documentary i mentiond states sources and also alot of anchient religeon/civilizations have it in there texts.and brett i probably couldnt have said it better my self.

  51. Brett

    Thanks mate!
    I really like good discussion. But when it gets a bit silly like that sometimes I cant help myself



  52. Masher1

    Someone is going to blow it open. China MAY find more reason to do it after the scamers hyper inflate the value out of all those mega stacks of treasury bonds. BUT some of the time i feel like they too are going to use the bullshit to con their Billions into going for a Pie In The Sky Pissing contest.

    In the grand chess game one is not bound by logic. Emotions are King in Statecraft and emotional dicking around is why they have so many psy-op types on the payrolls. In '70's cash the 30 billion blown on the moon shot scam was biblical amounts of cash, China might have a plan to revisit those heady days of excess seeing as USA is going down faster than a whores skirt.

    If one was to think calmly about NASA and it's abilities with a eye to cost/benefit one would clearly see the whole thing is scam. Big bucks SCAM. What did the USA benefit in real terms from the moon shot movie? Clearly every benefit gleaned was Emotional. Gobs and Gobs of chest thumping "Look at how Good we are" "We can walk on the moon there is nothing we cannot do" sheit. Absolute rubbish for 30 BILLION. After the last game was played on the moon shot the REAL scam began and is still raking heaps o dough.

    Who thinks that if the moon shot blew that they would have managed enough frenzy to float the Space shuttle program? Not a chance. How much money went up in that adventure? ISS,Mir,Skylab how much on those? More than they cost that is for sure. "Ya don't think they spend $400 dollars on a hammer $700 on a wrench do ya?". Spy sat's are a very costly game. Wanna guess the percentage of orbital population is for Spy gear? Way more than half that's for sure. And if it's way more than half then the cost of black programs cost 10X the cost of for any civilian stuff.

    Have a look at the Photo depicting the entire Satellite population. Just try to say even 10% of those are for peaceful purposes and you are into deluded territory.

    Trillions of YOUR money shot into space all to stride a power grip over YOUR life for as long as they can. Do you thing your ability to call the world up on your phone is for your own benefit? Today if you have or use a phone ANYWHERE you are being spied on. Tracked. Eavesdropped. Recorded.. Filed. Thinking otherwise is silly.

    This thing called the 'Internet's' Started as DARPANET. Not one byte is missed if it is deemed important. Most don't get just how limited the real internet is in reality for the average user. CONTROL is the reason. POWER is the product and the good ol moon shot was the grease to make it a functional reality for every single human overshadowed by it's lie.

    When i was in another time basking in the multitude of different glows from the space program i saw a curious event go down. That event starred Mr Buzz Aldrin. The event featured a question to Buzz. That Question was "Would you swear on the Bible that you walked on the moon?" What was Buzz to respond??

    He assaulted the man asking the question. Punched him out. Threw him to the floor right on video. At that moment i KNEW the whole thing was a farce. That moment i KNEW it was a scam. Looking up the other mistakes of there fairy story hammered the nail into Mr Aldrin's coffin and that of the entire NASA game.

    Trillions of YOUR cash GONE. Millions of persons future lives lost to a lie. All brought down by Cosmic Radiation.

    Sucks Eh?

  53. BuckOhFive4Freedom

    Damn it Brett! Quit being so reasonable!
    Some of us have taken a lot of time to construct our media induced warped view of reality. If you start messing with that than the house of cards comes crashing down and we're forced to admit we're wrong and our gov'ts actually don't act in the people's best interest.
    Keep it to yourself, I have some American Gladiators to watch.

  54. Ron

    Brett you are incapable of a meaningful or logical debate.

    You will never see that or understand it which reflects your whole belief system around what you are saying you are not then admitting to what you are only to turn around and tell people you are not.

    You make no sense in your debate. There is nothing left but to say you are a sociopath with a medium.

    And corey you are asking me to rely on Zietguist as a reputable source yet you are supporting man never walked on the moon. This is all way over the top. Maybe the both of you should buy guns and ammo and hold your bible for what is coming based on your belief in government.

    Government the all powerful manipulators who pull the shades over the worlds eyes and create history as they please.

    I am telling you straight up and you will not reply to this because you have nothing to say on it. If your government was so adept and convincing with conspiracy why did they not conspire to find WMD in Iraq? Why would they not have made a slam dunk a slam dunk? After all they put a man on the moon X times as a farce in your opinion. Why could they not plant and create the WMD situation in Iraq justifying their whole reason for going to war and gaining global support for doing what they did? They created a 14 year conspiracy but could not do that?

    And the crowd goes silent other than to start talking about 9/11 or some other irrelevant remarks.

  55. Ron

    Masher it is your money not mine.

    You people will never believe. It is in your nature to believe what you believe. The next group to go on the moon will show you and you will come up with the same arguments or find new ones. Its pointless. Just like religion and faith. You believe in documentaries like Zeitguist but a 14 year program that put people on the moon is a farce.

    Some here say that people could not gain the experience or knoweldge to fly planes into buildings. But they have no proof on what is possible behind the controls of a plane because those same people have nevre flown a plane. If you have money you can pay to learn to fly. If you have a brain and you have money and all your limbs you can fly. I know. I see it everyday. It takes experience however to be good. But flying low level the pentagon was an easy target though people say that could not happen. They say it could not happen because they have never flown or worked in the industry to see who or what mentality or lack of mentality actually sits behind the controls on commerical transports and pulls it off on a daily basis.

    Why don't you leave such a dreadful country and go somewhere else or go and gather up all the believers in history being total fabricated BS and enlighten the world? See how many people you get to join your group.

  56. BuckOhFive4Freedom

    ...and after much rambling, Ron comes out on top with a loud "You don't like it, you can GET OUTTT!!!!"

    and the crowd goes quiet indeed. Speaking for myself, I was in awe by how you could write so much, without having really said anything at all.

    BTW based on your prejudice of Christianity, I think you would actually enjoy Zeitgeist - might be right up your alley.

  57. Brett

    Sorry Mate!
    I promise I'll try to keep reason out of the argument in future.
    As you appear to have found out also, it gets one nowhere.
    You need to get a friend like Ron to help.

    You are brilliant man!
    You stay in character so well.
    I would be really struggling to prove my point without your help.
    Any time you feel like commenting on my posts, please do. It helps my cause more than you will ever know.
    So thanks again!



  58. Brett

    @ Ron

    Just a tip mate.
    In your comments to Masher you suggested collecting like minded people.
    Well, you probably don't know but there are lots of professional groups in the movement.

    Pilots for 9/11 truth
    Engineers for 9/11 truth
    Architects for 9/11 truth etc.

    So maybe don't point people in this direction because it breaks your character and we wouldn't want that would we?

    Just stick with the simple stuff with maybe add a "Na na na na na!" at the end.

    Cheers & keep up the good work!


  59. corey

    @ron i am the farthest thing from a christian.And they didnt need to plant WMDS its easy enough to just say there are. And then make up some sort of group that threatans national security.And heres 1 more fun fact,the chinease hired the man who bult the twin towers to make a pretty much indistructable with it what you will.

  60. Tim Osman

    Sorry to interject, but when it comes to 9/11, ok maybe the "conspiracy theorist" are wrong about how it all went down, but we know the gov't is lying. So I think that's the main point. The official story is a lie. Maybe its a half truth, maybe there is an element of truth, but it is definitely not the full truth. Which is a crime in itself when so many lost their lives.

  61. Brett

    @ Tim
    Thanks Tim.
    That was the point behind me mentioning the 9/11 stuff earlier in regards to the moon landing question.
    Those who have an alternative view to the governments may not have the details worked out, but as you pointed out, the official story is obviously not true. Therefore if they have not told the truth in regards to 9/11, it is not illogical to suggest that with the inconsistencies in the official moon landing accounts, that maybe they could also have manipulated the truth there also.

    I find it quite interesting how many people are willing to critisise empirical analysis in favour of nationalistic loyalty.

    All we are saying is why not lay the 2 theories out for examination.

    The governments account Vs Alternative accounts.

    Gather the available evidence and see what the evidence points to.

  62. Creatio-whaa!?

    I love how a documentary that debunks the moon landing conspiracy nonsense eventually leads to a discussion on 9-11 hoaxes...

    In my view, the official Apollo story is plausible. All the facts corroborate each other from SO many different angles; tracking NASA budget spending on rocket parts, transport records for components from the manufacturer to NASA, communications tracking from dozens of relay stations around the globe, moon rocks, reflectors left by the astronauts, thousands of employees and contractors: engineers, administrators, janitors, technicians, both American and foreign, across how many states? countries? continents? And the entire scientific and aerospace engineering community... The percentage of aerospace engineers or astrophysicists who deny Apollo 11 is smaller than biologists that deny evolution. Not to mention the fact that the USSR/Russia and its entire space program's resources either A) were unable to detect this fraud (which would have been absurdly easy for them) or B) they're somehow in on the conspiracy too, which is equally ludicrous. IF the Soviets could have decisively demonstrated Apollo 11's status as a hoax, they stood to benefit in a huge way. Any yet they didn't, and they haven't for over 40 years. The thought that they did know and chose to bite their tongue for some reason is silly.

    The claim that "man has walked on the moon" is indeed pretty incredible, but given all these interlocking, corroborating facts that have stood scrutiny more than 40 years, it becomes plausible. Moreover, what do you have in your arsenal to debunk these claims? Nitpicking over grainy images and videos to point out discrepancies that your "expert" eye is qualified to evaluate? Speculation about interplanetary radiation, of which you have no technical education? All the "lunie" conspiracy hoaxers have is speculation, speculation, speculation, and more speculation.

    "Look at these shadows! This angle right here proves they're in a studio!"

    "Think about the war in Vietnam, man. This is totally a black-ops cover-up to funnel money to CIA and SOCOM operations in Cambodia and Laos."

    "Two words: 'cosmic radiation' dude. Wikipedia says those rays are deadly! The LEM was just tin foil!"

    "LBJ was just staging this as a false flag to keep public scrutiny off of his involvement in JFK's assassination."

    And on and on...

    Look, if you get some sort of comfort out of your tin foil hats and the psychological effect of convincing yourself that you posses insight and analytical skills that everyone else lacks, then good for you. Conspiracy theories are seductive for just that reason: they permit you to indulge in self-induced paranoia and/or Cassandra complexes, and they give you a reason to feel like a unique and special snowflake amongst a crowd of drab, deluded sheep.

    But the reality is that all your claims rely completely and totally on pure, unadulterated speculation, and are frequently contrary to available data. That isn't good enough. The official story is plausible and is supported by the preponderance of available evidence. Moreover, every argument I've heard presented by "lunies" has been rebutted by plausible, reasonable responses. If you honestly want to convince me or you expect to be taken with any ounce of seriousness, speculation isn't going to cut it. Show me several articles published by experts across multiple fields in reputable scientific journals that debunks Apollo. Sway the consensus of the scientific and engineering communities. Find me a couple of former employees (who were directly involved in the scam) who want to spill the beans after all these years. Etc, etc, etc...

    You can't do it. Period. All you got is speculation. Sorry, that isn't good enough for me and in the meantime, I have little tolerance or desire to enable your Cassandra complex.

    Oh, and same for 9-11 "inside job" hogwash too!

  63. Brett

    @ Creatio-whaa!?

    Again a post that relies on a bit of name calling but disappointingly little content.

    The mixed metaphors were good though - snowflakes amongst drab sheep - I like!

    I am interested in the list of "lunie" conspiracy theories you mentioned. Have you looked deeply into them or just had a cursory look?
    I'm not saying whether they are true or not. I'm just wondering how deep you look into things?

    Why I ask is that you also said -
    "Sway the consensus of the scientific and engineering communities".

    Perhaps you are not aware but there are plenty of scientific & professional groups adding their expertise to the search for truth.
    Maybe look into the following list of organisations. They all have websites where you can learn more.

    * Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
    * Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
    * Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth
    * Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
    * Media Professionals for 9/11 Truth
    * Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
    * Patriots Question 9/11
    * Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth
    * Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth
    * Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
    * Scientists - Journal of 9/11 Studies
    * Researchers - Complete 911 Timeline

    Now that should put to rest all this talk about professionals not having their doubts about what governments say at times.

    Cheers & I hope you enjoy the research


  64. BuckOhFive4Freedom

    I find it rather funny that many people wag their collective finger at religion while they worship at the alter of science. Condemning the dogmatic views of religion while embracing the dogmatic views of science - trading the white collar for a white lab coat. Science is just as guilty of prejudice and bias just as religion is.
    By looking at the effect the moon landings had on the american psyche, you can see how it serves to enforce feelings of patriotism. To question it immediatley conjures angry emotions in all who take what the gov't or scientists say on faith. In the age of television we have grown intellectually lazy, and forgot how to think for ourselves, preferring to let others think for us. Speaking for myself, upon watching this film juxtaposed with conspiracy films, i find the evidence suggests the moon landings was false. Don't know for sure, only beyond a reasonalbe doubt.

  65. Masher1

    "The official story is plausible and is supported by the preponderance of available evidence."

    For the cost of 30 billion i would think it would.

    But even at 60 or 100 Billion dollars cost it would still be a lie regardless of it's cost. A cost the person being told the lie was expected to pay. And cost is all the program did to the average person.

    Those INVESTED science types and their part in the whole affair is just another proof of the well worn tracks of propaganda and it's players. Many feed at the trough of a lie and it's sale to the fleeced... Some are still here right now PROPPING up the old lie with name calling trite, More proof.

    We can see the lie. We can SEE the liars. They are lame and stupid to think we do not. Propaganda is only useful for a limited time because this world is filled with persons for who truth is NOT optional. Truth is always laid bare because TRUTH is right and LIES are wrong.

    9/11 was a lie from the git-go if you listen to the Government/Media/Bankers and Military. Everything they said is to push PROPAGANDA (LIES) upon our lives. Any look at the moon shot using "Truth is not optional" as a credo will without doubt come to the truth without any trouble whatsoever.

    The other thing this comment stream is proving is that once started a lie of this size requires ever larger and longer lies to support it and its powers the further down the time line you go.

    Just one little comment with a teaspoon of truth can torpedo a whole tone of carefully crafted lies from the highest places of power. This is the real reason moon shot supporters work so hard and we just have to learn the real and true.... Truth is and will always be truth. Lies require lots of work and support to maintain.

    And Ron sorry to say but yes sir it is and was your cash. Not one human on this rock is able to side step the costs of this grand epic movie of lunar conquest. Not ONE. That's for sure a truth.

  66. Masher1

    So laser reflector seems to be the strongest refuter of hoax theory.

    REFLECTOR: So just Why is it that man had to go to the moon to place a reflector there???

    Could these reflections be procured with Probe type instruments shot up there?

    Could they be a product of as i have said already by a scattering of sand sized glass reflectors like the center line paint used on every modern road?.

    I tend to the Reflective glass sand idea on ease of deployment and the fact the laser beam would be some miles wide in area and the return would be even wider still upon reflection back to earth even from the most precise laser. Atmospheric distortions aside.

    Contrary to Mr Goldfinger REGARDLESS of the level of extraordinary light the laser emits the ability to project a SPOT on the moon is not possible... not even a foot or two in diameter through the atmosphere and it's resultant distortions even if you negate the error of the two reflective surfaces that make a laser beam possible.

    The area the most precise laser would project would be measured in MILES not feet or inches. The power of such a return?? How many photons would come from such a device as the lunar ranging experiment from the miles wide beam after transmission through the thick atmosphere then the long range distance to the moon TWO times?

    Can any independent person replicate these tests and come up with a power level to refute or confirm the tale of the hand placed reflector story? Not even close. Is it more plausible that a field of cells of reflective material is there giving this return? A field of material dispersed by a missile designed to scatter this reflective sand? A substance i might add that has been in use on roads the world over for fifty years before the moon shot movie. I can buy that from the technology of the times and could even buy that the reflections are from Natural occurring glass particles native to the lunar soil makeup long before i will believe Man propped up a 2 foot box reflector there to shoot lasers at.

    ROCKET MOTOR: We are to buy that the landers all set down on the moon Under power and did not blast out the soft light talc like powder from under the lander main motor exhaust?? And we are to buy that the soft and light powder all just vanished? "Kicking up some dust" was the quote. And where is all the dust that would fallout onto the lander after the kicking up dust event? I have seen all the pictures and not one of the landers have ANY of the expected dust fallout present. Most noteworthy being the dishes at the end of the lander legs are clean and uncontaminated with this soft talc. This movie did not try to explain this fact of photographic omission by just not mentioning it because of the need not to call any unwanted attention to the missing dust coatings that would have been present "If"

    PHOTOS: How many were taken? Funny that not one is blurred or that they all seem perfectly framed. Funny that of every frame of film that was supposedly exposed on the moon not one shows ANY radiation anomalies AT ALL. Funny that even with the exposure limits not even one attempt was made to image the stars as far as i can tell. All those rolls of film and not one try? Magnificent Desolation abounds and they just deem stars not a relevant target for at least one attempt of historical record? Another convenient omission i think.

    COMPUTER ABILITY: Neil Armstrong almost bought the farm in a simulator that was not up to the task of doing the job. The footage is seen in this film. Now we are supposed to buy that Apollo turned the tide of serious operational problems and managed 6 successful landings using MANUAL control with a untested lander system? Did they work out the bugs 100% on their first try? Then managed to outfit the other five landers with this info in time to operate? Plausible? I think not.

    As you peel this onion of outrageous story telling one has to come to the conclusion that getting the funding for future projects hinged on a SUCCESSFUL in all respects moon shot program. Having it shoved into everyone's face as a done deal was REQUIRED to maintain many black programs relying on it's successes to continue NASA black hole budgets into the many years to come.

    Emotional blindness held the truth at bay. Logic and Cosmic Radiation Put the nail in Sibrel's hand Buzz's lack of control hammered the coffin shut. And God's own gift of Rationality to man buried it six feet under and no amount of disparaging comments like "Conspiracy theorist" or "Moon shot denier" Will ever exhume it form it's liars grave.

    One Day truth will visit for good on the moon shot hoax/Hollywood movie and i will be laughing the hardest at the ardent Apollo supporters.

    One Day.

  67. Sweevo

    ok Masher1 you seem to be the top man with this then tell me the story to this :-
    On several of the moon misions there was a moon rover and we seen the astronauts driving about and kicking a lot of dust around, the dust does not float about but falls straght down, how did they fake this and you can see with the guys jumping the dust hits the moons surface before they do too :)
    Ok big guy answer that one lol
    and plz dont tell that s**** about "giant vacum chamber"

  68. Achems Razor

    @Sweevo: is right about the dust thing!
    Check the link that @Pete: provided on..."A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" on TDF blog 6.

  69. Masher1

    So what your are saying is gravity is somehow not going to do it's job on the moon? Dust will act some how weirdly on the moon even with the 1/6 gravitation?

    Seeing as time code is not directly encoded onto the video you seem to be doing these measurements with Who is to say anything of rational value on video measurement of dust or how it's going to react.. It's like the guy saying the aluminum frame was resonating causing the waving flag but without a time code empirical measurements are all subjective.

    I will say this the cross hair thing is a good place to see some baloney at work. Where are these registration marks introduced into the film record? I mean are they in the lenses? On the Film? Placed on during processing? Added after processing? Who knows?

    I have not seen any proof the rocket motor exhaust subject using photos can be explained. We all see the clearly undisturbed areas that should be disturbed. No VERY disturbed! The exhaust would blast this dust above the top of the lander and a certain percentage WOULD be present as fallout upon every up turned surface. We all can see that is not so for the landers seen in the photo record.

    Go ahead and find one shot where dust is present on the lander feet. Every shot i have seen it looks like the lander was placed with a crane, None of the shots have me thinking Rocket motor and blasting hot chemical rocket exhaust preventing the landers mass from crashing into the soil.

    The photos of the landing sites just don't show rocket motor effects and SHOULD. No reasonable accounts have dealt with this issue. the waving flag had never been dealt with. Those reg marks. The lack of radiation effects upon the film exposed inside the limited shielding of the cameras was ever dealt with. Some of those camera film packs were exposed for some time to space. None of the film i have seen has any rad damage at all... Not too likely in my estimate seeing as the moon has no atmosphere to block them out and even minor rays will cause film to react.

