• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked

Forums New posts
That's great - thank you for it.
I brought it up at work that today was the 41st anniversary of the Moon landing and of course someone mentioned that it was possible a hoax. First thing they said - the flag rippled.
Someone arguing with you that we never made it to the Moon has no real evidence to prove it.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
That's great - thank you for it.
I brought it up at work that today was the 41st anniversary of the Moon landing and of course someone mentioned that it was possible a hoax. First thing they said - the flag rippled.
Someone arguing with you that we never made it to the Moon has no real evidence to prove it.
Click to expand...
I like Aldrin's response to the notion.
 
I literally had that clip of Buzz punching Sibrel put and ready to past seeing the thread title. It was the first thing I though of. lol
 
cottonzway said:
I literally had that clip of Buzz punching Sibrel put and ready to past seeing the thread title. It was the first thing I though of. lol
Click to expand...
Don't fry me please.
I've never managed to be sure of what to think of this moon hoax thing.
May be you can clear some things for me.
The most perturbing point to me is those Apollo 17 videos where the astronauts are fooling around on the moon with their faces clearly visible through the transparent visor of their helmets. Is that possible? I'm not saying we've not been there okay? Just that some vids are weird.
 
lancemoody said:
You mean reflective not transparent, right?
Click to expand...
I think I mean transparent. If you are saying that we have (had in the 70') the technology to shield the radiations of the lunar environment with a transparent material okay, I didn't know that. And I'm quite amazed...

VisorNotInUse.JPG

Again, I'm not pro-moon hoax, just having some questions about some points.
 
lancemoody said:
Yes, sometimes the sun visor was up. As the explanation I went and found for you and pasted above (sorta hoping ya might give it a glance) mentions, the transparent one still has some protective qualities, the sun visor was certainly needed in bright sunlight. In at least one of the videos you can hear someone telling an astronaut to pull his down.

Um...is that it?

Lance
Click to expand...
Um... yup.
Probably a case of "bad astronomy" on my part. My imagination gives me a picture of the guy's skin bubbling after a couple of seconds, with such a thin atmosphere and no Van Allen belt... Too many movies in my head. Thx :cool:
 
Has anyone ever seen a scientific discussion of how the astronauts withstood the solar radiation outside of the Van Allen belts? This should be easy enough to research and address, but I have never seen an article which does so. The argument is that the lunar module and spacesuits were too thin to protect the astronauts from the intense solar radiation outside of earth's natural protective layers. I am not aware of the astronauts, as a group, suffering from cancer or other diseases which may be indicative of a heavy dose of radiation. This is an interesting and logical question (supposedly flying over the North Pole from Asia to the U.S. exposes crew and passengers to a dose of radiation, so such trips should be/are limited). Any referrals would be appreciated.

Some conspiracy theorists argue that we did, and did not, go to the moon. In short, we did go, but what was seen and photographed there was so "disturbing" to the current world view that some photos were faked here on earth for public consumption. I have never seen any proof of this but some other logical questions do remain unanswered (e.g., why isn't there a blast crater of any sort underneath the landing module, caused by module descending and landing, as well as dust which has settled on top of the landing pods of the module? Why are the "cross hairs" from the Hasselblad cameras absent from some, but not all, of the lunar photos, only above the horizon, inferring that someone blacked out objects in the background?).

I am not convinced the landing was a hoax, but I also have yet to see the answers to certain logical questions.
 
Tom From Hong Kong said:
I am not convinced the landing was a hoax, but I also have yet to see the answers to certain logical questions.
Click to expand...

Same here... The Apollo program certainly conveys the image of a relatively human-friendly space environment. If so we should be all over the place by now, or is it just because we are too busy fighting AIDS and Ze Evil Terrorists ? :confused:
 
Yeah I accept that we went to the Moon. There are areas that Id like more information on though. The Van Allen Belt for one.
 
Apollo image AS17-136-20758 might clearly show that the Apollo 17 moonwalks were maybe filmed inside of a giant inflatable Quonset hut.

That would also explain the lack of stars:



...The Quonset Hut Hypothesis. It is big in Japan. :)



*I jest.
 
Anaximander said:
Apollo image AS17-136-20758 might clearly show that the Apollo 17 moonwalks were maybe filmed inside of a giant inflatable Quonset hut.

That would also explain the lack of stars:



...The Quonset Hut Hypothesis. It is big in Japan. :)

*I jest.
Click to expand...
Thats a new one for me. So is it just the one picture or are there more that have this pattern in the background?
 
There are a couple of images I have seen where the pattern is visible.

I think Hoagland used one such image in Dark Mission, but he chalked it up to 'ancient glass ruins' or the like.
 
Anaximander said:
There are a couple of images I have seen where the pattern is visible.

I think Hoagland used one such image in Dark Mission, but he chalked it up to 'ancient glass ruins' or the like.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what about Hoagland's ideas? Devious money-grubbing egomaniac, or maybe onto something?

"Remember folks: the lie is different at every level" (Hoagland).

I know what Edgar Mitchell thinks of Hoagland because I asked him, and Ed's answer was unprintable.

---------- Post added at 03:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 AM ----------
justcurious said:
Same here... The Apollo program certainly conveys the image of a relatively human-friendly space environment. If so we should be all over the place by now, or is it just because we are too busy fighting AIDS and Ze Evil Terrorists ? :confused:
Click to expand...

One plausible theory as you probably know, is that ETs are there already - bases on the dark side, and all that. Logic tells you that if they're coming here, then they're going to be visiting the Moon as well, but paradoxically the evidence is more difficult to conceal. So we just don't go there: not overtly, anyway.
 
Archie,

My personal view is that there may be something to the claims about the moon photos, and perhaps even the lunar landing itself, being hoaxed. There are some very logical questions which are readily addressed which I have not seen NASA answer.

There were others who were onto the whole "aliens on Mars" argument before Hoaxland, including Tom van Flandren. I think Hoaxland found something plausible and interesting to talk about on C2C, and more effectively publicized the idea than others.

I am reading Ingo Swann's Penetration now. Do you have a view on Ingo?

Tom From Hong Kong
 
I think this has been adequately dealt with

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bad TV

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 PM ----------

And if this quote doesn't seal it...nothing does...we simply have no technology to film this on earth:

Bad: When the movies of the astronauts walking and driving the lunar rover are doubled in speed, they look just like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down. This is clearly how the movies were faked.

Good: This was the first new bit I have seen from the HBs, and it's funny. To me even when sped up, the images didn't look like they were filmed in Earth's gravity. The astronauts were sidling down a slope, and they looked weird to me, not at all like they would on Earth. I will admit that if wires were used, the astronauts' gait could be simulated.

However, not the rover! If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today!

This is another case of selective vision on the part of the HBs.
Click to expand...
 
Tom,

People say the Soviets would have blown the whistle, but the Soviets allegedly don't have any pictures of the landing sites and have never provided the world with any (and I'm referring to images wherein artifacts of the landings can be seen - the Russ' haven't provided any).

Any and all pictures which 'prove' we went are provided by NASA - the prime suspect.

What do you make of that?
 
Back
Top