An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

"Astronauts Gone Wild (2004)" Thats all the proof anyone needs. Its SO funny buzz punches a guy smack bang in the faces. Also just buy buzz's reactions when he is backed into a corner you can tell he is lying. If anyone here works in the law enforcement or the psychological field they will pick up on his body language and vocal manner. not to mention the hard evidence that the apollo team was in earth orbit on the 19th july 1969. Then 9 hours later on the 20th there walking on the moon ? ( It takes 3 days to get to the moon from earth according to NASA)

For this footage of the astronauts covering the window to fake the earth shoots watch:

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon
Astronauts Gone Wild

SO please answer me this: if they went why would they need to fake anypart of that mission ? Aspeacily events that would have unfolded anyway ?

[edit on 25-10-2005 by helium3]

Originally posted by helium3
"Astronauts Gone Wild (2004)" Thats all the proof anyone needs. Its SO funny buzz punches a guy smack bang in the faces. Also just buy buzz's reactions when he is backed into a corner you can tell he is lying. If anyone here works in the law enforcement or the psychological field they will pick up on his body language and vocal manner.

Accually Bart Sibrel (the "guy" who gets punched) tried to sue Buzz and LOST! because it was clear that Mr. Sibrel was harrassing him. I don't want to go over the whole "swear on the bible" crap again so I'll just say that it proves NOTHING except Bart Sibrel is an idiot.

Sibrel was arrested for trespassing on Neil Armstrong's property. In 2002, he lured Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin to a Beverly Hills hotel with the ruse that he was to interview Aldrin for a Japanese children's show on space. Sibrel insisted that Aldrin place his hand on a Bible and swear that he walked on the moon. The interview became contentious and at the end, Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw. Sibrel's reaction was "Did you get that on camera?" Sibrel used the tape to try to convince the police that Sibrel rather than Aldrin was the victim of an assault. No charges were brought by the District Attorney. Aldrin's lawyer, Robert O'Brien, claims Sibrel has been stalking many former Apollo astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, Alan Bean, and Al Worden. Lois Aldrin, referring to an earlier encounter, added, "He said things I can't repeat. He was not a nice man, and it really upset Buzz a lot."
-from answers.com

As for body language, All I see is a man who is very annoyed and just wants to be left to go about his buisness, he owes you or I or Bart NOTHING. I would have punched him too, and if you think that that kind of jornalism proves anything then I don't know what else to say.

not to mention the hard evidence that the apollo team was in earth orbit on the 19th july 1969. Then 9 hours later on the 20th there walking on the moon ?

( It takes 3 days to get to the moon from earth according to NASA)

Ummm what HARD evidence? and if you mention any of Mr. Sibrel's movies as hard evidence then you are truly lost.
If you look at the timeline Here you will see that they entered LUNAR orbit on 19 Jul 1969 at about 5:27 pm.

For this footage of the astronauts covering the window to fake the earth shoots watch:

All I see is guy's setting up to make a T.V. transmittion to the entire world, makeing sure that the camera was getting good shots, there was no glare ect. You really think that you can place a card with a circle cuttout in the window and produce a convincing picture of the entire world showing only a portion?

Jim McDade, in the Birmingham News, characterized the film as "full of falsehoods, innuendo, strident accusations, half-truths, flawed logic and premature conclusions", avers that the "only thing new and weird revealed in Sibrel's A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon is his bizarre personal interpretation that the video views of earth were shot through a small hole (template) to give the impression that Apollo 11 was not in low earth orbit", and adds "Bart has misinterpreted things that are immediately obvious to anyone who has extensively read Apollo history and documentation or anyone who has ever been inside an Apollo Command Module or accurate mockup."

SO please answer me this: if they went why would they need to fake anypart of that mission ? Aspeacily events that would have unfolded anyway ?

They didn't fake any part of the mission. If you have proof then provide it. Sibrel is a known con artist, all he want's is you to buy his videos
I really hope you didn't pay money for the video's.

Here's a little info on the 'amazing' Bart Sibrel:

Note: I am assuming that before reading this page you are familiar with the idea that some people think NASA faked the Apollo Moon missions. If this idea is new to you, try reading my page with links to other pages about the Moon hoax, and my page debunking specific claims of this hoax "theory".

One of the more active proponents of this silliness is one Bart Winfield Sibrel. He claims to have been a journalist (although he actually was only a part-time editor at a local Nashville NBC affiliate for a couple of months, and "he has no right whatsoever to claim any association with our news organization" according to the news director there, according to this news article: note that this is a pay-per-view article service).

