Conspiracy Theory

L

~Lazarus~

Guest
heres one to discuss.

N1 see the program on telly about the "inconsistencies" of the televised lunar landing back in 1969.

Went through all the inconsistencies of the film and basically claimed that NOONE walked on the moon in 69

ne1 ?
 
E

*Exor*

Guest
I'm not sure. I seriously doubt the truth about anything that big could be hidden for so long. Having said that though, there are a LOT of things that need to be clarified by NASA to remove any doubts.
 
W

Will

Guest
I think it was fake. Apparently, the materials they would have made spacesuits visors from would have shattered from the pressure difference if they were that thin.
 
T

Testin da Cable

Guest
I think it was a major hoax.
Too bad tho, as it's sometimes better to believe that which is good as opposed to that which is the truth.

:(
 
M

Mr B

Guest
Nice try by the theorists - unfortunately, if one applies even a modest amount of thought and actually LOOKS at what the pictures are rather than what we are TOLD they are you would see that they ALL make sense.

1) First picture claiming more than 1 light source - look at where the alleged shadow of the flag actually goes - does it go to the base of the flag? No it does not - it's another shadow from the lunar module.

2a) the footprint - the 2 shadows are caused because the heel and toe make the largest imprint, therefore there will be a shadow as the light moves towards his heel

2b) the footprint - The fact that the lunar dust is ALSO under 1/6th gravity appears to have completely bypassed the authors thought processes - the dust is less densely packed than on earth and hence any footprints will sink to exactly the same level.

3) There is no wind, hence why NASA put a wire across the top of the flag to make it stick out thus.

4) There are no stars in the sky because this is STILL the 1960's - cameras operating on the moon have to deal with the glare of the sun - how many stars would be picked up with that amount of light coming into the apeture? none. (ps. how stupid do you THINK NASA are if they went through ALL that trouble but forgot something as basic as painting a few stars on the background).

That bollocks about "if something is in shadow here on earth it is barely visible" - what a crock, honestly, and some people fall for this?

The lighting effects (one shadow larger than the other) was because they had their backs to a steep incline, hence the closer you are to the incline the shorter your shadow.

...and the flag survived because the launch from the moon of the module was an extremely short burst (remember 1/6th gravity).
 
L

~Lazarus~

Guest
Reckon there are going to be numerous opinions on this one.

Dont believe for a minute that NASA are going to openly admit that it was a hoax like the film Capricorn 1 (great film).

Lots of "coincidences" as well. Like how so many people connected to the incident died in suspicious circumstances.

To me it stinks of a cover up - but that is my opinion and no one can take that away.

Makes you wonder about Elvis tho.
 
O

old.Kez

Guest
Originally posted by Mr B
Nice try by the theorists - unfortunately, if one applies even a modest amount of thought and actually LOOKS at what the pictures are rather than what we are TOLD they are you would see that they ALL make sense.

1) First picture claiming more than 1 light source - look at where the alleged shadow of the flag actually goes - does it go to the base of the flag? No it does not - it's another shadow from the lunar module.

2a) the footprint - the 2 shadows are caused because the heel and toe make the largest imprint, therefore there will be a shadow as the light moves towards his heel

2b) the footprint - The fact that the lunar dust is ALSO under 1/6th gravity appears to have completely bypassed the authors thought processes - the dust is less densely packed than on earth and hence any footprints will sink to exactly the same level.

3) There is no wind, hence why NASA put a wire across the top of the flag to make it stick out thus.

4) There are no stars in the sky because this is STILL the 1960's - cameras operating on the moon have to deal with the glare of the sun - how many stars would be picked up with that amount of light coming into the apeture? none. (ps. how stupid do you THINK NASA are if they went through ALL that trouble but forgot something as basic as painting a few stars on the background).

That bollocks about "if something is in shadow here on earth it is barely visible" - what a crock, honestly, and some people fall for this?

