Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked

[Han]

For me the situation is like this:
There is still debate about how the Egyptian pyramids were built.

(1) we can easily study the pyramids as they are on earth. as opposed to we (non astronauts) cant just go to the moon.

(2) it is more "romantic" to think that the Egyptians were "assisted" in building the pyramids. just like its more "romantic" to think that they found "aliens" on the moon rather than not much of monetary value. (in my opinion if they found something of value they would not of stopped going to the moon)

(3) there are no survivors from the time that the pyramids were built to tell us how it was done. as opposed to the fact that we have veteran "lunar Astronauts" who can tell us they went and provide evidence.

(4) just like "magic" if you understand how the "trick" is done its not "magic" any more, in other words the power is gone. That is to say there would be no motivation to show the public(enemies included) exactly in every detail how the lunar landings were done.

(5) I was not alive at the time of the moon landings, but I am sure we now live in a very different time. It is my understanding that the "space race" was fought because of the "real" threat posed to humanity by the "conflict" between "capitalism" and "communism". This threat should not be underestimated and many of the things done at this time, should be taken in context.

To sum up my opinion it is extreemly hard and dangerous, to land a man on the moon even now with all our advances in technology, but that does not mean we did not!
the human spirit of endeavour should not be underestimated! for example do you know that a Quadriplegic man has sailed across the Atlantic Ocean solo! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...letes-Atlantic-crossing-in-the-Caribbean.html

We are amazingly powerfull beings and can do anything we "believe" to be possible. It is just a shame what we want seems to be bad most of the time.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

From What Happened on the Moon:

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Please find in this thread or anywhere else where I said that the moon is or was inhabited. If you don't I will gladly accept your apologies...

I thought that's what you were insinuating. Sorry about that.
I took more issue to you dismissing my links to skeptoid. It's a great site.

 

[Ron Collins]

Ok so how a bunch of guys who can't stitch correctly managed to go to the moon ? Huh ?
Just kidding...8)

hehehe, now thats comedy!

 

[Bob Watson]

heres what happened when he talked to neal armstrong!

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

heres what happened when he talked to neal armstrong!

It would be easy enough for Neil Armstrong to go ahead and swear on the Bible, and perhaps make a joke about doing so at the same time, but he refused. He actually looks very uncomfortable. I don't know if this proves anything one way or another, but you have to admit it is quite odd.

If the solar radiation beyond the van Allen belts is in fact lethal, that means anyone who has in fact gone to the Moon (obviously not Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins, etc.) was on a suicide mission in order to generate photos and collect rock samples. If people haven't been to the Moon, it also means the dating of the Moon's age and chemical composition are also false, undercutting some of the science surrounding the Moon.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

It would be easy enough for Neil Armstrong to go ahead and swear on the Bible, and perhaps make a joke about doing so at the same time, but he refused. He actually looks very uncomfortable. I don't know if this proves anything one way or another, but you have to admit it is quite odd.

If the solar radiation beyond the van Allen belts is in fact lethal, that means anyone who has in fact gone to the Moon (obviously not Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins, etc.) was on a suicide mission in order to generate photos and collect rock samples. If people haven't been to the Moon, it also means the dating of the Moon's age and chemical composition are also false, undercutting some of the science surrounding the Moon.

Always wonder if the USA-Soviets got there first together just like the secret meetings they had in each other bases or the myth so called Nazi's?

 

[Bob Watson]

same guy this time with ed Michell
(apollo 14)

this guy is to much

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It would be easy enough for Neil Armstrong to go ahead and swear on the Bible, and perhaps make a joke about doing so at the same time, but he refused. He actually looks very uncomfortable. I don't know if this proves anything one way or another, but you have to admit it is quite odd.

I honestly find the notion of swearing on the bible funny. It's just a book, and it does not mean the same thing to everyone. If I had to give testimony I would tell the truth because it's the right thing to do, but the bible would have no bearing on it. Also, if someone wants to lie and they're that type of person, it'll take more than a bible to prevent them from lying.

 

[Ron Collins]

It would be easy enough for Neil Armstrong to go ahead and swear on the Bible, and perhaps make a joke about doing so at the same time, but he refused. He actually looks very uncomfortable. I don't know if this proves anything one way or another, but you have to admit it is quite odd.

If the solar radiation beyond the van Allen belts is in fact lethal, that means anyone who has in fact gone to the Moon (obviously not Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins, etc.) was on a suicide mission in order to generate photos and collect rock samples. If people haven't been to the Moon, it also means the dating of the Moon's age and chemical composition are also false, undercutting some of the science surrounding the Moon.

Swearing on the bible is not the point. This is about dignity and doing things the right way. You can ask this question and actually get them to say that they went to the moon on the record. This guy is an asshole. I wouldn't tell him either and though it may not be socially acceptable to most, I would do the same thing Buzz did and deck the guy. Maybe thats my Oklahoma showing.

