Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Moon Landing Hoax


Recommended Posts

Here is part of an article addressing some of the questions and answers concerning Apollo , from conpiracy researcher Bart Sibrel ... ( the guy who ex astronaut Buzz Aldren knocked to the ground ).... When Mr. Sibrel asked questions which Mr. Aldren refused to answer , and then made statements which Mr. Aldren did not aprove of, Aldren's response was to punch him out , insteading of answering his questions , or standing up to his accusations .

Here are some questions which have been asked of Mr. Sibrel , and his answers ...

Q: How could such a secret be kept from the world with so many people involved? (Didn't NASA have tens of thousands of people working on the Apollo project?)

A: This is the same logical question I asked before I did any research. Yet after having done eight years of investigation, I discovered that, in fact, very few people were involved in the actual faking. NASA, indeed, did have tens of thousands of people working constructing the nuts and bolts of the project. One team worked on the spacecraft hatch, another on the astronaut's boot, yet none of them saw an overview of the entire project, only those at the very top of the bureaucratic pyramid. All of those NASA guys at the computer consoles that you saw prior to the launch were receiving the exact same information as their colleagues sitting beside them, which was fed to all of them by a simulation computer program. If you look at the footage ten seconds prior to launch, they are all kicked back watching television, just like the rest of us. Apollo astronauts from later or previous missions were the ones at the real consoles. We know from the newly discovered behind-the-scenes footage that each crew was on the rocket during the launch. They went up in front of witnesses, splashed down in front of witnesses, yet the evidence recently uncovered proves that they never left Earth orbit. Apollo 11 was supposed to be the greatest event in human history, yet there were only three (government employee) witnesses and, for the first time ever, no independent press coverage of such an historical event.

With Cold War tensions running high, those who knew the truth went along with the deception to fool the Soviets that we had technological superiority.

In 1957 Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America" (the latest winner of the most popular TV trivia game show at that time.) It was later uncovered that the contestant received the answers in advance from the show's producers because he was widely loved by the viewers. In fact, one hundred twenty contestants and staff initially swore on the Bible during a grand jury investigation that the television show was not rigged. Most later recanted, and it is now known they all lied. If all these people were willing to lie for a little money, how much more for alleged national security? The fact is, Time Magazine was wrong. The best way to fool the world was to fool the media.

Q: What about all of the people refuting your accusations point-by-point?

A: Given the pride associated with this alleged accomplishment, it is natural that many people seek to refute our claims. It is not difficult to make up a plausible-sounding argument to refute almost any claim. However, we have yet to see any such argument that does not fail under critical examination.

"The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him wrong."

- - Harry Segall

Q: What about the moon rocks?

A: NASA chief scientist James Garvin recently appeared on C-SPAN (4-17-2005.) A viewer called in for the live, audience response, program. He stated that his father worked for the Defense Department and told him that we never went to the moon, that the technology didn't exist back then, and that Apollo was a Hollywood-type production. The caller asked NASA chief scientist Garvin what proof he had that the Apollo moon missions were real. Garvin said the proof is in the statements made by the astronauts, and also in the moon rocks.

While it is possible that the moon rocks were manufactured (NASA has the best ceramics labs on the planet), in reality these rocks are probably just meteorites that were retrieved on Earth. Von Braun, the director of the program, visited Antarctica a few months before the missions to retrieve these meteorites. (By the way, it is a federal crime for a civilian to be in possession of an Apollo moon rock, so how can there truly be independent verification?)

Q: Can't you see the artifacts left from the alleged moon missions through a powerful telescope?

A: No. This is folklore. No Earth-based telescope is powerful enough to see manmade materials on the lunar surface. The newly released photos of the moon taken by the Hubble telescope cannot discern any objects on the moon's surface that are smaller than a football field in length.

Japan, however, sent a probe to the moon several years ago that did have this capability. Unfortunately, as soon as it entered lunar orbit all five of its cameras simultaneously malfunctioned. Further disappointment is in the fact that the most recent European lunar probe cannot see the moon's surface in enough detail to answer this persistent question.

Q: Wouldn't the Russians find out and then tell the world?

A: This is another, very logical, yet superficial question. After thinking about it for some time, I believe that one of the major reasons for faking the moon missions was to fool the Soviets about US strategic and space capability during the height of the Cold War (like a bluff in poker.) In addition, the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly cancelled.

Even if the Russians did suspect the landings were not authentic, the act of calling us liars of this magnitude at the height of the Cold War could have instigated a war, and perhaps they thought it better not to chance that.

Q: Why hasn't someone come forward?

A: Who would listen, and who would believe them? This illusion is so pridefully ingrained in everyone’s mind that it isn’t even questioned. Furthermore, would you want to be the one to ruin the international reputation of America? (Plus the likely blackmail, bribes, and death threats . . . to family members as well.) In addition, one astronaut coming forward to clear his own conscious is an inadvertent condemnation of all of the other astronauts as well. It is one thing to ruin your own life and reputation, yet what about others who are not willing to do so? All of them have built fame and wealth on their celebrity of having supposedly walked on the moon.