    As i see it this film does far more to add fuel to the fire of faked moon shot than it does in refuting any of the subjects covered.

  70. Achems Razor

    Dust will not act weirdly on the Moon, it will act according to gravity in a vacuum, and yes the moon is in a vacuum. No atmosphere! dust will surge upwards only as much as the momentum carries it and fall right back down very quickly!

    How about perusing that site I gave, it explains all.

  71. Masher1

    Dust will fall at 1/6 the speed on the moon. Not VERY QUICKLY! 1/6 of the speed... That means Slower than on earth. Lack of atmosphere has no effect. Gravitation pulls the dust back to the surface. 1/6 the gravity then 1/6 the speed of fall. Very basic.

  72. Masher1

    If The man kicking up the dust is in a harness to mimic the 1/6 gravity and the video is shot on earth then the dust would hit the ground at earth norm and the man in the rig will hit at the desired 1/6 rate they would have you think was shot on the moon. As you say the dust IS telling you a tale... It is telling you the gravitational constant is earth norm and the error is in the man not following this constant. Hence the man is in a rig to simulate his mass to 1/6 rate.. Also a rig i might add this very movie clearly shows at work. This rig used to simulate a moon gravity of 1/6 rate of earth shown to be error by the dust coming down at earth normal rate and man doing so later... his doing so is PROOF of the deception as sure as gravity is going to always going to react to any mass the same if the masses are all dropping in the same gravitational field without outside resistance affecting rate. The video of the hippity hoppity moon walks have errors associated with this 1/6 gravity simulator rig. The debunking done on earth and then slowed down to show the effects were done without the 1/6 gravity sim rig so don't have the light in the feet looks of the film record.

  73. Creatio-whaa!?


    LOL I love how you managed to twist the response back around to 9-11 on a "man never went to the moon" debunking comment board. I'm not really interested in discussing or arguing about 9-11 because a) this isn't really an appropriate place, b) I frankly won't take much of anything you say with any seriousness, and c) you have no interest in changing your point of view, so why bother with any sort of argument? To be fair, I don't have much interest in changing my POV on either the moon or 9-11 either. As my original post made clear, if all you have to bring to the table is the same speculation and insinuation, you aren't going to get anywhere with me.


    I don't have any interest in arguing "facts" with you. Once again, all you have is speculation, guesswork, and insinuation. Trying to argue against self-induced Cassandra complexes is a hopeless battle. The structure of your conceptualization of the "truth" is such that nothing can possibly disprove it, and in most cases you can manipulate virtually any fact or observation to support your position. The key to a legitimate theory versus 'conspiracy' theory (in the vernacular sense of "fringe theory") is the component of falsifiability. There has to be some way to disprove your theory of world domination, the Illuminati, trilateral commission, Apollo 11 hoax, whatever. So, I ask you two specific things:

    1) What, exactly, do you believe and disbelieve occurred surrounding Apollo 11 and subsequent human missions to the moon's surface?

    2) What, exactly, would you accept as evidence to demonstrate that YOUR explanation of those events is false?

  74. Brett

    @ Creatio-whaa!?

    I thought I did a pretty good job in bringing 9/11 into a moon hoax blog too :)

    You are right. I probably did go off the track but there was "method in the madness" in so far as I was responding to your reference to "conspiracy theories". Most people tend to lump 9/11 in with moon hoax & JFK when they refer to "conspiracy theories".
    The point I was trying to make by the cross reference is that just as their are lots of professionals who question 9/11, there are some thinking people who question the moon landing too.

    It made sense to me at the time...
    Just as well I didn't say anything about Lee Harvey Oswald shooting the video!
    Maybe I shouldn't write this stuff after midnight...

    Oh well! It was worth a try.

    Thanks for the free personality analysis too!

  75. Masher1

    Air resistance is not a factor. Gravity is going to work the same on dust and space man alike. Seeing them not is proof of some trick. Air resistance will not do anything to falling bodies. Thinking air has any effect on making the dust fall faster than the man is wrong. Both SHOULD fall at the same rate unless there is another factor to prevent it.

  76. Masher1

    @Creatio-whaa!? And YOU Sir you can manipulate virtually any fact or observation to support your position as well.

    "There has to be some way to disprove your theory of world domination, the Illuminati, trilateral commission, Apollo 11 hoax, whatever."

    There is it is called LOGIC. You might employ some for your own health.

    As to it being my theories.... well you seem to think so so i guess you will have to labor on with your bias and keep up the games you play.

    As to your other Questions i think i have been plain enough to comprehend. If not..... Logic is your friend.

  77. Scott

    the sceptics other problem with the their shadow theory is that if there really was two light sources then surely two shadows should be cast completely disproving their theory.

  78. Sweevo

    The Space Power Facility is not big enough for the vidio shot with the moon buggy, that is very obious so you can take that out of the equation.

  79. WTC7

    The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a mass of 210 kg and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 490 kg on the lunar surface. The frame was 3.1 meters long with a wheelbase of 2.3 meters. The maximum height was 1.14 meters.

    The Lunar Module dimensions:
    Height: 17.9 feet (5.5 m)
    Width: 14.0 feet (4.3 m)
    Depth: 13.3 feet (4.1 m)

    As you can see, plenty of room... With a bit of professional interior design, anything can be made to look the way the designer wants it to appear.....

    But I'm not trying here to prove you wrong on the issue of landing, I'm only saying that this line of argument is not the best way of proving anything. Things can be faked.

    I'd recommend watching In the Shadow of the Moon. Personally, I couldn't be persuaded that landings did take place by any scientific argument put forth prior to watching it. What made all the difference in the world for me in this one were the interviews with the astronauts - the way they were talking about their lunar experiences could not be faked in my eyes. They were sincere and that's when I had to accept that they actually walked up there :)

  80. Achems Razor

    @Masher 1:

    You say atmosphere has no effect on dust? well it most certainly does!

    Air/atmosphere is a medium, just as water is a medium, where do you think that you get air pressure from? falling bodies will, and do fall faster when there is no medium holding them back is in "water" or "air/atmosphere".

  81. Masher1

    I would say this The atmosphere does not render the effects noted by many regarding the anomalous discrepancy's in the rates of fall observed in the 1/6 Gravity AND ZERO ATMOSPHERE.

    On the moon air has ZERO effect! As i have said logic is your friend. I get air is a factor BUT not on the moon.

    Same reason the waving flag is so hard to excuse with talk of Chain mail like wiping or resonating aluminum tubing. The human brain has a wonderful capacity to spot and uncover anomalies in things like this and just screams baloney is afoot!

    The flag is never going to be properly explained because the observer will always sniff out the deception using simple logic and observation to deduce what it SHOULD be doing.

    The whole flag issue and lack of reasonable explanation has done way more than most other errors in the moon shot movie. Anyone can look at that flag video and use logic to see the air moving it not some resonating tube or physical wiping effect.

  82. Achems Razor


    I'm flabbergasted, just because you see flag waving on the moon, you figure air must be moving it.

    It seems you really do not know what you are talking about. On most of the moon docs here on TDF. that has already been explained thoroughly. As with most other anomaly's.

    Also haven't a clue of what you are talking about with your dust thing on the moon, as I suspect either do you.

  83. Masher1

    Well Some force is moving that flag. Every single explanation is an obvious cover to hide the facts of the FORCE moving it.

    Saying that there is thorough explanation is not proving it. The ability of thousands of normal folks to see the lie even in the face of tons of PAID documentary hoax debunking films and what not is not proof either.

    The T.V. broadcast is proof. The things proved can not be just shoved aside with 'denier' and 'conspiracy theory' rhetoric.

    Everyone that seen those ANOMALIES knows the meaning of them. Those same folks that have waded through the resulting explanations have seen the lies and the need to cover up their mistakes hence the entire propaganda campaign to sow doubts of the anomalies and their importance.

    The serious import of these anomalies and the amount of time and MONEY spent in all the arenas to keep the masses conned into thinking man was on the moon in person doing work and science whilst exploring our satellite moon tells a tale far more than the obvious wind effect on that flag.... OBVIOUS.

    We live in a world with failures like Challenger,Colombia,Mir,Skylab,Ranger 1 through 6,MARS Climate Orbiter,Hubble,Apollo 18,19 and on and on and we are to believe the most complex and dangerous missions ever went without any serious troubles until the Apollo 13 mission... The 13 is a clue. Getting to that mission without serious troubles with the level of technology of the era being used is not too realistic in light of the other projects and the failures of the early days knowledge in space exploration.

    "Failure is not an option"

    Accidents were written out of the narrative to ensure continued long term funding of the weaponization of space.
    Nothing was going to interfere with the revenues needed to develop ballistic missiles along with development and testing of nuclear weapons.

    The ability of the War machine to do everything and to develop into the required venues hinges upon a successful moon shot to enable the masses to self induce a sense of superiority in the USA and it's ability to master everything related to space.

    sure they took the high ground. Sure they filled the orbit with satellites. Sure they developed the nuke and the ballistic missile to carry it BUT putting boots on the moon never happened. If it had the rush to weaponize the moon would NEVER be stopped. The moon would bristle with bases of military and industrial might.

    Seeing as we never went back with all the subsequent developments in space exploitation at our disposal to draw upon is a TRUTH of the failures of the moon shot movie. A failure we all see with the ANOMALIES daring us not to see the truth of the tricks used to enact the space race into reality.

    Man on the moon is a lie and every denial of this fact rings with a hollow desperate tone EVERY time it is evoked. Ol Buzz saw to that Very Well indeed. Forget Dust,Flags and cosmic radiation.... Everyone supporting this face is not up to the job of the con and they all look like the liars. Spotting a lie and an anomaly is the most precious gift a freeman can ever have at his disposal.

    Edwin Eugene Aldrin, Jr is a liar in my opinion. His behavior and demeanor SCREAM this from the hilltops for all to hear.

    Mr Achems Razor Pleas tell me this IF the NASA boys knew the contrast would be an issue with seeing stars on film why did they not provide film to compensate for the contrast issue with appropriate films,cameras? Provide glare shields? Tripods? I bet those images would be of significant value to plenty of science types.

    If i was walking on the moon i would have imaged as many of the constellations as my time and position on the moon would permit. But this lack of images is a truth. The truth is the smart astronomer could and would spot the faked images in time so they were also written out of the script.

  84. Epicurus

    i love watching all the conspiracy theorists use the airtight logic of The Argument from Incredulity.

    "well i dont understand how it works so it cant be real!!!"

  85. over the edge

    @ masher1
    everything you say is opinion (and you are allowed to have 1) but where is your proof for your claims why would japan confirm the landing (see selene) why would other countries not disprove it, why did russian tracking devices confirm the landing (see ronald sagdeev former director of soviet space institute) please show proof for your claims not arguments and opinions against the accepted claims.

  86. Achems Razor


    Anomaly's and Anomalies mean the same thing! So quit the Caps.

    Australia monitored the moon shots from day one.

    In a vacuum when you give an object motion it will go in that motion forever, that is why the flag appeared to be waving. (simplified)

  87. galdur

    Humans are circa 70% water. As an obvious result their survivability revolves to a great deal around maintaining this ratio. Now; on the moon it's around 110 degrees celsius in the day and around minus 150 degrees in the night. The moon takes 27 earth day to rotate around its axis which means that if you are somewhere on the moon it will be sunlight for 13-14 days and then darkness for 13-14 days. Earth days that is. Hollywood TV days.

    Those astronauts were allegedly strolling around for 3 earth days on the moon in 110 degrees celsius temperature. How the freak did they survive that? Batteries says NASA, I´m not buying that ...

  88. Pawan

    Well i don't know if this thing really happen or not, but considering time when it happen and reason behind doing this act, i believe this mission could be hoax. Both USA and USSR were at extreme point of cold war, and they end up showing false technology to world just to avoid each other head on.. And my valid argument is "why on earth that mankind need to land on moon" considering cost for whole project during that time?

    Our argument should be "did we achieve anything from moon landing or not" I mean if Government put this whole lot of money for moon landing, what did they achieve? E.T technology? Unrevealed physics? Element of life?

    well nothing but rocks of moon which is useful in Museum right now. so I don't believe that these people really spend this much time, effort and money to achieve nothing, simply they didn't do it.

    BTW i might be all wrong, but it's just my thought, same as yours..

  89. Emily

    I've watched 4 docs today on this subject and have been open minded about both sides. I am convinced that it was a fake. Anybody can dispute anything when they sound smart enough, and have an English accent. Don't you think scientists could have obtained their samples from unmanned spacecrafts? There is a lot I can say, but honestly, do you think the FDA will approve a documentary for national TV that will say "Look, our Gov't really is F***ing us around, and everything was a fake". Not a chance.

    And I bet the Russians didn't say anything because they didn't know. Just because American Gov't had spyware up doesn't mean they can assume Russians did. And I highly doubt they would be talking about top secret material just anywhere...

    Don't believe something so easily, and make sure you indeed do your homework. In the days of free speech and old top secret files, the truth only lies in what you believe.

  90. Emily

    Sorry, I meant FCC.

  91. Masher1

    Reason for movement of that flag is proof if interpreted correctly. The movement is not rational. It is on record and the effects doing the movement can be extrapolated if one were to do the work.

    Try it.

    Lack or rotational movement of the flag brace whilst the tip of the flag passes through some 70 degrees of movement is telling a you something.

    If you are willing to hear what it is is up to you.

    All the things about every one of the anomalous things seen in the so called live feed from the moon has done when combined a mortal blow to the moon shot movie.

    Many have seen. Many more will know soon enough. For those that have been looking we know already. In my opinion naturally! But we still see and know even if emotional blindness on a massif scale persists.

    Assumptions on the Russian,Japanese and Chinese motive for their not blowing it open will swirl but IT WILL BE KNOWN soon enough. topics with this level of emotional involvement built on lies and run on a long enough time like will always unravel.... Always.

  92. Achems Razor


    Okay Masher, now I am thoroughly convinced you do not have a clue what you are talking about, just giving us more meaningless words because you figure that they sound good!


    That is a good one, you figure that your empire of USA is the only one that is more technologically advanced then others. The Russians where basically at par with USA, if not more advanced in some respects.
    And you better look to China right now, it seems like they may take over the Moon very shortly unless USA Gets off there @ss.

  93. Canadian

    If they had done it 50 years ago, why aren't they doing it today. I don't even trust their Roving Mars project.

  94. Sweevo


    If they had done it 50 years ago, why aren’t they doing it today. I don’t even trust their Roving Mars project.

    Havent you noticed but the whole bloody planet is skint

  95. over the edge

    lol i guess that is as good as other evidence

  96. Achems Razor

    Ha,Ha, now I know where @Masher 1, gets his information from!

  97. Sweevo

    Thank you guys , just a wee bit of fun to the subjet, but trut me I was born in 1955 and smell bs when I see it
    I cold spot bs till time ends
    The truth is the USA did do it
    I am not a hick, but an engineer ,some of my stuff is very cool but one would not shout about it.
    I take my hat of to the Yanks fot hat one.
    Masher1 relax, you know fa about THE pro9jet and your explenations are Non¢ents.
    I dont think you will see that ^^
    There is no way they they could fake the luner landings/take off in 1969, this is not Spelberg we are are taking about.

  98. Sweevo

    sorry hats off to the GM for alowing me for the link for the "Fake moon landings"
    When I seen it for the 1st time I p***** myself
    hint :- there is others out there, but they are are fakes made by NASA

  99. Angeion

    I find conspiracy theories pathetic, but I'd say that this documentary's goal is not to inform, but to persuade

  100. awful-truth

    best evidence that man landed on the moon. 72 year old Edwin "buzz" Aldrin at a 30 year reunion being told that he is a fraud, and punches the man in the head. Strap 5 million pounds of high explosive to your rear-end, land on the moon and some i@#$% tells you it was a hoax. Sounds like an appropriate response from someone who did what he said he did, especially at that age!

  101. Reasons Voice

    Wow this one has exploded into a message board for disenfranchised paranoid shut-ins. Man do I hate Google and their keyword searches. Oh how I wish that Vlatko's amazing site could only be found by entering Intellectual Conversation in conjunction with Sane into the search field.

  102. Khayal1O1

    Mythbusters kind of proved the theory wrong. I'm not trying to be a sheep or anything, but a lot of the biggest points against the moon landing are bull s@#$

  103. antogonist

    This video has simply handpicked people who are obviously i@#$%^ and debunked the stupidity of there idiotic ideas but there are several points to consider. At around 32mins there is footage showing the astronauts answering the question about whether they seen any stars on the surface of the moon, if anyone has seen the whole footage of that incident they will know it has been edited to make the 3 of them look confident which was far from the reality. Proof this is nothing more than propaganda.

    In the video is says that when the LM landed it would not have disturbed the moon surface yet when the japanese surveyed the moon and showed one of these landing sites it was obvious to anyone there was a lot of disturbance to the moons surface. There is also no mention here of what caused the glint of the wires holding up the astronauts during moonwalks on various well known videos such as during the apollo 15 mission.

    Also in the photography of the moon the sun is significantly larger than the earth yet the sun should appear significantly smaller than the earth since from the earth the sun and the moon are equal in size evident by the solar eclipse. My verdict is that it is fake and poor attempts like this to attempt to prove they were real confirm there is no evidence that man walked on the moon

  104. jim

    The final "busted" nails in the coffin is that the NASA public relations office paniced when they found out that most young people do not believe that any man walked on the moon. When you have to explain over and over that the fish was that long, then you've got a believability problem. How many astronauts come back from supposedely walking on the moon, and then refuse to place their hand on the Bible and simply swear that actually did it. How could that be, unless they new in the heart that it never happened at all. Could you sleep at night knowing that your lies have been recorded for all time and eternity? Whats worse is that with 10 dead astronauts, those still alive know what hangs in the balance. Bill Cayce, and Ralph Rene' were right.

  105. vj 612

    ha..ha damn man u can clearly see the wires they were attached to at 8 min...i am lmao here...

  106. Rob

    Ask one question to all free thinking people and be objective. Since the mid 1970's we have sent over 20 probes to mars and not one single mission had a man a board.
    Common sense would force us to simply ask why? In 2005 the space shuttle went to a height of 700 miles above the earth and CNN reported that the crew had trouble with there vision.
    The moon is 240,000 miles from earth. Now let us talk fuel.
    For a round trip to the moon and back it would take a craft the size of an ocean liner just to carry the fuel, 480,000
    miles round trip! Best wishes to all

  107. Achems Razor


    Your fuel trip question is something that is not even worthy of answering, every school kid knows or should know how the rocket fuel is used, only to escape gravity re, the Earth or the Moon. Or alter course somewhat. The rest of the trip the engines are shut off!!

    Are you just being funny, 20 probes to Mars? no men on board? gee, I wonder why?

  108. Epicurus

    @Rob, like Achems said, the LARGE portion of fuel used in space travel is burned off when the craft is being launched. it sheds off the tanks that were holding the fuel, and saves only enough to get slight propulsion in space, or if they are landing, to land and take off. there is no problem with the fuel.

    your other problem was that we have launched many unmanned probes to mars but no men. we dont need to launch men there if we can do it with robots first. its cheaper and safer. also the time it would take to get to mars is roughly 260 days. that is one hell of a manned space trip.

    and i dont see how one case of a couple astronauts slightly losing vision would hinder any other evidence we have that shows our successful space explorations.

  109. antogonist

    I agree that there hasnt been anyone sent to mars because we dont have the technology however concerning the moon the footage of the luna rover proves that the moon footage was not filmed on the moon, this is obvious for the simple reason that the dirt coming from the spinning of the wheels would not follow the same trajectory as it would on earth when the forces of gravity acting upon the dirt are completely different, how can 1/6 gravity cause dirt to behave like that on earth but at a slower speed of trajactory, it defies the laws of mathematics, can anyone explain?

  110. Epicurean_Logic


    To attemt an answer to your questions:

    The spinning of the wheels cause dirt to be moved at a tangent to the circumference of the circle (wheel) at the point of contact with the ground. This is explained by the laws of circular motion that are taught in high school (Newtonian)physics.