 

[Slim Shady]

Guys the article is a comedy piece by onion (comedy spoof news channel) its not real.......

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Guys the article is a comedy piece by onion (comedy spoof news channel) its not real.......

Yes, we know. But there are still people that think that the moon landing was a hoax. That's what the Onion is making fun of.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Swearing on the bible is not the point. This is about dignity and doing things the right way. You can ask this question and actually get them to say that they went to the moon on the record. This guy is an asshole. I wouldn't tell him either and though it may not be socially acceptable to most, I would do the same thing Buzz did and deck the guy. Maybe thats my Oklahoma showing.

I disagree. I would go ahead, make light of the situation, swear on the Bible and satisfy the guy's (and many others') curiosity. No harm in doing so -- simply be done with the guy. I would have him donate the $5,000 to my favorite charity. I do not understand your point about "dignity and doing things the right way." Perhaps that is my Ohio sensibility showing.

The conversation would go something like this: "Mr. X, you have been a complete pain in my ass, but since you are willing to donate $5,000 to charity, and since you and others keep asking the same inane questions, I do hereby swear on this Bible that in fact I did personally step foot on the Moon back in 1969. That is the complete and honest truth. Now, please forward the $5,000 to starving children in Africa."

While I personally don't have the answer, those who claim that (at least some of) the moon photos were hoaxed, or who raise genuine scientific questions such as the level of solar radiation, do have bona fide questions when viewed objectively. Watch the videos I have posted above which feature David Percy, who is a trained photojournalist. As one commentator noted, if the doubters are wrong it should be easy enough for NASA to dispute their claims, which apparently has yet to happen. Again, I don't have the answers, but I do think Percy et. al. do have prima facie ground to stand on.

 

[Ron Collins]

I disagree. I would go ahead, make light of the situation, swear on the Bible and satisfy the guy's (and many others') curiosity. No harm in doing so -- simply be done with the guy. I would have him donate the $5,000 to my favorite charity. I do not understand your point about "dignity and doing things the right way." Perhaps that is my Ohio sensibility showing.

The conversation would go something like this: "Mr. X, you have been a complete pain in my ass, but since you are willing to donate $5,000 to charity, and since you and others keep asking the same inane questions, I do hereby swear on this Bible that in fact I did personally step foot on the Moon back in 1969. That is the complete and honest truth. Now, please forward the $5,000 to starving children in Africa."

While I personally don't have the answer, those who claim that (at least some of) the moon photos were hoaxed, or who raise genuine scientific questions such as the level of solar radiation, do have bona fide questions when viewed objectively. Watch the videos I have posted above which feature David Percy, who is a trained photojournalist. As one commentator noted, if the doubters are wrong it should be easy enough for NASA to dispute their claims, which apparently has yet to happen. Again, I don't have the answers, but I do think Percy et. al. do have prima facie ground to stand on.

Unfortunately you and will never see eye to eye on this. See I don't think it would "satisfy" anything. Its not like this guy or anyone that thinks the Moon landings have been faked would suddenly see Neil Armstrong swear on the bible and go, "Hmm, ya know I thought it was all fake. But.... then he goes and swears on the bible!". Plus this happens after this jackass accuses Buzz Aldrin of being a coward and a liar. The FACT remains that this guy is a smug jerk and ambushing a closed meeting he wasn't invited to in order to goad Armstrong into placating him is not doing things the right way or being properly respectful. If you don't understand that, I guess we were just raised differently.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Unfortunately you and will never see eye to eye on this. See I don't think it would "satisfy" anything. Its not like this guy or anyone that thinks the Moon landings have been faked would suddenly see Neil Armstrong swear on the bible and go, "Hmm, ya know I thought it was all fake. But.... then he goes and swears on the bible!". Plus this happens after this jackass accuses Buzz Aldrin of being a coward and a liar. The FACT remains that this guy is a smug jerk and ambushing a closed meeting he wasn't invited to in order to goad Armstrong into placating him is not doing things the right way or being properly respectful. If you don't understand that, I guess we were just raised differently.

Please re-read my posts. I certainly would not have gone about this encounter in the same manner as the uninvited gentleman (Siebert?) in the clip pasted above. In fact, if you read what I wrote, I never said that. But, if I was a public figure like Armstrong, finding myself being placed in that situation, I certainly would have handled it differently (Siebert is well known and has confronted Armstrong before; Armstrong knows him by name). I would have made light of Siebert's behavior, had no problems swearing on the Bible and then asked him to live up to end of the agreement and donate the $5,000 to my favorite charity (which in my case happens to be the homeless). Armstrong could have handled it much more graciously, backed up by his full confidence in the truth of his having gone to the moon, and finally been done with Siebert for good (on camera). Siebert keeps coming back because Armstrong refuses to swear to what he believes to be obvious, giving the impression that Armstrong is being unduly defensive.