Q: What about laser reflectors on the moon (allegedly left by Apollo) that scientists bounce light beams off of?

A: The Russians have successfully placed such reflectors on the surface of the moon, yet they have never claimed to have put a man on the moon. The reflectors were dropped there by unmanned probes. It should also be noted that the moon's surface will naturally reflect signals; communications were carried out as early as the 1950s by bouncing signals off of the moon.

Q: How could the scientists of the world be fooled?

A: When scientists fail to require independent duplication of such an outlandish claim after over 30 years have passed, science is degraded to the status of being just another religion. They claim to have gone 240,000 miles in 1969. However, since 1972 no one has gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. This is a case of the scientists of the world not doing their jobs and otherwise being caught asleep at the wheel.

The leading scientists today who say that the Van Allen Radiation Belt is not lethal (who were generally in preschool at the time of the first alleged moon landing) do so by the following deduction: "The Apollo astronauts went through the radiation belt on their way to the moon and survived, so it must not be lethal." They are, of course, assuming that the missions were authentic, when, in fact, they were not. The leading scientists are wrong. Has this ever historically happened?

Q: If the evidence you have is so compelling, what hasn't CNN picked it up?

A: In reality, news media organizations are in the entertainment business. They figure that confronting such an emotional issue is not likely to boost their ratings. Since only a small percentage of those in the U.S. believe the landings were not authentic, most news media organizations don't want to risk offending their viewers.

Q: What about Apollo 13?

A: The fact is, none of the Apollo missions ever left earth orbit. After interest petered out following Apollo 12 (the second trip), an element of "jeopardy" was introduced to draw attention back to the alleged drama of the missions.

This makes Apollo 13 the most deplorable of all the missions. The nation held midnight prayer vigils for the astronaut's safe return, all the while they casually coasted around the earth in a completely sound orbiting vehicle.

Q: If A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon is such Earth-shattering evidence, why are you selling it instead of offering it for free?

A: The film is Earth-shattering evidence, indeed. The fact is that investors put up five hundred thousand dollars to produce the film, and they would like to recoup a little of it. This is simply the concept of exchange; when someone does work to provide you with something of value, you compensate them when you receive benefit from that work.

Thirty bucks for a half a million dollar film is not bad, if you ask me. (The lie cost every citizen $800--the truth... $30.)

http://216.26.168.193/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is part of an article addressing some of the questions and answers concerning Apollo , from conpiracy researcher Bart Sibrel ... ( the guy who ex astronaut Buzz Aldren knocked to the ground ).... When Mr. Sibrel asked questions which Mr. Aldren refused to answer , and then made statements which Mr. Aldren did not aprove of, Aldren's response was to punch him out , insteading of answering his questions , or standing up to his accusations .

Duane, as a fellow Forum member, could I ask you to please spell his name correctly? It's Aldrin, not Aldren. Thanks.

Are you planning to remind people of the circumstances regarding the infamous 'Buzz punch'? I'll do it for you.

Mr Sibrel set up the interview under false pretenses, claiming it was an interview for a Japanese educational TV network. When Buzz was ambushed, he turned around and left; this was the second (third?) time he had had to put up with Mr Sibrel's shenanigans. Mr Sibrel continually blocked Buzz's way out of the hotel. Buzz continually warned Mr Sibrel to stop blocking his path. As they left the hotel, Mr Sibrel called Buzz a coward, a thief, and a xxxx - at which point Buzz decked him. Mr Sibrel's first words were "Did you get that?" to his camera crew.

Mr Sibrel then brought assault charges against Buzz. During the investigation, Mr Sibrel admitted that it was his intention to offer to donate a sum of money (I forget how much; $500?) to a charity of Buzz's choice if he would swear upon the Bible that he had walked on the Moon. After Buzz would have accepted the money, Mr Sibrel was going to charge Buzz with obtain money under false pretenses.

The DA declined to bring charges against Buzz, stating that Buzz was provoked into his actions.

Here are some questions which have been asked of Mr. Sibrel , and his answers ...

Q: How could such a secret be kept from the world with so many people involved? (Didn't NASA have tens of thousands of people working on the Apollo project?)

A: This is the same logical question I asked before I did any research. Yet after having done eight years of investigation, I discovered that, in fact, very few people were involved in the actual faking. NASA, indeed, did have tens of thousands of people working constructing the nuts and bolts of the project. One team worked on the spacecraft hatch, another on the astronaut's boot, yet none of them saw an overview of the entire project, only those at the very top of the bureaucratic pyramid.

Actually, there were quite a few people who had an overview of the entire programme. Even so, how does this make a difference? The hatch designers knew their hardware would work. The LM designers knew their hardware would work. The engine designers knew their hardware would work, etc. Put it all together and you have a system that can do the job that it was designed for!

All of those NASA guys at the computer consoles that you saw prior to the launch were receiving the exact same information as their colleagues sitting beside them, which was fed to all of them by a simulation computer program.

This was addressed in a previous thread. The Flight Controllers have said they could tell the difference between a simulation and the real thing. The simulation technology could not handle a complete mission; each segment had to be loaded, run, then a new segment loaded - with periods of time in-between to reset the various computers.

