• 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
LOL@KorMan!

Nice meter dude!

BTW, you are the one who seems to have his mind nade up, and are not even willing to call for DATA. That's all I want...just the facts, the numbers, the angles, the facts concerning the radiation, not only from Van Allen's but from other scources once outside Van Allen's protection.

Why is it so wrong to ask for DATA?

Ya know what?

I spent a lot of time looking for the numbers, that's all, the numbers.

A snappy quip does not fulfill the requirement. DATA would.

Why after all these years are the data not published where we the sheeple can examine the formula which enabled man to make this giant step?

I know I seem like a die hard "skeptic" but just saying "yes we did" and "you are crazy if you don't believe it" are hardly proof.

I can direct you to many pages "debunking" the disbelievers, the problem is they DO NOT DEBUNK, they merely defame.

DATA

To debunk the idea that we never went to the moon, posting of the data which enabled this would put it to rest, one way or the other.

I'd love to believe we went to the moon, but I am not convinced.

This information would be needed to debunk the "we never went crowd".
Fuel composition/load, DATA.
Drive thrust for terrestrial liftoff, DATA.
Trajectory to intercept the moon and achieve lunar orbit, DATA.
Thrust factors and calculations as regards thrust requirements in space, DATA.
LLM seperation and vectoring to lunar surface, DATA.
Liftoff from Lunar surface, DATA.
Achievement of orbit by LLM and interception of mainship, DATA.
All we want is the numbers. That would shut us up.
Many here have degrees in engineering, the DATA would tell the tale,
and shut up the doubters once and for all.
DATA
show me the DATA.
I enjoy your clown shows which seem automatically initated by doubters that we have indeed landed on the moon.
I have posed a few problems which HAVE NOT been dealt with.
I've been accused of having already made up my mind on this matter.
This is proven untrue by my desire for DATA.
I do not say we have or have not been to the moon.
I do say there are problems which indicate we have not been to the moon.
My "WE NEVER LANDED ON THE MOON" statement is simply a call for someone to send some DATA.

This would be so easy to prove or disprove were we supplied with---DATA.
 
And if DATA were provided, you would claim that it is fraudulent. You conspiracy nuts don't allow facts to interfere with your looneytoon theories.
 
This might look like a rhetorical question, but it isn't. I really am curious as to the answers you might give and how they may differ from others.

For those who think any of the moon landings were faked, what sort of evidence, or proof would convince you that they weren't?
 
Going to the Moon was one of our greatest achievements - I am quite certain that we landed on the moon and that we even had a very active space program at one time.

I just can't wait until we decide to go back. There is still so much we can learn from going back to the Moon. There are so many unexplored possibilities.
 
redalton said:
Going to the Moon was one of our greatest achievements – I am quite certain that we landed on the moon and that we even had a very active space program at one time.

I just can't wait until we decide to go back. There is still so much we can learn from going back to the Moon. There are so many unexplored possibilities.
Click to expand...

So long as NASA looks at those interesting things, I'm game. We had to twist their arm to re-image the Mars face for crying out loud. It barely happened even though they were up there mapping it's surface. NASA acts stranger than me sometimes.

Too bad there isn't oil on the moon. I bet we'd visit lots then.

But in truth, I'm more interested in Mars and some of the moons that may harbor life. Easier to get man to the moon though.
 
Why hasn't China landed on the moon yet? Their one-party state system allows them to bypass 'red-tape' and get things moving far quicker than a 'democratic' country such a the USA (ho-ho)...

A.LeClair said:
Too bad there isn't oil on the moon. I bet we'd visit lots then.
Click to expand...

Helium-3 - The new 'oil'...
 
Why haven't the Russians been to the moon? They are scientifically more advanced than China. Why hasn't the European Union been to the moon? Surely they have the combined expertise and wealth. Why hasn't India sent men to the moon? They have the technological knowhow, judging by the numbers of companies with CS reps/techs in India.

China, despite its 1.32 billion people and its vast resources, is barely able to feed its people, let alone mount manned missions to the moon (although they could fake them like NASA did
rolleyes.gif
). Why? A: communism is a dagger through the heart of initiative and advancement. What incentive does communism offer for doing one's best?
 
KorMan said:
Why haven't the Russians been to the moon? They are scientifically more advanced than China. Why hasn't the European Union been to the moon? Surely they have the combined expertise and wealth. Why hasn't India sent men to the moon? They have the technological knowhow, judging by the numbers of companies with CS reps/techs in India.
Click to expand...