Actually, he claims a lot of things that turn out not to be true (and, in fact, lied on national TV about me during a "debate" on MSNBC; go down about 2/3 of that page to a post I made about this). He created a "documentary" called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon", which he claims is full of evidence the landings were faked. In reality, his claims are completely wrong. His evidence is either grossly misinterpreted by him or just plain wrong. In the links at the bottom of this page, you can find details about both Mr. Sibrel and his ridiculous video.

www.badastronomy.com...

Bart's new to the moon hoax game, but he's making up for it by being the most voluble. Quite simply he's everywhere just now and he really, really wants you to visit his web site. But that's nothing compared to how much he wants you to buy his video.

Suffice to say, Bart has no qualifications or experience that makes his opinions worth much. He's an 'investigative journalist' who makes a living out of making mediocre videos. He doesn't have much of any originality to say other than his interpretation of a video clip he's got his hands on.

According to Sibrel, this clip (available in his video, don't forget) shows the Apollo 11 crew faking some footage of them in the craft on the way to the moon. Others who have seen this film (and much regret wasting their money) are more of the opinion that it simply shows the crew preparing camera angles and lighting before a live TV interview. Any further interpretation is all in Sibrel's fevered imagination and desire to have something juicy in his video.

If you really want to see this film you'll have to ask Bart for a copy. Just don't expect to see anything of what Bart claims it shows. If he asks for payment, and he will, you might want to point out that the film is property of NASA and like all NASA materials, in the public domain. If you're American your taxes have already paid. Bart's asking you to buy something you own.

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...

www.clavius.org...

The guys a proven lier, I can perfectly understand people sticking by him though, must be pretty upsetting to realise you've wasted money on his video.


[edit on 25-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by Halfofone

They didn't fake any part of the mission. If you have proof then provide it.

I can just as easy say can you prove my proof is wrong ? After none all here none of us actually went so we are just making conclusions with the information that has been provided to us.
But i understand why you guys feel this way, after all its hard to admit that your own country lies to extent the US does. Especially when you guys are so patriotic towards the US admiting the lies would be like a cold knife in the back. So please all i ask is NOT to view the topic through your patratism rather your rational brain. Having said that

All I see is guy's setting up to make a T.V. transmittion to the entire world, makeing sure that the camera was getting good shots, there was no glare ect. You really think that you can place a card with a circle cuttout in the window and produce a convincing picture of the entire world showing only a portion?

So why did they only release black and white footage that was so poor quality if they have those color shots ?

Originally posted by helium3
So why did they only release black and white footage that was so poor quality if they have those color shots ?

YAY! Someone else without an education!! Another 'expert' in our midst.....

So none of this colour footage counts does it?

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I guess you're too special to bother reading the other 21 pages of the thread either where all this had been heavily discussed and debunked?
In reference to the Black and White footage - that was due to the limitations of bandwidth, read the thread. I believe that in some of the other 5 missions to Apollo 11 they broadcast colour anyway?

Here is all the videos, audio and photographs complete with detailed write ups:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Please, if you want to argue about 'if we went to the Moon or not', then do us all a favour and find out what you're talking about first and get some basic understanding in the subject matter beyond having watched some retard's short film, before you too bless us with your infinite wisdom.
It's incredibly annoying and boring to have to repeat oneself every couple of pages due to people not bothering to read back. If you can't even be bothered to read this thread then how the hell did you find the time and the attention to read up in any detail the specifics of the Lunar missions so you could question them? Oh..... you didn't....

It amazes me even now, how so many people suddenly have the knowledge and intelligence to debunk something when they don't understand physics, space flight or even the specifics of the subject at hand.
I don't expect anyone to know everything, but it's astounding how some people even consider that they have an argument. I don't see it as denying ignorance or even a genuine interest in the subject matter, more like some sort of rebel thing that some people have in wanting to think differently. By all means question the Moon landings, but at least find some valid, genuine and original arguments.