If you look at the footage ten seconds prior to launch, they are all kicked back watching television, just like the rest of us.

I'd like to confirm this, because my memory of the Saturn V launch is of people intently doing their jobs in the Firing Room.

Apollo astronauts from later or previous missions were the ones at the real consoles.

There was always a "real" astronaut at one of the consoles; they were known as the CAPCOM (Capsule Communicator), and were the only ones who normally spoke directly to the spacecraft. In earlier missions (Mercury) astronauts also assisted various systems people such as propulsion, guidance, etc. It was part of building up the astronauts knowledge of the spacecraft systems. I'm unsure if any were at other consoles during Apollo.

We know from the newly discovered behind-the-scenes footage that each crew was on the rocket during the launch.

Newly discovered? Behind the scenes? This has always been the case.

They went up in front of witnesses, splashed down in front of witnesses, yet the evidence recently uncovered proves that they never left Earth orbit. Apollo 11 was supposed to be the greatest event in human history, yet there were only three (government employee) witnesses and, for the first time ever, no independent press coverage of such an historical event.

No "independent" coverage? Mr Sibrel has got it entirely wrong. Members of the press from literally hundreds of different organisations and countries covered the mission. What did Mr Sibrel want - a special seat on each mission so a press representative could fly with the astronauts, and film them on the lunar surface? Even if they had done that, we know would the likely response would have been (they were coerced / they were in on it).

In 1957 Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America" (the latest winner of the most popular TV trivia game show at that time.) It was later uncovered that the contestant received the answers in advance from the show's producers because he was widely loved by the viewers. In fact, one hundred twenty contestants and staff initially swore on the Bible during a grand jury investigation that the television show was not rigged. Most later recanted, and it is now known they all lied. If all these people were willing to lie for a little money, how much more for alleged national security? The fact is, Time Magazine was wrong. The best way to fool the world was to fool the media.

Did they? I don't know. Even so, a television show cheating has nothing to do with a lunar landing programme where literally thousands of people examine the results in minute detail.

I'll go through the rest of the post tomorrow. Bedtime for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q: What about all of the people refuting your accusations point-by-point?

A: Given the pride associated with this alleged accomplishment, it is natural that many people seek to refute our claims. It is not difficult to make up a plausible-sounding argument to refute almost any claim. However, we have yet to see any such argument that does not fail under critical examination.

"The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him wrong."

- - Harry Segall

I find that one from Mr Sibrel quite amusing, because he is the one whose evidence fails under scrutiny. This also explains why he tends to avoid any scientific evidence that would disprove the Apollo programme; he knows that it would be easily disproved. Instead, he tends to deal with subjects which are subjective rather than objective; that way he knows his claims can only be disputed rather than proven conclusively wrong.

Q: What about the moon rocks?

A: NASA chief scientist James Garvin recently appeared on C-SPAN (4-17-2005.) A viewer called in for the live, audience response, program. He stated that his father worked for the Defense Department and told him that we never went to the moon, that the technology didn't exist back then, and that Apollo was a Hollywood-type production. The caller asked NASA chief scientist Garvin what proof he had that the Apollo moon missions were real. Garvin said the proof is in the statements made by the astronauts, and also in the moon rocks.

While it is possible that the moon rocks were manufactured (NASA has the best ceramics labs on the planet), in reality these rocks are probably just meteorites that were retrieved on Earth. Von Braun, the director of the program, visited Antarctica a few months before the missions to retrieve these meteorites. (By the way, it is a federal crime for a civilian to be in possession of an Apollo moon rock, so how can there truly be independent verification?)

Again, this has been discussed many times in various threads. So far, no-one has been able to produce a sample that can pass for a lunar sample. There have been replicas that can mimic lunar samples in some aspects, but in other areas they are clearly of terrestrial origin.

The lunites that have been found were not identified as such until after the Apollo missions had finished, and the knowledge gained from the missions allowed the lunites to be identified as of lunar origin. Even then, they show signs of atmospheric entry, indicating that they were terrestrial samples and not taken from the Moon directly. Lunar rocks show signs of cosmic ray impacts on their surface ('zap pits'); this is destroyed when a lunite falls to Earth through the atmosphere.

Lastly, I would question whether NASA has the "best ceramic labs on the planet". I would think that they would be quite advanced for research into specific applications (e.g. thermal protection) but not "the best". You have to remember that although NASA conducts research, it normally assigns contracts out to private industry to solve the problems which it gives them.

Q: Can't you see the artifacts left from the alleged moon missions through a powerful telescope?

A: No. This is folklore. No Earth-based telescope is powerful enough to see manmade materials on the lunar surface. The newly released photos of the moon taken by the Hubble telescope cannot discern any objects on the moon's surface that are smaller than a football field in length.

Correct.

Japan, however, sent a probe to the moon several years ago that did have this capability. Unfortunately, as soon as it entered lunar orbit all five of its cameras simultaneously malfunctioned. Further disappointment is in the fact that the most recent European lunar probe cannot see the moon's surface in enough detail to answer this persistent question.

