Were the Moon Landings faked?

#1
Since we've been having a bit of a conspiracy theory thing lately I thought this would be the next logical step.

Uncle Joe had recently sent this chap into space:


Yuri Gagarin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was unfortunately killed in an air accident a few years later, tho the cause of the crash has never been established.

Of course this rubbed Uncle Sam's nose in it as the Soviet Union then appeared to be the prominent leader in space technology. Incidentally, their technology is still top notch and I understand NASA uses their rocket engines frequently.

RD-180 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RD-170 (rocket engine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JFK stated in 1961 that the US would send a man to the moon, which is quite a claim and an achievement since they supposedly did it a mere 8 years later with Apollo 11.

So, did the Yanks really send a man to the moon or was it the result of political pressure and not to look weak in front of the Soviet Union? Bearing in mind that the Cuban Missile Crisis had happened just after Kennedy's speech, the USA was also involved in Vietnam by the mid 60s and commie witch hunts abounded. It would be a massive blow to American prestige if they were unable to pull off such a claim.



Just for the record, I think it did go ahead, but I can see where the conspiracies might come from. Naturally you could get a team of scientists to shoot a rocket into space, but who's to know where it really went? Would we be any wiser if the astronauts landed in the Pacific and the photos/video was a black and white stage somewhere in the Nevada Desert?

Of course there was a film about a faked Mars mission too:

[video=youtube;uWoL_lhRtl0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWoL_lhRtl0[/video]

Capricorn One full movie, worth a watch for those with a bit of spare time.

So, release the loonies! It would be interesting if we could find someone who supported the opposing view.

Stand by... Go!

DC
 
#4
Not saying yea or nae! but the bit I always had trouble with was 'computers' surely in 1969 they were still in their infancy? they say a s class merc has more computing power today than those rockets did then, I know it dosn't add much to your thread?...but it's late and like I said I cant figure out the computer thing, same applies to radio tansmissions then,come to think of it.
 
#7
The best bit is the way they faked all the moon rocks the brought back and distributed to research centres around the world.
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#8
I liked the Armstrong and Miller show were they proved the only difference in cost for a real moon landing and a fake one is the catering.
 
#9
The best bit is the way they faked all the moon rocks the brought back and distributed to research centres around the world.
That was a tricky one. I believe they used a large charcoal briquette rolled in pebble dash gravel.
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#10
[video=youtube_share;wptn5RE2I-k]http://youtu.be/wptn5RE2I-k[/video]
S
 
#11
If the moon landings had been fake the Soviets would have been all over them like a rash. They weren't, because the landings were real. A few Conspiracy loons hardly equal the investigative / scientific prowess of the Soviet Union if the landings were Mickey Mouse
 
#15
Who said he was killed in a car crash? My post says air accident.
Flying car, experimental.

DC, it's stupid o'clock. Put down the bottle, step away from the keyboard and adopt the prone position in your bed. Otherwise spare us the bollocks.

ISTR Patrick Moore rubbished the conspiracy theory, the voice transmissions were coming from the moon. QED.
 
#16
I think he was superimposing his hopes and prayers for your clumsy, horrific demise on to that of Mr Gagarin.

Oh that's not very nice, is it? I would have thought you'd have been able to come up with something a bit more, you know... poetic?

How about this one?

Die screaming you pig ******.

There, see, that's got more panache.

No need to thank me.
 
#17
It's a topic that's been done before. More than once.

Nevertheless...

As an avid 11 year old, I was glued to the TV screen. Initially because it was all very exciting. Following the first clips from the external cameras, it was to see how many more mistakes they'd make.

I was first alerted by the camera angle - the camera seemed to be too far away from the body of the lunar module so must have been set up by somebody before Armstrong was seen to exit. Armstong raised dust when he walked about and left distinct footprints - yet there was no indentation in the dust where the engine had slowed the descent. There was also no dust in the dished feet of the undercarriage. The feet themselves were nicely positioned on top of the moon surface, didn't seem to have created any sort of indentation due to its weight or skidding. The blast-off of the accommodation section of the module didn't look right - it may have been this one or a later mission where the camera panned upwards as it lifted off, leading me to wonder how they managed to control the camera from Houston so well considering the time delay. The photos were just too clear, well-lit and perfectly framed - as though they'd been taken by a professional photographer rather than an Air Force pilot in a bulky suit with the distorted vision that comes with wearing a curved visor.

When doubts as to the authenticity of the photos were raised, NASA did come up with some plausible answers but they also chose to avoid answering some of the questions.

So, no, I don't believe that they went there. Not in 1969. I'm dubious about the later missions.
 
#18
Flying car, experimental.

DC, it's stupid o'clock. Put down the bottle, step away from the keyboard and adopt the prone position in your bed. Otherwise spare us the bollocks.

ISTR Patrick Moore rubbished the conspiracy theory, the voice transmissions were coming from the moon. QED.

Is that what you say to your missus too?

I was quite enjoying the Holocaust thread, this was merely an attempt to engage in further debate. How about a 9/11 one then? The Capricorn One film is a good example tbh, you'd only need to get a few people in on it. How could you prove the transmissions were coming from the moon anyway? Just copy the voice recordings from training and play it back to the guys at Houston, job jobbed.
 
#19
No they were not.

Now, the JFK assasination. Someone start a thread about that and see if we can work out who did it.
Your wish is my Command! ^^
 
#20
Just copy the voice recordings from training and play it back to the guys at Houston, job jobbed.
Moore had the use of some pointy directional radio receiver type stuff (technical terms there), so he tracked the transmissions to the moon and back. He knew loads more than me about it, he didn't believe it was faked.

Wasn't there recent photographs of the moon's surface ( taken from something in orbit?), showing a landing site, lunar module remnants, buggy tracks, etc.?

PS. Yes to that.
"Since the late 2000s, high-definition photos taken by the LROC spacecraft of the Apollo landing sites have captured the lander modules and the tracks left by the astronauts.[3][4] In 2012, images were released showing the Apollo flags still standing on the Moon."
 

Attachments

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top