The footprints on moon

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by natew100
then...ok, nobody has been ot the moon since apollo 17 i think, correct me if im wrong... apollo 13 did NOT land because of oxygen tank explosions. and apollo 11 was the very 1st to touch down. i think there was a 15 and 16, maybe 12 and 14, but i havent really researched it enough.

If you don�t know, why do you even bother to post on the subject. A simple google search and 1 minute of your time reading about the history of the Apollo program would have saved you from looking silly.

howard im calling u out, u love to claim knowledge please post 32 answers for the 32 questions on the page mentioned above and please enlighten us with your educational background to backup your knowledge

Originally posted by Murcielago

from mattison0922 quote
Other sources also refused to comment --even when told that the Chinese expert has copies of over 1,000 NASA photographs that clearly show bare human footprints and a human skeleton on the lunar surface.

, funny how this guy gets his hands on over one thousand pics and not even 1 makes it in a newspaper or the internet. Sorry but i'm skeptical, especially when it comes to claims with no proof.

thats pretty far fetched i agree there totally, however the story did say "The scientist claimed to have received those photos --- which were so secret the Apollo 11 astronauts didn't even know they existed -- from "an unimpeachable U.S. source." so im sure these photos would not be released or the source would be dispatched to the next life,,lol,, but seriously there were alot of photos taken,,extremely few have been released and as usual with our government big black magic marker spots on reports so old theres no reason to cover anything up, im sorry but when theres a big black spot on a report thats an indication they dont want to release that info and are hiding information that should no longer be an issue, too bad enron couldnt do that a couple years ago when they got in trouble and just hide what really happened like our government like to do,,lol

[edit on 20-10-2004 by genesiss]

[edit on 20-10-2004 by genesiss]

I did a little research. I love this conspiracy stuff lol. I've got some "proof" that Santa Claus was once visiting the moon. haha, I don't believe it, but here's some pictures for you. The story on the site is basically the same story that mattison0922 posted, but with visuals


The Santa Claus and the Skeleton

I think you'll actually find the durations spent on the moon got longer, just like the weight of rock returned got larger due to improvements in the various stages & the lander as Apollo went on.

instead of guessing and going on rumour why not visit the actual web site and see for yourself?

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by optimus fett
I do believe the original moon landings were faked after looking at the evidence availble from the dodgy NASA photos

What about those few hundred kilograms of rocks with different composition than Earth rocks?

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by optimus fett
I do believe the original moon landings were faked after looking at the evidence availble from the dodgy NASA photos

What about those few hundred kilograms of rocks with different composition than Earth rocks?

i believe that they were supposed to be simpley rocks that were exposed to radiation and high pressure,, u dont have to have the moon for that, and dont forget that only specific nasa authorized scientists have examined them, so thats not saying much "IF" it is a lie

Gernesiss says:

"i believe that they were supposed to be simpley rocks that were exposed to radiation and high pressure..."

I assume you wouldn't make this assertion unless you had some evidence as well as some knowledge of geology to back it up.

So you're saying that the moon rocks are earth rocks that were exposed to radiation and high pressure, and now they're isotopic (still radioactive) as well as metamorphic?

I mean that's what they'd b if they were exposed to high doses of radiation and pressure, right? Radioactive and metamorphic?

But i've seen them at the Smithsonian, and I can tell basalt from gneiss, and this wasn't gneiss i saw.

So where do you get your information about these rocks being metamorphic and radioactive? Do you have any evidence at all for your assertions?

"... dont forget that only specific nasa authorized scientists have examined them..."

Rubbish. Just about every scientist from just about every country )indlucing the PRC and the then-Soviet Union) has examined them, and they all agree that, yes, they're actually moon rocks, and no, they're not metamorphic.

So where's your evidence, Genesiss?

Hard to say where it came from; from the lighting, I would say, Mars.

Chaiyah
( >7( >~Abidemiracles.com

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Gernesiss says:

"i believe that they were supposed to be simpley rocks that were exposed to radiation and high pressure..."

I assume you wouldn't make this assertion unless you had some evidence as well as some knowledge of geology to back it up.

So you're saying that the moon rocks are earth rocks that were exposed to radiation and high pressure, and now they're isotopic (still radioactive) as well as metamorphic?

I mean that's what they'd b if they were exposed to high doses of radiation and pressure, right? Radioactive and metamorphic?