    The motion of a particle in this case dirt will always move in a parabolic motion whatever the value of the gravitational force may be - The less gravity the more elongated the parabola - until the ideal situation of zero G straight line motion.

    To experiment with parabolic motion in different gravity situations a relatively simple mathematical model can be set up (Use the standard equations of projectile motion; they can be found in any physics book), where changes in the value of G will describe the required effect.

    To clarify. The motion will still be parabolic and for a more detailed description of the motion use the projectile motion equations to explore. Have fun.

  111. Sweevo

    Think you missed a bit here Guys ,its not "dirt" but dust.
    Neil Armstrong said "It looked quite granny, but a closer look and it was a very fine powder"

  112. Sweevo

    antogonist 119
    So tell me why the dust does not "blow" around the place ?
    It just falls straght down.

  113. antogonist

    @Sweevo I dont know what you mean lol

  114. MIKE

    I served in the US military and even as a minority, in those decades, I was ready to die for this country. I scolded some of my cousins watching Capricorn One on HBO back in the 70s. Then I saw NatGeo's debunking conspiracy theories, the more I was for the NASA side. Until,,,,I saw "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon". And the UFOTV from the Brits analyzing pictures, shades, hotspots etc.. Now if I am bias and unfair I would still side with NASA. Well, being with the Lord Jesus, the TRUTH IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW. And being fair, I would like to know more from both sides. As of now, sadly, I am leaning towards the conspiracy theories' side. Regardless, we as Americans, we should still love our country.

  115. antogonist

    @MIKE I would say it is 50-50 whether the United States walked on the moon, I think the pictures are all fake, apart from all the obvious stuff about the sun being too big and spotlight effects, physics which behave just like on earth except at a slower speed etc but the biggest giveaway is the photos from a previous NASA mission which are sitting on the leg of the LM in 250 degrees heat.
    However I've seen a video which if it is not fake which proves that it is possible to go past the van Allen belt, there is also photographs of the landing sites which appear to show large areas of disturbance from the footprints of the astronauts, this may have been touched up to look this way by the Japanese as part of the debt to the United States. They do owe the USA a lot when you think about it.

  116. Blair

    I wanna watch the following movie Tango and Cash.

  117. tim

    this documentary to me backfires entirely they have successfully proved it was possible to create the exact 'moon landing' on earth what evidence is there left to say they went to the moon

  118. Marian

    i think the best way to see if the moon landing is genuine is to search the flag of USA

  119. Marian

    but that ain`t possible,or to go again :))

  120. pete_666

    I don't believe man went to the moon and don't I really care anymore, I just can't wait for the fake Mars landings lol.

  121. pete_666

    Thanks Vlatko for all these great docs, they get me away from Call of Duty for a while.

  122. Gough

    I am a fence sitter on this debate. Lot on at the time with the cold war. Governments lie all the time. I really don't know anymore. Lots of Pro/Lots of Con.

  123. jason

    The conspiracy theorists deserve a slap to the face for the incorrect knowledge!

  124. Adam

    If we went then going back should be much easier now. Everything becomes easier the second time when it comes to hi-tech stuff.

  125. Gough


    Hold your horses with slapping people who "question" this moon landing. There is very strong evidence that some of it was definitely "staged". Maybe it was a high-bred of staged and actual. I think I am going to sit this one out...I still have no clue. Contradicting info.

    @jason the the problem with governments and government bodies is...they LIE all the time. It's like dating a crack whore @Jason. You know every time she walks out the door and tells you she needs to borrow $20 to go get cigarettes, you know she is Lying. How many time do you need to catch the Crack Whore in a lie before you always question what she tells you? GEEZ I HAVE SOME ISSUES to work out ahhaaaa. Just a metaphor for government and government bodies. It's worse than 50/50 you ever get the truth vs propaganda.

    I want to believe we went...I really do.

  126. Jeremy26003

    all conspiracy theorists should put a disclaimer before anything they post

    *I am not an expert on any of the subject matter being discussed. I am not a physicist, engineer, explosions expert, geologist, astronomer, nor have ever been involved in military project in or around Area 51. In short, I really have no idea what the @*%$ I'm talking about, but I will continue to act like I do, use big words that I don't know the meaning of and stand idioticly by my belief that, because I have no concept of how something actually works, the goverment, New World Order, and or aliens are involved. Thank you.*

  127. oddsrhuge

    Are you addressing anyone in particular, or just "conspiracy Theorists" in general?

    In my opinion, the reason that a "conspiracy theorist" exists, is based simply upon the FACT that conspiracies are a part of our history.

    Governments, above all other organizations have consistently lied to their populations to advance one agenda after another. This has occurred for generations.

    So based upon historical record and common sense... I guess, I TOO, am a "Conspiracy Theorist." As I have said in previous posts, if there was an official jacket to mark me as such, I would wear it proudly.

  128. oddsrhuge

    On another note....I don't have an opinion other than to say, I have heard interesting and quite strong arguments from both of these camps. "The NASA guys and the deniers."

    This particular video didn't tell me anything "earth shattering" that would prove anything either way.

    And as someone else in the post mentioned, I have stopped caring.

  129. Johnny Armageddon

    I agree Jeremy, we should all stick our heads in the sand and believe anything our government tells us even though the facts state otherwise.

  130. blackjack62

    why did they not discuss the crop marks on the is obvious
    manipulation of them...why

  131. Xbow

    If you were going to perpetrate a hoax why in the hell would you:
    1) Build massive vehicles like the Saturn V?
    2) Why the methodical process of moving to rockets of increased size and performance over the years?
    3) Why would all the launches have been done under intense public scrutiny.

    If they were going to fake it they would have chosen lower cost options...just enough rocket to make it look plausible and conducted the launches under heavy security.

    The fact is that the enormous Saturn V is just the minimum size a chemical rocket must be to deliver the 3 man Apollo CSM + LEM (100,000lbs) to lunar orbit. Check the stats on the Soviets ill fated N-1and you'll see that they are quite similar in performance. 2 man Soyuz 7K-L3 + LK lander (65,000lbs). Why would two competing space agencies come up with the exact same formula? The reason is simple neither side was faking it and they were responding to the physical realities of the real world.

    Sometimes people that feel marginalized want to believe in a lot of absurd bullshit to make it all feel better. And the Moon Hoaxers are just about the most pathetic of these. They have no case.

  132. Jeremy26003

    you two are obviously missing the point, but what else would i expect? did you actually read the post? doesn't seem that way, as is always the case.

    yes, i was addressing conspiracy theorists in general. of course governments lie and hide truths. knowledge is a dangerous thing and just as dangerous as having no knowledge yet pretending you do. think of all the damage that could be done if just anyone could get their hands on goverment secrets. you think that just because you are citizen of a country you have the right to request a copy of the lastest weapons tech or have a copy of the security detail of goverment buildings sent by mail to your house?

    you say "even though the facts state otherwise"..what facts? the "facts" of a website in the far corner of the internet? Alex Jones' "facts"? Dylan Avery's "facts"? Bart Sibrel's "facts"? i can say for a FACT that 99.9% of conspiracy theorists have no degree in physics, engineering, explosions, geologyt, astronomy, etc. etc. yet, there's always that one .1% that say, "well this is possible if (this piece is right or that piece is missing)..." well of course, if the conditions are absolutely perfect anything is possible!!! but then you conspiracy theorists read it and say, "hey if that's possible, then that's the way it had to have happened. And instead of finding out for myself by doing the tiniest bit of research, i'll just pass this along as the truth and everyone else is hiding something because i read something by some guy who sounds technical and wrote an equation that i can't possibly understand so i'll assume it's right." and when that guy easily gets debunked, then it's, "oh well, ummm. there's this thermite paint they used on the supports shafts." or "the flag is flapping so it must be wind on earth" (ignoring every law of physics and kenetic energy in the process, BTW) or some other half-assed idea.

    i can also say for a FACT that i don't even know why i wasted my time replying. a 10 second search or a trip to the library will show you why these idiotic conspiracy theories are just that...idiotic. but i know you won't and you know you won't because the proof would shatter your little fantasy world of you being good and governments and anybody who can prove you wrong as bad.

  133. Hodd

    "Sometimes people that feel marginalized want to believe in a lot of absurd bullshit to make it all feel better."

    That's quite a sweeping generalization there. Laughable as an explanation for why people believe things, but certainly makes it easy for one to label and discard any info that contradicts what they want to believe.

  134. RC78

    It's not a sweeping generalization at all. He said "sometimes", not "all the time". Nor is it laughable as an explanation for why people believe things, I think it's dead on. I will go further and say that I've never met or seen a conspiracy theorist who was a really intelligent person...ever. The arguments for conspiracy theories are always extremely bad and full of inconsistencies, but the theorists hold on to them like religious beliefs. Rarely, if ever, do these theorists have a scientific background - yet they always seem to know which things are possible or impossible scientifically. I mean, where are all the aerospace engineers who doubt the moon landings. Oh sorry, they must all in on it. Apparently only uneducated retards can figure this stuff out.

    A great example of this is the 911 conspiracies. One of my friends is totally convinced that the buildings could not have come down without the help of explosives, yet he has no education in engineering at all, not even high school physics. Any attempt to explain the positions and arguments of the engineering community is totally lost on him - because he is a moron!

    I don't even understand why people could even doubt the moon landings. We know that both Russia and the US have been to space many times, and have even built a space station. is it really so improbable that they walked on the moon?

    Why do I care? I just really, really dislike stupid people who don't know they're stupid - it's a pet peeve of mine

  135. Epicurus

    excellent post. you are exactly right.

  136. Epicurus

    pffffft you believe man didnt make it to the moon?

    its CLEAR that the moon isnt real and is just a hologram that is reflected on the dome that surrounds our planet which we use to protect us from invading aliens....

    god dont you guys know ANYTHING?!?!

  137. Xbow

    I find it amusing that many CLOWNS that doubt the reality of the Moon landings despite the overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary find it easy to believe in Nazi flying saucers navigating interplanetary space using the power of the Vrill and anti gravity, that 9/11 was an inside job, that HARP can cause earthquakes, typhoons, tornadoes and control the minds of entire populations. You can believe in all that nonsense if it makes you happy. As for me, I'll stick to reality.

    And by the way my preparations for Dec/21/2012 DOOMS DAY will be to lay in a good supply of eggnog and rum to celebrate the holidays.

  138. tanzanos

    Elvis lives on the moon!

  139. Ssickpie

    @RC78: Just a thought - Wouldn´t it be fair to say that you can find several professors and other highly educated people in conspiratory documentaries, speaking for and not against the conspiracy theory?

  140. Nathan Royal

    I just want to know why we never went back!?

  141. MyReligionIs2DoGood

    Because they don't have the permission of those they found there...

  142. MyReligionIs2DoGood

    Not to sound big-headed, but I have an IQ of 147 (do you come close to this?), which I am more than able to use, and dismissed a membership in MENSA (since these people are actually f'ing each other about who is the smartest and effectively doing nothing because they have no influence on anything), and I do have a scientific degree from a German university.

    I met quite a lot of people you would call 'conspiracy theorists' who are pretty smart, actually smart enough to not dismiss a theory for which is evidence at hand. These guys also do not ridicule anyone, or generalize hundreds of millions of people as being 'not intelligent' or 'stupid'.

    In turn, I see a lot of self-proclaimed 'debunkers' who are using propaganda techniques like ridicule, harrassment, or defamation, and I seriously doubt that all of them have a degree (except for the temperature outside).

    Regarding your friend and 'scientific background', I'd say your friend might not have a scientific degree, or be smarter than you, but he obviously has more common sense than you do. No need for a degree when it comes to that.

    Every child can see that WTC 7 went down by a controlled demolition. The same children will not see any remainders of the planes on the 4 sites though.

    Just visit
    pilots for 911 truth dot org, or
    AE (architects and engineers) 911 truth dot org, or
    scientists for 911 truth dot org.

    But I know you will call them all stupid or push their arguments away, instead of putting proof on the table why they are wrong in all points - since you can't.

  143. MyReligionIs2DoGood

    One of the typical strategies of propaganda is to throw totally different theories together, of which some are total nonsense, in order to ridicule one or two of the other theories.

    It doesn't prove anything if any of these is right or wrong - all of them have to be examined individually anyway.

    9/11: The official commission report and the NIST report for the events on 9/11 are ridiculous. Even 6 of the members of the 9/11 commission themselves are asking for a new investigation. The NIST report stops when the actual collapse begins - no comment needed on that one.

    HAARP: It actually CAN create earthquakes - you should read the technical papers about it. Can it manipulate human minds? I don't know - but at least it's a fact that certain brain waves have the same frequencies HAARP is working with.

    The Moon Landing: Well, something doesn't seem to be right there. Either they haven't been there and faked the whole thing - or they have been there and then faked the images to hide something they found.

    I agree on the NFS - if the Germans would have had such a technology, there would be a NWO already, and the flag for the world would include a swastika.

    And with your permission I would like to join you celebrating 2013 New Years Eve. ;)

  144. Xbow

    Do you really want to know? I'll tell you anyway. The Moon missions were very expensive cold war stunts to prove that we were superior to the Russians.

    While they were amazing uses of 1960's technology and advanced the state of the art but we had no real plan other than to beat the Russians.

    Then when the Russian Lunar Program folded because of the complete and utter failure of their Saturn V class rocket the N-1 they were out of the race.

    Once we had beat them there and they were out of the race the Lunar program ran out of steam and 5 moon mission were canceled. Then NASA wanted a space station and a re-usable space plane (Shuttle) to service it. They got the Shuttle bot no space station to service.

    Then NASA hit on the idea of making the shuttle our national launch vehicle to ensure its survival. And since the Saturn V's were still around and capable of putting 5 times as much payload into orbit as a shuttle at less than 30% the cost and to keep the Shuttle center stage NASA destroyed all the Saturn V's in storage by turning them into gigantic museum displays. Also they intentionally destroyed our capability to build any more by: selling all the special tools needed to make Saturn V's as scrap metal. And they also destroyed thousands of Saturn V blueprints. With the beginning of the 1980's we didn't have and still don't have the hardware to go to the moon. Thats pretty much it.

  145. chrisgolfs2007

    these are strawman arguments/......what about the letters "C" on the rock and ground,or the photo with the button flap undone but somehow,amazingly,the video of the very same guy jumping in the air shows the flap buttoned...It would be like walking down the road at 7:05 a.m. and being filmed by two people. One film shows you wearing boots,and the other film shows you wearing sneakers....

  146. Douglas McMillion

    Conspiracy theorists are trailer dwelling cat collecting gnomes. They waste their time and every idiot that gets sucked into their bullshit. I can take any event and out a spin on it to where it looks like the sky is falling. All Hail the CHEMTARDS!!!!!

  147. Douglas McMillion

    No blueprints and certainly no tooling equipment is ever destroyed especially any that was a part of history or hoax as you think. Conspiracy theorists are folks who minimal brains will not allow them to process a positive event and are paranoid schizophrenics . And their whole exsistance is based on whether corn flakes or Wheaties get soggy first.

  148. Douglas McMillion

    The Saturn V has 150 million horse power 50 million over the payload, whats the problem. I think they need to go out to more trailer parks and interview more credible sources that obviously worked on or in the NASA program, and gather more factual get a life

  149. PinchedLoaf

    At 26:23 you can see the reflection of a steel wire extending from the spacesuit as the astronaut jumps up, but it disappears due to apparent editing.

  150. Violet77

    Even if the conspiracy theorists are wrong that the moon landing was fake, we need to have somebody to challenge what the goverments and media say. We need somebody to do all the work and take out a spin on events, while we should listen to both sides and make our own conclusions. So, there is no need to calls them names and say that they are wasting time.

  151. paul_ee2001

    LMAO .. & you can see the reflection off the antenna in other frames. Your fooled easily...

  152. Jason A Giantonio

    I agree.. Some so called "Conspiracy Theory's" get declassified and turn out to be true, some are bat shit crazy, but the governments lied so many times its good to see people hold their feet to the fire... since the medias been bought off and no longer does it

  153. Yannick Dierens

    I am sorry to say, but this is a not a great comment...

    There are people who "challenge" popular beliefs, namely scientists. Not everything and everyone is influenced by the media or politics, sorry to debunk that. Science is usually the most critical resource you can find, you know. It is inherent to the way scientists work, think and provide real proof of something.

    Conspiracy theorists are mostly pseudo-scientific wannabe critics, with an utter lack of credibility, who have their own very questionable ways of "proving" something.

  154. Gary Mize

    I am a ham radio operator I was doing it back then. I tracked the signals. and enve on one mission they took a Ham set with them, Directional antenna dont lie. We tracked the flight, and talked to them on the moon. Plus Any high quality Telescope could see the ship. As I had even then. Now convince me My ears and eyes were wrong. jeez waist of film and time for this one.

  155. Gary Mize

    Besides My
    Pastor of my church worked for Nasa back then, as i did later in my life. Come on Get a life. YOu cant tell one who taught by one who was there and then was there later in time that this was a fake. My pastor was there at Apollo 1. He taught me computers before there was a pc. Go blow your smoke at someone else.

  156. Gary Mize

    For those that care plans are to go back to the moon, set up a station there as a stop off to reach mars. If your really interested research the subject , Nasa's future.

  157. Hodd

    Sweeping generalizations and name calling are childish and lame.

  158. libertyislost

    Going to the moon was a GIANT Lie, while orbiting the Earth at 200 miles is easy, the moon's distance of 238,000 miles makes fuel for a round trip of 476,000 miles, a landing, and fuel for moons blast off unlikely. After 8,000 miles from Earth the Radiation belts average 100 million electron volts-now how is anything not highly shielded going to pass through this?

  159. Yannick Dierens

    You clearly don't know the first thing about space travel. Once you reach a certain speed escaping earth's gravity (or the moon's, which is way less), you need very little fuel, only for corrections. Not to maintain speed.

    It's not like a car, you don't calculate the amount of fuel needed based on a mpg basis.

  160. Derek M D Marawo

    after all is said and done ,we put science and politics aside common sense wise ,if the last day was December 1972 you guys are telling me that from that day till to day our science is still DULL to have better devices ,better exploring techniques and much intelligent individuals to carry out more trips to that location.If its true then Donald Tramp would be on holiday exploring the Damn Rock!!!!!!!!!!!!

  161. Guest

    Mythbusters was paid 1.8 million dollars by NASA to do the show and the foot print "buster" was a joke.

  162. Guest

    Google "John Lear tells all"

  163. Michael Dunn

    Is it not so depressing that people are so adamant that the moon landing is a hoax that nothing could possibly convince them that they weren't? A true skeptic demands evidence, demands to be proven wrong. The moon landing deniers are not skeptics. They will never be shaken from their beliefs.

  164. Guest

    prove it

  165. sdbry

    With all due respect to these gentleman who undoubtely intelligent but I think misguided, they're basing all their theories on how things happen on Earth. Conditions on the moon are not the same, therefore results would not be the same. How in the world would they know the reaction of events taking place on the Moon. The movement of the flag , dust not being disturbed. Have they made these experiments on the Moon? No. They made the experiments they say support their theory on Earth.

    Scientifically, I do not see that any of their claims substantiate that this was a hoax. In fact the gentleman showing that these events did take place on the moon holds more credibility to me.

  166. sdbry

    The first sentence of the story above says it all for me
    .... Amid an era of global political suspicion the greatest conspiracy theory of all time casts doubt on what should be the greatest acheivement of the age...

    With all due respect to the gentleman who do not believe, every example they cite has to do with what would happen on Earth, the flag waving, the dust being disturbed, the movement of the astronauts, etc. This is not taking place on Earth, it's on the Moon. Have they ever supported their theories in the same environment or atmosphere as the astronauts. NO, remember they can't get to the Moon.

    Give me a break. Everything is not Area 51.

  167. alpharomeo1

    Very TRUE, can see it clearly

  168. James Irvine

    Nasa has shown Images of the landing sites on the moon recently but tell me this, why did they fake the photographs on the moon? for me the only explanation is that they couldnt take photos on the moon because of the radiation and they faked them out of desperation or they didnt go and sent a self piloted lunar module and used some kind of robot or rover to create disturbances on the ground.
    Its sad that we havnt seen a man on the moon yet even if there has been one there, isnt that a good enough reason to fake the pictures but sad in reality because we havnt seen what the astronauts actually seen. Its a bummer.

