• 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!

Moon Landing is a Fake

Forums New posts
Con said:
Now please elaborate this statement, why would this be so?
Click to expand...

As I stated, I've touched on this before. See message 6 for elaboration. There it was used in the context of the moon landing. Second time in the context of ufos.

For the record, by ufo I mean unidentified flying object. No more no less.

Great link you provided btw on the laser telescope and mirrors. I was trying to think of that example before to use, but couldn't. One of those things in the back of my mind where the details weren't there in my recollection.
 
Edgar Mitchell's temper flares when he has to deal with people calling him a liar etc. Heard it happen once on Art Bell, and saw it happen on Geraldo years ago. He apologizes after words, but you can tell it gets to him. Don't think Ed has punched anyone due to this sort of thing though.
 
Look at the LLM, specificaly the hatch. A man wearing an EVA pack would not fit through the door.
Stars ARE visible from the lunar surface, but they didn't appear in the films supposedly made by the astronauts.
I was in the television news biz back then. We had to have truck loads of equipment to do a live remote from say 100 miles away.
All they seem to have had on the moon was a prick 10.
Then there is always that Van Allen radiation belt. Scientists of the time said it would take four feet of lead insulation barrier to get a human through it.
Now they say it'll be 20 years before we can put a man on the moon.
We never went to the moon.
The lunar landings were a Disney production.
And then there's always this...
landoflegends.us
Just my humble opinion.

Hell RoX
Sh9l0m
 
Moshi,

Sorry, but we did indeed go to the moon, and more than once.

The most basic knowledge of photography tells you why the stars didn't show up in the photos - the glare of the sun off the lunar surface far overpowered any light that the camera would have picked up from the lunar sky, the exposure time for those photos was never going to allow the starlight to be captured.

Listen, believe whatever you want, but the theory that we didn't go the moon is as far out as the flat earth nonsense.

dB
 
Dave...are you trying to tell me the earth isn't flat?

I'm shocked.

I took my 3 foot level out in the front yard....level/flat.

LOL!!!

The first moonshot had to be faked....we were in a race with the Soviets, and by way of deception did we do racing. The Hatchway problem is real, it would not have been possible to exit the craft in the EVA suit.

Yo! Checkit!

landoflegends.us

"It's full of stars"

I sometimes say things which seem a bit off kilter...I enjoy the forums and am honored that you'd reply to my post.
I'm a fan!
You've made my day!
ThanX
Moshi

Hell R0X
sh9l0m
 
If you haven't already Moshi, have a look at the site I linked awhile back.
The Moon Hoax Debate

At least some of what you mentioned is dealt with there. Unfortunately, I do not recall if all of it is, since it has been months since I read that page.

I'll check out the page you linked for details on what you are referring to hopefully later. For now I need sleep.
 
Moshi,

I'm very happy to have made your day with my response... easiest thing I did all day! :)

Please read the excellent link provided by A.LeClair, it does a really good job of wrapping up the whole moon hoax thing. Personally, I am sad that the most momentous achievement of the human race is somehow subject to being rewritten and questioned - it's not right, and a dishonor to the brave men and women who have given their lives to the space program. We did indeed go to the moon, and it's a pity that the wonder and amazement of that amazing set of events has faded into history. Really.

dB
 
Everything you mention is dealt with at the page I linked Moshi.
David touched on the stars already. Here's some details on the hatch.

The Moon Hoax Debate

"The astronauts could not pass through the tunnel connecting the Command Module and the Lunar Module with their spacesuits and backpacks on."

Finally the hoax advocates are correct about something. Fortunately, the astronauts did not have to! Their EVA suits and backpacks were stowed in the Lunar Module the whole time. The only time the astronauts donned their suits and packs were when they actually egressed the LM for surface activities on the Moon.

"The astronauts could not have egressed the Lunar Module because they could not fit through the hatch and there was insufficient room to open the hatch in the LM. "

The hoax advocate who came up with this claim is badly misinformed. The astronauts were positioned on either side of the cockpit panel with the main EVA hatch between them. The hatch, hinged on the right side, swung inward to open, effectively trapping the Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) momentarily on his side of the LM. (There was plenty of room to open the hatch.) Once the Commander egressed, the LMP was able to close the hatch, move over to the left side, and exit himself.

As to the issue of whether the astronauts could fit through the hatch, clearly they could. There are many photos and video, both on the Moon and while in training, showing fully suited astronauts crawling through the hatch. There are a couple possible sources for this misinformation. First, early versions of the LM had a round hatch that hampered astronaut egress, however the original round hatch was changed to a rectangular hatch while the LM was still in development. Second, as I hear the story, a hoax advocate compared the width of the LM's hatch to dimensional data on the astronauts' spacesuit, or EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit). It was found that the published width of the EMU exceeded the hatch width. What the hoax advocate failed to realize is the EMU dimension was the maximum width measured across the elbows. When crawling through the hatch, an astronaut would draw his arms in under his body, thus decreasing his width and allowing him to pass through the opening.
 