The lighting effects (one shadow larger than the other) was because they had their backs to a steep incline, hence the closer you are to the incline the shorter your shadow.

...and the flag survived because the launch from the moon of the module was an extremely short burst (remember 1/6th gravity).
Click to expand...
All quite viable, though you've failed to address the issue of the lunar lander thingie not leaving blastmarks or imprints in the same fashion the astronauts did.

TBH, I think we probably have gone to the moon, just as we've continued to throw ships and satellites into orbit for fun ever since.
 
O

old.garland

Guest
If they did land on the moon once why dont they do it again ?

I think that if they did it in moderm day we would expect such a high quality from pictures / Video they just couldnt do it.
 
M

Mr B

Guest
All quite viable, though you've failed to address the issue of the lunar lander thingie not leaving blastmarks or imprints in the same fashion the astronauts did.
Click to expand...

The amount of thrust used to actually touch down was minimal, as you can see from the "bottom down" viewing film that is available - the dust was scattered but not by a huge amount, and the thrust generated wouldn't have left blast-marks...

If they did land on the moon once why dont they do it again ?
Click to expand...

The initial moon landings were done "because it was difficult" no-one stopped to question what the economic benefits of it was - Kennedy said "we're getting the the moon before the Russians" and he did...

They discovered all they are likely to discover about the moon (for a while at least) when they got there (I dunno how many missions actually landed on the moon? 3/4?) - ie. it's a lump of rock, no precious minerals, no aliens - therefore no point in going back.

I think that if they did it in moderm day we would expect such a high quality from pictures / Video they just couldnt do it.
Click to expand...

You'll just have to wait for the next set of Mars missions (which have just been delayed again) - then you'll see some good pictures...

Or if you mean "they could get away with it because the cameras were so crap" - then I pity da foo'

:D
 
E

exxxie

Guest
Rofl - I would like to propose a new theory.... Buzz Aldrin was behind the white picket fence/Grassy Knoll area. HE DID TEH SHOTTING!!1
 
T

Testin da Cable

Guest
Originally posted by Mr B


no point in going back.
Click to expand...

sorry, but there may be a very valid point for going back to the moon.
I believe a [small] base there might complement the ISS nicely :)
but then what do I know :D
 
L

Louster

Guest
I can't believe this topic.

As far as I know, they haven't gone back to the moon because the cost would be greater than the benefit. Especially seeing how the interest in space travel has been steadily declining over the years.

There's absolutely no reason to believe any of this conspiracy crap. If, given the choice between NASA and some foolish paranoid bullshit... I'll go for NASA.
 
L

~Lazarus~

Guest
Louster,

dont take this the wrong way, but I see that a a rather blinkered approach.

There have been many incidents in the past (not just the NASA piece) which have been revealed as cover ups by the government.

However, your opinion is your own and noone can take that away.

I am a firm believer in not fully trusting the government (any government)
 
A

-AP-

Guest
They f00000led you!!!

The reason there have been no space flights to the moon for so long is because of aliens. Didn't you watch that x-files episode??


I did some extensive research on this subject at university, coming to the conclusion that eating peat gives you brown teeth.
 
L

Louster

Guest
Blinkered? I have a deep distrust of stuff like this. Because it's so plainly manipulative. If the government is being manipulative, at the VERY least they're doing a better job of it. Theories like this have so many holes in them that it's surprising they even exist.

Mr.B has already shown this.
 
C

Ch3tan

Guest
Its a world full of mini fox mulders, and quite sad it is.

Wether or not the first moon landing ever occurred is irrelevent they had several missions to the moon.
 
L

~Lazarus~

Guest
Originally posted by Ch3tan
Its a world full of mini fox mulders, and quite sad it is.

Wether or not the first moon landing ever occurred is irrelevent they had several missions to the moon.
Click to expand...

So ..... did the conspiracy theory encompass all lunar landings or just the first ???


mmmmm

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom