Moonwalk or not?

vladbox, Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were classified missions to Luna.

Can you be more specific?

Classified?

How on earth can you launch a Saturn IV rocket without the entire planet knowing? It was the most powerful machine ever made by human kind.

Thanks I can never get that size thing right. Hahahaha

"this hoax thing about the moon landings is such BS!!
The us show mythbusters dedicated an entire show to disproving the truth of the landings--trying their best to dis-credit the moon landing on every level--their findings?"

Uh huh...we are suppose to believe EVERYTHING the government says.

And should we demand proof, 'we' are called 'conspiracy theorists'.

Certainly --there is no proof on this forum of the US having landed. The best argument yet is bogus and posited ex post facto, that is, the US flag appears to wave in the breeze because the pole was being twisted!

Sher

But in the several high rez photos I saw, the flag is STILL waving in the breeze though NO ONE was twisting anything.

Explain that --and I may be inclined to abandon my skepticism.

Re: "I for one cannot say as to whether or not it happened. Whether someone swears on a bible or not is evidence of nothing other than their possible fear of offending God based on their belief system. I honestly don't think God gives a rats ass about someone swearing on the bible."

I especially agree with your last line --whatever one's definition or whatever one conceives 'God' to be.

Secondly, if lies were told about the space program, they were most certainly told to justify the billions of taxpayer bucks that were spent on it. That may be a cynical view, it it's just the way the world works.

Such motive, alone, does not prove a 'fake job' but I do find very interesting the colossal failures leading up to the stunning success: Armstrong hopping off the ladder onto the moon's surface on live TV. I saw that image live and wondered aloud: if Armstrong is the first man to set foot on the moon, WHO is holding the camera?

And WHO is tracking the LEM?

On take off, the LEM almost blasted out of the picture frame.

'Whatever' it was that was holding the camera caught up with it and panned upward. I would like to see some evidence that a computers were both sufficiently sophisticated and sufficiently miniaturized to have performed such a human-like task!

I wanna see some evidence in support of the 'official' assertions.

It's healthy to have doubts but I haven't seen anyone provide credible evidence otherwise.

We're talking about a well documented historical event. Even trackable by radar from all countries around the world. There has never been a single piece of conspiracy evidence that holds up to scrutiny. There is plenty of video evidence to suggest otherwise. Lets just say the burden of proof must be shown by the conspiracy theorists in this case.

The bulk of the evidence comes from people that think the moon has zero gravity, that don't have any understanding of photographic exposure and have little basic understandings of physics.

The landings were before my times. But many of my professors in college worked on the program. They loved to talk about their little parts in the projects, such as miniaturizing computers through the use of silicon crystal. I even did some intern work out of Kennedy. There is just too much scientific data, research and history out there.

The camera that captured Armstrong had a wide angle lens mounted to the lander. It was on an arm that swung out providing enough distance to get the shot.

A wide angle lens gives the appearance that the camera is further away which helps to get more in the frame. The placement and specs have been well documented.

The camera tracking of the ascent was controlled from earth. There is a signal delay that needs to be accounted for and the shot was far from perfect. It certainly wasn't a smooth pan and zoom. It's more like a camera jerk that was sent from earth about 1 second before the camera responded. They had to calculate about 2 seconds ahead to where to place the camera. All this was technically possible in those days.

"Having said that, the body language of many of the people interviewed did seem to be a bit in favor of the probability that a hoax is highly likely."

I think you're mistaking disgust and disbelief at the questions being asked. They seem more insulted and irritated.

And the video starts off talking about the stars thing. That immediately removes any credibility that video has. If there had been a moon sky full of stars it would be proof it was fake. Why can't people understand that and why do they keep bringing it up?

"Well, I'm tired and lenhart wants me to shut up anyway."

I would be happy to entertain a significant statement re: the moon whether it be one that PROVES we didn't go and faked it --or one that PROVES we did go and DIDN'T fake it.

I haven't seen either one here and don't expect to.

What is "horse crap and hypocrisy" and why are you so hostile?

I did nothing but suggest the wind evidence is easily debunked and that a hanging piece of fabric behaves like that in a vacuum. That is something that can be proven in a lab.

Now if someone tries to tell me that's wind I'm not going to buy it.

I have no personal evidence the USSR existed either. It could all be an elaborate ploy to help perpetuate the cold war.

"Now if someone tries to tell me that's wind I'm not going to buy it."

Nor am I buying the CIRCULAR arguments that say we went to the moon.

Maybe we DID go to the moon...but if we did --it would appear to me --that those who SAY we did should have NO PROBLEM proving it.

Now what is so frickin' hard about that?

I have always believed that those who are absolutely sure, absolutely positive OUGHT to be able to put foward at least ONE NON-FALLACIOUS argument if not a 100 percent, bona fide proof!