I'm not sure to which Japanese lunar probe that Mr Sibrel refers to here. I get the impression he is talking about the Hiten (Muses-A) lunar probe from 1990, in which case what he says is misleading. The Hiten only carried two CCD cameras but the data transmission system failed shortly before it reached lunar orbit. It was determined that a faulty transistor caused the data flow to stop.

Perhaps someone could point out which Japanese mission was due to take high resolution images of the lunar surface, capable of detecting the Apollo descent stages left behind?

Q: Wouldn't the Russians find out and then tell the world?

A: This is another, very logical, yet superficial question. After thinking about it for some time, I believe that one of the major reasons for faking the moon missions was to fool the Soviets about US strategic and space capability during the height of the Cold War (like a bluff in poker.) In addition, the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly cancelled.

Even if the Russians did suspect the landings were not authentic, the act of calling us liars of this magnitude at the height of the Cold War could have instigated a war, and perhaps they thought it better not to chance that.

Once more, purely subjective speculation about motives. I also find it strange that the Soviets would have launched so many lunar exploration missions without the ability to track them! The answer is, of course, that they couldn't track them continuously; there were windows in which they used due to their ground stations being placed in certain geographic locations, and the location of their space tracking ships. Once more, Mr Sibrel uses inaccurate information and subjective / emotive reasoning to determine an outcome he desires.

(more shortly)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q: Why hasn't someone come forward?

A: Who would listen, and who would believe them? This illusion is so pridefully ingrained in everyone’s mind that it isn’t even questioned. Furthermore, would you want to be the one to ruin the international reputation of America? (Plus the likely blackmail, bribes, and death threats . . . to family members as well.) In addition, one astronaut coming forward to clear his own conscious is an inadvertent condemnation of all of the other astronauts as well. It is one thing to ruin your own life and reputation, yet what about others who are not willing to do so? All of them have built fame and wealth on their celebrity of having supposedly walked on the moon.

Yet again, subjective & emotional speculation rather than proof! Quite to the contrary, the Apollo lunar astronauts have continually asserted how wrong Mr Sibrel's claims are! Fame & wealth upon their "claims"? The only Apollo astronaut who ever achieved any appreciable measure of wealth was Al Shepard, who became quite wealthy through his business investments BEFORE he went to the Moon.

Perhaps Mr Sibrel would like to explain how Neil Armstrong has used his distinction to gain wealth? According to Mr Sibrel, he shies away from 'fame', supposedly from a guilty conscious. Buzz Aldrin uses what fame he has to promote educational foundations and space research. Pete Conrad died and specifically moved away from "fame". Al Bean is an artist, albeit specialising in lunar paintings. Mike Collins went into Government service. How famous is Dick Gordon? Do you even know who he is? The list goes on....

Q: What about laser reflectors on the moon (allegedly left by Apollo) that scientists bounce light beams off of?

A: The Russians have successfully placed such reflectors on the surface of the moon, yet they have never claimed to have put a man on the moon. The reflectors were dropped there by unmanned probes. It should also be noted that the moon's surface will naturally reflect signals; communications were carried out as early as the 1950s by bouncing signals off of the moon.

Mr Sibrel fails to mention that the Apollo LRRRs are used in preference to the two on the Lunkhod probes because the Apollo reflectors were more accurately placed. In addition, although it is true that radio signals can be bounced off the Moon, laser transmissions that are used for the accurate measuring of lunar distance require reflectors. Could that be classed as 'disinformation'?

Q: How could the scientists of the world be fooled?

A: When scientists fail to require independent duplication of such an outlandish claim after over 30 years have passed, science is degraded to the status of being just another religion. They claim to have gone 240,000 miles in 1969. However, since 1972 no one has gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. This is a case of the scientists of the world not doing their jobs and otherwise being caught asleep at the wheel.

So Mr Sibrel claims that all the scientists who have studied lunar samples, trajectory analysis, radio communications, computer technology, aerospace design, biological sciences, etc, are "... not doing their jobs..."? A rather bold claim from a person who holds no scientific degree or training.

The leading scientists today who say that the Van Allen Radiation Belt is not lethal (who were generally in preschool at the time of the first alleged moon landing) do so by the following deduction: "The Apollo astronauts went through the radiation belt on their way to the moon and survived, so it must not be lethal." They are, of course, assuming that the missions were authentic, when, in fact, they were not. The leading scientists are wrong. Has this ever historically happened?

See recent threads about the VAB - Mr Sibrel has NO idea what he is talking about. His "deduction" claim is nothing short of a lie.

Q: If the evidence you have is so compelling, what hasn't CNN picked it up?

A: In reality, news media organizations are in the entertainment business. They figure that confronting such an emotional issue is not likely to boost their ratings. Since only a small percentage of those in the U.S. believe the landings were not authentic, most news media organizations don't want to risk offending their viewers.

Watergate. "Monicagate". WMDs in Iraq. 'Cold' fusion. ENRON. British Royal infidelities. Profumo. Whitlam. Nick Leeson. Jack Abramoff. Thalidimide. Smoking.

No, Mr Sibrel, you are wrong.

Q: What about Apollo 13?

A: The fact is, none of the Apollo missions ever left earth orbit.

