Apollo?
 

Well, I've reached the age of 43 years and I've basially come to the conclusion that we didn't land on the moon.
I mean, I stayed of school and marvelled at this... I just loved the whole thing but of course, as time goes on you get a little viser and realize that it was faked. Well faked and possible for a very good reason, but still... faked.

According to a pole, over 65% of the US citizens asked also believed it was faked! Have I been one of the last people to tune in here?

RE: Apollo?
 

Then how come you can see the landing bases of the lunar modules on the surface of the moon if you have a powerful enough telescope?

RE: Apollo?
 

bla bla,

Seek medical help ASAP:eek:

RE: Apollo?
 

But can you? How much power do I need?

I'd really like to see them.

RE: Apollo?
 

There is no way you can see the bottom half of a lunar module with a telescope... show us a picture.
Speaking of which, the vast majority didn't see the light of day until the mid 80's, kinda strange when you have such a wonderful subject matter...
May e not so strange if you're waiting for photoshop.
Look, I know it's painful to accept... just take a look at how long it's taken me... but take a look at those lumar photographs. They are so obviously doctored that's it's now rather embarrassing to look at them, even if you havn't used Photoshop processionally everyday for the past 15 years!

One thing that has always bothered me is the stars or should I say the lack of them! In every moonscape, not one star. This would seem to be one of the easier thinks to fake and I just couldn't for the life of me think why they'd been left off. Then I realized that the moment stars where placed in the pictures, you'd have One billion,Trillion points of reference. Easily recognized by tens of thousands of professional and amateur astronomers.
Yep, Even Our guy's aren't good enough to fake that one.

RE: Apollo?
 

Jerry Fletcher, is that you?

Watch out, they are coming for you...

http://www.unit.bz/images/tonys.jpg

RE: Apollo?
 

I watched it on T.V.- so it must be true.....uh, right?;)

I really can't say if we did it or not, and with all the other things this govt. covers up/adulterates, I'm not really sure if I believe it or not....I'd REALLY like to know.........THWUP THWUP THWUP THWUP.... OH OH, I think I hear the black helicopters now! Uh, I gotta go![X(][X(]

RE: Apollo?
 

Calling Art Bell....are you out there?

RE: Apollo?
 

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

This site should set you straight. If it doesn't I think u need help. ;)

RE: Apollo?
 

Clam, where did you hear that nonsense? Here is a quote from the web page Grant Ed posted which are rebuttals to the debunking and very interesting by the way!

“The lunar landers are very,very,very small in astronomical terms and they're pretty far away as well. There isn't a telescope in existence that could take a picture of one.” “Well, roughly speaking, it means that the lunar lander would have to be 15 times larger before it would even cause a dot on a Hubble picture”.

RE: Apollo?
 

then i guess i was told wrong.

RE: Apollo?
 

It make me furious when people criticize others because for their "lack of scientific evidence"...yet offer absolutely non of their own. Or indeed attacks people for seemingly misquoting others, yet dosn't even show the viewer the original quote! Damn thats annoying.
No, that site looked nothing more than a half hearted attempt at proving the landing took place by ridiculing everyone that didn't agree. No they need more beef than that.

RE: Apollo?
 

if you actually read through it, there is a lot of beef in the individual links. unfortunatly, if you dont want to see the beef, there may as well be none there. If you are actually looking for the beef though, i think you will find there is a lot. there was so much "beef" on that site that i got bored reading it and finally quit, getting through abotu 2/3.

RE: Apollo?
 

since we are all on the topic of conspiracies/cover-ups, what do you all think of the Philidelphia experiment? I have recently started to do a little internet research on this subject and I am amazed at what I have found, if true. The story of the ship teleporting and some of the crew becoming part of the ship is very interesting stuff.

sean

RE: Apollo?
 

Umm hello. Did you actually read anything in that site? There was an explantion to every question you asked any many others. read the explanation on the lack of stars in the pictures. It actually makes sence rather than your explantion of it just looks fake.
But then again it seams that you are convinced the landing was faked and no one is going to change that, no matter what they say.
Oh and by the way I never attacked anyone or misquoted anyone and you accusing me of doing that.... thats annoying.

RE: Apollo?
 