  169. James Irvine

    9/11 conspiracy has got more frauds working on it than the moon landings, also the evidence in favour of an inside job is pathetic, looks good at first because you hadnt noticed any of that but think it through properly and massive holes begin to appear in the conspiracy theories, add to that the number of statements that have been changed and sound effects added to videos and the fact the towers didnt fall at anything close to free fall speed and common sense makes you see its a money making scam that could only take place in the capitalist america, its its own worst enemy but the only people attacking it are the conspiracy theorists using false evidence, not the government to create a war.

  170. James Irvine

    answer me this, if the cameras used to take photographs on the moon had no viewfinder then how is it possible that photographs of the earth are so tiny in comparison to the massively oversized sun in these pictures? The earth should be bigger than the sun in them if you consider that from the earth the moon and the sun are the same size, hence the solar eclipse.

  171. Jakob Isindahowz

    So, you choose the easy fantasy world that the unbiased media claims and your honest government would never lie because , well, they were voted by the people and you are a patriot and patriots trust there governments or else you are an evildoer. Why would people lie when there is only billions of dollars to be made? People never sell out others that would be capitalist ooops...

  172. Paul Brickey

    @ Virakotxa:

    The footage of the module take off was only done on the last three (I believe) missions. Those were the missions with the lunar rover, the little "car" they drove around in. The rover had a camera on it that could be controlled from Earth (this camera was used for a lot of the footage of the astronauts working on the moon's surface, as well).

    Because of the signal delay between the moon and the Earth, the camera operator had to start sending the command to "pan up" to the camera a couple seconds before the module actually launched. I believe that he missed the ascent almost entirely on Apollo 15, got a lot better on Apollo 16, and nailed it almost perfectly on Apollo 17. If you ever see footage of the module ascending, it's probably from Apollo 17.

    - From the Bad Astronomy forum.

  173. alexandre salgado

    To all those retardeds that believe in a huge lie staged by NASA regarding the Apollo manned missions, i have only 1 suggestion :
    Go to the nearest Astronomical Observatory, or aim a decent home telescope to the Tranquility Sea (and other points) of the Moon.
    And explain me how the hell did the american flags, the rovers, the O2 tanks, the battery cells and an infinite sort of all other kind of objects were put in there ???
    No further comments....

  174. enzofloc

    Why did moon travel suddenly end? Why haven't we returned in the last 30 years? Did they have better technology in the 60's than they do today? Or were people naive enough back then to buy the hoax? I can believe we orbited the moon. But the landing, hopping around, take-off and re-connect with the command module is the stuff of science fiction. Really! An infinite number of things that could go wrong didn't.

  175. Achems_Razor


    Something did go wrong, Apollo 13, one of the seventh manned moon mission, the whole world was watching.

  176. enzofloc


    Apollo 13 could have been staged as an exit strategy. A way for Nasa to end the theater. You can only fool an audience for so long.

    NASA could have dismissed these conspiratorial suspicions long ago if they had incontestable evidence. I don't think they have. It's reasonable to assume the images they showed us from the initial moon landing to--gasp--the Rover joy ride may not have been broadcast from the moon.

  177. Achems_Razor


    Exit strategy? Sorry, you better do some studying, Apollo 13 was supposed to be the third landing, 4 more after that, there were Apollo 14, 15, 16, and 17 manned mooned landing after Apollo 13. A total of six in all, counting the aborted Apollo 13 would of been 7 in all.

  178. john masters

    Seriously!!!!! There are people who doubt the moon landings? Get an education and stop embarassing yourself.

  179. Winston Smith

    skyscrapers coming down at freefall speeds, the symmetry, the pulverized concrete, molten metal, the squibs, 100 day fires, the explosiveness of 1 & 2 which left 1100 missing bodies, wtc 7's implosion, and so on..
    There is a literal mountain of evidence showing that wtc 1 2 & 7 were brought down with explosives. That is what the evidence overwhelmingly shows. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories and everything to do with observations and facts. (That you ever use a term like "conspiracy theorists" in the manner that you do shows what a propaganda victim you are. Try architects & engineers for 911 truth.
    I don't know about any moon hoax, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to the use of explosives in lower Manhattan on 9-11 01

  180. joedsavage

    I'm in a quandry.Evidently,after reading some of these posts I myself am both a "conspiracy nut" and a Government theory believer.Why? I believe Lee Harvey Oswald DID NOT kill JFK or anyone else for that matter.I also believe Governments (all) are handing out tons of BS regarding the existence of UFO's.I also believe the terrorist attacks on 9/11 was a combination of factors(involvement) including high explosives planted in those buildings.As far as the moon landing goes--I believe it was for real.
    Regarding all these events: I think I'll just label myself a REALIST.


    Stanley Kubrick.

  182. vvindred

    Listen to this "although he was paid by nASA he stood on the case"....what a bunch of's so funny cuz till now i wasn't sure but seeing this propagandistic film i'm sure these profesional LIARS didnt land no way no where near the moon

  183. vvindred

    i wonder how much money have nASA invested into convincing people they landed on the moon i see here they hired specialists to write books make propaganda movies...really SAD

  184. Achems_Razor

    Tell us how you know this, otherwise I will put you down as a troll that is trolling.

    How old are you by the way?

  185. ecosse15

    you dont sound big headed - you just look ridiculous by pointing to some number which nobody gives a fiddlers fart about. You obviously have a science degree because your english is shocking, you'd think a 147 would be more well rounded. Get off the internet and read a book.

  186. Rorster

    I'm pretty certain that the most powerful telescope on earths surface cannot see the rovers, flags or any of the Appollo objects. It was only recently that our space telescopes documented the surface again. Many still see infractions in those photo's and deemed them faux. There's a defraction issue that blurrs the sight of objects ,such as a flag , due to earth's atmosphere. From Physics 101.

  187. Rorster

    Here's an article for us retards, and for the astute alexandre.

    Smallest Feature Visible on the Moon
    The main mirror in the HST has a diameter of 2.4 meters. Visible light has an average wavelength of about 0.5E-6 meters. The Moon is at a distance of 3.8E8 meters. Putting these numbers into the formula gives the size of the smallest feature that the Hubble Space Telescope can resolve on the Moon's surface. It is just under 100 meters.

    Flags are seldom this big, so Hubble Space Telescope images of the Moon can not resolve the flags or other objects left behind by the Apollo astronauts. To recognize a flag and see details, such as stars and stripes, would require resolving details as small as about a centimeter. This resolution would require a space telescope with a diameter of about 20 kilometers.

    Even though it can not see the flag on the Moon, the HST can resolve unprecedented detail.

    Further Reading
    Wilson, J.D., Buffa, A.J., and Lou, B., College Physics 6th ed., Pearson, 2007.

    Read more at Suite101:

  188. Josh Hubbard

    It is so stupid that people would think that the moon landing was faked. Granted, there are things that would raise eyebrows if you were looking at it with a disbelieving eye however most of these things are easily explainable. It seems funny that people will point to the simple things such as the "C" on the rock or the flag "blowing" in the air-conditioning. I don't think these people are remembering what era the moon landing happened in. It was after all at the height of the problems that America was having with Russia. Judging by the age of the men who were lead proponents of the "faking" theory in this documentary, they should have easily remembered that little bit of information. Either these people are thinking that the ones who "faked" the moon landing are very stupid or that they are amatuer liers, which we all know the American government are not, are not to the latter. I say this because if the American government were going to fake the moon landing then it is very very VERY unlikely that they would screw up these things when they knew very well that the footage would be scutinized and looked at with a fine tooth comb by everybody, especially the Russian's, and its not as if Russia didn't have cosmonauts, astronomers and an entire space agency that would easily be able to pick up on these things and if my memory serves me correctly, I have yet to read or watch anything stating that the Russian's thought the moon landing was a hoax back then, if I am wrong about that then please feel free to point me in the direction of where I might be able to find that information.

  189. Josh Hubbard


  190. Josh Hubbard


    Please, if you are going to express something that you truly believe in, then research it! How can you "know" something when you "know" very little to nothing about it.

    I do believe that you have the right to your own opinion on anything however I would like to point out that when you stated and I quote "Apollo 13 could have been staged as an exit strategy. A way for Nasa to end the theater. You can only fool an audience for so long" is a strange claim to make. First of all, if you were to research a little bit then you would realize that NASA did not need an "exit stradegy" to end the Apollo missions. By the time the Apollo 13 mission was launched most of the public would have most likely been happy to end the program due to the fact that most of them felt it a waste of the taxpayers money, they had been there already and very view saw any reason to continue with manned missions to the moon. In fact it is much cheaper, safer and much more beneficial to send machines to do science on other surfaces. Secondly, when you stated "You can only fool an audience for so long" is something again you should have looked into, if you had, I think your statement would have read something more like "You can only fool an audience for so long, or lack there of" because again, the public had a waning interest in the Apollo missions and I use the term waning as a big understatement. The broadcasts from Apollo 13 on the way to the moon were not even picked up by television becuase there was no where near a large enough audience for it to be profitable. It wasn't untill the explosion of the air tank and the huge effort to bring the astronauts back to earth that people at large, especially America was watching.

  191. Josh Hubbard

    Well said! I am with you 100%. Well maybe 66.6666...% It was real, they landed. I said 66.6666...% only because you said that you believe all governments are handing out tons of BS about UFO's. I believe that aswell but I am assuming you believe there to be aliens flying these UFO's which I do not. If in fact that is not what you meant then I am again with you 100%!

  192. tackery

    there are those who belive and those who will never belive no matter what.

  193. Virakotxa

    "Kubrick's Odyssey". That documentary did not precisely help me dispel my doubts on what we watched as the "Moon landing's" were that real. highly recommend it. Hint on title... "wink" "wink"...

    I went from believing they were real, to not, to some degree... My beef remains with the footage, not the fact itself. Just saying...

  194. Own Less, Live More!

    Just one little comment with a teaspoon of truth can torpedo a whole tone of carefully crafted lies from the highest places of power. Excellent!

  195. Xbow

    Oh yes a conspiracy can be conducted with 400,000 participants and only a few clowns living in trailer parks know the particulars. Stalin was getting a constant flow of information about the Manhattan Project and that was 'super secret' the Apollo program was conducted in the light of day but somehow the security was better. Right!

    If you want a real conspiracy look to the Soviets and their attempt to hide the very existence of their Lunar Program after it FAILED.

    They built a Saturn V class rocket called the N-1, a lunar lander called the LK and the Soyuz 7K-L1space craft as their command module. These would have followed almost identical flight plans as Apollo did. They couldn't make their systems work & the N-1 had a 100% failure rate. The Russians cut up and destroyed the remaining 5 N-1s and hid the LK lander where the sun never shines along with the rest of their Lunar Program. They successfully hid that for just fifteen years. But the CIA knew all about their massive launch failures and the termination of the program in 1974 despite their draconian security measures.

    Why were the programs so similar in terms of hardware and mission profiles? Could it be that both programs had the same mission options and similar technology?

    Mission Options:
    •Direct Ascent: DA requires an HLLV that is 2X the size of an N-1 or Saturn V
    (too costly)
    •Earth Orbit Rendezvous: EOR requires too many moving parts in building a ship in earth orbit & its too costly. A single launch or major component failure screws everything up.
    •Lunar Surface Rendezvous: LSR requires 2 ships one manned one unmanned landing on the moon close enough so that the automated ship can refuel the manned ship for the return trip. Too costly and way too risky.
    •***LUNAR ORBIT RENDEZVOUS***: With LOR One Saturn V or N-1 class rocket, a command module and a lightweight Lunar Lander launched directly from Earth. This is what both programs decided was the best course of action...INDEPENDENTLY. Strange isn't it?
    No it isn't strange at all actually, LOR is the cheapest and simplest method of accomplishing a Lunar mission. That's why both the USA and the CCCP programs chose that option.

    And by the way check out all the tire tracks all around the landing sites where the Lunar Rover was used on Apollo 15, 16 & 17 and the descent stages and discarded gear from ALL the Apollo missions that are all still there and have been observed many times.

    Then there is my experience in watching Apollo 17 take off from the cape at midnight when I was a kid on a family trip. Wow I had no idea I was watching a hologram, a fake Saturn V or a movie prop...that was one loud Hologram from several miles away.

  196. Katherine Doenau

    I want everybody to know that there is a secret military weapon being used that I have had first hand experience with that if any person reading this has any further knowledge of this weapon would you please speak up. The secret weapon is a fake moon that looks like the real moon but has a large halo around the outside and can move and change shape, this fake moon shoots a blue laser at a target that looks like lightening.( Project Bluebeam ) I exposed a very well connected illuminati paedophile network that involves members of the catholic clergy along with judges lawyers police and my own estranged doctor husband. This has caused me to become a victim of gangstalking and harrassmnet, threatened with murder,set up with the mafia and a character assasination, isolated from my friends and family and I live in fear of my life. There have been several major attempts already made on my life, but the most bizare and serious was when I was driving late at night after being stalked on the road by large working vans.I noticed a large black working van pull back from the back of my car very abruptly and then from out of the sky came what looked like blue lightening straight through my car front window and struck my right hand giving me what felt like an electric shock. I looked to see where it came from and it came from a fake moon that had come in very close to my car, it stayed in the sky for the next two hours comming in close and moving back out further changing shape. I thought that this would be the end for me, but luckily I tailgated a truck and could not be targeted by this fake moon.

  197. Achems_Razor

    @Katherine Doenau:

    Welcome to TDF, you are sort of on topic by talking about the moon, fake or not. But do you believe that man walked on the moon?

    I do not know about any fake moons but some believe it is hollow. Viewpoints??

  198. HanzoHattori

    Tell us how you know this, otherwise I will put you down as a troll that is trolling. How old are you by the way?"---
    Where do you get off threatening someone for sharing their opinion on a pertinent subject that is even on par with what the film is about? Since he didn't answer you (I don't blame him; as you barely deserve one), I'll help you out amigo. Here are some films that should set you straight..
    Propaganda film: Dark Side of the Moon
    Who filmed the Apollo Missions: Kubricks Odyssey
    Most recent expose: A Funny Thing HappenedontheWaytotheMoon
    Low budget gem: Apollo Zero
    Decent yet timid attempt: The Truth Behind the Moon Landings
    Learn about the Van Allen Belt for Pete's sake. About Apollo 13; people did the calculations..and uh, yeah, if the "mission" was successful they would have landed on the far side. Purpose..adding drama, been there done that

  199. HanzoHattori

    My comment was directed to Achems_Razor

  200. docoman

    I'm curious. How could you calculate where the 'mission' would land? (Apollo 13 you said was calculated if the mission was successful they'd land on the far side) That would depend on when, during moon orbit, the lander separated and started it's decent wouldn't it? I'm not being smart, I'm curious how the calculations you mentioned were done. From NASA mission plans or something?

  201. HanzoHattori

    The information is in one of the movies I've suggested. Happy viewing mi amigo.

  202. MyReligionIs2DoGood

    So eloquent - and such a convincing evidence...

  203. Matt Doty

    When "the human brain has a wonderful capacity to spot and uncover anomalies" its because something is/isn't acting/doing what we EXPECT. Our brains have trained to expect certain reactions to given stimuli - the wind blows, flags flutter; a car drives in dirt, we see dust clouds; etc.
    Our brains pretty much have to "re-learn" when we see objects behaving differently on a strange moon where less gravity means different physical behaviors.

  204. Skin Is in

    The answer is that a ding was suppose to have been reported when man first landed on the moon.

    Debunking this is easy, there is not enough atmosphere on the moon to convey sound, let alone between the moon and earth, sound in space is silent, even star trek admits its a massive flaw in making their universe seem real with what we know today.

    If anything it may have been picked up as a vibration with some kind of seismic instrument, but it could not have been heard.

    Interestingly enough though we can hear solidified metals bouncing about in our very own planets core as it cools when its travelling away from the core...

    I aint saying we have not been to the moon btw, I am just saying, it aint hollow...

  205. Achems_Razor

    I did not say the Moon was hollow, some people think that it is.

  206. Maxine

  207. Mika Nieminen

    well take some photosof the space junk left on the landing sites. if they can do it with satellites of earth then they can do it of the moon.

  208. Daniel Ng

    It does make people wonder, if the moon landing is real then why did NASA stop going there? Must be more there to study then just a few rocks.

  209. Panos G

    The arguements about the shadows, the lack of stars, the flag, the dust under the lunar module and the film that ''should be damaged'' show ignorance and lack of any scientific knowledge. It's stupid and ridiculous trying to teach those people science. It's like teaching a pig how to sing. So, don't worry guys, it's all fake. Earth is flat.

  210. Daniel Werts

    Just so you know Mika, they have back in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

  211. Marvin Zeichner

    You are showing real stupidity in your statement. Do you know how much radiation there is in space caused by the sun ? We are protected on Earth by its atmosphere. You think those space suits protected the Astronauts? You need to do more research.

  212. Marvin Zeichner

    you're the stupid one. Nasa couldn't get the lander to fly without crashing, in tests. You think those space suits would have protected the Astronauts in the extreme temperatures. If so you would see a heat or coolant exhaust emminating from the suit. They also would not be jumping but walking in the lower gravity. You also cannot leave a boot print in the sand without moisture. Last time I checked there is no atmosphere or water on the Moon. Did you ever see what the lander was made of? You wouldn't believe it. I could go on, but you probably wouldn't listen to reason, Trust your government. HA HA

  213. Stillsurfin101

    Marvin... 1) I've seen footage of successful lunar trainer landings. 2) In videos of Shuttle Mission EVA's, astronauts' spacesuits don't appear to expel vapor or exhaust. 3) Spacesuits are cumbersome and very stiff in a vacuum, making it difficult to move normally. 4) A penny pressed into dry baby powder will leave an impression so sharp you can read the date. 5) Although thin-skinned, the Lunar Lander's structural integrity was based on its geometric shape. Squeeze a raw egg from top to bottom. Betcha' can't break it... I have little doubt that NASA is keeping secrets. BIG secrets. But after studying the various anomalies regarding the moon landings (only a few were presented here) I am convinced that men did walk on the moon. However, since I'm not an astronaut, I have little basis for being smug in my opinions. ALL of you who expressed yourselves here show courage in doing so. You make me think outside of the box and deserve my respect. Frankly, I agree with Daniel Ng in asking Why We Never Returned? Now THAT is a mystery worth exploring.

  214. 2damoon

    O.K. smart guy, why are the photos of my house clear when viewed from a satellite up in space, but the photos of the moon "remnants" are at best a blurry photo that has to be accompanied with multiple arrows and explanations? B.S. If we had the technology to take man to the moon and back in 1969 you can bet we have the technology to prove it beyond a "shadow" of a doubt in 2012!

  215. over the edge

    you asked "O.K. smart guy, why are the photos of my house clear when viewed from a satellite up in space," are you referring to Google earth? most of the images (the high def ones) are from planes not satellites smart guy. any images from the satellites over the moon are not any missions that went there to get photo's for conspiracy nuts. why would the government spend the money to prove something to this minority that wouldn't believe it anyway? there is more than enough evidence that the Americans went. if what has been presented hasn't convinced you then what would?

  216. pwndecaf

    There is no moon. It is just like the Batman distress signal - a searchlight in the sky. At least once a month they forget to take the lens cap off and it isn't there at all. Some days it is only partially visible. It isn't real.

    I want to hear what the Intelligent Design folks think of this. If god wanted us to go to the moon, there would be talking snakes there to tempt us into eternal misery. Obviously, there are no talking snakes there.

    C'mon, this isn't rocket surgery.

  217. 2damoon

    Not talking about satellite pics, I'm talking about the recent LRO pics. The distance is much closer. All I want to know is why do you or the folks at NASA want me to use my imagination to see what they say is in the photos. It's a simple question! I was born in 1960 and I am not a conspiracy nut. I watched it on T.V. when I was 9 yrs. old and thought "This is so cool", but over the years I have come to believe that some of this stuff is just a little hard to accept. I mean, they cover me with a lead blanket just to be X-ray'd, but hey, obviously you are way smarter than me. Please forgive me for thinking that NASA (a government maintained organization) may have duped us.