Absolutely no evidence to back up this statement.

After interest petered out following Apollo 12 (the second trip), an element of "jeopardy" was introduced to draw attention back to the alleged drama of the missions.

Supposition.

Q: If A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon is such Earth-shattering evidence, why are you selling it instead of offering it for free?

A: The film is Earth-shattering evidence, indeed. The fact is that investors put up five hundred thousand dollars to produce the film, and they would like to recoup a little of it. This is simply the concept of exchange; when someone does work to provide you with something of value, you compensate them when you receive benefit from that work.

Hardly worth commenting on.

Thirty bucks for a half a million dollar film is not bad, if you ask me.

I have a bridge for sale if you are interested, Duane....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks but I don't have any need for a bridge ... Three long posts just for Bart ! ... I'm sure he would be honored ... and they're so interesting too ... zzzzzzz .

I don't really have the time or interest in reading your 'rebuttals' to Bart, but when I do have some extra time I will be sure to send a letter of recomendation off to NASA on your behalf ... I think you not only deserve a pay raise but also some extra brownie points or possibly even a new merit badge, for all of your diligent and time consuming hard work in continuing to help suppress the Apollo hoax evidence .

I kind of figured when you became a moderator here that you would start locking my topic articles ... I guess the photo of the car frightened you because it shows how easy was and still is, to fake the Apollo moon photos .... But why did you have to lock the Moon Song ? ... I was hoping we could all get poetic and even make up our own song lyrics on that one .. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks but I don't have any need for a bridge ... Three long posts just for Bart ! ... I'm sure he would be honored ... and they're so interesting too ... zzzzzzz .

I don't really have the time or interest in reading your 'rebuttals' to Bart, but when I do have some extra time I will be sure to send a letter of recomendation off to NASA on your behalf ... I think you not only deserve a pay raise but also some extra brownie points or possibly even a new merit badge, for all of your diligent and time consuming hard work in continuing to help suppress the Apollo hoax evidence .

I kind of figured when you became a moderator here that you would start locking my topic articles ... I guess the photo of the car frightened you because it shows how easy was and still is, to fake the Apollo moon photos .... But why did you have to lock the Moon Song ? ... I was hoping we could all get poetic and even make up our own song lyrics on that one .. LOL

You have been warned previously about making accusations about member's motivations. I've raised your warning level by one notch for that infraction.

The other threads were amusing but distracting. As I said, consultation was done fore closing. Get over it.

Edited by Evan Burton
Added note about warning level being raised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duane,

I accept your explanation that the comments were a joke. Your warning level will be reduced back to 0 shortly.

Please note - even in jest - do NOT intimate that a Board member may be being paid / rewarded by others to post on this Board, is posting 'disinformation, or is acting at the behest of an organisation unless you have rock-solid evidence to back up the statement. Even in that case, it would be wise to clear it with John or Andy prior to posting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Here is part of an article addressing some of the questions and answers concerning Apollo , from conpiracy researcher Bart Sibrel ... ( the guy who ex astronaut Buzz Aldren knocked to the ground ).... When Mr. Sibrel asked questions which Mr. Aldren refused to answer , and then made statements which Mr. Aldren did not aprove of, Aldren's response was to punch him out , insteading of answering his questions , or standing up to his accusations .

Here are some questions which have been asked of Mr. Sibrel , and his answers ...

Q: How could such a secret be kept from the world with so many people involved? (Didn't NASA have tens of thousands of people working on the Apollo project?)

A: This is the same logical question I asked before I did any research. Yet after having done eight years of investigation, I discovered that, in fact, very few people were involved in the actual faking. NASA, indeed, did have tens of thousands of people working constructing the nuts and bolts of the project. One team worked on the spacecraft hatch, another on the astronaut's boot, yet none of them saw an overview of the entire project, only those at the very top of the bureaucratic pyramid. All of those NASA guys at the computer consoles that you saw prior to the launch were receiving the exact same information as their colleagues sitting beside them, which was fed to all of them by a simulation computer program. If you look at the footage ten seconds prior to launch, they are all kicked back watching television, just like the rest of us. Apollo astronauts from later or previous missions were the ones at the real consoles. We know from the newly discovered behind-the-scenes footage that each crew was on the rocket during the launch. They went up in front of witnesses, splashed down in front of witnesses, yet the evidence recently uncovered proves that they never left Earth orbit. Apollo 11 was supposed to be the greatest event in human history, yet there were only three (government employee) witnesses and, for the first time ever, no independent press coverage of such an historical event.

With Cold War tensions running high, those who knew the truth went along with the deception to fool the Soviets that we had technological superiority.

In 1957 Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America" (the latest winner of the most popular TV trivia game show at that time.) It was later uncovered that the contestant received the answers in advance from the show's producers because he was widely loved by the viewers. In fact, one hundred twenty contestants and staff initially swore on the Bible during a grand jury investigation that the television show was not rigged. Most later recanted, and it is now known they all lied. If all these people were willing to lie for a little money, how much more for alleged national security? The fact is, Time Magazine was wrong. The best way to fool the world was to fool the media.

Q: What about all of the people refuting your accusations point-by-point?