Rats!
Foiled again.
Just kidding, I'm one who is glad when disabused of incorrect ideas.
I remember the first landing, I was at old Dutch's whore house, it was a red two story shiplap building right by the train station (they had a couple of really strange girls upstairs. the bottom was a store and visiting area) I enjoyed old Dutch...she could tell some whoppers...and would treat a guy to a coke on a hot day. I bought my own though since they were only six cents.
I'm going to have to read that link to see how they handled the Van Allen Belt though.
Thank you for the linkage!
I'm reading over the "ya want us to show up" letter right now.
Thanks again A. LeClair...you too David.

Hell R0X
Sh9l0m
 
Having recently visited the Kennedy Space Center to witness the launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery I can say that NASA's accomplishments stand out as some of mankind's best achievements. It represents our country at it's best as far as innovation and progress goes.

The Apollo missions are ever more impressive today in light of what was accomplished with the then current technology 4 decades ago.

It is a shame though that the momentum that carried NASA from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo slowed down in the 70s. Looks like we'll have to wait until the '20s to get back to the lunar surface. Maybe then they'll bring back one of Alan Shepard's golf balls to silence the conspiracy theorists.

-todd
 
But WHY Tommyball?
WHY must we wait till the 20's?
It makes no sense at all.
If we could do it then, and were refining the technology with each flight,
WHY can't we do it now?
Did someone throw away all the plans and numbers?
WHY?
Our lift technology has supposedly improved so WHY can't "we" enter the numbers on a modified space shuttle, or build some purpose designed transport/lander all in one package and kick it to luna?
Ya really wanna know why?
Cause "we" never went to the moon and just doing high orbit is as big a jump as "we've" taken.
Why would we be screwing around with an overpriced schoolbus type "shuttle". Why would the "space station" just be a place where we get to see how long some poor Russian can stand being in it? That's no "space station"...that's a torture chamber, you should at least be able to get fuel and spare parts at a "space station"...maybe have a few drinks, or whatever trips your trigger, rent a room while a refit is being done on your vessel. There aint no damn space station up there. It's a pile of junk...I propose we shoot it to show the Chinese we can put confetti in space too.
And all this hokus pokus junk is retiring from old age.
WHY?
We all really know why, don't "we"?
THE MOON LANDINGS WERE FAKED.

Sevil Natas
Hell R0X
Sh9l0m
 
Moshi Dayan said:
WHY must we wait till the 20's?
It makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

You're right about that - I've never understood why we haven't got a base on the moon by now. After all, it's been nearly 40 years since "they landed". If they did go, then they haven't made the most of the experience.

And it can't be a cost issue - the US spends over 200billion a year invading other countries, so they've got plenty of doe to waste.

I wish I could be as sure as some people that we did land on the moon - I think you should always ask questions about the "official" story 'cos we all know it has *always* been distorted in some way.

I think those who lived through the time and "saw it live on TV" get all teary-eyed about it and refuse to entertain the idea that it might have been faked in some way - me, I look at the pictures and wonder why I should believe this "story" over any other...
 
Moshi Dayan said:
But WHY Tommyball?
WHY must we wait till the 20's?
It makes no sense at all.
If we could do it then, and were refining the technology with each flight,
WHY can't we do it now?
Did someone throw away all the plans and numbers?
WHY?
Our lift technology has supposedly improved so WHY can't "we" enter the numbers on a modified space shuttle, or build some purpose designed transport/lander all in one package and kick it to luna?
Ya really wanna know why?
Cause "we" never went to the moon and just doing high orbit is as big a jumpas "we've" taken.
Click to expand...

There were 11 Apollo flights. Nine of which went to the moon; six of those landed there. The launches actually happened and to use a Saturn V rocket just for orbital flight is overkill. The Apollo program ended due to budget limitations.

I don't believe that the technology was refined that significantly with each flight since it was essentially the same equipment. Now NASA has to play catch-up to refocus on long distance missions. The shuttle program is outdated and a whole new system has to be designed to go back to the moon.

Frankly I do find it somewhat frustrating that we are still using rockets to launch spacecraft and plan to for the foreseeable future. Look how far other technology has advanced since NASA began. And the financial figures are equally frustrating. Adjusted for inflation, according to a few sources, the Apollo program cost less than $150 billion... cheaper than a war.

This brings up a whole other issue of NASA and it's goals. Should it be exploration and progress and new destinations or research?