  218. steve button

    It's helpful to remember that many of the comments ridiculing the faked moon landing are from paid commentators - i've noticed what appears to be full court press on attacking people who notice how fake the moon landing footage and story is - even Google has arranged the search entries for 'moon landing hoax' in a way so as to offer websites attacking the fact that no humans have walked on the moon- first. It's also very important to remember that this is a crime - and that the criminals involved in this hoax can very well be prosecuted under state and federal law...

  219. steve button

    I'd also mention the documentary that came out that features Kubrick's widow talking about how they faked the moon shots. The movie appears heavily edited; they've used this fact to try to claim that it's 'trick' movie - that it's actually a movie about 'conspiracy theories'. It looks like a movie was made about the fake moon landing and then edited by gov't(ZOG) spooks

  220. over the edge

    steve button
    you claim that "many of the comments ridiculing the faked moon landing are from paid commentators". do you have proof for that? or are you calling many of the commenter s dishonest because they disagree with you?

  221. steve button

    ...who then made it out to be a documentary about how 'conspiracy theories get started - yes, that's what they claim(!!?). I think if you watch some of it(those with firm grasp on reality)will come to the same conclusion as me - something just isn't right with this's far too convenient to claim that Kubrick's wife participated in a documentary about CT out of the good of heart(or needed the money?)..No. She tried to set the record straight and then they set the record. And Stanley died about the same time....

  222. Rachid Talal

    In this age of deceit ,lies , make-believe , brainwash...where even a big event such as the 911 can be staged , nothingelse would surprise me, but i am inclined to think that the landing on the moon was genuine and true, i guess , unless someone proves the opposite case beyond any doubt..

  223. Rachid Talal

    Moderator :

    How come my posts get removed the minute i post them here , please , thanks ,

    Weird indeed.

  224. Rachid Talal

    Moderator :

    I protest against the fact that my posts here get removed due to some inexplicable reason.

    I am out of here .

    I will not be posting any comments anymore .

    Ciao .

  225. over the edge

    Rachid Talal
    i do not know where your missing posts went. they are not in the deleted folder (we save all posts). it might be a issue with Disqus and beyond our control. i apologize for any frustration and if you still wish not to post further that is your prerogative

  226. Achems_Razor

    Check your profile, your post are still there, plus I checked deleted posts up to 2 weeks ago, none of your posts are there, you are not using Disqus properly I suppose.

  227. Rachid Talal

    Weird .

    I see none of my posts displayed where they should be .

    I am using Disqus properly though .

  228. Rachid Talal

    Hi there :

    Thanks for your reply but i see none of my posts displayed where they should be .I am using Disqus properly though.
    My kind regards

    Subject: [topdocumentaryfilms] Re: The Truth Behind the Moon Landings

  229. Rachid Talal

    See ?

    I just posted a comment here some seconds ago .I saw it displayed here a moment ago and then it disappeared again .
    Are the new comments displayed here at the bottom or what ? It's a long way down , i see . No time to check it out .Would make no sense though.
    Well, i am fed up with this .
    I do not wanna waste my time like this .
    Thanks anyway . Bye .

  230. Achems_Razor

    Your posts are all in a row starting on top, where it says discussion there is an arrow pointing down, click on that and then click on newest.

  231. Rachid Talal

    Oh, ok . Thanks, guys . I did not see that arrow . I am a bit lazy ,so .

    I thought this was yet another conspiracy haha kidding

    Thanks again, appreciate indeed.

  232. Rachid Talal

    I did not watch the video yet , so .

  233. Rachid Talal

    Well, i think that the moon landings were in fact genuine, no hoax .

    I did some investigation , so.

    All those myths concerning the moon landings were busted .

  234. hound of valinor

    If the moon was so easy to get to in 1969 why dose NASA not just send some people back it is 2013 shouldn't modern tecnology make it a bit easier???

  235. wadhah

    Yeah but there is no money and/or no reason.
    If you want to you can fund the next mission, maybe go in it too.

  236. ethanrutledge

    me too i studied the footage and i mean every footage and it is all the same, the intensity,and the color of the dirt plus the gravity.

  237. johnscriv

    So you don't think there's any political mileage in sending an unmanned lunar expedition to beam back nice crisp images of all those US flags that are still up there, fluttering on the moon, not to mention the gold plated moon buggies and all those footprints in the lunar dust ... sure would go some way to restoring America's tattered image, revisiting the glory days of American adventurism.

  238. johnscriv

    I don't agree. There is at least historical value in documenting the human artifacts allegedly left on the Moon. There would also be important scientific evidence to be gained by examining the condition of any human artifacts left on the moon, considering they would have been sitting there on the moon for at least forty years, if they were placed there between 1969 and 1972, as NASA alleges.

    NASA can afford to send unmanned missions to Mars, but they can't afford to send an unmanned mission to the Moon, which is only a small fraction of the distance to Mars. I think it's very suspicious that NASA and the US govt is so keen to ignore the Moon these days, perhaps they are trying to avoid having to admit the truth, they never sent men to the Moon.

  239. docoman

    I agree that there would be some value in going back, I just think there would be more value in pushing further, like Mars.
    I'm just curious mate, I take it you don't believe that NASA landed men on the moon, what is it that convinced you that they didn't?

  240. johnscriv

    I was eight years old when the grainy images of Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon were first televised round the world in 1969. I grew up in a fairly conservative household that scorned "conspiracy theories" such as those surrounding the Kennedy assassinations. I never had any reason to question the veracity of the Apollo Moon missions until I was at university in 1997, where I first encountered people who expressed doubts about the Moon landings. At first I thought the doubts were bizarre and unfounded. It was not until after 9/11, when I became aware of the discrepancies in the official al Qaeda conspiracy theory, that I revisited the Apollo story with an open mind and a newfound sense of scepticism.

    I am no longer convinced that NASA landed men on the Moon. The basis for my scepticism now consists of many details, such as the absence of dust on the feet of the LEM, the lighting in many of the images, the hazard of cosmic radiation beyond the van allan belts and not least, the inexplicable disinterest in, and neglect of, the Apollo artifacts allegedly left on the Moon.

    In conclusion, I wouldn't say I'm convinced they didn't land men on the Moon, but neither am I convinced they did. I guess you could say I'm agnostic on this issue, I remain to be convinced either way and that's why I'd like to see an unmanned lunar expedition, to answer the question, did man really walk on the moon?

  241. docoman

    Thanks for your honest and interesting answer John. I share your distrust of 'official' stories that don't make sense, 9/11 being one. I also agree, going on the US gov. track record, the complete truth from them would be somewhat of an anomaly.

    I was fascinated when I first heard the opinion and reasons why some people don't think the moon landings were real but instead were staged. Many of the problems/questions raised I think have been adequately addressed in some of the media pieces about it, mostly things like shadow angles, the low G walk, lack of stars and lighting in photo's etc, and I was satisfied with those answers. I'm unconvinced on the point about radiation beyond the van allen belt, I don't know enough about it to make a decent judgement to be honest.

    My feelings are the US got ready to fake it if they needed/decided to, but I believe they did go and made it. Those pic's in the link I posted look how I'd expect it to look now from above, but I'm no expert so it's possible they're 'doctored'. But it wouldn't be overly difficult for astronomers to prove they're not legitimate. I'd think being at the height of the Cold War the Russians would have cried foul if it was faked. I've visited the Radio Telescope at Parks, NSW Australia, that was involved in the communication with the apollo missions, and it looked quite convincing their little museum about the "dish's" history. Those grainy images you watched in '69 supposedly came via that dish.

    Another thing to consider is the 382 kg of samples they brought back, some of which was distributed to labs around the world to study. Surely someone by now would have discovered if they're fake I'd expect.
    I think they did go, I could be wrong though, it wouldn't be a first. :) You're right, an unmanned mission to at least one landing site could be interesting and possibly useful, as you said, to inspect anything left there, and any effects of it's exposure, and would also relieve any doubt about it. Good point mate, cheers.

  242. Jim McCusker

    If it was faked, along with the recent photos of the landing sites, don't you think that someone would eventually come out and expose the lies? Remember, the Apollo missions employed many thousands of individuals who played various roles in the missions. For the missions to have been faked you'd have to believe some people at NASA shuttled the astronauts away from the space craft prior to launch, or perhaps launched them into orbit only to play pre-recorded video of faked moon-walks, or perhaps dumped their capsule into the ocean after lift-off. Too many people would have had to be in on the secret. I do appreciate your acknowledgement of not knowing the science and this is most likely where you're suspicions are coming from, but sit back for a moment and really try to dream up how it was faked and figure out how many people would have been involved who never leaked it out after all of these years.

  243. docoman

    I agree mate, that's also a part of why I think they did go.

  244. Anonymous

    Showing us a graph of the landing, funny. Why bring a 4x4 on the moon? I mean, weight must of been an issue! sometimes my car won't even start at minus 20c never mind absolute zero. They had guts to go there for a couple of days...

  245. Nicolas

    Bring a 4X4 to the moon, but don't forget your telescope ! witch they did ! and don't remember how clearly we can see the stars from the moon ! ah ! ok ! no problem , hopefully they won't forget the all thing was an hoax unless, they really think they were on the moon and not in a warehouse !

  246. blob darkass

    No it was never easy. After the apollo missions NASA must have decided we have enough moon rocks and focused on the space shuttle, ISS, probes and hubble. However with the assitance of NASA we will be going back with other countries and private enterprise. NASA is going to focus on moving on to landing asteroids and hopefully mars. For dates, info and sources of future moon missions wiki...
    List of proposed missions to the Moon

  247. blob darkass

    None of the flags are "fluttering". Look again at the videos. The LRO has taken pictures of the landing sites and foot print tracks and rovers but that is not enough for the hoaxtards so they will just have to wait until private enterprise of other countries go back (which will be soon) anmd then they can work on figuring out ways to fabricate more hoax theories when they are again easily debunked.

  248. blob darkass

    They already know what will happen to the artifacts left there. The foot prints will remain for millions of years. The flag however is a generic nylon flag with an aluminum rod that is holding it out so it did not sag. Constant extreme hot and cold cycles of the moon and harsh ultraviolet light will cause them to desintegrate. The LRO has picked up shadows at the flag sites implying they might still be intact but if they lasted 40 years under those conditions it would be impressive. No NASA is not going to go back just to satisfy some hoaxtards but within 2-10 years humans will be back and most likely get better pics then the LRO can from miles up.

  249. blob darkass

    NASA does have mars in it's sites as well as a human landing on an asteriod. The LRO took pics of the landing sites but from miles up from the lunar surface it is not going to be a close up HD...but it did photograph good evidence. What convinces the some we did not go to the moon is some assholes wanted attention and money many years ago and decided to write articles and make films claiming is was all a conspiracy. So some gullible fools took the easy road and follwed the hoax theory instead of going the scientific route and question those actually qualified in the field of physics, cameras, gravity, radiation and vacuum of space.

  250. blob darkass

    All hoax theories have been debunked. The hoaxtards won't believe it even the LRO pics are not good enough. So they will simply continue this nonsense until we go back. And then when we do they will still not accept it because this is their obsession. So they will just say something like "well I was told the moon is a fake and it is being beamed as an image from area 51 by the know they lied to us before"...etc etc etc
    ad hominem

  251. johnscriv

    "Hoaxtard" ... hahaha, that's so funny, you're a real comedian.

  252. Sied Sulaiman

    Ok for the sake of argument we believe they reached the moon. My quetion is they build rocket to reach the moon, who build the rocket from the moon to reach the earth. It is impossible them to come back the place were they left.

  253. Kool Breeze

    What just because you think its impossible it is? They came back the same way they went its not a big problem did you not watch the show?They went to the moon one because it was the easier thing then to try and dupe 400,000 workers and scientist, plus millions more and the spy's. This was one of man kinds greatest feats I can't imagine believing it to be fake. I truly feel sorry for anyone who has been taught or believes it to be fake.

  254. I hate Nasa/NAZIs

    This documentary is "cronnie" journalism. More opinionated than factual at it's very terrible rebuttal of the evidence presented by those who believe the landings were a hoax. They do not even properly sight the entire arguments and frankly the rebuttals were so void of providing scientific evidence but instead rather perform a "slight of hand" maneuver of complete scientific intolerance. The rebuttal of the intercepting shadows was moronic at best. The conflict of the shadows presented in the hoax argument point to shadows on the same plane, not on a traversing one. What a joke lol. And the photo "C" rebuttal "Hair on the negative" LMAO. Then republish it NASA without the hair. lol They do not address any of the arguments correctly and with responses like "try this at home"... are you kidding me????? cmon now. That's one of the points NASA/NAZIs want to fake. Try this at home LOL what a joke. Yes the hoax was done in earth's atmosphere NOT A VACUUM. They showed you footage of them using wire suspension to mimic moon walking. This doc is a joke. The violation of Newtonian Physics over and over in that Vacuum are so obvious to anybody who has opened up an even basic physics book.

  255. pilit

    the USA has faked so many things involving thousands and thousands of people for decades and managed to keep them secret. You can have a look at all the false flag operations and Gladio to contrast the USSR, CHINA, South America or the Middle East, and all other secret operations like the spying, monitoring past and present and you have an overwhelming picture of the cheating, faking and deceiving practiced by the USA. These were and still are normal practices for the USA secret services. Are all those revelations just conspiracy theories? NO they are facts!

    The moon landing is just one of a string, part fact and part fabrication, the perfect cover. The space programme was real, the space exploration is not contested, the manned missions are. There are a million inconsistencies with the moon landings stories but no matter what evidence is presented the cover can still hold, same for all false flag operations until they are officially revealed like Gladio was and still may get NO acknowledgement by the USA.
    The USA (and the UK) have been playing these games since WWII, for them the war is not over, the war now is bout keeping the hegemony and in order to do so they need to brainwash the masses and convince the world of their still "superior" technology and way of life. That was true during the cold war as it is today and essential ingredient for them to try to maintain a hold on the global markets they are constantly losing.

  256. Katie Parker

    they say they went they say there is nothing there.
    so why are a lot of the photos still classified?
    either there is something there that they don't want us to see or they would reveal it being a hoax..
    which one is it.

  257. over the edge

    when did NASA say "there is nothing there."? also please look up "false dichotomy"

  258. Mohanlal

    Can anybody tell me why one of the most simplest but most important experiment, weighing with a weighing machine to establish that gravity on the moon is indeed one-sixth the gravity on earth, not conducted during the moon landings was.

  259. Boab Celtic Bhoy Knox

    the moon is a space station, n yanks been chased away from it 1st time by beings of some kind, , then all other landings was done in nevada desert , to put piece o mind in ppl thats there nothing off any interest or value i.e water n oil, or they would have invaded it by now

  260. loudspeaker

    If we landed on moon where are they pictures of stars and planets in our solar system taken from moon! I am sure the first thing they would have done if they had gone real to moon is taken a telescope with them..

  261. over the edge

    you ask "where are they pictures of stars and planets in our solar system taken from moon" first off the absence of evidence is not a substitute for evidence. next the relative light from planets/stars is insignificant compared to the light from the sun especially when not filtered through our atmosphere. just like we do not see stars during the day why would they see stars during the day on the moon? also please show me planets and stars from the space station or the shuttles . or are those photographs fakes as well?

  262. loudspeaker

    chill man! don't you think any astronomer will appreciate the pics taken from moon, atleast they would have tried to observe how different celestial bodies look when viewed from moon? now iam not saying if they can or can't take pictures from moon but wouldn't it be dream come true for an astronomer to study those things from moon? wouldn't it make a better viewing of neptune/ uranus due to no atmosphere and dark sky?

  263. over the edge

    you ask " wouldn't it make a better viewing of neptune/ uranus due to no atmosphere and dark sky?" again they were on the light side of the moon so no pictures would have worked

  264. dan

    I have a theory, you are right and wrong. The moon race between Russia
    and the US wasn't about showing who was the most technically advanced
    country in the world as portrayed in the media. In the early 1940's
    evidence was brought to the attention of the worlds major governments
    that UFO's exist and in 1947 Roswell New Mexico was the proof the US was
    looking for. Sense then NASA and our government have been looking
    upward and found activity on and around the moon. Probes were sent with
    cameras from both our country and Russia's to get a closer look, bases,
    structures and towers were discovered on the dark side of the moon. So
    now we have a race with Russia to make first contact and/or obtain
    advanced technology for weapons and world superiority. In the process of
    sending men to the moon our government was in a dilemma about how to
    keep the people and other countries from discovering the real reason for
    going up their, a plan was devised to replicate the moon, creators and
    ships so as to be able to take photos and videos of the moon walks and
    landings that would show nothing but a moon surface that is baron and
    lifeless, but they knew differently. Some actual moon photos were
    doctored to erase images from the originals and some photos were taken
    here on earth to simulate the moon, to continue their real reason hidden
    and keep the public in the dark. So you were right, but only half

  265. luca

    I've seen a documentary where they were talking about a super telescope they are building on the international orbitant base. The reason why they are building a telescope up there is because, they say, it will work a lot better because it is out of the atmosphere....

  266. John

    Electric cars and no telescope? Earth developed muscles in 1/6 gravity, in theory humans should be like "supermen" on the moon...what's the slow motion all about?
    Angular LM spacecraft another curiosity.
    No visible means of propulsion when the LM??? takes of from the lunar surface, what happened to the camera that filmed the take off, why wasn't it left running?

  267. John

    I'd just like to add that the moon shines more brightly than the SUN when it is photographed in terms of Gamma rays and it is also bombarded by cosmic rays so i don't know how they got the photos to look normal, In contrast (no pun intended) the photos from Chernobyl were fogged by the radiation from the fall-out from a nuclear power station.

  268. Mike

    "Electric cars and no telescope?"


    "Earth developed muscles in 1/6 gravity,"


    "in theory humans should be like 'supermen' on the moon"

    They could jump up a little over a foot from the lunar surface, much more than the inch or 2 they would be able to jump on Earth, wearing a stiff suit and a 200-pound suit and pack.

    "No visible means of propulsion when the LM??? takes of from the lunar surface"

    Except the big plume of white-colored gas bursting out the bottom of the lunar ascent stage. How does that not count?

    "what happened to the camera that filmed the take off, why wasn't it left running?"

    It was radio-controlled from Earth. And yes, radio control was developed decades prior.

  269. Mike

    A better question is "Why do you EXPECT pictures of stars and planets taken from the moon?"

    They were there to photograph the moon and astronauts and equipment on it, not to take pictures of stars and planets.

    Besides, they photographed stars using the ultraviolet camera during Apollo 16.

  270. Mike

    Who said they were supposed to bring a telescope?

    Yes, they can see stars, unless their eyes are adjusted for bright light, like the entire surface of the moon. They had to look away from the moon's surface and from the sun to see stars. They had special optics that allowed them to do this.

    Photographs of the lunar surface don't show stars because the cameras are adjusted for bright light (lunar surface, bright white astronauts and equipment), and stars are too dim to register on film with such short exposure time.

    Try taking pictures of stars yourself, and include something bright in the frame.

  271. Mike

    They don't need to go back to beam back nice crisp images.

    They already brought back nice crisp images when they landed on the moon, SIX separate times.

    The US flags never fluttered.

    America's image isn't tattered at all, when it comes to the moon landings.

  272. Mike

    "There is at least historical value in documenting the human artifacts allegedly left on the Moon."

    They did this already, when they were on the moon.

  273. Mike

    "such as the absence of dust on the feet of the LEM, the lighting in many
    of the images, the hazard of cosmic radiation beyond the van allan
    belts and not least, the inexplicable disinterest in, and neglect of,
    the Apollo artifacts allegedly left on the Moon"

    "Absence of dust". Correct. There is some, but the lander cut engines before landing, so blown dust would be past the position of the pads.

    "the lighting in many of the images" Correct. There is nothing wrong with any lighting.

    "the hazard of cosmic radiation beyond the van allan belts" Exaggerated.

