The moon landing was not a hoax

Regarding the Van ALlen belts and such, heres an article that should answer your question. Its a bit long, but explains to you in a detailed way how this was all possible. And also, its a fact that something like 85% of all astronauts have some for of caderacts. I may be wrong on that number, but im in the ballpark. So 20 and 30 years later, there were some effects from space travel.

I'd like to know why Google moon has some nice hi-res satellite photos of the moon landing places except that none of them show anything in them but barren rock. Not even the lander base. I looked up on the net about that fact and found out that the up close pictures were NOT PHOTOS BUT ARTIST RENDERINGS of the landscape. SSsssoooooo......... why can't they just shoot the rest of the REAL landscape so we can all see the stuff they left up there. I mean if they can read newspaper headlines from space here on earth then we should easily be able to see footprints or at least tracks in the dirt on the moon. It amazes me that that there apparently has been no interest in photographing these areas with all the satellites we've sent up there over the decades.

What are we not supposed to see or should I say "not not" see.

I have a question aboute the Moonlanding's pictures, i've always been skeptic about it, altho a lot of the so called "evidence" is a load of bull.

You know film emulsion ?

Hasselblad were the manufacturer of the camera that took all of the photos on the Apollo missions. Jan Lundberg was the Manager Of Space Projects at Hasselblad from 1966 to 1975 and responsible for the production and building of the Hasselblad 500 EL/70 cameras that were used on the Apollo Missions. He says 'Originally NASA made all the alterations themselves, then they presented what they had done to us and asked if we could do the same, to which we replied yes we can, and we can do it better.

An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine.

The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots.

Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?

How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences?

The emulsion containing the light sensitive silver layer, should have frozen (and shattered when operating the camera's ) in the shadow parts of the moon, or the film would have melted in the Sun-exposed area's where the astronauts took the photographs.

I've never seen this debunked, or even explained as to what specific modifications NASA did to the camera's and the magazines which contained the film to keep them from freezing of melting.

and then there's the mystery of the way the astronauts took all those hair sharp perfect pictures withouth a viewfinder.

Weird Indeed !

I think even the skeptics know they are just making wisecracks...you know, just to get a rise out of people. I mean, c'mon, just look at what I came up with on such short notice. Its ridiculous.

The “halo” area around Apollo 15 landing site observed by Terrain Camera on SELENE(KAGUYA)

June 13th, 2008

(JAXA) - The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) reported on the “halo” generated by the Apollo 15* lunar module engine exhaust plume that was detected in the data from Terrain Camera (TC) image.

(Fig1) 3D view image of the Apollo 15 landing site obtained by TC

(Fig 3) The enlarged image where the area of the potential “halo” exists. (left image: 1 square kilometer in size. The inside of the red circle includes the potential “halo”).

case closed

I too am on the fence but I have one question that intrigues me.
If the Russians were beating us every step of the way on "first in..." How is it that they didn't beat us to the moon? In fact accoeding to history they never landed a man on the moon.
It wasn't for a lack of interest because they kept sending rovers up there.

Could it be that they didn't think they could do it safely? so they didn't want to seem as if they tried but failed?

Also has the radiation belt thingy been answered?

reply to post by ObamaMomma


I answered the Van Allen belt question. And if the Russians were beating us, dont you think they'd want to cry hoax asap if it was one?

moon hoax

There are so many things that I don`t know were to start, maybe the OP wants to stop by this link and reconsider things.

I agree completely that the moon landing was not a hoax. I find it easier to believe that we went there and were warned off by aliens. I even find it more likely that we've already been to Mars than NASA faking the moon landings.

With that being said, one piece of evidence that moon hoaxers use I've never been able to fully explain is the rock on the moon with a 'C' on it.



The reason for the 'C,' if I'm understanding the theory correctly, is that a prop like that is typically used on stage to notify the actors where they should stand.

Again, I believe we really went to the moon. I just wish I could offer a better explanation for this rock thing. That's the only that bugs me about it.

reply to post by Camilo1


The OP has checked out your site and the OP does not wish to spend money on arguments that have most likely been answered. Nor did he not wish to view the 'astronauts gone wild' dvd. Its just a mockery of other peoples accomplishments. Its sad.