Right. So why? (Oh, I forgot - you're ignoring me. Perhaps someone else will offer a response.)
 
My guess would be because the USA has stamped "mine" on the entirety of known space and would shoot them down with those "failed" SDI satellites if they tried.
 
KorMan said:
I like it. But don't forget the EMPs from the orbiting nukes, ala "Escape From Los Angeles", if the SDI fails.
Click to expand...

EMPs are too indiscriminant though, you'd wipe out millions of dollars worth of commercial satellites.
 
David Biedny said:
To see grown adults debating the moon landing is a sad thing. it's truly an insult to the brave people that undertook the incredible mission, the proudest moment of human history, for my money. I've seen so many of the moon landing photos, and none of them look suspicious to my eyes. Light and shadow works differently on the moon, so to expect things to work as they do in the Earth's atmosphere is silly.

Anyway, in the interest of open expression, we're more than happy to let everyone debate the idea of whether we went to the moon or not, but to me, it's a waste of time. We might as well debate the idea of the shape of the Earth, or whether the moon is made of cheese. Seriously.

dB
Click to expand...

Hi David (and Gene),

Thanks for hosting this site, it's a pleasure to be able to drop by. I also like the fact that you aim at raising the standard of discussion, whenever possible.

I have been reading through this thread, and it reminds me of several other threads I have been reading, or posting in, at other sites. The arguments seem to invariably revolve around the same concepts, leading to personalised accusations that avoid addressing the actual issue. This is rather sad, since it precludes a productive debate.

David, I understand that you have observed at least one UFO, some time ago, and that you enjoy discussing unusual phenomena. How does it make you feel, when somebody doubts your UFO experience, or your interpretation of it? Coming back to the topic of this thread, do you think it is justified to marginalise, or even insult posters, only because they happen to doubt the official version of Apollo? Why is it OK to believe in ghosts, or UFOs, but not that the Apollo missions might have been a hoax?

I have seen a UFO myself, many years ago. I have also seen ghosts (or so I believe, anyway). Concerning the moon landings, all I can go by are a number of photos, provided by NASA, and a number of videos, also provided by NASA. I have to take NASA's word for it, that the photos and videos are genuine - there is no other authority that could provide a second opinion, or hard evidence. I think this is an important point: NASA has a total information monopoly.

My personal view: I spent several hours looking closely at VHS video of the landings, and I studied a good number of photographs. I think any discussion concerning whether or not the landings really happened, needs to concentrate on the visual material, since discussing the dangers of the Van Allen Belts, for example, is entirely hypothetical.

You see, the biggest problem I have with the footage is that there are never any stars in the background. Never. Not once. There isn't a single star visible in dozens (hundreds?) of photos, or in how many hours of video. How can this be? I know, somebody might want to jump in and say "It's because of camera exposure, moon's luminosity, the particular qualities of the film used", and so on. I read about that, many times. But it still doesn't ring true. Remember that famous shot of Earth, from Moon? Even here, there is not a single star in the background. But there should be: I could post many links to photos taken on Earth, even during daytime, which clearly show a planet, such as Venus, next to our Moon - not to mention nigh-time shots, showing our Milky Way in some detail. And this, regardless of Earth's comparatively thick atmosphere. Why didn't the astronauts make a point of shooting breathtaking images of stars, and of some of the planets of our own solar system? Why do we see total blackness instead, over and over again? That doesn't make any sense.
 
Thanks for the thoughtful post, musictomyears...

I'm officially off this weekend, but I'll respond briefly - as to the issue of how I feel about people who doubt or question my experiences, it's fine by me, the fact is that I lived through this stuff, regardless of whether or not people wish to believe my words. I was there, I saw what I saw, regardless of how anyone wants to interpret these experiences, my reality is not affected by someone else's perception. I share these stories because I want to talk about them, not because I need people to accept them. I completely understand that folks are sceptical, anyone who listens to the show knows my stance on healthy scepticism.

