View Full Version : Moon Hoax???

12-15-2001, 11:29 PM
Did NASA really go to the moon? I know that's the popular version of the events but I have been reading so much on this lately it's really turning me into a skeptic. There is some really good reasons why it's starting to seem less likely to me. Just to name a few of the many many reasons I have found........

The Van Allen Radiation belt - Fly through it and get hit with 300+ Rads of radiation...no 4ft lead walls on the moon lander.

All of the lighting contreversy in the pictures that were taken.

The Flag blowing in the wind - no atmosphere .. no wind...

When they "landed" the craft supposedly had 3000lbs of thrust which should have created a huge hole, but the ground looks level to me in the pictures.....

Insert many more reasons right here......

why would they do it?

Money...they got over 30 BILLION to do it......

The space race with the Russians....we wanted to be first really bad....

To take the focus off of the Vietnam war ....we stopped going to the moon right around the same time the war ended...funny huh?

I have not formed an opinion on this yet. I am just curious to see what other people think about it. I have to read a lot more about this before I would be convinced either way...but it really makes you think when you read about some of this stuff. Forgetting everything you know about history.....setting it all aside...what seems more logical to you when you look into the sky ...that a man actually walked there ...or didn't???

12-15-2001, 11:34 PM
answer to one point . . .

There are soloar winds, which do affect objects

12-15-2001, 11:38 PM
I beleive it's a hoax, also.

12-15-2001, 11:46 PM
what about this question, assuming that it was a hoax, could we do it today with our technology?

12-16-2001, 12:21 AM
fact vs fact clash... [or fiction squared, either or...] it becomes hard to really know what facts to believe if either tyme or space seperates them... so, indulge, and if you were wrong, you are all the wiser... i'd figured writing things down did save them, but at what expense, and for what duration? my trust 80 meg harddrive just said kaputs [recall my threads on the subject]... so why do we write anything? don't ask why!!! it becomes too complicated!!!

ack, you got me started... hasafraggin shizigishin oppashigger...

who's on first? ::raises hand first:: "not me..."

12-16-2001, 12:38 AM
Dissata I don't know about the whole solar wind thing, even NASA didn't try and go there. They say something more like this.

The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter. The flagpole itself was light aluminium that is quite springy. Even once the astronaut let go the pole would continue to vibrate. This in turn would shake the bar and flap the flag. Without any air to dampen this it would continue to do so for longer than you might expect.

I don't know this is confusing, but not nearly as confusing as whatever DA just said LoL ...that one was right over my head. I think it boiled down to something like ....Why ask Why? ..I don't know ..I could be wrong.:D

12-16-2001, 12:50 AM
yeah something like that... and...

my... oh my... i just reread my posts... were you all aware that i was _this_ confusing? :)

12-16-2001, 01:46 AM
were you all aware that i was _this_ confusing?
Well... since you asked...

DA, you're clear as mud. Whats with the 'y' instead of 'i' sometimes? Why use a '?' instead of 'q' in question? Why? And does the period key on your keyboard have excessive wear by any chance? I though I used a lot of ... Also, have you ever considered starting your sentances from the begining instead half way... but then clarifying ... about the sentance that is ... after a lot of these '...' ... between them...

What? You did ask... :D

*hopes you take this as humorously as i intended it*

Anyhow, about the moon thing: The question you have to ask yourself about any conspiracy theory is "Why?" Why would they do that? What good reason would they have to continue the charade now? Why does Canada procude the robotic arm for the shuttles/stations? Are we in on the conspiracy too? Do we really produce these arms? Or are we just fed the same lies and there are a bunch of robotic appendages hidden in area 51 beside the alien space craft?

P.S. ... I mean what... What is this?
"D:A_thyimble_paciepictrancure> _ [seizure king...] C++onvert... [R]evolution..."
*scratches head* *Runs it through a code cracker* *Cracker instantly crashes*

12-16-2001, 08:15 AM
1. Van allen radiation belts: yes it would be deadly if they had stayed in this area but when you have a space ship moving very quickly through this area its relativly safe.