[edit on 26-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

I can just as easy say can you prove my proof is wrong ? After none all here none of us actually went so we are just making conclusions with the information that has been provided to us.
But i understand why you guys feel this way, after all its hard to admit that your own country lies to extent the US does. Especially when you guys are so patriotic towards the US admiting the lies would be like a cold knife in the back. So please all i ask is NOT to view the topic through your patratism rather your rational brain. Having said that

I'm Canadian,(and Smith is English) and if anyone knows that the US gov. lies it's us. However there is no proof on this one, nothing that cannot be de-bunked, NOTHING. Geeze buddy FOX tv aired the special on no mood landings... FOX TV!!!!!
You provided NO proof, you mearly asked a question, and an ignorant parroted one at that, and told us to watch a video.
This is a red herring, and distracts us from the real conspiracies. But nice try, I guess you have no real proof or you would not be diverting the disscussionl like this. It's not about patriotism, because I'm not American (thank god) it's about the truth.

Next.
Come on is that all you got?











[edit on 26-10-2005 by Halfofone]

Second you provided NO proof

Like i said BEFORE did you go ? NO so there is way you have definitive proof they did its JUST YOUR OPINION. what is opinion :a personal belief or judgment . Agent Smith please get of your high horse are you a MOD
NO like i though



[edit on 26-10-2005 by helium3]

Yes I have seen the clips, I watched them a long time ago and if you read the rest of this thread you would know that....

do you have anything of substance??

I don't need to go to the moon to know that other went... I just look at the mountains of evidence that they did.

I can prove any "proof" you provide wrong.




[edit on 26-10-2005 by Halfofone]

Originally posted by helium3

Second you provided NO proof

Like i said BEFORE did you go ? NO so there is way you have definitive proof they did its JUST YOUR OPINION. what is opinion :a personal belief or judgment .

Have you been to New York, Washington, Paris, London, Tokyo? If not to any of them how do you know they exist? How can you trust books and film?
How do you know that there is a war happening in Iraq? How do you know that there are other countries? How do you know that the Earth is really round?
Does the angler fish exist? Have you seen one? Is it really possible to go that deep?

Do you have a brain? How do you know, have you looked inside your own head? What proof is there ANYONE has a brain? have you seen one personally? Maybe the photo's of them are faked, maybe the CAT scan machine is fake....

And I don't see how me not being a mod is relevant in any way to the discussion? Not sure what you're getting at there.. Maybe you just don't like being shown up.

[edit on 26-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Please evidence, I can find you "mountains of evidence " that smoking is not bad. i hope you dont believe that ?

Have you been to New York, Washington, Paris, London, Tokyo? If not to any of them how do you know they exist? How can you trust books and film?

Yes i have been to New york, Paris and London whats your point ?


[edit on 26-10-2005 by helium3]

There's a difference between making stuff up to prove a point and the basic laws of physics, which a lot of these 'arguments' seem to boil down to. So unless you're suggesting that hundreds of years of research, learning and achievement have all been a facade to promote the idea that in the late 20th century Man went to the Moon, I don't really see your point.

Stop argueing semantic questions, were are here to discuss the facts and debate the issue.

please provide a proof for your side. our proof can be seen Here

Originally posted by helium3

Have you been to New York, Washington, Paris, London, Tokyo? If not to any of them how do you know they exist? How can you trust books and film?

Yes i have been to New york, Paris and London whats your point ?

I would have thought that my point was pretty obvious if you read the whole post, but I guess that you have difficulty in reading entire texts, as you have already demonstrated in not bothering to read all of this thread.

The point is, how do you know that any of the places you havn't been exist? How do you know the Earth is round? etc etc as I already said.
The point is that you chose to itrade in common sense, facts and basic education in favour of a hodge podge of lies thought up by a few unsettled, uneducated individuals with too much time on their hands.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
basic laws of physics,

I take it you have seen the apollo pics then how come the LM does not leave blast craters ? Did they invented new laws of physics ?

Originally posted by helium3

Originally posted by AgentSmith
basic laws of physics,

I take it you have seen the apollo pics then how come the LM does not leave blast craters ? Did they invented new laws of physics ?

Same tired old rubbish ay?

No Blast crater under the Lunar Module

The Hoax believers claim the LM descent stage used its full thrust of 10,000 pounds at lunar landing and that it should excavate a large blast crater under the LM. At landing in the low lunar gravity (which is 1/6 of Earth's gravity), the LM only needed a throttled down to about 3,000 pounds of thrust. The blast of rocket exhaust is not nearly as large as the 10,000 pounds claimed and results in a scouring of the topmost layer of lunar soil along the ground path and under the LM. The LM had 6 foot long landing probes under 3 of the 4 footpads and when any of the probes contacted the surface, the crew shut down the engine so that the LM would fall the last few feet to the surface, so the engine was more than 6 feet above the surface at its closest. You can even see effects of the blast in some of the lunar images including any taken under the LM and one set taken on Apollo 12 which shows a disturbance along the ground path of the LM before landing. The dust is clearly visible flying out at high speed away from the LM prior to touchdown in all of the lunar landing films taken from the LM cabin windows during approach and landing. Given that the descent stage engine bell is about 5 feet across at the bottom, and that thrust of the engine at touchdown was about 3,000 pounds, that blast pressure of the rocket exhaust was only about 1 pound per square inch.