I think Bertolt Brecht's observation is relevant. Brecht said:

"A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!"

Now ---NO ONE posting on this forum has been able to cite a SHRED of evidence that proves the the proposition that the US landed a single manned expedition on the moon's surface. Are those who say we did CROOKS or LIARS?

RE: "Furthermore, if Apollo had been a hoax the cover up of something that big would be impossible. Thousands of people would have to have been involved."

You've just IGNORED your own advice which was:

"Follow real evidence -- don't try to make the evidence fit the story."

Your statement about 'thousands of people' is NOT evidence of ANY sort and would not be admissible in court.

Read your own stuff and if you PRESUME to LECTURE folk, please follow your own advice.

But --failing all that --it would be hard to go wrong, if you just SHUT UP!

"But --failing all that --it would be hard to go wrong, if you just SHUT UP!"

Is that how you always respond to people that have differing views?

I'll give you those points you highlighted were speculative on my point. But reasonable speculations.

So are you one of those people that think the Holocaust was fake?

I can't believe I'm even entertaining this.

The moving flag is often used as proof the landing was a hoax.

Now, how does one plant a flag pole?

They use a twisting motion to screw it into the ground. This causes torsional forces to act on the hanging flag. In the absence of an atmosphere there is no resistance to the oscillating movements this causes. Thus making it look like it's flapping in the wind. This can easily be reproduced in a controlled test here on earth. It looks exactly like it did in the original video that people use to claim there was wind on "the set".

Now this famous video that people claim is wind occurred when the flag had been planted.

So you are correct, it doesn't support a landing. But it debunks a common claim against. Also, a flag does not exhibit this oscillation in still atmosphere.

Wow....what a crock!!!!

The flag in the video from this wiki article sure looks like it's experiencing the lack of atmospheric air resistance. If someone wasn't too smart they could mistake it for wind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_14

"They use a twisting motion to screw it into the ground. "

That's NOT proof of anything.

Now --you have to PROVE that the photo in question was SNAPPED precisely at the time that the flag was being screwed.

C'mon folk. Stop being stupid.

Maybe it was...maybe it wasn't

Fact is YOU DON'T KNOW CRAP! !

Re: "So you are correct, it doesn't support a landing "

Well --you got THAT right.

Re: "Wow....what a crock!!!!"

Wow...that's intelligent and original!

NOT !!!!

The video that I saw showed the flag waving while no one was touching it. So what twisitng action caused that to happen?

This has been debunked many times, but the conspiracy theorists conveniently ignore the proof reproduced in laboratories (with witnesses). One can show the flag's exact behavior in a vacuum chamber, which flaps signficantly longer than when *not* in a vacuum.

Basically with no air resistance, the original twisting motion continues to flap the flag *far* longer than if there was actually air. The presence of air actually slows the flag down considerably due to the resistance. This is demonstrated in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8&feature=channel_page

"I've never heard a conspiracy theory that held water. They're full of holes, usually related to how difficult it would be to pull off that massive of a cover-up."

That's pure BUNKUM! You are saying that 'conspiracies' do not exist. But the Supreme Court and the Congress thinks you are wrong.

Check FINDLAW.

THERE ARE HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES HAVING TO DO WITH CONSPIRACIES!!!!

Now ---please --do us ALL a favor and share your obvious enlightenment with the justice of the US Supreme Court, the congress who has over the years written THOUSANDS OF FEDERAL STATUTES HAVING TO DO WITH CONSPIRACIES. If they had had the benefit of your obvious superior intellect, we could have all saved a lot of TIME and MONEY! .

Secondly --it is not only the Congress, the Federal Govt and the Supreme Court who believes CONSPIRACIES exist, there are SAINTS (by Catholic reckoning) who, likewise, acknowledge the existence of CONSPIRACIES.

"I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth." ---St. Thoma More, Lord Chancellor of England

"At least this 1 is a little more plausible than 9-11 conspiracies, but it's still paranoid government-hating propaganda."

You forgot the MOST OUTRAGEOUS and STUPID conspiracy theory of them all: that 18 skinny Arab Hijackers who could not even fly Cessnas boarded airliners armed only with boxcutters, overpoweredthe burly crews and ---coordinated by a man in a cave whose only contact with the outside world was a cell phone. BTW --the 'man' had been a CIA asset and was dying of kidney disease".

Now --THAT'S what I call an OUTRAGEOUS conspiracy theory. And you are right! Anyone believing such an OUTRAGEOUS conspiracy theory is an idiot!