    "inexplicable disinterest in, and neglect of,
    the Apollo artifacts allegedly left on the Moon"

    What attention or maintenance do you expect them to direct toward these artifacts?

  274. Mike

    So the lack of stars argument was valid, I suppose?

    "Do you know how much radiation there is in space caused by the sun ?"

    Do you? How much?

  275. Mike

    Interest in moon landings had already waned during the early Apollo missions. Funding was cut, and they did everything they could do on a dead rock anyway.

  276. Mike

    The LRO is a lunar mapping tool. It isn't there to prove the landings happened. There is no need to do that.

  277. Mike

    The footage is fine. Adjust your expectations, and stop believing everything you see on conspiratard sites and YouTube videos.

  278. Mike

    Why are you comparing space radiation to Chernobyl nuclear fallout? Do you think all radiation is the same?

  279. Mike

    The ease with which they moved, the heights they could jump or throw things, already established this.

  280. Mike

    What extreme temperatures? It was only extreme during lunar NOON, not lunar MORNING, when the astronauts were there on the surface. And it's only the surface that gets hot, not empty space.

    The astronauts needed insulation in their boots to protect them from the heated surface, and their WHITE suits to reflect the sun's radiation. (Think about how a white car is much cooler in direct sunlight than a black car.)

  281. Mike

    People already know it's a fact. That's why scientists all over the world have verified the evidence. Because it's real.

    NASA doesn't care much about a handful of deluded conspiratards.

  282. Mike

    Return? What for?

  283. Mike

    "why did they fake the photographs on the moon?"

    They didn't.

  284. enzofloc

    What for can be a cop-out answer for anything. What do we need a space station for?

    I'll tell you what for. To prove skeptics like me wrong and to prove that science can actually send a person beyond the mere limits of communication satellites.

    China recently landed an unmanned craft on the moon. And there was no returning. I believe that's as much as NASA could ever have done several decades ago.

  285. enzofloc

    America's greatest achievement is so hush-hush.

  286. enzofloc

    To Jim McCusker and fellow believers, Re: Too big of a secret to secure.
    Yes. It's hard to believe the government, NASA and all the people involved could have buried the secret for so long. But not as hard as it is to believe in the fable that they slung a ship up to orbit the moon, gently landed a module on the surface, golfed, kicked up some dust, and horsed and cruised around like it was nothing, then strapped back in and lifted off from the moon and threaded a needle in space to reconnect with the command module and then return safely to earth. With such ease they did it again and again for a few years. Then suddenly... stopped! They haven't attempted anything even remotely as ambitious since. In over three decades following, no human has ever been sent and returned beyond the modest orbit of the space station. Excuse me for believing it was a hoax of monumental proportions. It would be among the greatest embarrassments in the history of human civilization if they fessed up. And the people that do know, every sworn-in President since included, tend not to boast about it much. America's greatest achievement is so hush-hush.

  287. Greg Smith

    Stopped? Money, money, money. Go ask your next door neighbor which they would like to see happen - government employees get paid or to go see the artifacts on the moon. No......wait.....I'm not psychic but I bet I know what they said. Now, you may go on about how the government furloughs are all generated for politics and they are just as much a hoax as the moon landing, and I'll be the first one to say that politics were all OVER those furloughs last summer. But the PERCEPTION is that there was not a budget and literally people were not getting paid. So the PERCEPTION that there is no money to pay people, much less go romping all over the solar system is enough to make the budget cuts happen. Yeah, but hey, whatever. Yeah, convinced half the government to hold their tongues for forty years. Whatever....your tin-foil hat is slipping.....

  288. enzofloc

    I'm not buying the money argument (and I'll overlook your insults). They had the know-how, the bragging rights, and the resources, and they landed successful missions (so they say). Reagan was going to spend oodles on missile defence. And W spent trillions on useless wars. Money is printed paper, and they own the press. At the rate Nasa was going, they could have had a lunar tourism industry for billionaires by now. All they have 35 years later is a glorified airplane that can hardly get off the ground. Obviously you're not open-minded enough to consider it was a fraud. So stick your wagging tongue up your self-righteous butt. (Sorry, was that an insult? and I tried so hard to refrain myself).

  289. Dave

    Pathetic straw man argument. It's like driving all the way across the united states to the grand canyon, only to take photographs of your vehicle in the car park!

  290. LegionOfPoon

    The wars cost trillions.. But there was no money to pay for it... Hence the outrageous debt we are in

  291. Bozzy Lewis

    I think it is quite ridiculous to believe this "conspiracy theory" that NASA never really landed on the moon in 1969 ? What would the government expect to gain by "staging" such an elaborate hoax ? I remember religious nuts were also convinced the Apollo rockets of the 1960's would pierce "Heaven" just beyond he clouds on the way to the moon, and destroy it !

  292. Tk Kininson

    fake as fake can be. Same with the rovers and the iss....hoax hoax hoax

  293. Tk Kininson

    The fact there are photos proves they didn't go. The hassleblad cameras used kodak film. Kodak film melts at 160f and freezes at -80f. From nasa's own lips it was + - 220f on the moon. So they really expect us to believe the film survived almost double their fail ceilings and all the cosmic radiation to deliver pristine images?

    The only mods done to the camera would altered f stop and aperture, brackets, and easier to take a pic.

  294. over the edge

    you state "The only mods done to the camera would altered f stop and aperture, brackets" that is not true. the housing and coatings applied helped shield the camera from the heat. also radiation is the only significant mode of heat transfer on the moon. so if the camera was properly cooled between uses the film would survive just fine as long as the exposure time to direct sunlight and time spent between cooling was limited.

  295. edgedweller

    you don't believe that with all the terrible space & weight constraints aboard the apollo they allowed for a 'lunar buggy' for the astronauts to fck around in???.. it is kinda hard to swallow...specially with nosuch evidence of lunar golf clubs to go with it

  296. edgedweller

    errrr they won the space race on a fraction of the allocated budget. History is written by the victor

  297. edgedweller

    its hard to admit youve been lied and taken for a fool with something youve believed all you're life isnt it? just let go...c'mon you can do it, have a little cry if you have to..

  298. edgedweller

    the 'lunar buggy' was indispensable to...just have a fck around up there, do a few wheelies in the sand dunes ROFL

  299. edgedweller

    Research 'Manhattan Project'...secrets can be kept with thousands of people...its been done :)
    'someone would eventually come out and expose the lies'??? well i think there's millions of us trying! we're called 'nutjobs', 'conspiracytards'. Who do you think is gonna be brave enough to come out of retirement to be the official nutjob representative? The Russians in 69 couldve...but they knew they lost the race whether it was faked or real, maybe they even took an incentive $$$ how much did they sell alaska to the US for again? ;). Its over, history is written by the victor sonnyjim

  300. peter

    I would like to ask the conspiracy theorists if they believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theory?

  301. MarsHelper

    Anyone who believes the moon landing was a hoax is mentally inferior to those that believe it was real.

  302. steve button

    They had the money to pay for the war there's no doubt about that....they just decided to let your children pay for it...'cause that's the kind of people they are....

  303. steve button

    I'd feel sorry for you, but I don't believe even you believe the rubbish in your comment...

  304. steve button

    I believe there are claims today -whether they're from NASA I don't know -that within 20 years we'll have communities on Mars....I bet that program is costing billions if not trillions of dollars. Which they have because the wealth they have is100x or more what they used to have....they're much more interested in finding new and more elaborate means of lying to people.'Your' 'government is gone..all hail ZOG the bringer of lies, filth and misery...

  305. Kool Breeze

    There is no rubbish as you say in my comment..
    I know man went to the moon becasue it would have simply been easier as I said, Why? Because the amount of forgery it would have taken to fake it would have been an enormous undertaking and someone would have noticed you think that the Russians weren't spying and didn't verify that America won the space race and just took there word for it are you mad?
    I am sure that any one of the many scientists who received a fake moon rock would have known it to be fake, it would have been far easier and cheaper for them to just goto the moon and get the real thing then spending billions to pay people off and make forgery's...

  306. awful_truth

    So, you believe the moon landings were a hoax then? The only reason people believe this today is because they have not been back in 42 years. (that we are aware of) If you are interested in conspiracies, (they really do exist) I would concentrate on the assassination of JFK. Unlike the moon landings, there is a ton of evidence (undeniable) that it was not a lone assassin with a magic bullet.
    P.S: While I respect your skepticism in questioning governments, (a good thing) some things are actually true. Please do some real research before you respond back regarding the Apollo missions.

  307. awful_truth

    While I appreciate your efforts, they may be an exercise in futility. (you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink) Actually, some of the best evidence they landed on the moon, is not the most obvious. (Edwin Buzz Aldrin in his 70's punching a man in the face for calling him a fraud) Yup, that is what I would do if some wannabe questioned my integrity after all the risks I took to see it done.

  308. awful_truth

    For the record, there is a private attempt to make a 'one way trip' to Mars. In reality, all the technology they used to get to the moon was given up for orbital activites. (shuttle) Without a doubt, it is folly to attempt even going to Mars until we can go back and forth to the moon as easily as we fly across the Atlantic. This doesn't mean we don't have the technology to go to Mars, only that they call it rocket science for a reason. (it is difficult, and extremely dangerous)
    Note: In 1972, the last 2 moon landings (Apollo 16 - 17) occurred in the spring, and fall. Had they went during the summer, they would have all died from a coronal mass ejection from the sun. Our information regarding this was not confirmed until they gave up the last 3 flights, (Apollo 18/19/20) and used 2 of them for skylab, where we learned just how dangerous the sun really is. (something that needs to be dealt with for a Mars expedition)

  309. loudspeaker

    Why would they need to tell those millions of ppl that they are faking mission to moon.

  310. Tony

    Right on. This is one of the things most difficult to believe in my life. NASA has achieved the single greatest thing in modern history (comparable to the discovery of fire, according to some books), but they seem to struggle to keep it secret - "No there's no reason to do it again, big money, yada yada". Give me one example that ever went like this in history. Ha, ha.

  311. Tony

    My take on this is that it may not be that important. I personally believe the still shots were taken on earth (even on earth it would take some skill to produce such incredibly beautiful shots). But even they were taken on earth it doesn't prove anything since NASA could have just slipped them in for propaganda whether they really went or not. So it's a good observation but may not be a conclusive evidence one way or the other.

  312. Tony

    Moon landing is fundamentally hard to believe because of its history. That is, they are not going back. They went seven times, without any competition or other compelling reasons. They sent A12 six months after A11, despite the supposedly "huge" cost involved. Then 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, all more or less doing the same thing. Would you throw away money like that? After the first success, wouldn't you first spend a few years perfecting all the technologies involved, especially when it's so costly and dangerous. No, they continue like crazy, as if it's a piece of cake, as if success is guaranteed and cost is no issue. Then suddenly they stop for 42 years, and now say "it's costly", "there's no reason to go". How is it too costly to do even one mission, with all the technology advances, if they did seven missions 42 years ago? Or, conversely, how come something that was easy enough to do seven times in three years' span becomes so difficult 42 years later. Seems in this business things move backwards.

    Isn't the manned moon landing a monumental achievement, a once in a thousand years milestone like the discovery of fire? It is not something you can compare with other earth orbit or unmanned explorations. Mankind traveled out of the earth, which people could never even dream of until a century ago. They set foot on the moon, something every human being on earth grows up observing, admiring, romanticizing. It is so triumphant and historic it should be repeated just for the sake of it as far as I'm concerned. And wouldn't the world go crazy if it's done right now, with the modern imaging and communication technology delivering high resolution live feeds of the activities. In my mind it would have a value many times greater than the dollar numbers they cite. But NASA somehow acts so reluctant about their astonishing achievement. Why do they keep it so low profile? Usually we have the problem of people and countries making too much of a big deal out of not so grand an achievement. Here we have the very opposite. People, organizations, countries just don't behave like this. So a lot of people feel something's not right here in their guts. Hence the conspiracy theory.

  313. Tony

    Exactly. Exposing big secrets is not as easy as purported. First, you should be prepared to lose everything. Second, even if you sacrifice everything, including your life, it doesn't mean you'll succeed. Everything lay people know comes from the media, so if the media doesn't fully cooperate with you, it doesn't matter whether you or 1000 people give up their lives to the cause. It won't get to the people.

    About the Soviets same thing applies. If the Western media at the time didn't cooperate with them, nothing will get to the people in the West. And we all know how it was in those days. Fat chance the media in the West would have reported the Soviets' stories, especially when false propaganda were rampant from them.
    But more importantly, the Soviets were in no position to provoke the US. If they divulged it, yes they would have gotten some mileage out of it but would the US have just let that pass? There would have been a commensurate, nasty retaliation. The Ruskies had as many or even more dark secrets themselves, and they were struggling to hold the empire together to boot. Their utmost priority was their own survival. By not blowing the horn about it they could expect a bit gentler US. I would have chosen this path too if my own survival was at risk. They did barely lasted another 20 years before crumbling on their own, without anyone even attacking them. They were already a paper tiger with big fissures developing inside, and no match for the US.

  314. edgedweller

    WOW.....I couldn't have said it better. You have far too much knowledge, logic and critical thought to be posting here. The mods will have to collude to come up with something, they'll have to work on it for sure ;)

  315. Tony

    Ha ha, yes and no. Something did go wrong on A13, but, you know, no one got hurt. In '67, '86, and '04, something went wrong and 3, 7, and 7 got killed respectively. But on this much more complicated larger scale manned moon mission, something goes wrong near the moon, but incredibly, they all come back with flying colors, not even an arm broken, and become "NASA's finest hour!". Isn't this cute? 17 get killed on the ground or in low earth orbit, but nary a finger gets broken in the seven astronomically more complex missions. So, yes and no. Something did go wrong, but not really wrong.

  316. Tony

    Is this a stupidity contest? If any telescope on earth can see those things how can there be any controversy. Did you see them by any chance? As Frank Zappa said, there's nothing available in more abundance than stupidity.

  317. Tony

    Don't know why anyone bring in Mythbusters here. We have doubs about NASA, a god-like entity in space exploration. Mythbusters are just some jackasses who got a lot of time on their hands and nothing better to do. And it wouldn't be surprising if they are getting support from NASA technically and financially. There's no regulation on uploading pictures on internet sites so that any idiot or weirdo can upload anything they fabricate, falsify, doctor, or whatever. Using Mythbusters' claims who has about 1 billionth of NASA's credibility in a discussion involving NASA's frauds doesn't make sense.

  318. Tony

    Scientists may be more honest than politicians (that's not saying much though :) on average but it doesn't mean scientists are all above telling lies. They're also humans with the same kind of aspirations and greed as any other. You can cite countless big frauds by scientists: like the cold fusion fiasco in the '80s; South Korea's Hwang's stem cell fraud; Japan's Obokata faking another stem cell fraud this year leading to a suicide of another Japanese scientist. You wish scientists are all trustworthy and so on, but the world is not that simple. This debate on NASA's (alleged) hoax is also mostly the work of scientists, isn't it.

  319. Tony

    There you go again. Just attack nitpicking about peripheral things like English. If you have the intelligence and energy to challenge anyone, keep to the subject. Your comment was just waste of anyone's time.

  320. a_no_n

    lol, you need to bone up on production costs, it most certainly would not have been cheaper to stage it, especially when you take everything into account, first you have to get an entire film crew, a set, you have to bribe everyone so they don't talk, then you have to actually build the rocket, and fire it up anyway...It would be so much easier to just send the damned rocket all the way up!

  321. a_no_n

    lol, i think you'll find you're the one believing lies and being "taken for a fool".

    Let me ask you a question, what would it take to convince you that the hoax theory is nonsense?

  322. Tony

    There are people doubting the moon landing based on "science", but there are also (maybe even more) because of the implausibility of the transpired history. To put it simply: NASA succeeded in this monumentally difficult mission in 7/69. Then they do it again in 6 months? Why so soon in the face of such high costs and danger to people. Not only once but 7 times in total. Then stop for 42 years without doing any groundwork for returning to it if needed, so that they can't in 2014 even if they wanted to. If this picture doesn't arouse suspicion I don't know what will. If someone achieves a big success, he'll want to dwell on it, expand it, and escalate it to bring more fame and success. But NASA went the opposite way. They went back to the lowly earth orbiting and can't even repeat what they achieved in '69. Not only that they don't seem to want to make a big dear out of the big feat but keep it low. This picture just don't jive with human or organizational nature which is why so many people have gut reaction. The history of this thing is riddled with suspicions, and science is only secondary.

  323. edgedweller

    LOL I'll just pass that off as a fluoride fuelled nonsense

  324. edgedweller

    LOL @ wiki source

  325. edgedweller

    wow lol 2 words: straw, man

  326. Tony

    Of course. And it's not the second time but the 7th or 8th time depending on how you treat Apollo 13. This may be the only one time in human history where something gets so much more difficult for the 7th time 40 some years later that they cannot repeat it. The first seven times it was so cheap and easy they just repeat it like crazy every 6 months, then 40 some years later, with all the incredible technology advancement, they can't because it's expensive and difficult. I would like to see the inside of the heads that don't find this picture suspicious.

  327. a_no_n

    ok two things, firstly, no it isn't and secondly strawman is one word not two...i presume you meant strawman argument which would be two words.

    it's a common mistake by people who throw around terms they don't really understand.

  328. a_no_n

    that doesn't answer my question.

    I presume you're avoiding answering because you're aware that admitting no evidence would ever change your mind makes you seem irrational.

  329. a_no_n

    all of that can be very easily explained by budget cuts.

  330. edgedweller

    It would be cheaper to fake something with an gigantuous amount of technical difficulty, fake something that man hasn't even remotely come close to achieving....> so I guess its cheaper to take a trip to the closest star than to fake it?....'just send the damned rocket all the way past the moon and onto Alpha Centauri' big lol's. Is it a combination of the kool aid and fluoride?...or is today PC privileges in your ward? o_O

  331. edgedweller

    what would you like me to answer? 'what would it take me to convince me that the hoax theory is nonsense?' - wtf? is that a threat....? : what kind of question is that? and another one: what would it take to convince you of the all the lies you've been fed your entire life?

  332. a_no_n

    a threat? where did you get that from? it's a really simple question, What evidence would you need to see to convince you that the hoax theory is wrong.

    it's a perfectly simple question that i can't dumb down any more than i already have.

    What would convince me? scientific peer reviewed studies that have gone through the scientific method. Provide me with one of these corroberating anything and i'll be forced to reconsider my position.

  333. edgedweller

    I said two words> straw, (that's a comma) man = straw man = 2 words. Now take those 2 words and derive meaning..;)

  334. a_no_n

    lol, a trip to the closest star would be a trip to the sun.

    Alpha centuri is 29392499050000 miles you have any idea how much fuel that would need?
    Do you have any idea how you would transport that much fuel? If you can.

    i love the way you accuse me of being mental whilst spouting the most ill educated nonsence you don't even know the closest star is the sun and you think i'm the stupid one?

  335. edgedweller

    erm I don't want to come across as rude but I don't think there is any point to this 'match' won't be able to affect my 'beliefs' with your 'proof' and vice versa. You have already proved to be limited in logic, knowledge and critical thought so I find it difficult to believe I will take anything out of taking this discussion please, use this as evidence for your cause and because I have declined your offer, consider yourself and your position as 'right' :)

  336. edgedweller

    THE MOON IS 400,000 MILES AWAY RETURN TRIP > HOW MUCH FUEL DO YOU NEED? I suppose your answer will be 'whatever apollo went through lol you're a special one

  337. edgedweller

    omg you are so intelligent the sun is a star omg congratulations :) omg Alpha centauri is 2843747467 miles away wow...your google powers are amazing. Do you know what ad hominem means? Go on, google it. Closest star (sun) or closest star except the sun (Alpha Centauri) does not change the proposition sonnyjim

  338. Tony

    The converse of your question would be: if they valiantly did it in '69, why wouldn't they even try it now with so much more technologies available. Don't give me that money bull, because if it's so expensive, why did they do it seven times instead of just one, or two, or at the maximum three times just to prove it. Am I to believe in those days it was cheap and easy so as to make seven missions affordable but it is suddenly expensive now? And what about the safety of the astronauts? Did they get a guarantee from god it can never fail. Didn't they lose 3 in '67, 7 in '86, and another 7 in '04, while doing much simpler low earth orbit? Isn't the moon mission incomparably more difficult?
    Conversely, if they really did it seven times, wouldn't that have made it cheaper/easier as a result? It's common sense that the more times you do something the easier it gets as you gain more knowledge and reduce uncertainties? But in this case it's more difficult/expensive after 7 successes and 40 some years of technology advancement? The money argument doesn't hold at all for me. You can't have it both ways.

