NG Moon-Landing Hoax Show

Did anybody see the show about debunking the moon landing conspiracy on the National Geographic Channel the other night?

I have never believed that it was faked and it really upsets me that there are people who really believe that it was.

This show really blew holes in all of the so-called evidence these theorists have put forth.

Just looking for other people's thoughts. Sorry if this is in the wrong forum, move if necessary.

Couldn't agree more. I'm tired of charlatans conjuring up nonsense like that to make a fast buck.

As a little kid at the time, I remember being glued to the TV impatiently watching the whole thing. I grew up "knowing" that we went to the moon.
No matter what the arguement, I believe we did it.

I was trying to convince my cousin that if wasnt fake and he still doestn belive me i asked him why and he said something about Buzz Aldrin said that it was faked and i still cant find where it was said but oh well i know it was real.

Yes, and I am very happy that they did this to shut all these idiots up. I hope they do like a conspiracy series where they blow holes in all these dumb conspiracies that run rampant on this site. I personally wished that they had done 9/11 instead. But since they didn't, I can only hope they do it next.

Here is a link to a very good website that debunks all the hoax theories much in the same way NG did.

Clavius

NASA recently announced plans to go back to the moon in year 2024. Is that a joke? I mean we went to the moon in 1969 with an onboard computer that ran @ 150 mhz. Now we can't get back till 2024 (HAW HAW).

You can hardly play Jill of the Jungle with a 150 mhz computer, but we went to the moon with it. Landed with the LEM no less. Take a look at that piece of junk. Would you ride in it?

Before he landed it on the moon, NASA had Neil Armstrong give a couple of demostrations for the men of the press. The first demo crashed and Neil had to parachute out to save his life. In the second demo, the LEM was strung up on wires so it couldn't crash, which was fortuitious because the thing surely would have crashed otherwise. So much for the demos, three weeks later we landed it on the moon.

Lindberg wrote a thousand page book all about his flight across the Atlantic. Neil Armstrong hasn't given a one on one interview about going to the moon yet. When he later got his teaching job in Ohio, the college administrators instructed the men from the press that questions about the moon landing were off limits. But the press persisted, and why not. Neil said famous words: "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies."

America is a nation of idiots.

As was pointed out in another moon thread, it was NOT the LEM that crashed with Armstrong. It was the SIMULATOR that they built so they could learn to fly the LEM. IIRC the reason it crashed was because there wasn't enough pressure left in the control jet system to force the fuel out fast enough to affect the flight. The LEM was NEVER used on Earth and I don't think it was ever used in Earth Orbit either.

Yeah, but was the LEM ever used on the moon? I doubt it.

I remember they rigged up a camera on the moon to track the LEM on live TV when it took off. I was all excited and remember thinking this will be great. Then, after I saw it live, I remember thinking that it's a good thing I know this is real because otherwise I'd think it has to be fake.

At the time, it never occured to me that it looked fake because it was fake, that the LEM looks like a piece of junk because it is just a piece of junk on a set. How would you fly that thing anyway - with one big rocket on the bottom??? NASA had to "land" all of their earth bound capsules by parachute in the ocean and out of site. They still have to bounce land tiny capsules in huge balloons on MARS. But the LEM, no problem, it worked flawlessly (HAW HAW).

Do you have kids? You really have to learn to read their body language as well as listen to what they say. After all, they might be squirilling around and something's up. You just know it. It's the same with NASA. Those guys went to the MOON and they hardly have anything to say about it that sounds half real, and mostly they're all hiding out. Contrast that with Lindberg, who wrote a thousand page book about his short flight and you know it's all true. The body language is all wrong with the guys who landed on the moon.

And now NASA needs till year 2024 to get back there. Very strange, indeed.

Give me one reason why anyone should think the moon landings were faked?

Nasa wanted to get to the moon before the 60s were over because of Kennedy's timeline, which was more or less set to beat the Russians.
I dont believe the cpu was 150 mhz thought, i think ive heard, several times
that the computing power of the ship is comparable to a hand calculator.
Yea the other thing i didnt get either, as posted above. We were able to go to the moon on a ship with that cpu power but its going to take us until 2025 to get back there now?

Money, lack on interest, and the fact that we don't have a ship designed to go beyond Low Earth Orbit, and are basically having to start from scratch. In the 60s, with the cold war the mentality of the people was different than it is now. Now it's more "Why should we go to the moon when we have our own problems on Earth?" So it's going to take a lot longer than it did then.