But i've seen them at the Smithsonian, and I can tell basalt from gneiss, and this wasn't gneiss i saw.

So where do you get your information about these rocks being metamorphic and radioactive? Do you have any evidence at all for your assertions?

"... dont forget that only specific nasa authorized scientists have examined them..."

Rubbish. Just about every scientist from just about every country )indlucing the PRC and the then-Soviet Union) has examined them, and they all agree that, yes, they're actually moon rocks, and no, they're not metamorphic.

So where's your evidence, Genesiss?

IM not going to be a grammar nazi like Howard but u did butcher my screename a lot,, but that not really a big deal i just thought i would mention that, i would like to point out that "I" believe that the moon rocks NASA has possession of "may" be fakes and if they are that's one way they "may" have been created,, I don't know and I don't pretend to know, i have heard this theory before and I was simpley posting it as such, if u have a list of credited scientists that have seen the rocks that are not associated with NASA or a government office let us know but personally all that may be even provable remotely is that the rocks are unusual, that supposedly were exposed to high radiation and no atmosphere and that's it and that's based on tests as far as i know performed by people on NASA's budget or on a government budget which doesn't say a lot, but please prove me wrong that's why IM here so i can learn and be enlightened

Originally posted by genesiss
IM not going to be a grammar nazi like Howard but u did butcher my screename a lot,,

He didn't butcher your name. Gneiss is a type of rock...

but that not really a big deal i just thought i would mention that, i would like to point out that "I" believe that the moon rocks NASA has possession of "may" be fakes and if they are that's one way they "may" have been created,, I don't know and I don't pretend to know, i have heard this theory before and I was simpley posting it as such, if u have a list of credited scientists that have seen the rocks that are not associated with NASA or a government office let us know but personally all that may be even provable remotely is that the rocks are unusual, that supposedly were exposed to high radiation and no atmosphere and that's it and that's based on tests as far as i know performed by people on NASA's budget or on a government budget which doesn't say a lot, but please prove me wrong that's why IM here so i can learn and be enlightened

The Lunar samples have been distributed to many educational centers like colleges and universities, (ie: not NASA or Gov't). That and the former U.S.S.R. have gotten there own Lunar samples as well. Here's a website that tells you how to go about requesting a Lunar sample.

i really dont care but if u want to make a statement about it look above it states "quote: Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Gernesiss says: "
im not gernesiss,, i really dont care though but i know what hes talking about later in the statement with the rock type

and thank u for the web site i will make sure to read it

I am pretty sure that this k=link as been posted before, but it is worth the while to visit the Clavius Base site, an excellent debunkatorium of the faked landing hoax.

And genisiss, there is a page devoted to Dr. Groves� film experiments in there also.

Rather than repeat the arguments presented there, you can just read for yourself about the errors in Dr. Groves� experiments.

I would also like to point out another error in the Groves� argument.

Based on Dr. Groves data one would have to assume that any form of film based photography is impossible in outer space. This would include manned as well as unmanned missions.

Remember that digital photography was decades away in the 60�s and 70�s. Television camera technology was very limited, also. How then did the Surveyor probes, the early mariner probes ect. Take pictures? Well, �each carried an imaging system that could develop exposed film, scan the photos, and broadcast them back to Earth. Five Lunar Orbiters were launched between August 1966 and August 1967. All were highly successful, and in total, mapped roughly 99 percent of the lunar surface. Lunar Orbiter 1 became the first spacecraft to take a picture of the Earth from the Moon. � source

But according to Dr. Groves, this would have not been possible.

In fact, it would not surprise me that if we were to subject the television imaging systems that were used on the mariner probes to the same unrealistic and excessive radiation that Dr. Groves subjected the film to, that the images produced by these systems would also be degraded to the point of being unusable. Yet we know that these systems produced hundreds of thousands of images. Can Dr. Groves explain this?


here is some more info on the good doctor.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I am pretty sure that this k=link as been posted before, but it is worth the while to visit the Clavius Base site, an excellent debunkatorium of the faked landing hoax.

And genisiss, there is a page devoted to Dr. Groves� film experiments in there also.

Rather than repeat the arguments presented there, you can just read for yourself about the errors in Dr. Groves� experiments.

I would also like to point out another error in the Groves� argument.

Based on Dr. Groves data one would have to assume that any form of film based photography is impossible in outer space. This would include manned as well as unmanned missions.

