Sputnik/Moon Landings

[Communism]

I just wanted your thoughts on the American "moon Landings" because after looking at some evidence in my opinion I came to the conclusion that America staged their moon landings after they felt that Khruschev's Russia was technologically out-stripping them with the missle and bomber gap. I have seen a conspiracy theory on both NASA and that actual space landing from Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin and I just thought what everbody else thought about this incident.

[dannie]

well actualy, i don't give a flying fuck whether they staged it 40 years ago or not, what i do care about is this megalomaniac attitude of current superpowers in which they believe they can conquer space (as in deploying weapons, controlling sattelites, etc...), as a matter of fact, they don't just believe, they can

[norwegian commie]

[QUOTE]just wanted your thoughts on the American "moon Landings" because

I doubt USA landed on they moon when they claim they did.
It is PROVEN that they did photoshoots on earth with the intention to fake a moon landing. their story howver is that those pictures where to be used in the event of a failed moon-project. Since this did not happened they sopposedly published the coorect pictures and landed on the moon when they claimed.

Later it was shown a picture of a flag on the moon that moves because of the wind however there is NO SUCH THING AS WIND ON THE MOON!

then NASA thought oh what the hey and said that some of the fake pictures had publihed along with the real ones! why would they doo such a thing? that is idiocy, why would you risk the chanse to be revealed unless if you have somthing to hide!? unless if they did NOT land on the moon when the said!
There where even found pictures where when they zoomed inn they saw a ( i dont know the word in english) light thrower-thing <_< ...

[TomRK1089]

light thrower...possibly a projector, you mean?

I&#39;ve never seen the photos in question, however, nothing is impossible. This is America we&#39;re talking about: the land of liars.

In my opinion, however, they really did go there, otherwise, how do you explain the disasters like Apollo One and Thirteen? Why risk men&#39;s lives on a fake mission?

[LSD]

Of course the Appolo missions were real. This "faked moon landing" crap is just as nonesensical as most conspiracy theories.

I&#39;m not a photographic expert and neither any of you, so none of us are in a position to determine what&#39;s "real" and what isn&#39;t. I do know, however, that for all the rumours about "fake shots" and "waving flags", not a single coherent piece of evidence has ever been presented on this issue.

Not one&#33;

Think about what that would mean. We&#39;re talking about tens of thousands of people are keeping this secret for nearly 40 years now. It&#39;s simply fantastical to imagine that in this capitalistic society, not one engineer, scientist, astronaut, soldier, bureaucrat, staffer, or congressman has sold this "story".

And that&#39;s not even mentioning the biggest single piece of evidence in support of the official moon landing story: the Soviet Union.

As everyone knows, the Appolo 11 mission happened in a time of intense "space race" betweeen the USSR and US. Both nations were actively attempting to beat out the other and both were eagerly looking for ways to defeat or embarass the other country&#39;s space efforts.

Do you really think that if this story were even partially true, the Soviet press would not have lept on it?

I mean, Christ, TAAS would have run a year-long series on the thing&#33; Probably called it something like AMERICAN BOURGEOIS CAPITALIST LIE TO WORLD.

They certainly would not have been "in on" the "conspiracy" and they easily had the capacity to verify whether the official US story were true or not. At the slightest hint of deception, they would have told the world.

You see, that&#39;s the problem with the "conspiracy" mindset. It views the entire world as some sort of monolithic organization under the control of "shady men" that do "evil deeds".

Such paranoia distracts from the real world class struggle in which progress is not achieved by "fereting out clues" and playing "Muldur", but by real work on real issues.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oh good grief, I thought we were better than this crap.

Apollo Moon Hoax debunked by professional astronomer Phil Plait (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html)

[norwegian commie]

:o
We&#39;re talking about tens of thousands of people are keeping this secret for nearly 40 years now. It&#39;s simply fantastical to imagine that in this capitalistic society, not one engineer, scientist, astronaut, soldier, bureaucrat, staffer, or congressman has sold this "story".

well as a matter of fact all the men that worked on this movie died later by strange sircumstances. hmmmm every single one&#33; well not the ones behind this, but we are talking houndreds keeping it a secret yes.The men "starring" in te fake ones where killed, or dead by strange sircumstances like drowning in the pool.

When they did fake pictures of te moon-landing why did they release them if they had been on the moon, and had real pictures.... I wonder



In my opinion, however, they really did go there, otherwise, how do you explain the disasters like Apollo One and Thirteen? Why risk men&#39;s lives on a fake mission?

yes of course, but i dont think it was when they said.



Of course the Appolo missions were real. This "faked moon landing" crap is just as nonesensical as most conspiracy theories.

I&#39;m not a photographic expert and neither any of you, so none of us are in a position to determine what&#39;s "real" and what isn&#39;t.

well usually i dont belive conspiracy theories... i too denied this one and claimed that the landing was real.. but then saw a frensh movie (dont remember the name, will get back to you on that) anyways the movie shows a <lot of god points and shows that US where so desperate to beat the sovjet to it that they had done anything to prevent it.

I must say... it is indeed people that have talked about his on TV... former NASA people have said this and that, but they have been dismissed as crzy or consirasy theoretics.

Why so quick to dismiss this? take a minute and look over the facts...
see the movie (i will soon post it name)



AMERICAN BOURGEOIS CAPITALIST LIE TO WORLD.