But then again, I guess I was just raised as an inconsiderate bastard, huh?

 

[Ron Collins]

But then again, I guess I was just raised as an inconsiderate bastard, huh?

Well, thats not at all what I meant but I can see how you would read that from my statement. I apologize for offending you. It honestly was not intended.

By the "If you don't understand that, I guess we were just raised differently." I meant that I was raised with, how do I put it, a more country(my wife calls it my hick side) sense of things. Many of them seem/are counterintuitive or backwards. I can recognize that but at my core they are still my first and strongest leanings.

Please re-read my posts above. I certainly would not have gone about this encounter in the same manner as the uninvited gentleman (Siebert?) in the clip pasted above. In fact, if you read what I wrote, I never said that.

I never said you did. I never implied that you would have gone about it this way. All I was trying to say is that given the circumstance I would personally not have entertained it either. In fact, I think he showed remarkable restraint. I doubt i would be able to control myself faced with that level of abject disrespect.

But, if I was a public figure like Armstrong, finding myself being placed in that situation, I certainly would have handled it differently (Siebert is well known and has confronted Armstrong before; Armstrong knows him by name). I would have made light of Siebert's behavior, had no problems swearing on the Bible and then asked him to live up to end of the agreement and donate the $5,000 to my favorite charity (which in my case happens to be the homeless). Armstrong could have handled it much more graciously, backed up by his full confidence in the truth of his having gone to the moon, and been done with Siebert for good (on camera).

I understand your position. We just don't agree. It's not that I hate charity either (my fav: The Smile Train: The World's Leading Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Charity). I just honestly would not let this guy have what he wanted. I don't expect you to understand or agree with me. Hell, to be honest, my reasons have less to do with wether the landings were hoaxed and more to do with the disrespect, tone, and the use of accusatory goading to get the needed sound bites. I believe that he would have used this as a vessel to then call Armstrong a coward and a liar. Why enable that?

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Sorry, but two quick follow-on observations:

(i) as to the ongoing fray between Siebert and Armstrong, I suspect from Siebert's perspective you have a pattern of evasive behavior on Armstrong's part, refusing to step forward and take an oath that he walked on the Moon, over the course of multiple encounters between the two, starting way before the "business presentation" video pasted in above; and from Armstrong's perspective, you have a pattern of increasing aggressiveness by Siebert to force the issue. If I was Armstrong, early on when I was first approached by Siebert, I would have been more than happy to swear that I landed on the Moon (if I in fact did), thus avoiding the scene post business presentation above in its entirety; admittedly asking someone to swear on the Bible is an odd request, but that goes with public celebrity status.

(ii) the actual science remains an open issue; flying in an airliner at 39,000 ft. exposes you to 64x the radiation one collects at sea level. Flying over the pole cap between Asia and North America is higher yet, with the airlines issuing guidelines to passengers on the frequency of such trips. Therefore, I believe it is plausible that once a human gets beyond the Van Allen belts entirely (5-10 earth radii, with earth's radius being 3,950 miles), the radiation from the sun's nuclear furnace may be lethal to organic matter. I have not been able to find proof and thus confirm this on the internet, but it does make some sense to me.

My own personal conclusion, without complete information, is that some/much/all of the photos and film footage was indeed faked. I am withholding judgment on the actual landing itself until I understand the facts surrounding extra-planetary radiation better.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

The following video discusses the Van Allen belts and their associated radiation, quoting a March 1959 article from Scientific American written by James van Allen himself. Copied below is the first of seven videos on YouTube:

 

[Michael Allen]

"My own personal conclusion, without complete information, is that some/much/all of the photos and film footage was indeed faked."

Precisely, which is why we take the opinion of engineers, astronauts and scientists who ACTUALLY were involved in this affair over half-assed armchair analyses.

Will someone please shut this retarded thread down...I am getting tired of people arguing that 2+2=5

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Precisely, which is why we take the opinion of engineers, astronauts and scientists who ACTUALLY were involved in this affair over half-assed armchair analyses.

Will someone please shut this retarded thread down...I am getting tired of people arguing that 2+2=5

I beg your pardon?

Anytime you want to compare IQ, academic achievements, professional achievements, net worth created (not inherited), etc., I am more than happy to do so. I don't need, and won't stand for, your bullshit comments. Understand? If you happen to actually look at the evidence with an open mind, then you may approach this topic differently.

---------- Post added at 10:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------

It would take more than an open mind--it would take a damaged, chemically imbalanced, or possibly psychotic mind.

I watched the above video: Buffoonery on a stick.

Lance

Happy you think so. The point of the video, if you happen to read what I wrote, was the quote by Van Allen in the March 1959 Scientific American regarding the radiation surrounding the Van Allen belts, in light of the post which I wrote earlier.