Well I like meeting new people and learning new things so I want a evidence aginst the moon landings. And in turn I will provide the most reasonable explanation why the moon landings weren't faked.

In my opinion, the moon landing itself wasn't hoaxed. as for why we haven't been back, and why a lot of information from the astronauts isn't exactly forthcoming, there are a lot of theories out there about what might be on our moon (Richard Hoagland, John Lear, etc) that could help to explain it.

Well if there isn't any CT to take me on I gusse this case is solved. Man DID land on the moon.

Theres a movie on google called 'A funny thing happened on the way to the moon'. Watch it. It is clear that though many astronots claim publicly to have been to the moon, few wish to swear on the bible they did so. Strange.

Theres also another video getting around of the one & only press conference held with the astronots from the apollo 11 mission. The body language & demeanour of the astronots speaks volumes. In yet another video Armstrong is seen in the capsule, after its return to earth, as Nixon enters the camera view. The look on Armstrongs face is one of obvious guilt & disgust. They say a picture can speak a thousand words.

Then theres the technical aspects of what they claim to have done. Here we have a rocket without the benefit of modern computers making a precision landing on a hostile planet, where a hundred things could have gone wrong, yet didnt, and not only that, but they played golf on the moon, the module took off again, rendevouzed with the main rocket, then returned home again without a hitch. And all on mans first attempt at such a feat.

Compare that with all of mans other attempts of even smaller, yet significant magnitude: hindenberg, titanic, mans first flight, etc..

Who are they kidding?

The US is the propoganda capital of the world, infested by ex-nazis in both its military & government, and Im sorry to tell you, but you have all believed a LIE...

[edit on 1-4-2007 by dscomp]

there are many other explanations than not having gone to the moon, though. as i said above, there could have been secrets about how they got there, or what they found there, and that would explain a great deal of the deceptiveness about the astronauts.

that aside, as far as getting there and back.. keep in mind it was the first moon landing, but not the first manned space flight. there was already reasonably good understanding of how that side of things works; the moon landing itself could be easily replicated here on earth (the only real variable that would affect flight would be lack of atmosphere and gravity, and that would logically make it easier not harder to land on the moon). aside from that, a lot of it's just physics, math, and timing, all of which you can work out on a pocket calculator if you know what you're doing.

again, though i almost never close off a possibility completely, i find it highly unlikely that the entire moon landing was a hoax.

[edit on 1/4/2007 by Nick Nightstalker]

mdzialo and dscomp, I'd address some of my objections to the logic displayed in your posts directly to you if I thought it would do any good. However, you both have clearly made up your minds on the subject, and I doubt any words written or spoken by anyone can, at this point change your minds. That said...

Originally posted by mdzialo:
You can hardly play Jill of the Jungle with a 150 mhz computer, but we went to the moon with it. Landed with the LEM no less. Take a look at that piece of junk. Would you ride in it?

As Nick Nightstalker notes above, you don't need a top-of-the-line PC to launch a rocket, to land on the moon, or rendezvous in lunar orbit. If you know what you're doing you can do all of those things with a decent calculator - and the astronauts involved in the Apollo program did know what they were doing. Armstrong didn't get his teaching job at Ohio State by being dim - he's a sharp fellow, as are Aldrin, Collins, and all the rest.

Originally posted by mdzialo:
Do you have kids? You really have to learn to read their body language as well as listen to what they say. After all, they might be squirilling around and something's up. You just know it. It's the same with NASA. Those guys went to the MOON and they hardly have anything to say about it that sounds half real, and mostly they're all hiding out. Contrast that with Lindberg, who wrote a thousand page book about his short flight and you know it's all true.

Frankly, saying "You just know it" isn't making an argument. They're not "all hiding out" - for many years these astronauts gave interviews with regularity, and many of them still do, which is how Bart Sibrel was able to stalk the Aldrin, resulting in that now-famous punch. As for Armstrong, he was always a quiet man, and anyone intrepid enough to do a simple search on Google Video can turn up several Armstrong interviews with no trouble at all. As for your argument that Lindberg wrote a book and the astronauts have not, what about these?

Th e Last Man on the Moon, by Gene Cernan (Apollo 17)
Lo st Moon, by Jim Lovell (Apollo 13)
Car rying the Fire, by Michael Collins (Apollo 11)

Originally posted by mdzialo:
How would you fly that thing anyway - with one big rocket on the bottom??? NASA had to "land" all of their earth bound capsules by parachute in the ocean and out of site. They still have to bounce land tiny capsules in huge balloons on MARS. But the LEM, no problem, it worked flawlessly (HAW HAW).