A: Given the pride associated with this alleged accomplishment, it is natural that many people seek to refute our claims. It is not difficult to make up a plausible-sounding argument to refute almost any claim. However, we have yet to see any such argument that does not fail under critical examination.

"The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him wrong."

- - Harry Segall

Q: What about the moon rocks?

A: NASA chief scientist James Garvin recently appeared on C-SPAN (4-17-2005.) A viewer called in for the live, audience response, program. He stated that his father worked for the Defense Department and told him that we never went to the moon, that the technology didn't exist back then, and that Apollo was a Hollywood-type production. The caller asked NASA chief scientist Garvin what proof he had that the Apollo moon missions were real. Garvin said the proof is in the statements made by the astronauts, and also in the moon rocks.

While it is possible that the moon rocks were manufactured (NASA has the best ceramics labs on the planet), in reality these rocks are probably just meteorites that were retrieved on Earth. Von Braun, the director of the program, visited Antarctica a few months before the missions to retrieve these meteorites. (By the way, it is a federal crime for a civilian to be in possession of an Apollo moon rock, so how can there truly be independent verification?)

Q: Can't you see the artifacts left from the alleged moon missions through a powerful telescope?

A: No. This is folklore. No Earth-based telescope is powerful enough to see manmade materials on the lunar surface. The newly released photos of the moon taken by the Hubble telescope cannot discern any objects on the moon's surface that are smaller than a football field in length.

Japan, however, sent a probe to the moon several years ago that did have this capability. Unfortunately, as soon as it entered lunar orbit all five of its cameras simultaneously malfunctioned. Further disappointment is in the fact that the most recent European lunar probe cannot see the moon's surface in enough detail to answer this persistent question.

Q: Wouldn't the Russians find out and then tell the world?

A: This is another, very logical, yet superficial question. After thinking about it for some time, I believe that one of the major reasons for faking the moon missions was to fool the Soviets about US strategic and space capability during the height of the Cold War (like a bluff in poker.) In addition, the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly cancelled.

Even if the Russians did suspect the landings were not authentic, the act of calling us liars of this magnitude at the height of the Cold War could have instigated a war, and perhaps they thought it better not to chance that.

Q: Why hasn't someone come forward?

A: Who would listen, and who would believe them? This illusion is so pridefully ingrained in everyone’s mind that it isn’t even questioned. Furthermore, would you want to be the one to ruin the international reputation of America? (Plus the likely blackmail, bribes, and death threats . . . to family members as well.) In addition, one astronaut coming forward to clear his own conscious is an inadvertent condemnation of all of the other astronauts as well. It is one thing to ruin your own life and reputation, yet what about others who are not willing to do so? All of them have built fame and wealth on their celebrity of having supposedly walked on the moon.

Q: What about laser reflectors on the moon (allegedly left by Apollo) that scientists bounce light beams off of?

A: The Russians have successfully placed such reflectors on the surface of the moon, yet they have never claimed to have put a man on the moon. The reflectors were dropped there by unmanned probes. It should also be noted that the moon's surface will naturally reflect signals; communications were carried out as early as the 1950s by bouncing signals off of the moon.

Q: How could the scientists of the world be fooled?

A: When scientists fail to require independent duplication of such an outlandish claim after over 30 years have passed, science is degraded to the status of being just another religion. They claim to have gone 240,000 miles in 1969. However, since 1972 no one has gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. This is a case of the scientists of the world not doing their jobs and otherwise being caught asleep at the wheel.

The leading scientists today who say that the Van Allen Radiation Belt is not lethal (who were generally in preschool at the time of the first alleged moon landing) do so by the following deduction: "The Apollo astronauts went through the radiation belt on their way to the moon and survived, so it must not be lethal." They are, of course, assuming that the missions were authentic, when, in fact, they were not. The leading scientists are wrong. Has this ever historically happened?

Q: If the evidence you have is so compelling, what hasn't CNN picked it up?

A: In reality, news media organizations are in the entertainment business. They figure that confronting such an emotional issue is not likely to boost their ratings. Since only a small percentage of those in the U.S. believe the landings were not authentic, most news media organizations don't want to risk offending their viewers.

Q: What about Apollo 13?

A: The fact is, none of the Apollo missions ever left earth orbit. After interest petered out following Apollo 12 (the second trip), an element of "jeopardy" was introduced to draw attention back to the alleged drama of the missions.

This makes Apollo 13 the most deplorable of all the missions. The nation held midnight prayer vigils for the astronaut's safe return, all the while they casually coasted around the earth in a completely sound orbiting vehicle.

Q: If A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon is such Earth-shattering evidence, why are you selling it instead of offering it for free?

A: The film is Earth-shattering evidence, indeed. The fact is that investors put up five hundred thousand dollars to produce the film, and they would like to recoup a little of it. This is simply the concept of exchange; when someone does work to provide you with something of value, you compensate them when you receive benefit from that work.