As to the Apollo moon mission photos, all you have to do is take a camera, ANY camera, to a country fair or circus, at night. Lots of ambient light. Try taking pictures of the carousel, the corndog stand, the tents, and frame the shots to include the sky. The iris and shutter of the camera are going to set themselves (in an automatic camera) to be able to handle the light of the attractions, and the exposure times and iris aperture will simply not be sufficient to allow the stars to show up. On the moon, the amazing amount of light relflected by the lunar surface (more light reaches the lunar surface, as there's no real atmosphere to get in the way) precludes ANY light from the stars to show through - anyone who is reasonably experienced with analog photography will have no problem undertanding this reality. It's simple physics, and is not subject to the power of interpretation - you say these things don't ring true to you, well, if you had grown up in a darkroom (as I did), you'd have no problem whatsoever knowing that you would not expect to see stars in the moonshots. And think about it - if someone was faking moon shots, the inclusion of pinpoints of light to mimic stars would be trivial. Some of us were alive to see the televised liftoffs of the Apollo missions, LONG before digital computer graphics, and there's no doubt, NONE, that amazingly large and complex rockets took off from this planet and went into space.

We went to the moon. The Earth is not flat. We need oxygen and water to survive.

Believe anything you want, that's your perogative.
 
Musictomyears. You sure you read this thread? The stars not showing have been dealt with already.

I sound like a broken record, so excuse me for not being music to your ears maybe:)
 
Indeed, Earth is not flat, and non of us are going to live forever - not in this world, anyway.

I terms of "broken record", if the question of missing stars and planets would have been adequately dealt with anywhere, I wouldn't have mentioned it (BTW, if this discussion also turns out to be a sling fest, I'll stop posting).

When I was randomly searching for some photos, that could illustrate the point I was trying to make, I came across this page:

http://www.astrofind.net/discussion/article.php?id=916588&group=sci.astro.amateur#916588

It is a post about the moon landings. The author quite rightly points out that even from Earth, through Earth's atmosphere, can we take photos of Moon and several nearby planets. The author provides a few links to examples, and concludes:

"As of missions A11, A14 and A16, Venus was in fact unavoidably within a few of those EVA obtained FOVs, yet oddly it never once got recorded as such.* Other sufficient items including Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and even the Sirius star system also should have recoded at some time or another within a few of the vast numbers of such unfiltered Kodak moments that offered a clear black sky above what should have been a physically dark (basalt and soot like) lunar terrain that was getting anything but passive xenon lamp spectrum illuminated, and much less for looking as though guano island like."

Particularly striking are theses images:

http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg
http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/images/moon_venus_tree.jpg
http://www.mightywebdesigns.ca/telescope-photos/moon-saturn-jupiter-test-0001.jpg

The question has been asked, why didn't NASA simply add a few planets and stars in their Apollo shots, if or when they faked the images? The answer would appear to be that computers weren't powerful enough at the time, and consequently there was too much room for error. Getting all planetary constellations, angles, proportions, and the interaction between light and shadow right, would have been a tremendous challenge. By telling the world that the Moon was reflecting too much sunlight, and several other reasons (as listed by David), NASA conveniently dodged the issue.

As evident in the photos listed further up, nearby planets such as Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn would have been brightly lit and clearly visible from Moon.

I don't doubt for a second that huge Saturn V rockets were sent into Earth's orbit. However, I doubt that they went any further than that.
 
If anyone wants to explain how the rover switches sides on the LM as shown here AULIS Online – Different Thinking

Or how the same mountain is seen in the background and yet the lander rotates 90 degrees as shown here AULIS Online – Different Thinking

I would like to hear it. In fact this guy uncovers quite a few head scratchers that I haven't seen explained on any anti-hoax sites.

Also if you watch videos of the rover on the moon you can see the dust shooting up from the tires and hitting what can only be atmosphere.... Wouldn't the rooster tail of dust create a perfect parabola on the airless lunar surface?

I don't know if men walked on the moon but it's looking like the photographic evidence is faked.
 
Cygnus X1 said:
If anyone wants to explain how the rover switches sides on the LM as shown here AULIS Online – Different Thinking

Or how the same mountain is seen in the background and yet the lander rotates 90 degrees as shown here AULIS Online – Different Thinking

I would like to hear it. In fact this guy uncovers quite a few head scratchers that I haven't seen explained on any anti-hoax sites.

Also if you watch videos of the rover on the moon you can see the dust shooting up from the tires and hitting what can only be atmosphere.... Wouldn't the rooster tail of dust create a perfect parabola on the airless lunar surface?

I don't know if men walked on the moon but it's looking like the photographic evidence is faked.
Click to expand...


I just looked at the first photo and argument of the site given. Am I understanding his position correctly? Camera doesn't noticably move, therefore tripod was used, therefore moon landing fake?
 
Yeah I dunno about that tripod thing, I guess he's saying it appears like a tripod was used when it was supposedly a chest-mounted camera.

Again my question, how does the lunar lander rotate 90 degrees and the background mountains stay essentially the same?
 
Back
Top