You being ignorant of even the simplest principles of aerospace engineering is not proof that we didn't go to the moon. The Apollo capsules - and all other US spacecraft, up until the shuttle - landed in the ocean be cause that was the easiest way of assuring that the crew got home safe. Any other solution would have added weight and complexity to the capsule, which would have created one more thing that might go wrong and doom a mission. The landers we've sent to Mars recently have used airbags because, again, it offers a simple solution to a nasty little problem, but if you knew anything about the Viking missions to Mars you would know that we've used rockets to set probes down on Mars, too.

Originally posted by dscomp:
Theres also another video getting around of the one & only press conference held with the astronots from the apollo 11 mission. The body language & demeanour of the astronots speaks volumes. In yet another video Armstrong is seen in the capsule, after its return to earth, as Nixon enters the camera view. The look on Armstrongs face is one of obvious guilt & disgust. They say a picture can speak a thousand words.

Did it ever occur to you that Armstrong might - just might - not like Nixon that much? While I am not privy to Armstrong's personal politics, Nixon was not particularly popular among the astronaut corps, as he was willing to let Apollo "die on the vine" (so to speak) to - among other things - pay for the war in Vietnam.

Originally posted by dscomp:
Then theres the technical aspects of what they claim to have done. Here we have a rocket without the benefit of modern computers making a precision landing on a hostile planet, where a hundred things could have gone wrong, yet didnt, and not only that, but they played golf on the moon, the module took off again, rendevouzed with the main rocket, then returned home again without a hitch. And all on mans first attempt at such a feat.

Again, you do not need a "modern computer" to do any of those things. You can get to, land on, and return from the moon with a good calculator, if you know what you're doing, and the Apollo astronauts certainly did.

And, finally, a question of my own to all you Moon Landing CTers: If we didn't land on the moon, why didn't the Soviets have anything to say about it? All the so-called "evidence" of a hoax is the pictures, video, and documents that have been around since the time of the landings. This wasn't classified or hidden - NASA published it, they wanted the world to know that we had beaten the Russians to the moon. Other nations tracked the spacecraft on radar and monitored their transmissions. If there was a conspiracy, the Russians would have jumped on it in 1969. And they didn't.

Just because something is wonderful and inspirational and amazing and fantasitc doesn't mean it isn't true. We chose to go to the moon, and we went. If you choose not to believe this, that is your prerogative. But do not try to pass off negativity and disbelief as truth.

Originally posted by mdzialo
I mean we went to the moon in 1969 with an onboard computer that ran @ 150 mhz.

I'm sure it was much less than 150mhz. But there computer was nothing like our desktop machines. There was no Operating System or graphical displays etc. It was more than capable. People were able to do amazing things back in the day with little to no computing power. Was the fastest manned aircraft, A-12 / SR-71, designed on a powerful computer back in the late 50's? Did it even have a powerful computer to help control it like aircraft today? No of course not, it had an analog computer, probably not even as good as the ones on Apollo. Does that mean the SR-71 is a hoax too?

You can hardly play Jill of the Jungle with a 150 mhz computer, but we went to the moon with it. Landed with the LEM no less. Take a look at that piece of junk. Would you ride in it?

Please explain to me the computing requirements needed to fly to and land on the Moon and please show your calculations as to how you got those requirements.

And yes I'd love to go for a ride in the LM.

Before he landed it on the moon, NASA had Neil Armstrong give a couple of demostrations for the men of the press. The first demo crashed and Neil had to parachute out to save his life. In the second demo, the LEM was strung up on wires so it couldn't crash, which was fortuitious because the thing surely would have crashed otherwise. So much for the demos, three weeks later we landed it on the moon.

Yes there were some accidents, but you make it sound like there were only two flights. They flew hundreds of times and for years they practiced on them.

Lindberg wrote a thousand page book all about his flight across the Atlantic. Neil Armstrong hasn't given a one on one interview about going to the moon yet. When he later got his teaching job in Ohio, the college administrators instructed the men from the press that questions about the moon landing were off limits. But the press persisted, and why not. Neil said famous words: "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies."

That's BS. Where do you get your information from? Because I recommend you find another source. Armstrong has given interviews over the years. He may be one of the more reserved astronauts out of the whole group, but he has done interviews and even some commercials and things like that.

America is a nation of idiots.

Those kinds of comments aren't necessary and it's also pretty immature and displays a lot of ignorance on your part. It also gives me an idea of the kind of person you are and if you're worth my time. And you're not.