2. The moving flag: well the nasa explanation works, also i have never seen a picture of the flag moving when an astronaught did not have his hands on it

3. 3000lbs of thrust: yes the engine on the lunar module could produce 3000lbs of thrust, but when your landing your not going to have the engine on at full blast, in fact the engine would be almost off as they finished their landing

hehe :), anymore reasons, ive yet to see any good proof that we didnt land on the moon

12-16-2001, 10:40 AM
Some of the photo's taken wre quite controversial. The lens of the camera had those little crosses on it for sizing? Pardon me but I don't know the technical term for these. In some of the photo's supposedly taken whilst walking the surface of the moon these crosses were shown, in close-ups, to be actually behind the image that they were photographing. This is perhaps a cause of the crosses being super-imposed later on.

It's a point to ponder isn't it?


12-16-2001, 01:39 PM
First of all, FOX will do anything for the sake
of ratings. Murder in Small Town X, Temptation
Island, etc... Second, go here:


It basically gives an explanation to all those
"controvercial" issues you mentioned.

12-16-2001, 04:57 PM
The crosses on the lens is easy to explain. If you look at where they were a little off, they are next to or no top of a light color surface (ie white). What happens is bright surface color bleeds over and masks the crosses. I know this isn't a really good explanation but its been a while since I read it.

12-16-2001, 05:20 PM
hehe , anymore reasons, ive yet to see any good proof that we didnt land on the moon

A lot of the evidence is just too long and technical to post. And I am not talking about what a person would find on Geocities either. More like the books that have been written by very well respected PHD'S. All of the evidence is really so controversial, I really haven't seen any evidence that convinces me 100% that we did or didn't. Of course I want to believe that we did, but I was born in MO......"The Show Me State".

First of all, FOX will do anything for the sake
of ratings. Murder in Small Town X, Temptation
Island, etc... Second, go here:

That's funny static, and very true. But I would never try and form an opinion based on anything that came on that channel. Although, I did see the show and that is what really made a lot of people bring this age old debate back up. I think NASA thought this whole thing had gone away until that night. People have been writing books on this subject for decades, long before that show.

I think the landings are just another one of those things that will never make some people doubt it, and will never convince others. I was reading today that in 2003 Japan is going to send up a satellite that will map and photograph the entire surface of the moon. Many people say that this will solve this issue because the Flag, the base of the lander, Etc. will/will not be there in the photographs. If this is a true conspiracy on a grand scale, I have no doubt the photos would just be faked anyway.

After seeing that there just isn't enough evidence to really convince a skeptic like me in either direction, I think I better just retire myself from this issue (before my head explodes) and enjoy the moon for what it really is....quite beautiful actually.

12-16-2001, 05:23 PM
"D:A_thyimble_paciepictrancure> _ [seizure king...] C++onvert... [R]evolution..."

:cracks it: aha!

it starts off like DOS



only he tried to make it seem like "DA-thimble-pacifism" hence:


the _ after it is the little blinky cursor DOS has.

[seizure king...] is obvious..check out his avatar :)

C++onvert and [R]evolution are just random slogans.

Aha! I cracked it! yay! :mutters: I have too much spare time...

12-16-2001, 11:48 PM
you got most of it ken! you are a smart boah! :)

i'll explain the rest...


thyimble - self expn.

pacifist epicurean trancendentalist cure...

C++onvert - convert to C++ it'll help you with larger projects, i got it off someone here i forget who...

[R]evolution - Carlos... the super intelligent DOS dude, back in the old board he was my ally and we battled against sunlight... about you-know-what...

hth! any other ?uestions?

rick barclay
12-17-2001, 08:00 AM
>Aha! I cracked it! yay! :mutters: I have too much spare time...<

Einstein should have had as much. No telling what astounding
discoveries remain to be uncovered by that x-ray mind of yours,
Ken. Go for science, dude. Astral physics. I'll have DA call Hawking and set up an appointment for you. You are our next great discovery! Weeeooooooo!

rick barclay

12-17-2001, 09:19 AM

now that's an interjection i've never heard before... how's that sound?! :)