In fact there where several shows on this subject.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

well as a matter of fact all the men that worked on this movie died later by strange sircumstances. hmmmm every single one&#33;

Eh? What movie?

[Goatse]

Later it was shown a picture of a flag on the moon that moves because of the wind however there is NO SUCH THING AS WIND ON THE MOON&#33;

You&#39;re an idiot.

This evidence works in their favour, as in the videos they walk past it without causing the flag disturbance. They just waved the flag themselves, to make it wave... and the lack of gravity or atmosphere allowed it to continue waving in such a way.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also, you can quite clearly see the rod holding the flag up. I doubt it would instantly stop moving when the astronauts let go of it.

[Goatse]

Yeah, I believe it was made out of a "springy"material which caused it to wave.

[Communism]

There is other evidence not just the flag waving such as the crosshare on the camera. Crosshares should be on top of everything as it is printed on front of the cameras screen to help people shoot film. However a crosshare is actually found behind an object on their "set", I have never seen them to be able to explain this arguement.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:58 PM
There is other evidence not just the flag waving such as the crosshare on the camera. Crosshares should be on top of everything as it is printed on front of the cameras screen to help people shoot film. However a crosshare is actually found behind an object on their "set", I have never seen them to be able to explain this arguement.
Can you show us a picture showing the offending crosshair?

[Axel1917]

There is no solid evidence to such conspiaracy theories, and LSD has already covered good points that I intended to make.

[norwegian commie]

You&#39;re an idiot.

This evidence works in their favour, as in the videos they walk past it without causing the flag disturbance. They just waved the flag themselves, to make it wave... and the lack of gravity or atmosphere allowed it to continue waving in such a way.

jeez... whats your problem? no point acting like that.. that is just childish.

The picture i have posted is not the one i was talking about, but it was a picture recived in a rush from google. however walking next to a flag will indeed cause movemets in the flag so it may look like it is wind...

BUT this effect will not stay for a minute or so.... we are talking about mabye a few seconds of movement in the flag, and on the picture i saw the astronaut was behind the camera. the photo showed NO persons at the time... so who made this movement in the flag unless it was the wind, and since there is no such thing on the moon i begin to doubt they where theere when they said.

The US had a lot of preassure n them, the commies had been in space and they needed to prove their system was better than the "red" system. That is why i belive they had to fake it to show the world their superiority.

Alsoe some scientists seriusly doubt the US even had equipment to land on the moon at the time.




Eh? What movie?

the fake moon landing, and its pictures.....




Also, you can quite clearly see the rod holding the flag up. I doubt it would instantly stop moving when the astronauts let go of it.

well... have i said so? NO but it wouldnt continue moving for ever now would it?
Why gve them the favor of the doubt anyways


By the way the documantary i sAw was called LA LUNA.

[Dark Exodus]

well... have i said so? NO but it wouldnt continue moving for ever now would it?

There would be much less friction on the moon, it would continue moving for longer than on earth.



Why gve them the favor of the doubt anyways

There is no &#39;doubt&#39;.

Also, it is illogical to assume they faked just because they are Americans/Capitalists.
Both countries were putting huge effort into getting ahead, you should at least know that.

[Communism]

Originally posted by NoXion+Mar 30 2006, 05:19 PM--> (NoXion @ Mar 30 2006, 05:19 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 03:58 PM
There is other evidence not just the flag waving such as the crosshare on the camera. Crosshares should be on top of everything as it is printed on front of the cameras screen to help people shoot film. However a crosshare is actually found behind an object on their "set", I have never seen them to be able to explain this arguement.
Can you show us a picture showing the offending crosshair? [/b]
Well here is the offending item.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, here is a debunking, make what you wish of it:


Bad: Crosshairs were etched in the astronauts&#39; cameras to better help measure objects in the pictures. However, in several images, it looks like the objects are actually in front of the crosshairs, which is impossible if the crosshairs were inside the camera&#33; Therefore, the images were faked.

Good: This argument is pretty silly. Do the HBs think that NASA had painted crosshairs on the set behind the astronauts? I heard one HB claim the crosshairs were added later on, and NASA had messed up some of the imaging. That&#39;s ridiculous&#33; Why add in crosshairs later? Cameras equipped with crosshairs have been used for a long time, and it would have been easy to simply use some to take pictures on the faked set. Clearly, the HBs are wrong here, but the images do look funny. What happened?

What happened becomes clearer when you look more closely at the images. The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair (because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too. That&#39;s all that happened here; the white object in the image ``fills in&#39;&#39; the black crosshair. It&#39;s a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography.

[Note (added February 18, 2001): I have been informed by David Percy, a photographer quoted in the Fox show, that he does indeed believe that man went to the Moon, but he believes there are anomalies in the imagery taken which ``put into question many aspects of the missions&#39;&#39;, which is a different matter. While I disagree that there are anomalies, I have edited out what is essentially a personal attack on Mr. Percy that I had here originally. It is an easy matter to let one&#39;s emotions get carried away when writing these essays, and I apologize to him and my readers for letting that get in. I make it a policy to correct Bad Astronomy based on facts, not personalities.]

[Note added June 29, 2001: Again, Ian Goddard&#39;s work has more about this, including images that show how crosshairs can fade out in a bright background.

From HERE (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crosshairs)

[Don't Change Your Name]

Not yet another conspiracy nonsense...