Remember that digital photography was decades away in the 60�s and 70�s. Television camera technology was very limited, also. How then did the Surveyor probes, the early mariner probes ect. Take pictures? Well, �each carried an imaging system that could develop exposed film, scan the photos, and broadcast them back to Earth. Five Lunar Orbiters were launched between August 1966 and August 1967. All were highly successful, and in total, mapped roughly 99 percent of the lunar surface. Lunar Orbiter 1 became the first spacecraft to take a picture of the Earth from the Moon. � source

But according to Dr. Groves, this would have not been possible.

In fact, it would not surprise me that if we were to subject the television imaging systems that were used on the mariner probes to the same unrealistic and excessive radiation that Dr. Groves subjected the film to, that the images produced by these systems would also be degraded to the point of being unusable. Yet we know that these systems produced hundreds of thousands of images. Can Dr. Groves explain this?


here is some more info on the good doctor.

That's fine Howard and I will check out that web site tonight when IM off work but u seem to be adamant about "your" belief in the science that states we went to the moon, and I commend u on a very nice and polite post in response but considering your views on the subject can we all have "your" input on the 32 questions posed on the questionable website mentioned earlier? if not that's fine but i would like to understand your belief system and trust in nasa's story's

omg howard that site is more crackpot then the one that i sent u,, ill look forward to posting all the double talk nonsense it claims later tonite

Originally posted by genesiss
omg howard that site is more crackpot then the one that i sent u,, ill look forward to posting all the double talk nonsense it claims later tonite

Well, since you have dismissed the site as being �crackpot,� then would you please point out the errors in the following which I copied from that site:

Dr. Groves' study contains a number of serious errors.
Although Dr. Groves gives figures for the x-ray dosage to which he submitted his test films, he does not in any way show that this is the expected amount of x-ray energy that exists anywhere in cislunar space or on the lunar surface. This key omission makes Dr. Groves' study of questionable applicability.
Dr. Groves used a Bronica ETRSi 120 roll film camera in his tests. He does not explain why he did not use a Hasselblad EL/500 or EL/700 camera, the type of camera supplied to NASA for use in the Apollo missions. It is still manufactured by Hasselblad and suitable period examples of which can be obtained easily from second-hand dealers. Use of a dissimilar camera limits the extent to which Dr. Groves' results can be applied to Apollo photographs.
Further, Hasselblad claims they added additional protection to the film magazines. Dr. Groves does not document any similar changes he may have made to the film magazine of his test camera. Nor does he comment upon the possible effect of any of those modifications. Dr. Groves' inattention to the specifics of the Apollo camera design questions his ability to accurately simulate the effects of x-rays on Apollo film.
Dr. Groves first took pictures of a standard color chart, then bombarded that film with x-rays. Then he used standard procedures to develop the film and observe the results. He found that the images were significantly fogged in some cases, and completely obliterated in more extreme cases.
He provided absolutely no shielding around the film during its exposure to the x-rays. It is unclear whether he left the film inside its magazine as the Apollo astronauts would have done. Since the Hasselblad magazines were modified to provide thicker material for the casing, and the film was kept in the magazines during the entire mission, it is not clear whether Dr. Groves' procedure constitutes an adequate comparison.
What is clear, however, is that Dr. Groves exposed the film to x-rays thousands of times more intense than what occurs in space. He used a linear accelerator to bombard the film with an 8 MeV (million electron-volts) beam of x-rays. X-ray astronomers say the x-rays from celestial sources radiate at energy levels of less than 5 keV (thousand elecron-volts). The measurement of x-ray energy is similar to the rating of light bulbs by wattage. The difference between five thousand electron volts -- ambient x-rays in space -- and eight million electron-volts -- Dr. Groves' experiment -- is obviously very large. This factor alone invalidates Dr. Groves' study as an accurate depiction of the ambient x-ray conditions in space.
Energy level is quite important. Not only do more energetic x-rays fog film to a greater extent, they also penetrate various substances to a greater extent. This makes the question of shielding very acute. 3 keV x-rays, for example, will not even penetrate air for more than a dozen centimeters.
The experiment subjected the film to three levels of exposure, all at the absurdly intense 8 MeV energy level. The levels are given in the study as "25 rem", "50 rem" and "100 rem". Those who have read the primer and studied the nomenclature of radiation will immediately realize that this is the wrong unit. "Rem" applies only to absorbed radiation in human tissue. It is completely inapplicable to radiation absorbed by photographic film. The appropriate unit of measure for this study would be either "rads" or "Grays". It so happens that for x-rays 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem, but Dr. Groves' apparent misunderstanding of the concepts of absorbed dose is very much out of place in a study purporting to give an expert opinion on radiation exposure.
If we graciously correct Dr. Groves' error of nomenclature and assume he means exposures in rads, we are still faced with two further questions. First, how was absorbed dose computed? It is notoriously difficult to measure the amount of radiation actually absorbed by any given substance.
Second, the 25-100 rads to which Dr. Groves exposed the films is quite excessive. It would take nearly six years in a spacecraft in cislunar space -- barring any serious solar events -- to absorb 25 rads of dosage from all sources combined, not just from x-rays.
Dr. Groves' study contains far too many egregious errors to be considered predictive in any way of the behavior of Ektachrome film under the conditions experienced during Apollo space flights. He has employed levels of radiation far in excess of what can be defensibly claimed for ambient x-ray radiation in cislunar space.