Why would we expect to find a blast crater under the LM? Does a garden hose sprayed at high pressure into the dirt create a blast crater? It certainly blows away some of the surface dirt in a radial direction and will create a small depression or hole, but not a crater in the form that the haox proponents suggest. There is even an Earthly example of a rocket landing on dirt. The DC-X was a test flight program of a vertical takeoff and landing rocket. On one of its last flights, it made an emergency landing outside of the pad area. Despite the hydrogen/oxygen engine producing a thrust of some 60,000 pounds, the engine produced a mark on the desert floor that was barely recognizable.
pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu...

A few calculations would solve a lot of the question here. First, how can you see the impression made by the lunar landers footpads on the moon? The depression they made is covered by the pads themselves. The pressure of the astronauts boots on the soil turns out to be about 0.4 psi while standing still on both feet and may have been about 1.5 psi while moving (bouncing up and down one foot at a time). In 1/6 G, the LM weighs only about 3000 pounds. The footpads were at least 24 inches in diameter which would give them a total area (under all 4 pads) of at least 1800 square inches so the pressure on the surface is less than 2 psi - not much more than the astronauts boots carrying the weight of the suited astronaut!

As for the blast of the rocket engine on the lunar surface, the engine fired at about 3000 pounds during landing and the LM nozzle was some 5 feet in diameter which gives an exhaust pressure of only about 1.5 psi impinging on the lunar surface. Claims that no affects are seen in the dust under the LM are once again simply wrong. There are a number of photographs showing the outward blast pattern in the dust. There is simply no blast crater (and why should there be a blast crater?) to be seen under the LM. One can even see a trail along the ground path in some photographs taken during Apollo 12.

pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu...

No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled way down during the final stages of landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the LM's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants, and this was under 1/6 of earth's gravity anyway. Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. Rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The lunar module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. Even if they hadn't, a simple calculation will show that the pressure at the end of the descent engine bell was much too low to carve out a crater. However, the descent engines did scatter a considerable amount of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and as Neil Armstrong said as the landing neared ("...kicking up some dust..."). This significantly impaired visibility in the final stages of landing, and many mission commanders commented on it. Photographs do show slightly disturbed dust beneath the descent engine. And finally, the landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically until right before landing, so the exhaust would not be focused on any one surface spot for very long, and the compactness of the lunar soil below a thin surface layer of dust also make it virtually impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".
en.wikipedia.org...

Blast crater LOL, this is real life mate, not a movie..

Next...yawn...


[edit on 26-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

whay the heck would you expect a crater?
see above.

Also the engine was throtable just because the Max thrust is 10,000 lbf doesn't mean that it puts that out all the time, just like you don't floor the gas on your car to park in the garage.

like smith said... next...

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Halfofone]

halfofone and agent smith, listen up!

Now far be it for a yank to order you two furriners about (that's "aboot", halfofone), but I got to set you two guys straight.

You are going to encounter people who want to be convinced by your arguments and will be, because the arguments make sense.

You are going to encounter people who don't who want to be convinced by your arguments but will be anyway, because the arguments make sense.

Then there are people like Helium3. They aren't going to be convinced by anything.

Brethren, you need to pick your fights. No one else believes Helium's assertions, and you're certainly not going to change his mind.

Well we got to do this "one ignoramus at a time".

Very true, sadly people like that breed others and the ignorance grows. It's more for the benefit for the readers really in my opinion, if they don't see anyone pointing out the obvious they probably won't bother reading the other 21 pages and will think that people like Helium have some sort of point otherwise someone would be saying something.
It's a shame when you get people like Helium because they actually do seem happy to accept things, the wrong things. They are all to happy to throw hundreds of years of learning and mental evolution out of the window in favour of some kind of kindergarten style reasoning and amateur dramatics.

[edit on 26-10-2005 by AgentSmith]