I never said that I don't believe conspiracies exist. In the strictest definition of the word, yes they exist everywhere. But in the context of this article, I'm referring to the high-profile (usually hard-to-swallow) government conspiracies, not things like terrorist attacks which are organized by individual groups & not government. Sorry if I did not make that clear, but that's what I think about when I hear the word 'conspiracy'.

Examples include: Government behind 9/11, the world is flat, We never went to the moon, Government is keeping aliens/spaceships secret, etc. There are many more.

Government conspiracies, in my experience, come from only people who have utter despise and distrust of the U.S. government to the point of being almost paranoid schizophrenic. I have never seen one of those theories that even comes close to making any sense. And it's always based on highly circumstantial "evidence" that is easily debunked.

"I never said that I don't believe conspiracies exist. In the strictest definition of the word, yes they exist everywhere. But in the context of this article, I'm referring to the high-profile (usually hard-to-swallow) government conspiracies, not things like terrorist attacks which are organized by individual groups & not government. Sorry if I did not make that clear, but that's what I think about when I hear the word 'conspiracy'."

If TWO people agree to do something you've got yourself a conspiracy.

Whether or not it is a 'government' conspiracy is irrelevant.

"I'm referring to the high-profile (usually hard-to-swallow) government conspiracies"

Your prejudice in this regard is irrational. What reason, what evidence can you cite that government never engage in 'conspiracies'? Cite your evidence !!

Otherwise, you' have just stated a preference, a bias, a prejudice.

My opinion --for what it is worth: government conspiracies are most certainly better financed (with YOUR tax dollars) than are conspiracies by your neighbors next door, the weird people down the street, or the minority group that treatens to move into your neighborhood.

Again, I never said the government does not ever engage in conspiracies, sometimes they do. I said that the really Big conspiracies (like 9/11 and the moonwalking) just simply don't hold water.

I am not biased either way. I am about the most logical, rational people there is, almost to a fault. I simply follow wherever the evidence leads me, because I am only interested in the truth on any subject and nothing more. With regards to any big government conspiracy, including the moon landing, I see the evidence far more compelling for 'no conspiracy'. It's that simple. There is no evidence supporting a conspiracy that can't be explained in science, but the conspiracy theorists simply ignore that part.

You on the other hand, seem to be very biased. In my experience, people who resort to CAPS, insults, rude behavior, and vulgar language when trying to get their point across tend to be the least objective people to listen/talk to and the most closed-minded, and your reponses in this board tend to support that. Therefore, I won't try anymore. Have a nice day.

TechnoNut, the least plausible 9/11 conspiracy of all is the official one.

I see a 'white spot' labeled "scientific instrument'

I see a 'doctored' shadow labeled 'LM shadow:

I see vague little shadows labeled 'Astronaut footprints' that might not have showed up at all in a photo in which the LM would look so small.

I see a scale line that says 100 meters on a picture that even I could have photo-shopped.

Sorry --that's not visual proof of anything.

the landing MIGHT have happened...but that pic is NOT the proof of it.

That totally couldn't be faked...

While i am not on any side, this picture can't ever prove anything.
The only thing that would be absolutely 100% proof is if any old person can go out with a telescope and zoom in to it.

What I don't understand is that with the tremendous power of the Hubble space telescope, why this argument hasn't been already put to rest by showing video and high resolution images showing all the locations of the landing sites and the equipment on the surface.

The fact that this has not happened 40 years since the supposed landing, tends to make me believe that something is being covered up. I concede that it may or may not have happened, the jury is still out in my mind. Call me doubting Thomas. I want to stick my fingers in the holes of Apollo 14's LM in order to be convinced.

I have been working in Graphic Design and have learned all about the ever increasing and amazing technology used for Special Effects in movies and because of what I have seen happen in that technology, I know that anything relating to space and UFO's can be faked.

Regarding using the Hubble Space Telescope, how would that prove anything in the minds of the conspiracy theorists? If they believe that the moonwalk photographs were altered or fabricated, why would they also not believe the Hubble photos would be fabricated / photoshopped? IE it seems to me that the conspiracy theorists have already made up their minds, and any "evidence" that is presented is simply just fabrications by the U.S. Government to continue the massive cover-up.

The world is an interesting place thanks to dummies like you. Bwahahahaha

its hopeless.

Oh god if its on Wiki then it must be true. LOL

Wiki is god.

Actually, the vast majority of content on Wikipedia is accurate and cited with sources if you want to verify the content yourself.
But whatever, even if you don't believe that, there are numerous sites and groups (search youtube. mythbusters for starters, but there are others) that have scientifically debunked every claim by conspiracy theorists, even demonstrated in a laboratory in a vacuum. But I've never heard any moon-walking hoax believer ever try to debunk those arguments. Their best response is "oh that's just a load of crap". Wow. So convincing. Try using evidence and experiments instead of hyperbole and speculation. It works a lot better.