-todd
 
I don't think bringing a golf ball back would prove much. I have hundreds of golfballs...and my dog can bring them back.
We can see the moon in high resolution now, even though we were lied to for years that Hubble couldn't "see" the moon because it was too close.....baloney. What we don't see, even with satelites orbiting the moon is any evidence man has sat foot there.
I'm an amature astronomer with more than 45 years experience.
Don't let that word "amature" fool you, I've been invited to sit at the prime focus position at several of the worlds largest telescopes, and I've dabbled in radioastronomy....fascinating vistas have been seen by these eyes.
My Uncle "Ace" works for NASA, he isn't of the opinion that we have actually landed men on the moon. We have surely launched some mighty lifting platforms to the heavens, but don't be fooled by Disney...they might as well have been bottle rockets.
Look at the high res photos I linked to in an earlier post. Certain parts of the moon show an exceptional degree of artificiality. Why didn't the "moon visitors" notice this? Why does the moon reverberate when we manage to hit it with a missile? Because it is NOT a natural formation. The moon was not always in orbit around the earth.
The (real) Kolbrin mentions something on this.
Have we ever launched a device with enough shielding to protect men from the radiation of the Van Allen Belt?
No.
How were the astronauts able to "beam" a coherant signal back through the Van Allen Belt? Especially since as I mentioned before, we have to have a truck full of equipment and technicians to do a live remote from 100miles away from our stations?
I worked for channel 5 in Dallas for many years, and I know the difficulties involved...that a tiny transmitter could relay real time audio and vidio from the moon to earth beggars belief.
I agree with you concerning the frustration of the lack of focus of NASA.
Sprouting peas, and playing tiddley winks is hardly research. The experiments we have done in orbit are 6th grade stuff at best, though I am impressed with the emphasis put on EVA activities. The Hatch problem is not solved by claiming the astronauts put their EVA suits on inside the LEM. Have you seen the LEM? There is no way somebody could put on an EVA suit inside it. the interior of this contraption in as tight as that of a jet fighter, one could not even change into tennis shoes inside it.
WE NEVER LANDED A HUMAN ON THE MOON.
To think that we managed to achieve lunar orbit then land the LEM , then lift off with that LEM, and rendezvous with the "mothership", and then hit the trajectory to get back to earth with the computing power of a Tandy XT is just plain silly.
It took me six months to write in color basic a program which played "Oh Little Town of Bethleham" in glorious midi while showing in pixelated form a scene of a couple of buildings with a star traversing the scene.
I won awards for that program.
And this was after some of the supposed moon landings.
So here's a deal to shut up the conspiracy "nuts" like me once and for all...show us the code that enabled these marvels of science.
Surely something that ran on less than 8 megs of ram wouldn't be "classified" would it?
WHY?

Hell R0X
Sh9l0m
 
I remember watching a doc about the photos taken during the first landing - the doc claimed that although Armstrong was the first man on the moon, there is only one photo of him - while taking a landscape/panoramic shot, Buzz managed to catch Armstrong while he was backing down the Lander's ladder. This was purely by accident and not a 'posed' shot.

All the other photos from the first landing are of Buzz, not Armstrong. If that is true, I find it odd.

Another doc was claiming that some photos that NASA claimed are 'untouched originals' have the main aiming reticule off-center by a very obvious margin - this indicates that some cropping/reframing has occurred on photos that NASA claims have not been manipulated.

I'm not holding this up as proof of a faked landing, but I do think that NASA is being less than honest about how much they have manipulated the photographic record of the moon landings.
 
Hiya George!

Sorry to leave you lonesome for so long.
You got a workable trajectory that intercepts the moon, returns, and misses Van Allen radiation?
I'm thinking no.
NASA aint got one.
Brilliant scientists have lost a LOT of sleep over this little problem.
Who do you think said four FEET of LEAD shielding would be required for a lunar shot with live astronauts?
Yup, NASA mission planners. It got shut up pretty quickly, but this is no theoretical problem.
Four FEET of lead on all sides is still the requirement.
Some apologists insist that Van Allen radiation is not that hot.
The Ruskies know better.
Ya like microwaved dogs and monkies?
Not dissin ya but though a belt it be, a ruddy red stripe it'll raise on the arse that feels it's sting.
I'm still waiting for NASA to release the numbers on the lunar landings, something that ran on eight meg of ram shouldn't still be classified.
Then there are still those hatch conundrums, lighting imponderables, and the Mission Director whose nose keeps getting longer.
Peace Out
Word Yo
Ghetto Space Trippin OG
Moshi
 
Sigh...

From Wikipedia:

Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax allegations have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. James Van AllenAugust 9, 2006), dismissed these ideas. In practice, Apollo astronauts who traveled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and would have received a harmless dose <sup id="_ref-4" class="reference">[6]</sup>. Nevertheless NASA said that they deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimize the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon would probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes.

 
It will never end David. It's the, "Yes, but what about this!" scenario. No matter how many times the no moon landing folks get shown to be incorrect they will keep using their ignorance of how things were done into proof it wasn't achieved. A syndrome/tactic this show's favorite guest "he who shall not be named" uses. It's great to question, but I wish people would keep in mind more that there may be answers, and look for them in not such a lazy way. Many people seem to only, or mostly seek answers via one side of the fence and this leads to a bias and often inaccurate point of view. As well as misinformation.


Oddities are just as often proof of ones ignorance as it is proof of anything else. Rhetorical questions often get mistaken for facts.

Has the no moon landing folks ever explained the low gravity effects that can be shown in the moon footage? Only thing I've heard is, "They used slow mo!!". Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Jumping as high as they did in those suits and other visual "effects" show something else other than slow motion would have to be done.

So, remember. Ask rhetorical questions and use them as evidence, meanwhile present little or no answers yourself. This seems to be the stance that leads one to believe the moon landing was fake and BM isn't a hoaxer.
 
Back
Top