Thirty bucks for a half a million dollar film is not bad, if you ask me. (The lie cost every citizen $800--the truth... $30.)

http://216.26.168.193/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=8

What hoax? U.S. museum aims to set record straight over moon landing

Published: Monday, April 9, 2007 | 2:41 AM ET

Canadian Press

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/070409/K040902AU.html

WAPAKONETA, Ohio (AP) - A museum honouring the first man to walk on the moon is not afraid to confront conspiracy theorists who argue his 1969 lunar landing was a hoax.

"If it takes a controversy to get them here, that's fine with us," said Andrea Waugh, an education specialist at the Armstrong Air & Space Museum, named after Apollo 11 astronaut and hometown hero Neil Armstrong.

The museum in western Ohio set up a display Saturday featuring some of the talking points that conspiracy theorists make in books and numerous websites to try to back up their claims that NASA staged all of its moon landings from 1969 to 1972 in a movie studio.

Claims that the lunar landings were fake can be easily debunked with facts and science, Waugh told visitors.

For example, a favourite conspiracy argument is that it is impossible for a U.S. flag photographed next to Armstrong and fellow Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin to be fluttering in a lunar environment that lacks wind or an atmosphere.

The flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top to keep the flag from hanging limply down the pole, Waugh said.

And distorted shadows that appear next to astronauts in some of NASA's photographs - another sticking point with nonbelievers - are the result of sunlight reflecting off the lunar landscape, she said.

The museum's explanations were enough to convince Janet Rosengarten, who drove from nearby Sidney to see the exhibit.

"I've never had any question about it," she told local newspaper The Lima News. "I saw Armstrong land on the moon when I was 7 and I have no doubt it happened. But it's still fun to see the things people say who doubt it all."

The museum, which includes one of Armstrong's Apollo-era space suits and other artifacts from his career and childhood, is about 80 kilometres north of Dayton.

Armstrong, 76, lives in suburban Cincinnati.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What hoax?
THE APOLLO HOAX.
Claims that the lunar landings were fake can be easily debunked with facts and science, Waugh told visitors.

For example, a favourite conspiracy argument is that it is impossible for a U.S. flag photographed next to Armstrong and fellow Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin to be fluttering in a lunar environment that lacks wind or an atmosphere.

The flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top to keep the flag from hanging limply down the pole, Waugh said.

And distorted shadows that appear next to astronauts in some of NASA's photographs - another sticking point with nonbelievers - are the result of sunlight reflecting off the lunar landscape, she said.

These are ridiculous selective questions , which no one even bothers to seriously debate anymore , as there are so many other more important questions which can't be so easily dismissed .

The museum's explanations were enough to convince Janet Rosengarten, who drove from nearby Sidney to see the exhibit.

"I've never had any question about it," she told local newspaper The Lima News. "I saw Armstrong land on the moon when I was 7 and I have no doubt it happened. But it's still fun to see the things people say who doubt it all."

Well if Janet actually " saw Armstrong land on the moon when she was 7 ", then she must have had a front row seat that the rest of the world was not privy to .... I have read some pretty uninformed and naive' comments made by those who blindly defend the unprovable official Apollo record , but this one has to be one of the silliest yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claims that the lunar landings were fake can be easily debunked with facts and science, Waugh told visitors.

For example, a favourite conspiracy argument is that it is impossible for a U.S. flag photographed next to Armstrong and fellow Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin to be fluttering in a lunar environment that lacks wind or an atmosphere.

The flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top to keep the flag from hanging limply down the pole, Waugh said.

And distorted shadows that appear next to astronauts in some of NASA's photographs - another sticking point with nonbelievers - are the result of sunlight reflecting off the lunar landscape, she said.

These are ridiculous selective questions , which no one even bothers to seriously debate anymore , as there are so many other more important questions which can't be so easily dismissed .

I'm not so sure. I keep on seeing the "waving flag" argument being bandied about on various forums. I guess people who may have just heard about the alleged hoax, or perhaps someone who has seen one of the pro-hoax videos, may think it's a serious issue.

IIRC you yourself made a comment on Youtube just recently on the flag-waving issue, tantamount to saying it showed there was an atmosphere. If it wasn't a serious comment, fair enough. If not, then why say it? Better to label it as misinformation and demonstrate why, so the real meat and bones of your argument gain more attention, surely? The point being, it is still raised on various forums as an issue, and it is a question that gets asked over and over again, so why not address it?

As for "distorted shadows", you yourself have debated the authenticity of several Apollo photographs (based on what you perceive to be incorrect shadows) on this very forum. Many of Jack White's studies involve shadows. They receive plenty of attention on one of Percy's videos. As you well know, Jarrah White has produced a film on Youtube which spends a lot of time looking at shadows as well.

I think the two questions they are addressing are very pertinent indeed. I do agree with you that they can be quite easily dismissed though. Problem is, the same questions keep on getting asked over and over - often by the same people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are ridiculous selective questions , which no one even bothers to seriously debate anymore , as there are so many other more important questions which can't be so easily dismissed .

But you were quite supportive "Dr Hawkins" claims - until they were proven quite wrong; you then reversed position and said that he may be a 'disinformation agent'. What if your current beliefs are proven equally inaccurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
These are ridiculous selective questions , which no one even bothers to seriously debate anymore , as there are so many other more important questions which can't be so easily dismissed .

But you were quite supportive "Dr Hawkins" claims - until they were proven quite wrong; you then reversed position and said that he may be a 'disinformation agent'. What if your current beliefs are proven equally inaccurate?

Duane, perhaps it would be easier if you tell us which of the claims that have been posted on this Forum you now consider "dealt with" or debunked. This will allow others to consentrate on those you think still extant, outstanding, pending or simply unexplained.

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are ridiculous selective questions , which no one even bothers to seriously debate anymore , as there are so many other more important questions which can't be so easily dismissed .

But you were quite supportive "Dr Hawkins" claims - until they were proven quite wrong; you then reversed position and said that he may be a 'disinformation agent'. What if your current beliefs are proven equally inaccurate?

Duane, perhaps it would be easier if you tell us which of the claims that have been posted on this Forum you now consider "dealt with" or debunked. This will allow others to consentrate on those you think still extant, outstanding, pending or simply unexplained.

Steve.

I supported Hawkins before I read his silly book of nasa dis..... Oops , we are not allowed to use the D word anymore ... Sorry .

I should have read the book before giving it any credit ... A mistake I won't make again .

As for the conspiracy evidence which has not been 'debunked ' by the Apollo defenders , I plan to post much of it here , in the form of videos made by those who are doing a fine job in exposing nasa's faked moon landings .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claims that the lunar landings were fake can be easily debunked with facts and science, Waugh told visitors.

For example, a favourite conspiracy argument is that it is impossible for a U.S. flag photographed next to Armstrong and fellow Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin to be fluttering in a lunar environment that lacks wind or an atmosphere.

The flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top to keep the flag from hanging limply down the pole, Waugh said.

And distorted shadows that appear next to astronauts in some of NASA's photographs - another sticking point with nonbelievers - are the result of sunlight reflecting off the lunar landscape, she said.

These are ridiculous selective questions , which no one even bothers to seriously debate anymore , as there are so many other more important questions which can't be so easily dismissed .

I'm not so sure. I keep on seeing the "waving flag" argument being bandied about on various forums. I guess people who may have just heard about the alleged hoax, or perhaps someone who has seen one of the pro-hoax videos, may think it's a serious issue.

IIRC you yourself made a comment on Youtube just recently on the flag-waving issue, tantamount to saying it showed there was an atmosphere. If it wasn't a serious comment, fair enough. If not, then why say it? Better to label it as misinformation and demonstrate why, so the real meat and bones of your argument gain more attention, surely? The point being, it is still raised on various forums as an issue, and it is a question that gets asked over and over again, so why not address it?

As for "distorted shadows", you yourself have debated the authenticity of several Apollo photographs (based on what you perceive to be incorrect shadows) on this very forum. Many of Jack White's studies involve shadows. They receive plenty of attention on one of Percy's videos. As you well know, Jarrah White has produced a film on Youtube which spends a lot of time looking at shadows as well.

I think the two questions they are addressing are very pertinent indeed. I do agree with you that they can be quite easily dismissed though. Problem is, the same questions keep on getting asked over and over - often by the same people.

I'm glad you brought this up postbaguk Dave .... There are videos showing the flag is waving and no astro-actors hand is anywhere near it ... There are also videos posted there showing backwards perspective of mountain backdrops and impossible 90 degree shadow angles .... but then you know this because you have also followed me to YouTube ... Too bad you won't be able to play the same games there that you do here though ... Not only is the playing field in my favor this time , I have warned my CT friends there as to what you are all about ....Oh, and they all laughed their asses off at that silly little trick you pulled with the A15 Scott shadow .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you brought this up postbaguk Dave .... There are videos showing the flag is waving and no astro-actors hand is anywhere near it ...

I think you just contradicted yourself. If there are videos waving with no astronaut near them as you claim, then surely this is something worth addressing in the "Moon Hoax" section of the Armstrong museum? You yourself stated that noone seriously discusses this anymore because it is so easily dismissed. Which is it?

Incidentally, you may want to familiarise yourself with the concept of inertia, particularly Newton's First Law of Motion, in order to explain what you see in those videos.

There are also videos posted there showing backwards perspective of mountain backdrops and impossible 90 degree shadow angles ....
Great, start a new thread and let's examine these claims on a more suitable forum (Youtube comments boards aren't very suitable for genuine debate due to the limited nature of the interface).
but then you know this because you have also followed me to YouTube ... Too bad you won't be able to play the same games there that you do here though ... Not only is the playing field in my favor this time , I have warned my CT friends there as to what you are all about ....Oh, and they all laughed their asses off at that silly little trick you pulled with the A15 Scott shadow .

I'm getting bored of repeating that I'm not playing games Duane, just stating my on opinion and posting evidence that I believe supports my position. Given that we both post on several different moon hoax forums it's hardly surprising that we bump into each other, so it's churlish of you to suggest I followed you there. I'm also a member of several forums you don't post on, feel free to join if you wish - don't worry, I won't accuse you of "following me". PM me if you want the site names.

Do I really care that some CTers on Youtube comments boards can't interpret photos? Not in the slightest. I just agree to disagree.

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...