Howard, the film is one point, and i will agree its a good argument, however one of the sites points to debunk the hoax theory is the great picture with perfect clarity of an astronaut getting out of a landau, now instead of mentioning the point he just rambles on about the movies like he was a movie critic (that's kind of what makes us think its a hoax because it is so much like a bad movie) and it rambles on and on about James bond and other movies trying to back up that since Hollywood couldn't make a perfect outer space scene how could we? well it was anything but perfect, if it was perfect there would be no evidence to suggest there was a hoax, example: coke bottle scene transmitted to Australia and the letter "C" on a rock and the moon surface just for starters, I found this great item on a page from your site Howard it states "The Mars surface footage in Capricorn One looks suspiciously like the lunar surface footage from NASA.
This is probably because Hyams had several hours of Apollo video footage as a reference. It doesn't make the Apollo footage any less credible or Hyams' any more credible. At one point we see a supposed video feed from Mars showing the just-alighted landau from a distance and the astronauts still inside. Who deployed that camera? If the astronauts are still inside then the camera would have to be on the MESA or inside the spacecraft, not set up some distance away and perfectly framed and focused.

The supposedly sharp-eyed conspiracists who claim to pick out the most minute anomalies in Apollo video sure missed this one. Apparently it's harder to perpetrate a hoax than even Peter Hyams believes. He can't make a plausible hoax last two hours, much less thirty years"

what's the point? its a movie and we all know it, its not reality TV! so he's trying to examine and compare movies to show that somehow we did go to the moon,, talk about grabbing at straws when we have signs of movie props in the footage and astronauts jumping 18 inches at high speed to simulate weightlessness instead of the 6 feet they should have been bouncing, come on Howard please share respectable scientific web sites and not this stuff that seems more like a personal web page then anything legitimate,, remember majority main stream says we went,, we don't have a lot to work with to claim its a hoax, its you and who ever wants to stand by and argue that we went is their responsibility to show "REAL" scientific data and not flim flam web sites that dance around the issues with movie reviews and tell me why theres only one filmed trip to the moon for everyone to argue and every astronaut that has gone has had severe emotional issue and or severe debates with nasa. Armstrong has even stated negative feelings against nasa and the moonwalk without going into detail. AND WHY AGAIN CAN NO ASTRONAUT TALK FREELY ABOUT WHAT THEY SEE?!?! we are not talking about mission details here,, what they SEE cannot be discussed and thats not a theory,,

err, OK.


(shrugs)



(You appear to be veering off on a strange tangent and I am having a hard time following your argument. )

Originally posted by genesiss
That's fine Howard and I will check out that web site tonight when IM off work but u seem to be adamant about "your" belief in the science that states we went to the moon, and I commend u on a very nice and polite post in response but considering your views on the subject can we all have "your" input on the 32 questions posed on the questionable website mentioned earlier? if not that's fine but i would like to understand your belief system and trust in nasa's story's

Well, there are billions of us alive who saw the landings live and saw all the missions live. We were in the middle of the Cold War then, and if the signals hadn't been coming from the moon and if they'd been faked, the whole Communist bloc would have raised a howl about it.

The Communists would have been the first to debunk it, at the moment of the landing.

It's funny how, two decades after the landing, some twinkie suddenly decides that human beings in the 1960's were too stupid to manage to build rockets and fly them to the moon.

This is just some of the disinformation we feed the chinese and other governments.