  339. a_no_n

    lol, oh dear, is baby having a tantrum?

    You realize it's as simple as googling it yet still you fail to do it...I'm sorry, it's not nice being made to look like a complete idiot...though i must admit i'm not having to do much to achieve it.

  340. a_no_n

    hm, so i have to answer how much fuel it takes to get to the moon, but i'm nt allowed to quote the people who actually did it...well...i googled it anyway and got the answer 3,039,000 kg. can't even type a question into a search bar before making a comment?

  341. a_no_n

    lol if you don't want to come across as rude then maybe you shouldn't have started insulting me several comments ago.

    Ugh, you claim i'm lacking in logic and critical thinking, i'd like an explaination why this is the case, since you neglected to do that.

    To be honest i'm getting the impression that you're insulting me because you've run out of argument.

    Your argument seems to be "You don't agree with me so you're an i*iot."
    I'm afraid that's not an argument.

    there's none so blind as the ones who've pulled the wool over their own eyes.

  342. a_no_n

    yes but the term strawman is one word because it's a terminology not a description of a physical item.

    seriously man...Google. You should try using it before commenting.

  343. edgedweller

    now work out the SV of rocket fuel and work out the volume of gas tanks required

  344. edgedweller

    I repeat, I wrote straw and then man - 2 singular words alluding to STRAWMAN PRINCIPLE, which is exactly the direction those 2 words were meant to be taking you. Same as when someone writes 'kettle, black' what do you think they're alluding to? :)

  345. edgedweller

    NASA were living their golden years in the 60's...they were invincible, lunar missions for NASA were like a walk in the park for you and me. That being said how many animals and Cosmonauts did the Soviets 'go through' in order to orbit the earth (and return) successfully? At that stage the US was behind in the space race...but they magically pulled a rabbit (ie. moon landing) out of the bag. With contemporary technology, NASA send Columbia up to repair the hubble, a said journey of 350 miles above the earth, and all they got in return is a shuttle debris shower over Texas from a failed much for technology, too much foam insulation LOL. NASA should've just kept using the same 60's equipment; hell it worked 7 times without so much as a glitch :) and bring back Stanley Kubrick as mission director hahaha

  346. Vlatko

    Read it... don't shoot the messenger. At the end of that wiki page there's bibliography with exactly 54 sources used to compile that page. If you don't believe the wiki then find the original sources and read them too. Educate yourself for God's sake, don't expect to be spoonfed.

  347. Samuel Morrissey

    The distance is irrelevant. It takes 0 fuel to travel through space, once you are moving you keep moving. You only need fuel to accelerate / decelerate. It would take the same amount of fuel to get to Mars.

  348. Samuel Morrissey

    Engineering principles have not significantly overtaken the 60s technology. All that has really improved are materials. Take Formula 1 cars for example, The only improvement from the 60s is aerodynamics and materials. Those 60s cars are still the pinnacle of engineering in mechanical grip racing cars. It is simply naive to think that the technology of the 60s was primitive in any way apart from computers.

    While we do have better materials, they are a factor more expensive. Check out the cost of a modern formula 1 car. (whose suspension is much more primitive than a 60s formula 1 car)

    Also, another reason for the inflated expense is contemporary safety protocols, which have necessarily become much more rigorous and complex.

    You mention the Columbia shuttle break up and end it with LOL, slightly distasteful mate people were on board that thing when it failed. That was caused by damage to the ceramic heat shielding that occurred on lift off when a large chunk of ice from the support towers impacted it. This has always been a risk of reuseable space vehicles.

  349. Fabien L'Amour

    Go to the McDonald Observatory at the University of Texas in Austin
    and ask them about the mirrors on the moon they beamed lasers at for
    40 years and see what they think of your doubts. You can also go to Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico or the Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur in France if you want to see the lunar ranging done live. Hard to bounce a laser off a mirror that doesn't exist, don't you think?

  350. susan g

    And who are you going to believe? Some old coot living in the desert in a cardboard trailer with a bunch of cats? Or the thousands of brilliant scientists at NASA and the several astronauts who actually went to the moon? Hmmm.................I think I'll go with the scientists and astronauts.

    By the way, in the many, many, decades since we first went to the moon, out of the thousands of people who worked on the project, not one single person has come forward and exposed it as a hoax! Not one person has had a crisis of conscience and come forward and exposed it.

  351. Guest

    I read articles that Soviets used the mirrors left there by the American astronauts but not that they used their own mirrors, can you link me to that article you mentioned where they used their own mirrors?

  352. Fabien L'Amour

    Indeed and if it were false, one would think the U.S.S.R., archenemy of the U.S.A. would have decried it as a complete hoax for decades.

  353. Fabien L'Amour

    I suggest you try to make friend with Astronauts if the only way to know if it's real is to have a close friend who is involved. I would not recommend to tell them the moon landing is a hoax as an introduction though. ;)

  354. Samuel Morrissey

    The problem with this argument is; exactly what would be convincing to you? There's room for fraud in everything. Even if they did send more people to the moon at great expense for the singular reason of proving it to conspiracy theorists, knowing how much easier it would be to 'fake' it so perfectly today with modern computer graphics & simulations - your argument suggests you wouldn't believe it anyway.

  355. Tony

    Could you tell me more about it? I can't go to Texas anytime soon but I can first do a web search. I found the McDonald Observatory at Austin, which is probably what you meant, but couldn't find anything about lunar ranging there. I also checked the APO, NM site. There I saw some bits about lunar ranging but it seems it was done using some loaned telescope rather than their own, and the info was sketch. Anyway the point is I wasn't able to find anything useful and if you provide more clue, I'll check it out. Is it available now, how do you know about it, and what does "done live" mean, etc.

  356. edgedweller

    LOL @ spoonfed yeah Im a total fan of the moon buggy....the lunar 4x4 that was vital to moon exploration, and now a camera that is proof we went to the moon...there's no need for further proof, there's moon rock for heavens sakes (Ive seen moon rock with a federal stamp on it too) and Im a massive fan of the missing tapes of the first landing. Such a shame the footage was lost, I can only imagine if I lost my wedding video (or anyone for that matter) just like NORAD playing war games simulating the events of 9/11 precisely on the morning of 9/11, or the terror drills carried out precisely when the London tube bombings were eventuating. History is littered with these mishaps, its just bad luck isn't it. But yeah thanks for educating me, thanks for the propaganda I mean credible sources though

  357. edgedweller

    I like your disinformation whilst acting like you know what your talking about whilst addressing...nothing. 60s cars were pinnacle of mechanical grip???? todays cars would easily have equal grip at least if they were to be designed without aero....and how does 60's mechanical grip compare to the beginning of the 90's active suspension? did you forget about advancements such as traction control and active suspension? because they were banned from Formula 1, dosent mean they never existed...or are you stuck in the 60's and unaware of such advancements?

    How dare you exacerbate the issue by using the people that lost their lives aboard the Columbia, I was merely referring to NASA's inability to return a craft to earth safely in engineering terms and you go ahead and use the fact that lives were lost in the incident for your cause. That is shameful, I hope you're proud of yourself buddy.

  358. Fabien L'Amour

    Thanks for the info, I somehow overlooked the Lunokhod reflectors being of Russian origin.

  359. edgedweller

    exactly...I still believe Iraq is housing WMD's somewhere...I mean who are you gonna believe: Colin Powell or Saddam Hussein?

  360. Samuel Morrissey

    Traction control and active suspension are both software controlled systems. Not mechanical.

    The shuttle was multifunctional and re-useable. This puts it at a much greater risk of failure than a singular function one use only component like each stage of the lunar landing missions.

    Why then did they bother designing and building a re-useable multifunction space vehicle do you think?

    Feigning offense because you yourself wrote something tactless then trying to twist it round on me because I pointed it out. How very dare I indeed. I'm not the one promoting the idea that people like them are frauds.

  361. Guest

    Oh really? you suspension is purely a software system that magically controls the ride height of the vehicle? are you not aware of the hydro-pneumatic portion that is integral to the systems ability to actually do what it does? It maybe controlled by software but that's only part of the system, there is a hardware portion (ie. in the actual suspension)...its not just a computer with 2 wires connected to the strut LOL I know it doesn't fit your agenda but we learn something new everyday :)
    All I ask is that you stick to the subject respect those that lost their lives and refrain from using their deaths for your cause, that is all.

  362. edgedweller

    thankyou for the information and for moderating my thoughts :) but they didn't say how much or what type of fuel the command module carried..

  363. edgedweller

    Oh you mean speed isn't dependant on fuel economy in the 4th dimension? How long did it take to get to the moon again?

  364. a_no_n

    why? even if i do you'll completely miss the point as you've been doing thus far.

    You're not listening to logic, because even though you refuse to admit it there is no evidence or logic that will change your deeply held beliefs about the world.

    you're not so much concerned about the truth as you are your own ideology.

  365. edgedweller

    moderators to the rescue haha moderators defending the status quo so my comment was short, Active Suspension is a Hydro-Pneumatic system controlled by software buddy, its not just a computer that magically controls ride height without a hardware component integrated in the system. A contemporary Formula Ford for eg. has the equivalent mechanical grip of any 60's Formula 1 car because its essentially the same suspension setup.
    We learn something everyday don't we :)

    All I ask is that you stop using the deaths of people to support your cause, a little more respect please

  366. Fabien L'Amour

    The bulk of the fuel is needed to escape the atmosphere. To return, they had much less mass to carry and they didn't have to fight the earth's attraction. They did a trans-earth injection. It was performed by the restartable Service Propulsion System (SPS) engine on the Service Module. An Apollo TEI burn lasted approximately 203.7 seconds, providing a posigrade velocity increase of 1,076 m/s (3,531 ft/s).

  367. Tony

    Valid point. Let me try to answer it, but first, I'd like to clarify that the post you responded to is mine. I had posted it and then deleted it because I discovered something new belatedly. This apparently confuses Disqus' program and now it shows up under "Guest" heading.

    Anyway, I am not saying you should not believe anything but merely suggesting you should always give weights to the information according to their plausibility. I can never directly verify that they are really doing the lunar ranging since I don't work there and do not have the requisite knowledge. But I can indirectly verify its veracity by observing is their any incentive for falsification, what kind of organization talks about it in what details, do I see the information confirmed by other organizations, news media, by foreign media, and so on. If I keep seeing it confirmed all the time all over the world, then it's veracity weight increases in my mind and eventually gain the status of 95%, 99%, or 100% truth. For this particular fact, I don't doubt that some laboratories performed the ranging itself, but it still doesn't prove the manned lunar landing either. A Wikipedia entry for example talks about American scientists using a reflector left by a Soviet Lunokhod 1 unmanned spacecraft, suggesting it can be installed by an unmanned mission. So it's not a direct proof (look up "Lunokhod 1").

    We do this kind of validation constantly, even unconsciously, in our daily lives. When Dick Cheney mentioned the famous "mushroom clouds", how many lost sleep over it. I bet none, because everyone knew there was a political motivation for exaggeration, Irag is too small to ever dream of attacking the US, and all kinds of other facts. But if the same nightly news talks of a storm approaching, everyone checks his house because there's no reason to lie about such things, weather reports have usually been correct in the past, etc. We do this kind of mental judgement all the time everyday. The lunar landing was a high stake event for all involved with great incentives for forging and fudging if things don't go as planned, in my opinion.

    And about the point of not believing a new moon landing even if it takes place now, yes, there exists that (small) possibility. But it's also part of the responsibility of the entity doing it to do it right so there's no doubt left. If they do it very sloppily like NASA did in '69 and people pooh pooh it, then it means they failed because of their ineptitude. It's the same if a scientist writes an important paper. It's solely his responsibility to document every detail so that others can believe it and even reproduce the exact same results. It's part of the job they are trained and paid to do.
    If NASA did a convincingly good job (real job) in '69 I believe this hoax controversy wouldn't have arose at all. Not everything turns into a conspiracy theory. That's my view.

  368. Samuel Morrissey

    Like I said, software controlled.

    And why is the formula fords suspension essentially the same as a 60s F1 car? because the engineering principles have not significantly improved.

    I learn plenty of new things everyday, you however appear to be ignoring the facts presented to you.

    [edit] as it obviously bears repeating;

    Feigning offense because you yourself wrote something tactless then trying to twist it round on me because I pointed it out. How very dare I indeed. I'm not the one promoting the idea that people like them are frauds.

    a little more respect please.

  369. edgedweller

    Aye my comment was something Im writing is right haha 'The only improvement from the 60s is aerodynamics and materials' - FALSE as duly proven.

    The fundamentals of the 4 cycle compression engine remain the same for over 100 years...its the sub-systems that have improved efficiency, longevity, reliability etc - that's the point junior, what you claim may sound intelligent to the average Neanderthal - however, knowledge trumps bs....if you know what I mean.

  370. Samuel Morrissey

    If you break the rules, you will get moderated.

    Why do you avoid my direct questions and arguments?

    Why do you resort to name calling?

  371. edgedweller

    Yeah breaking the being right lol
    Im avoiding your direct questions and arguments because you are right, much like the above instance - '60s cars were pinnacle of mechanical grip' - replace pinnacle with genesis haha. Lots of dress up knowledge, your ok mate :)
    Since you brought up Formula 1, pour over this ..take Formula 1 mechanical reliability in 60's vs today. Compare with Space program (note the inverse relation). Discuss

  372. edgedweller

    what? so your beliefs are facts? I admire your faith

  373. Fabien L'Amour

    Commande Module
    Reaction Control System
    RCS propellants: UDMH/N2O4
    RCS propellant mass: 270 lb (120 kg)

    Service Module
    Service Propulsion System
    SPS engine propellants: (UDMH/N2H4)/N2O4
    SPS engine propellants: 40,590 lb (18,410 kg)

    UDMH : Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine H2NN(CH3)2

  374. edgedweller

    have you analysed the fuel usage that is claimed?

  375. Fabien L'Amour

    No, have you?

  376. edgedweller


  377. Fabien L'Amour

    cool, can I see your math?

  378. edgedweller

    I cannot show you a blackboard!? On revision of said quadratic equation, NASA did not carry the 1...the fuel usage is vastly under estimated for a trip of over 400,000 miles. My estimate is that Saturn required fuel tanks the size of 2x Queen Mary ocean liners. I urge you to do the math

  379. Fabien L'Amour

    Of course you can show me a blackboard, all you need is a digital camera, upload the file to a free picture hosting website and link the picture here.

  380. edgedweller

    gees spoon-fed much? It will only take you four hours to derive...try it

  381. Fabien L'Amour

    Why waste 4 hours if you can provide it in 5 minutes?

  382. edgedweller

    excuse me? waste? >I don't think you're ready for the truth

  383. Fabien L'Amour

    I am fully ready for your truth, I made no claim.
    Usually, the one making the claim has to provide evidence.

  384. edgedweller

    much like the world being a sphere?

  385. Fabien L'Amour

    I have no idea what the world being a sphere has to do with the fuel consumption of Saturn V.

  386. edgedweller

    status quo? The one making the claim?

  387. Fabien L'Amour

    I have no more time for this conversation, take care and feel free to post your calculations whenever you are ready..

  388. edgedweller

    that's an awesome virtual recreation - it must be real LOL

  389. Fabien L'Amour

    Your method of thinking should apply to conspiracy theories too. Unless you see them confirmed all over the world, they can't gain the status of being 95 to 100% true unless they obey a different standard.

  390. edgedweller

    I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Don't worry about the truth, it is buried in a random quadratic equation which you will never be bothered corroborating (let alone being able to derive) anyway. NASA need people like you: keep keeping the Moon landings alive in the memory & imagination of the people, as that is what it is: stories of moon landings in a time of a perennially aborted space program :)

  391. a_no_n

    no. i have no beliefs, i have an understanding, and that understanding changes when new information makes itself known.

    however that information must be of a certain quality, and yours has failed to measure up.

  392. edgedweller

    you have an understanding of, federal stories, pictures and anecdotes. You are a good little citizen
    Certain quality you say? yes yes, I can see the shortfalls of information conveyed over the internet....unlike the fundementals of your beliefs, which are all set in stone

  393. a_no_n

    lol i just explained to you that my understanding changes with evidence...that's the exact opposite of set in stone.

    and i believe scientists not governments, there's a'd understand that if you knew the first thing about science!

    that entire comment was just a big childish whinge because you aren't getting your own way.

    I don't think you even understand what the word evidence means...after all you've failed to provide a single shred of your own, you seem to think insulting me constitutes as an argument...that might be the case in play school, but here in the adult world it isn't.

  394. edgedweller

    LOL 'own way'? yes yes I don't understand anything you are right. What you consider evidence=fact= federal stamp. Yes 0 shred of evidence
    Insulting you? Im not even trying to insult you. Just go back to sleep will you?

  395. a_no_n

    i genuinely don't think you do...i think you think you do, but in reality you don't.
    You didn't know the sun was the closest star to the planet.
    You thought a star was something you could actually go to.
    You didn't know Strawman was one word.
    You didn't know how to find out how much fuel it takes to go to the moon.
    You fail to provide any evidence whilst bleating on that thou art the font of all irrefutable knowledge because OMG it's a conspiracy!

    You seem to think that stating your point as agressively as possible is proving your isn't it's just being a douchebag.

    When you've asked me for figures i've provided them, when I've asked you for facts or figures you've given me some sarky comment or told me that i'm essentially one of the sheeple because i'm not gullible enough to believe crank theories on the internet at face value.

  396. edgedweller

    That's the first thing they would have done if they 'actually' went there

  397. edgedweller

    the moon landings were proved by a punch in the face.....we're really starting to clutch at straws now aren't we lol

  398. Vlatko

    Moon buggy, the rocks and the NASA footage are not third party evidence. Did you actually even glance the article? But of course not... what was I expecting.

    - Japan's SELENE photographs in 2008;

    - India's Chandrayaan-1 photographs in 2008;

    - China's Chang'e 2 photographs in 2010;

    - Apollo missions tracked by independent parties (over 25 different entities and individuals from around the world including the whole god damn Soviet Union);

    - Usage, detailed examination and confirmation of the nature the of moon rocks by institutions unaffiliated with NASA;

    - Retroreflectors;

    - Post-Apollo lunar exploration (location of artifacts, images, flags, etc)

    - Comparison of Apollo's 16 ultraviolet photographs (long-exposure photos) with the sky scanned from earth by ESRO.

    - Apollo missions tracked by non-NASA personnel employed in the observatories (Australia, Spain, etc.)

  399. Samuel Morrissey

    Speed is also irrelevant. We could go slower or faster, it would take more or less time to get there. We could go further or shorter, and it would take more or less time. The fuel required to achieve escape velocity is a set number proportional to weight, no matter how far or how fast we intend to go.

    Now tell me again how the distance involved affects fuel consumption in space.

  400. Samuel Morrissey

    My last questions were rhetorical.

    Your initial argument was that flying someone to the moon should be cheaper today. I have explained how this position is incorrect.

    You compare the failure rate of the re-useable multifunction shuttle with the one use single function modular Apollo mission stages. I have explained how this is not a fair comparison.

    Tell me again how you are right?