You seem to be taking this personally, I can't see any place in the above posts where I attack you... obviously a miss understanding.
Never mind... the point is that the "fake" sites carry a great deal more convincing information than the "pro" sites. As people say, even Nasa.. when asked a question, don't seem to really answer it, they just go around the outside and accuse you of being "crazy" if you don't accept what they're saying. Think about this... how could they go to the moon... in 1968? With a 16k computer?

When asked about going back to the moon NASA states that the costs of developing the equipment is so prohibitive it dosn't make sense. But they already have the equipment... don't they? Tried and tested. I worked perfectly didn't it? Why change a winning team? Because they can't, even to this day, escape a low earth orbit. It's the radiation factor. Nasa addimitted that recently... it's been the cause of some serious humilliation for them. And yes, the scientific community agrees. Bummer!

So why would they need to fake it? It was the hight of the Cold War. These people weren't cheats, they were patriots doing what was deemed necessary. Great work indeed.

RE: Apollo?
 

bla bla, the reason they say the cost of developing is prohibitive is because they would look awful stupid going to the moon again with 1968 equipment, dont you think? the 16k computer overloaded on the first moon landing, which is proof it was not nearly enough. i would rather not go at all than trust technology that old that far from home, wouldn't you?

RE: Apollo?
 

Yea, right, we didn't go to the moon, there really isn't a space shuttle and we didn't loose two of them, and Rutan didn't just win the X prize. Right, Yea, just keep telling yourself that.

Dude, you need to get out and find a life and quit reading crap written by people that are paranoid. Its amazing what can happen. One of the smartest guys I knew got involved in reading that crap and after a while he got so worried about the gov't coming to get him that he sold everything he had and moved to a small town so noone could find him. Strange.

I know many people in the space industry, including the guy that designed the space shuttle and Melville himself. I even have the first drawings of the space shuttle design. Why would the gov't need to fake the moon landing, and why couldn't they do it with a small computer? Geez, we got along for hundreds of years without computers. They do a lot, but before computers, men acutally could do more than just light a fire.

RE: Apollo?
 

He's just messing with everyone. No one's that stupid. Not even worth discussing.

RE: Apollo?
 

o.k., SO NOW EVERONE IS AN EXPERT....

RE: Apollo?
 

Now for the rest of you who may not be so narrow minded and condesending.....Imagine (it) for a moment if you will. Maybe we did, maybe we didn't.........

We WERE in a "cold war" with Russia, and in an unpopular war with Vietnam. There were also a LOT of other not so happy things going on at the time.
We were, as a country in need of a little "rah rah, look what we can do" pick me up. Also, remember this wouldn't be the first time the govt. has lied/covered something up-there are hundreds of instances.

Just because someone questions something, doesn't mean it's a "conspiracy". Anyone who dismisses something like this out of hand is as guilty of being narrow minded, or "blind to the facts" as someone who believes we didn't go, and won't listen to anyone who says otherwise.

If we DID go to the moon, why haven't we been back? The "can't afford it" doesn't wash, we (supposedly) did it with a weak little computer, and '68 tech, so why not now? We could mine iron and use the oxegen made in the process for a "biosphere".

Sure the "16K" computer could have been a problem the last time, but we are waaaay beyond that last I checked, not to mention metalurgy has progressed quite a bit since then.

I know, how about a privately funded moonshot, with winner take all, I don't think the U.S. "owns" the moon.......Hmmm, the "United Federation of Jettstarblue"!!!!!!!!

I don't think anyone said the shuttle doesn't exist, maybe I missed something.

RE: Apollo?
 

I was being about as serious as the first post jetts! I think its a troll and will watch it.

Now the tough decision. Do I lock it or make it go away!

RE: Apollo?
 

Actually, let it live.... but move it to the "humor" forum. :D

RE: Apollo?
 

I think it may be a troll to Flyboy, but lets poke sticks at it, and see what happens!!!:)

RE: Apollo?
 

jettstarblue: we went to the moon becuase of the cold war, and for the credit it gives us. now the government is in huge debt and there is no reason to go back other than to say we can accomplsh something again that we knew we could do in 1969. what exactly would going back accomplish? asking why havent we gone back if we can do it is like asking why aren't homes being built with bombshelters anymore.