And to use this quote... "As for walking on the moon, sometimes I wonder if that really happened. I can honestly say—and it's a great surprise to me that I have never had a dream about being on the moon. It's a great disappointment to me."
- Neil Armstrong Apollo 11


Like whats the point? You take one line out of a book completely out of context...Ever heard a lottery winner say , gosh its like a dream, i still dont believe it... Doesnt mean the win didnt happen.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by bknapple32]

Originally posted by Cyberbian

Even NASA admitted in the 60s that one Solar Flare and the Astronauts were cooked. I remember!

you are absolutely right they never solved the issue and " IF " there was a solar flare they would have been cooked that was a chance they were willing to take!

Thank God it did not happen even with todays Tech the next moon landing they are going to have to take the same risks its not that they had to solve the issue they were willing to go anyway!

reply to post by bknapple32


And I just see that the site calls the people of NASA murdered for Apollo 1. Sick propaganda that , to me is plain libel.

You would see stars if you go to the moon. THe reason you don't in NY is cuz there is so much light. That is why if you were in NY you may see 1 yet if you go to a dessert you would see 10000. Also if you watch the vid the guys there jump like everywhere they go and there going the same height up in the air as they would here with 1/6 the gravity. Also notice the lag in the vid it is staying completly still. Finally if it was such a big historical event why havent we gone back???

I think they did land on the moon but i also think that they didn't show the real pictures and video.

that means... i believe they filmed what we saw in a tv studio.

the real pics are probably top secret and will never be shown to the public.

it's just my opinion and i personally don't have any proof either way.



au.youtube.com...
YouTube - Apollo Lunar Cover-up (trailer) - PYRAMIDS on the Moon!

reply to post by easynow


I respect that line of thinking. MUCH better than most others. Ive looked into tthe whole conspiracy. It all started with that horrid fox broadcast. I was really into believing it was all a hoax.... More specifically, I felt that the broadcast had to be faked with the camera being perfect to see neil down. but upon further review I saw how they set that up and it was all 100% real.

moonmovie.com makes some good points.... one of my favorite examples is that the computer systems available to us in the 60's were less advanced then a modern day digital watch and that to get to the mood in 69 would require launching a rocket and landing on the lunar surface, which is 60,000 times further away then any space mission had gone..... any way i wont re visit it.... its been posted already that this subject has been thrown around before on several hundred other pages of threads.....

IMO We didnt get there in 69, that was a staged movie to make us look better then the reds.

reply to post by bknapple32

I answered the Van Allen belt question. And if the Russians were beating us, dont you think they'd want to cry hoax asap if it was one?

Uh...no you didnt.If you did the link is now gone.I would love to check it out.The radiation belt is the big question for me.

reply to post by Choppsmcfame

During Project Apollo, astronauts traveled through the Van Allen belts on both the outbound and return trips to the moon. The crews spent only limited time in transit in the region, and consequently the radiation exposure was limited. The Apollo 14 crew recorded the highest Van Allen belt exposures during their February 1971 mission, but the crew's short-term exposure was still within acceptable levels. Future manned missions beyond earth orbit must also transit the Van Allen belts, but these missions will be shielded and hardened for much longer-duration exposure to cosmic rays and solar wind.

en.wikipedia.org...
Van Allen radiation belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


dont know if this is true but it sounds good...lol

reply to post by TeslaandLyne

The German mass media was full of going to the Moon with Werner Von
Braun storied of going to the Moon.

Now there is something I had never considered before. Knowing that my grandfather had been decorated fighting the Nazis, the "not ours" might have been in direct reference to such a possibility. The victorious Allies certainly would have buried such knowledge.

It we landed on the moon, and the pictures are real, how can this photo exist? These cross-hairs (Q), which appear on all the lunar photographs, are made by a screen of cross-hairs placed BETWEEN the shutter and the film. In this picture the image is embedded over the cross-hairs(P), how can this be possible? The cross hairs have to be on TOP of every given image unless the image has been manipulated, which nasa wouldnt have had to do if we really landed on the moon and took real pictures. Now look at the rock in the lower left center(R) Why is there the letter "C" written on the rock? I await your response...

NASA lunar surface

I give you this website

www.lunaranomalies.com...



It explains IN DETAIL, the origin of the C rock. Case closed.

Next....