  401. edgedweller

    If it is so clear to all of you believers that the moon landing was legit, why do you all care so much as to argue with a few loons about it? Is it that some of the arguments are plausible? Self reverence of human endeavour is much like a religion...the possibility of the pinnacle of human achievement being a big fat juicy lie and the corresponding mass deflation in ego's. Dangerous

    Let's settle it: lets go back to the moon?! Surely Exxon, Apple, Samsung, Claro, Volkswagen would all sign an open cheque...and a myriad of stupidly rich Investors would jump on board just for the publicity, TV rights? ...Moon Mission 2014 would be nothing short of massive, un-precedented corporate exposure for all involved WIN WIN - nothing bigger on earth since the 1st mission in 69 - who wouldn't buy into it? It could be nothing but viable. I mean we did it 7 times 42 years ago - piece of cake - and now with gazillions of dollars backing, why dosent it happen? no money? we own the money printing press, its not like money is backed by gold or anything..WHY? because it never did happen, and everyone up theres knows it...simple....
    Like telling a 5 year old Father Christmas is not coming back...because he never existed. Total gut wrenching stuff but that's the reality of it

  402. Samuel Morrissey

    Now that is a very good example of a strawman. I challenge you to show where I said that active suspension is 'purely a software system', as the rest of your post attacks that statement, which is your creation not mine.

    [edit] as it obviously bears repeating one more time;

    Feigning offense because you yourself wrote something tactless then trying to twist it round on me because I pointed it out. How very dare I indeed. I'm not the one promoting the idea that people like them are frauds.

    a little more respect please.

  403. Vlatko

    Don't philosophize, it won't pass. Did you read the article? Do you know what are third party evidence (bold again, just for you)? Read the article carefully and then read all the references linked to it.

  404. edgedweller

    sure, speed is irrelevant, fuel consumption>irrelevant - radiation = irrelevant, distance is irrelevant, vaccums are irrelevant, weight? not important. Why do people think space travel is so complicated? next question lol

  405. edgedweller

    LOL yes I read it - and saw the photos - so it must be true. Have you verified with all these 3rd parties? because if you have, I'll take your word for it ;)

  406. edgedweller

    are you still going on about this lol

  407. Samuel Morrissey

    You've obviously got nothing to add.

    Have a nice day.

  408. Samuel Morrissey

    Stop deflecting.

    Tell me again how the distance involved affects fuel consumption in space.

  409. Vlatko

    You can verify the third parties if you read all 50 references (they're called books, studies, etc.) listed at the end of the wiki page.

    Further more if you're still sceptical you can pack your bag and meet the authors in person.

    Further more if you're still skeptical you can embark on a journey examining the third party evidence by yourself.

    It's very simple.

  410. Samuel Morrissey

    Thank you for a reasonable response.

    I would suggest that making sure future conspiracy theorists believe is not a duty that falls within the mission parameters, for any given task.

    They have proved it for themselves and that is enough for them. If it was a hoax and they intended to keep it up, why are there not many more similar convincing hoaxes? It would certainly be easier and cheaper today. In this sense, the lack of repetition is positive to the veracity of the original claim.

    Your final viewpoint is adequately critical and I find no fault with it.


  411. edgedweller

    at least have a coffee before you get up? where did I say flying someone to the moon would be cheaper??? you're hallucinating lol have a coffee first? your just desperate to get back at me as you are suffering from the effects of your failed 'pinnacle of mechanical grip from the 60's' so seriously yeah I agree, really nowhere to go from here so move on to the next nutter that dosent believe in the moon propaganda...please

  412. Samuel Morrissey

    A fair point. Your first one, well done.

    It was Tony who suggested it should be cheaper. My mistake. Forgive me for reading the entire conversation to achieve context.

    Tell me specifically how the engineering principles in mechanics have improved since the 60s without mentioning new materials and/or computer controlled systems.

    'Any damn fool can build a bridge that will stand up. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that will barely stand up.'

    The point is, while materials have become more advanced and software driven actuators create more effective as well as more complex systems, the science and mathematics used by engineers to design new machines has not changed in any significant way since the 60s

  413. edgedweller

    you suffering from a little dementia? Or more likely, just diluting good informative comments (such as Tony's), just like NASA writes off non-believers as nutters...but then feel the need to provide proof for a fact thats well documented. Funny that...but then again you might just be suffering from a common believer-fluoride fueled attack :)

    Why are you quoting something Tony posted? I already debunked you with 'its the sub-systems that have improved efficiency,
    longevity, reliability etc' with reference to the compression engine..tell your handler to throw the towel in on that one ok?

    Your new comment 'The point is, while materials have become more advanced and software
    driven actuators create more effective as well as more complex systems,
    the science and mathematics used by engineers to design new machines has
    not changed in any significant way since the 60s' a bit of a 'no shti sherlock' (no shti science and maths used are the same lol) and beside the point we were discussing anyway.

  414. Samuel Morrissey

    Debunked me?

    There's a laugh. I assure you I do exist.

    You have not debunked my statement;
    'engineering principles have not improved significantly since the 60s' and your ad hominem is not an acceptable substitute for a reasonable argument.

    Efficiency, reliability, longevity - for a start reliability and longevity are the same.

    These are material improvements. Mechanically, there is no difference. A carbon steel suspension rod is more efficient (lighter) more reliable (stronger) than a stainless steel one. The improvement is material. The mechanical purpose, the task it was designed for and performs is identical.

    Then you agree with my elaboration at the end. So which is it? did you debunk it or do you agree?

  415. edgedweller

    look mate, ill copy and paste if you want to refute it and have seconds

    The only improvement from the 60s is aerodynamics and materials' - FALSE as duly proven.

    The fundamentals of the 4 cycle compression engine remain the same for over 100 years...its the subsystems that have improved efficiency, longevity, reliability etc - that's the point junior, what you claim may sound intelligent to the average Neanderthal - however, knowledge trumps bs....if you know what I mean.

  416. edgedweller

    longevity - average lifecycle

    reliability - how many break downs in a lifecycle (ie quality control)

    not the same thing

  417. Samuel Morrissey

    If we are simply going to copy paste previous replies;

    And why is the formula fords suspension essentially the same as a 60s F1 car? because the engineering principles have not significantly

  418. Samuel Morrissey

    breakdown = end of life cycle

  419. a_no_n

    i'm calling you stupid.

  420. edgedweller

    errrr no..certainly not in the 60's, you get more miles and more reliability out of a car today on average, even with Planned obsolescence :) Whereas retirements were a feature of F1 in 60's and 70's (except for the Ford DFV), now FIA try to regulate reliability failure into F1 stop trying to prove me wrong already, your like a dog with a stick...go away lol you really didnt do your cause any favors by exemplifying cars and Formula 1 :)

  421. edgedweller

    we already went through've just picked up from where the other fella left didnt you lol just going round in circles

  422. Samuel Morrissey

    Circles? I completely agree. You are indeed running around in circles with your copy pasta.

  423. Samuel Morrissey

    When an engineered component of any system fails, the failed component is not reused.

  424. edgedweller

    lol is that you captain obvious

  425. Samuel Morrissey

    Well, you keep denying the obvious.

  426. edgedweller

    The only improvement from the 60s is aerodynamics and materials

    your words

    I already stated that the basics of an engine has been the same for 100 years, the basics of suspension in 60's F1 cars is the same, its not just material that have improved since the 60's, subsystems that have improved the product (fuel delivery)

    suspension (active suspension)

    vehicle dynamics?
    build quality, quality control?

  427. edgedweller

    active suspension>completely different from 60's suspension, not a materials improvement, not just a computer, developed at the end of the 80's - so 1960's onwards

    = theory debunked

  428. Samuel Morrissey

    And how exactly have the 'subsystems' improved? do they use new mathematics or scientific principles specific to engineering in their design? Or do they use new materials, as well as adding new subsystems (working on the same old principles) to perform additional tasks?

  429. Samuel Morrissey

    acitve suspension = computer controlled ride height. Addition of computer technology to existing unchanged mechanical engineering principles.

  430. edgedweller

    unchaged? wheres the traditional damper and spring? 'mechanical engineering principles'? LOL could you be any broader in your definitions

  431. edgedweller

    no ofcourse not, active suspension was developed with quantum physics via meditation. You sir, are ridiculous. Where do you put energy recovery that a new principle? LOL

  432. Vlatko

    You need to stop with the name calling and provocations if you want to converse further. Read the faq.

  433. Samuel Morrissey

    energy recovery systems are additional and do not change the engineering principles behind the mechanical components.

  434. Samuel Morrissey

    That depends on the exact method used to actively adjust the ride height. Some methods include dampers and springs and use fluid pressure to alter the behaviour of said springs/dampers. Others use hydropneumatic containers (balloons which are a type of spring and damper in one) all these ideas were developed a long time before the 60s

  435. edgedweller

    well since the wheel has not been reinvented, I guess i all falls under 'mechanical principles' lol

  436. Guest

    ok mr suddenly active suspension expert

  437. Samuel Morrissey

    Exactly. come up with a better and more efficient distinctly different design that surpasses the wheel for the identical purpose and you have significantly improved the engineering principles.

  438. edgedweller

    congrats dude, thats all i can say - vlatko is watching

  439. Samuel Morrissey

    I use my own words, in my own understanding.

    If I have it wrong I welcome any correction.

  440. Vlatko

    I couldn't help but notice that when faced with thorough arguments, facts, logical explanations and evidence you resort to several tactics:

    - deflection,
    - relativization,
    - ad hominem, and
    - circular logic.

    Now Samuel is patiently and thoroughly explaining to you the logic behind his arguments and you're acting rather silly.

  441. edgedweller

    anyone can go into google and copy and past how a system works. There is no point in specifying how a system works - he is not sticking to the point, that is my point

  442. edgedweller

    were those thoughrough arguments your arguments?

  443. edgedweller

    "Take Formula 1 cars for example"

  444. Samuel Morrissey

    So I'm waiting patiently for your supposedly obvious modern engineering improvement to the 60s technology of strapping people to a giant firework to accelerate them into orbit and beyond.

    There are new ideas of course. Nano tube space elevator cables for example. None of these is yet a possibility with contemporary engineering.

  445. Vlatko

    I'm not talking only about one particular argument. Your whole conversation is incoherent. You deflected the arguments about speed/fuel correlation in space and the third party evidence. You relativized the argument about the mechanics/durability of the materials. And in almost all of your comments there's circular logic and an ad hominem. Just sayin'.

  446. Samuel Morrissey

    Excuse me?

  447. edgedweller

    no your right NASA 60's tech = 2014 NASA tech

  448. edgedweller

    your words
    active suspension - late 80's

  449. Samuel Morrissey

    With a great many improvements in materials, additional technologies and safety protocols, yes.

  450. edgedweller

    'silly'? thanks for the 'encouragement'

  451. Samuel Morrissey

    And your point is what exactly?

  452. edgedweller

    self explanatory exactly what I wrote

  453. Samuel Morrissey

    Well you are incorrect. It was you who wrote active suspension early 90s (which is roughly the time it was banned from F1)

  454. edgedweller

    yeah early 80's late 90's dosent matter +1960's - you will have to google it, I know it was developed in late 80's with Lotus - banned 1993

  455. edgedweller

    which particular active suspension method dosent matter, spring and damper setup are not remotely the same - that is the point

  456. Samuel Morrissey

    So? being banned from F1 means nothing about the development of the technology nor its origin.

  457. Samuel Morrissey

    And when were the engineering principles for any particular method hammered out?

  458. edgedweller

    Well you are correct, I said it was banned earlier earlier in the discussion and has no relevance to the topic

  459. Samuel Morrissey

    Ok, well I have no intent to carry on this discussion. I feel we have achieved a connection of a sort through F1 motor sport. Apologies for any off topic, and edgedweller if you read through my posts you will of course find mistakes and inconsistencies I am only human.

    Have a nice day.

  460. edgedweller

    you are correct, since there has not been a distinct differentiation in vehicle design a Model T is equal to a Bugatti Veyron. Been a pleasure sir

  461. susan g

    I hope you aren't being facetious. Sometimes it can be difficult to determine a person's sentiment when communicating through typed words. :-)

  462. Tony

    I thank you for reading my long ramblings :-)

    I agree "making sure conspiracy theorists believe" is not their primary duty, but it only makes sense if there is some clear stated purpose of great import, like a very important scientific discovery or something. The missions after Apollo 11 didn't seem to have such significant purpose or utility to me. Their distinction from 11 seem minor. To me what was really earth shattering was the fact that human beings could land on the moon at all. Collecting rocks, doing some experiments and taking pictures seem of much less importance in comparison.
    Also, I think one should not forget that it is in NASA's own interests to stoke popular interests. I would even say the public's enthusiasm and support may be far more important than any discovery they could have made. To many people, mankind landing on the moon is the single greatest achievement in all of human history, and therefore a deeply moving, "feel good" event like no other. I can't imagine anyone setting out on such historic task will just concentrate on the scientific or economic aspect of it. For me, it really was "a great step for mankind" (if real) and is worth repeating for the sole reason of making us feel good. And with today's advanced technologies there'd be tremendous things they can show us with so much more excitement. It will not be a boring repeat of the '70s missions in my opinion.

    On your point that "it would certainly be easier and cheaper today" to keep up the hoax, I'm afraid I strongly disagree. In fact I believe the opposite is true.
    In '69, video and imaging technologies were very primitive. The pictures were crappy and didn't show that much detail (it's one reason why so many arguments continue about the NASA clips). It's easier to doctor things in such grainy pictures. Furthermore, people had little reason to be suspicious then. If they were to release something now it'd have to be in today's technology, with much higher resolution and showing incomparable amount of detail. And all the conspiracists will be looking for telltale signs. Even though there are fancy Hollywood movie making technologies available to them, there're also as many if not more software tools to analyze them. NASA would have to do the job in certain time frame while the conspiracists will have almost unlimited time to expose anomalies, analyzing them down to every pixel if necessary.
    I think NASA can never win in this game - faking things perfectly is nearly impossible when people are already suspicious.

    From another angle, although today's movies and videos look so slick and near perfect, it's really hard to make them flawless, as evidenced by the "Goofs" section of nearly every movie on IMDB. Most of the time we do not spot them because we just want to be entertained and don't care about them. But if NASA releases a video clip today, the hoaxer side will make a big sport out of finding every minute flaw.

    I think this is an obvious no-brainer. Faking is just no longer possible.

  463. Tony

    My point was about what I believe in my mind with how much certainty. Everyone has this system, like you wouldn't believe a sales infomercial because you know they have all the reasons in the world to exaggerate and lie about their product, whereas if you read somewhere that Apollo 11 was launched on July 20, 1969, you believe it because there's little reason to lie and it is nearly impossible to lie about the date, the fact that the launch took place, etc. It has more to do with the nature and context of the fact than how many people buy into it.

    People can be easily fooled because they can only know what the media tell them. For example in Japan during WW2, most Japanese people thought they would not be defeated until the very end, and it was an earth shattering shock that they lost, even though it was pretty obvious for a few years to people outside of Japan.

  464. edgedweller

    could you fit the 'crazy man' stereotype any better? I mean living alone with lots of cats = definitely crazy people with crazy theories, no need to check the veracity of these characters. I would have like to have heard why photos on the moon always look to have a horizon of a couple hundred yards away, Im sure there's a logical explanation

  465. Achems_Razor

    Its because the Moon has no atmosphere only blackness, and don't go on why no visible stars in the pictures please.

  466. edgedweller

    Oh so blackness for background, light and no shadows for a couple hundred yards, makes sense. I knew there was an explanation and that it wouldn't take long for someone to deliver it, seriously you guys are space experts! I need to read about space-moon theory so I can expand my beliefs/knowledge on it all. Thanks for the reply

  467. Fabien L'Amour

    I agree that you can easily be fooled by the media but the moon missions had so many independent trackers around the world that it's hard to understand how anyone could believe it to be a hoax.

    The event was also live on television and the radio signal wasn't encrypted so anyone could eavesdrop with the right equipment. The rocket was also radar tracked by different nations including the U.S.S.R.

  468. Fabien L'Amour

    The Manhattan project was infiltrated by Soviet moles : John Cairncross, Klaus Fuchs, Theodore Hall and Harry Gold.

    Also John W. Raper, a Cleveland columnist disclosed the existence of Los Alamos in his newspaper in March 1944. He revealed to the readers the huge explosions and the name of the director, Prof. Oppenheimer.

  469. edgedweller

    Ofcourse it was, my only question is: where were the WMD's hidden? Busy shift?

  470. Fabien L'Amour

    What do WMD's have to do with the Moon Landing or the Manhattan Project? You hop from one topic to another without any logic associating them. Are you going to talk about JFK, Napoleon or Britney Spears in your next fabulous post?

  471. edgedweller

    Oh right the topic was set at the moon and manhattan project - cos they have everything to do with each other - but WMD's are not part of the agenda - I'll let you set the agenda from here on in - . I missed the logic from talking about the Manhattan Project from thin air, excuse me

  472. Fabien L'Amour

    I hope you are aware that decades separate these events and that the people in the U.S. administration were not the same in 1945, 1969 and 2003. I don't think President Truman left an agenda for President Kennedy and Nixon to follow and then Nixon forwarded his agenda to President Bush...

  473. Fabien L'Amour

    My point is real conspiracies like WMD's, the Watergate or The Holocaust got revealed in a matter of months or years. Fake conspiracies like the moon landing hoax linger on blogs and amateur videos for decades without solid evidence thanks to gullible supporters like you. Please, make sure to buy the next book or t-shirt on the "Fake moon landing", they need your money.

  474. awful_truth

    We haven't went back to the moon in 42 years, that we are aware of!
    P.S: In the 1960's/70's , the U.S had the 'mole' project, placing astronauts in orbit to spy on Russia, until the technology made the effort obsolete. None of this was broadcast, and was unknown to the public. Is it far flung to imagine they just don't broadcast it anymore, and that it falls under national security? (something to consider)

  475. edgedweller

    Oh so your ready to talk about WMD's - approved? LOL well at least we've got it all figured out - Im the same I only buy conspiracies when the media tell me they are. Anyway, Im going to go back to sleep - you keep gettin those conspiritards ok you're a good soldier

  476. awful_truth

    You might have something there if space travel wasn't so expensive. (and extremely dangerous - that is why it is called rocket science)
    Note: one Apollo 13 was enough. The risks they were taking back then were absolutely incredible. (6 landings was pushing their luck)
    P.S: Losing a school teacher in a mere orbital attempt set the program back 2 years. (just saying)

  477. edgedweller

    expensive? you really convincing yourself of that, Moon mission 2014 (well 2023 realistically) would be a massive coup, have no end of backing, every major slimy corporation in the world would be in on of the more famous football teams in England just scored a 750million pound kit contract with Adidas...a pi$$y little football team! what do you think adidas would say when you pitched the face lifted Saturn with 3 stripes along its side? ' You had me at 9 billion viewers '.....oh but nike is offering nike space socks and boots and 3 gazillion dollars get it, 100% win 0% fail: we *already* have the tech!!!!! no teething problems , forget about Columbia and the dodgy foam insulation, throw a few billion and a couple years at getting some decent exclusive space grade styrofoam developed, astronauts would be sponsored head to toe. Apple would pitch in bring out an app so that everyone can log on to shuttle view for the journey :) no room for conspiracies, total transparency and no fcking end to $$$$$ constant barrage of money raining in from everywhere..would be all the world would talk about for the next 9 years...'2020 Olympics & 2022 World Cup - CANCELLED - all funding funnelled by the Space program...would anyone care???? Everyone would be over the MOON about it (pun intended) so..EXPENSIVE you think? Its expensive for it NOT to happen lol

    Risks of space travel? You guys have conflicting theories in that department, on all popular opinion (here) has it that it is not dangerous, 350 miles from earth or 400,000 miles is allegedly irrelevant (same size fuel tanks), the Van Allen belts? just fly through them (they're 'negligible'..) solar flares: just get in the moon tent to provide shielding....I mean I sometimes wonder why Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic isn't already up and running...the Apollo missions just got on with it didn't they...and they returned without so much as a scratch?

  478. Fabien L'Amour

    Yes and thy will use it when the space station is not facing the sun just like we use telescopes on earth at night and not during the day because the daylight makes seeing stars impossible with or without a telescope.

  479. clyde

    The landings can be proven just as the WMD hoax was proven, simply by dispatching half a million US soldiers to the moon. Only a tinfoil hat-wearing nut would even consider the idea that the administration that bombed Cambodia secretly and illegally, in an era when the National Guard was shooting college kids on US campuses, would consider a hoax in the name of National Security. Silly conspiracy nuts!

Leave a comment / review: