This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Picture Penzance is free to join and use. So why not join our community. As a member you can upload images, add comments, participate in our contests and connect with like minded people.
    All the best,
    Halfhidden (founder member)

Sign up for free today
Membership Is Free
No Adds
Members Only Areas
And lots More!

CLICK HERE

The Moon Landings, did it really happen or was it the biggest illusion of its time ??

Discussion in 'Conspiracy theories' started by Pokerboy, Feb 15, 2011.

  1. Pokerboy

    Pokerboy Dev Team Administrator

    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    So it's been a while since my last major discussion subject and because my last one was such a hit I'm kicking off with another raw subject, one that many choose not to believe for reasons they are not entirely sure of themselves.

    I like to keep an open mind and try theory with practice but when I don't hold skills in specific fields of technical knowledge i rely upon experts and various other trusted sources of information to guide me to the truth or at least to a better understanding of the subject, The Apollo Moon Landings is a subject just like 9/11 it wont go away and too many possibilities or actual evidence supports foul play or distinctive interaction from 3rd parties which have been removed from official reports.

    So i put it to you the Picture Penzance community what do you all think, all responses to this particular thread will be welcomed what ever your opinion as after all this is a forum for discussions and debate and I would like to break the mold a little with a different type of subject which I'm hoping will involve all members of our community far and wide.


    Right as with the 9/11 conspiracy theory I will be extracting information from various sources the internet, books and press releases to name but a few, I will reference all work from the sites and supply links to pages of where the information originated from to help you come to your own conclusion.

    So I leave it to you to kick start of this debate whilst I pre-pair my findings and initial thoughts.

    (if your not sure on how to start off just refer to my 9/11 conspiracy theory posting)

    I look forward to your thoughts as always

    -Jay
     
  2. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lots of info and dis-info on this round the internet. I would very much like to believe it, if they could explain how the astronauts survived the radiation of the Van Allen Belt. The suits worn on that occasion (as NASA has admitted) were not lead lined, or anything like it.
    So I consider it an impossible mission with the technology used at that time.
     
  3. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    118
    What would be changed if it were not proven?
     
  4. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    History.............
     
  5. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    118
    as ever 0 has changed
     
  6. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    118
    History is written by the conqueror / winner it is up to those with vision and intelligence what to make of it
     
  7. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    118
  8. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    118
    as I said - 0 new
     
  10. BayOfPlenty

    BayOfPlenty Member

    Messages:
    692
    Likes Received:
    3
    What I've never heard explained is (assuming they were faked, which I don't really believe), how on Earth (pun intended!) did those responsible for the whole charade keep everyone involved from blowing the whistle - and not only once but six times! Doesn't hold water, to my thinking.
     
  11. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    118
    one point to remember all the time is the evidence is there ALL THE TIME
     
  12. Halfhidden

    Halfhidden Untouchable Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    2,887
    Likes Received:
    944
    There is another conspiracy theory that I read many years ago. It explained that the only people to know that it was a fake landing were the crew of the space craft (Apollo). It went on to explain that the ground crew and all other personal were duped in to believing that the lunar landing took place. This is perfectly conceivable back in 1969 when TV and Radio was still very much in its infancy.
    It explained that the Apollo took off and circled the earth and after several days ditched in the Atlantic and picked up by a small crew of high ranking officers. The crew of Apollo was then taken to a film location and the sequence was shot.
    After a successful filming the Apollo had to come down from earth right? Yeah well when Apollo came down the first time it was filmed and the film was released as if to show Apollo ditching after a successful lunar landing... but of course this was the footage taken earlier.
    So to pull this off you would need about 20 people plus the crew.
    Remember that we won a world war pulling off some of the most daring illusions that not only tricked the enemy, but our own troops and civilians as well. Some of the most famous illusionists have proved this time and time again.
    I personally have difficulty believing that a successful lunar landing actually took place.
    N.A.S.A say that it isn't economical for them to set any further moon missions and they have in fact dumped the idea of lunar landings forever. That is odd when you consider that the budget is bigger these days. And there is always the possibility of private sector investments or inter government investments from other countries. No it seems that the American government are keen to keep this project closed because if anyone every gets to the moon... They will see no trace of a landing.
    Remember there is no atmosphere so the footprints should stay forever. Yet with the advance of telescopic technology (even at the home level) where the surface of the moon can be seen... I'm still waiting to see the flag, lunar buggy or any other mess left on the moon, which according to the official records is a staggering amount. This includes several lunar buggies at over 10 feet long, as well as lunar modules that weigh in at a staggering size! We can apparently read a newspaper from satellite.
    The American government know exactly where these man made items are placed on the moon... So why not publish the area where they can be found so that members of the public can see them for themselves... They choose not to release these details that further fuels debates like these.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2011
  13. Pokerboy

    Pokerboy Dev Team Administrator

    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well some very interesting website links already appearing here, thank you Traveller 46 i read through the entire website makes good reading and opens up the debate even more so. Treeve i understand that 0=new but for this debate i'd appreciate constructive thoughts and interaction to help others question their own believes and the report on the Van Allen Belt makes very good reading, good find =)

    People say to me 'NASA could not engineer a hoax if you compare the film technology to films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey' (which was released a year before the Apollo 11 landing.) But what they fail to recognise is that NASA had access to 4% of the federal budget! Stanley Kubrick's film cost a mere $10.5 million dollars, which is just about 4% of the budget of the Apollo 11 mission alone (the Apollo 11 mission is estimated to have cost $355 million - that's an equivalent of $1.75 billion in today's figures.) According to Steve Garber, the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars (or approximately $135 billion in 2005 dollars). I personally believe that NASA's main goal was to fool the Soviet Union into thinking they were more technologically advanced in the space race and better equipped to produce military hardware during the Cold War. Remember that NASA are first and foremost a military establishment.

    Just a few facts now to get your brains going, i must warn you my report into the different theories and supporting evidence is long winded, so take your time reading my findings. I will be posting up in stages focusing on the Apollo 1 disaster and why this has great impact on the Apollo landings, the science as to why many believe NASA never left the Earth, the deaths of high level ranking officials and all of their families after reports where leaked shortly after the Apollo landings and who really was the first man into space i bet it isn't who you first thought.

    So First I'm kicking of with Radiation its something that happens every day and is all around us, but the question is how did Apollo 11 and its crew manage to pass through one of the most strongest radiation belts known to man with less than 1 meter's worth of lead, and not only that but the space suits look like they where not constructed with anything less than cotton. hmm read on to know a little more ... ... ...

    Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. The Apollo leaving Earth would travel through 2 specific areas of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt. The first field is 272 miles out from Earth. The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And guess what? 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak. I have had numerous internet chats with sceptics who say that the radiation would not play a part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did NASA only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly? And why would they risk their astronauts to such conditions? In 1959 Bill Kaysing was privy to a study made by the Russians. The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed. Why didn't NASA heed their warnings?

    Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.

    So to what lengths did NASA take to shield the astronauts against the radiation? Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation. However the walls of the Apollo craft and capsule were made as thin and as light as possible and as a result the craft initially could not carry enough air inside to withstand the equivalent to sea level air pressure. NASA had to reduce air pressure inside the cabin to cope. Here are the official stats from a NASA website: (Apollo Lunar Surface Journal)

    'At sea level, the Earth's atmosphere is a mixture of gases - primarily of nitrogen (78% by volume), oxygen (21%), water vapour (varying amounts depending on temperature and humidity), and traces of carbon dioxide and other gases. Oxygen is, by far, the most important component of what we breathe and, indeed, the Apollo astronauts breathed almost pure oxygen laced with controlled amounts of water vapour. With the nitrogen eliminated, the cabin pressure could be considerably less than sea-level pressure on Earth - about 4.8 psi (pounds per square inch) versus 14.7 psi - and, consequently, the cabin walls could be relatively thin and, therefore, light in weight.'

    One of the worst sun flares ever recorded happened in August 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions. This single flare would have delivered 960 rem of virtually instant death to any astronaut who was up in Space, and yet all of the Apollo astronauts were carrying out their missions in what amounts to nothing more than a thick linen suit. These pressure suits may have helped protect the astronauts against heat or micro meteorites, but certainly would not have given any radiation protection. By the way, there is no known method of registering when and how strong Solar flare activity will be. So, I guess NASA just struck lucky!

    The radiation would have greatly affected the film that was shot on the Moon. Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem) applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen to the Apollo films?

    Readers will be interested to hear that the biggest Solar Flare for 25 years was recorded in April, 2001. So sceptics who are claiming that NASA know when the Solar Flares are going to appear are talking rubbish - as usual. If this were the case, why didn't they bring down the astronauts from the Shuttle and ISS if they knew this gigantic Solar Flare was about to erupt?

    Just a few questions for thought here My top 10 questions of things that need to be answered I have a further 23 after these just in case your all wondering i haven't put any thought into my report =) enjoy

    1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures below that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

    2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

    3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

    4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

    5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

    6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

    7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

    8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

    9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

    10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

    I'll compile another short report tomorrow and answer some of your questions in the process, I hope you've enjoyed a walk on the darker side of this subject and please let me know if you've learnt something you hadn't seen or known before.

    View attachment 446 View attachment 447 Famous "Prop Rock" "C"

    View attachment 448 Astronaut Buzz Aldrin during the Apollo 11 lunar mission in 1969.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2011
  14. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    118
  15. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    118
    Irrespective of anything else, could it it be remembered AT ALL TIMES that the Soveit Union was VERY interested AT ALL TIMES
     
  16. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    118
    Remember ALSO We we were in CONSTANT radio link with the Soviet Union AND NASA and USA
     
  17. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    118
  18. Pokerboy

    Pokerboy Dev Team Administrator

    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay I understand your points Treeve and again you've come up good with your links they both make good reading, I'm not someone who spends an age refusing to accept the simple truth as you've written in a couple of your posts I'm someone who isn't fully convinced by the official evidence presented at the time of the moon landings.
    As I've previously mentioned this is a back seat hobby of mine i don't look too much into the pro's and con's of any conspiracy all i aim to do in my postings is to shed a unique light upon the subject that many wouldn't of seen.

    As for the Russians yes they almost got to space first but even they realised less than 30cm of lead wouldn't be enough to protect any human from harmful radiation, my questions to you are the following and for other members too :
    1. why is it we've never gone back to the moon since even though technology has rocketed forward in the last 25 years ??
    2. Why haven't the American Government decided to release official landing coordinates to space observatory's so they can take pictures of the moon buggy and all the other amounts of junk they left behind, after all it'll still be there even after all this time and more importantly it'll put all the theories to bed once and for all.

    Sometimes there is just too many unanswered questions for certain events that have happened.
     
  19. BayOfPlenty

    BayOfPlenty Member

    Messages:
    692
    Likes Received:
    3
    Questions such as "How did they fake such events on no less than six occasions (seven if you count Apollo XIII)", perhaps?
     
  20. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    118
    My message has been deleted ?
     

Share This Page