Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
(CNN) -- It captivated millions of people around the world for eight days in the summer of 1969. It brought glory to the embattled U.S. space program and inspired beliefs that anything was possible. It's arguably the greatest technological feat of the 20th century.
And to some, it was all a lie.
Forty years after Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the moon, a small cult of conspiracy theorists maintains the historic event -- and the five subsequent Apollo moon landings -- were staged. These people believe NASA fabricated the landings to trump their Soviet rivals and fulfill President Kennedy's goal of ferrying humans safely to and from the moon by the end of the 1960s.
"I do know the moon landings were faked," said crusading filmmaker Bart Sibrel, whose aggressive interview tactics once provoked Aldrin to punch him in the face. "I'd bet my life on it."
Sibrel may seem crazy, but he has company. A 1999 Gallup poll found that a scant 6 percent of Americans doubted the Apollo 11 moon landing happened, and there is anecdotal evidence that the ranks of such conspiracy theorists, fueled by innuendo-filled documentaries and the Internet, are growing. Twenty-five percent of respondents to a survey in the British magazine Engineering & Technology said they do not believe humans landed on the moon. A handful of Web sites and blogs circulate suspicions about NASA's "hoax."
And a Google search this week for "Apollo moon landing hoax" yielded more than 1.5 billion results.
"We love conspiracies," said Roger Launius, a senior curator at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington. "Going to the moon is hard to understand. And it's easier for some people to accept the answer that, 'Well, maybe we didn't go to the moon.' A lot of it is naivete."
Conspiracy theories about the Apollo missions began not long after the last astronaut returned from the moon in 1972. Bill Kaysing, a technical writer for Rocketdyne, which built rocket engines for NASA's Apollo program, published a 1974 book, "We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle."
In the book and elsewhere, Kaysing argued that NASA lacked the technology in 1969 to land humans safely on the moon, that the Apollo astronauts would have been poisoned by passing through the Van Allen radiation belts that ring the Earth and that NASA's photos from the moon contained suspicious anomalies. Video See improved NASA footage of the 1969 moonwalk »
Kaysing theorized NASA sent the Apollo 11 astronauts up in a rocket until it was out of sight, then transferred the lunar capsule and its three passengers to a military cargo plane that dropped the capsule eight days later in the Pacific, where it was recovered. In the meantime, he believed, NASA officials filmed the "moon landing" at Area 51, the high-security military base in the Nevada desert, and brainwashed the astronauts to ensure their cooperation.
Some believe Kaysing's theories inspired the 1978 movie "Capricorn One," in which NASA fakes a Mars landing on a remote military base, then goes to desperate lengths to cover it up. Others insist NASA recruited director Stanley Kubrick, hot off "2001: A Space Odyssey," to film the "faked" moon landings.
Oh, and those moon rocks? Lunar meteorites from Antarctica.
Decades later, Kaysing's beliefs formed the foundation for "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" a sensational 2001 Fox TV documentary that spotted eerie "inconsistencies" in NASA's Apollo images and TV footage.
Among them: no blast craters are visible under the landing modules; shadows intersect instead of running parallel, suggesting the presence of an unnatural light source; and a planted American flag appears to ripple in a breeze although there's no wind on the moon.
The hour-long special sparked such interest in the topic that NASA took the unusual step of issuing a news release and posting a point-by-point rebuttal on its Web site. The press release began: "Yes. Astronauts did land on the moon."
In various documents, NASA has countered that the Apollo astronauts passed through the Van Allen belts too quickly to be exposed to dangerous levels of radiation; that the module's descent engines weren't powerful enough to leave a blast crater; that the shadows in photos were distorted by wide-angle lenses and sloping lunar terrain; and that the Apollo flags had horizontal support bars that made the flags swing.
Kaysing died in 2005, but not before grabbing the attention of Sibrel, a Nashville, Tennessee, filmmaker who has since become the most visible proponent of the Apollo hoax theories. With funding from an anonymous donor, Sibrel wrote and directed a 47-minute documentary in 2001 that reiterated many of the now-familiar hoax arguments.
Critics of moon-landing hoax theorists, and there are many, say it would be impossible for tens of thousands of NASA employees and Apollo contractors to keep such a whopping secret for almost four decades.
But Sibrel believes the Apollo program was so compartmentalized that only its astronauts and a handful of high-level NASA officials knew the entire story. Sibrel spent years ambushing Apollo astronauts and insisting they swear on a Bible before his cameras that they walked on the moon. "When someone has gotten away with a crime, in my opinion, they deserve to be ambushed," Sibrel said. "I'm a journalist trying to get at the truth."
In an episode made infamous on YouTube, Sibrel confronted Aldrin in 2002 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k ] and called him "a coward, a liar and a thief." Aldrin, then 72, socked the thirtysomething Sibrel in the face, knocking him backwards.
"I don't want to call attention to the individuals who are trying to promote and shuffle off this hoax on people," Aldrin told CNN in a recent interview. "I feel sorry for the gullible people who're going to go along with them. I guess it's just natural human reaction to want to be a part of 'knowing something that somebody doesn't know.' But it's misguided. It's just a shame."
It's been 37 years since the last Apollo moon mission, and tens of millions of younger Americans have no memories of watching the moon landings live. A 2005-2006 poll by Mary Lynne Dittmar, a space consultant based in Houston, Texas, found that more than a quarter of Americans 18 to 25 expressed some doubt that humans set foot on the moon.
"As the number of people who were not yet born at the time of the Apollo program increases, the number of questions [about the moon landings] also may increase," NASA said in a statement. "Conspiracy theories are always difficult to refute because of the impossibility of proving a negative."
Launius, the National Air and Space Museum curator, believes Apollo conspiracy theories resonate with people who are disengaged from society and distrustful of government. He also believes their numbers are overblown.
"These diehards are really vocal, but they're really tiny," he said.
But Stuart Robbins, a Ph.D. candidate in astrophysics at the University of Colorado who gives lectures defending NASA from Apollo hoax theorists, believes their influence can be harmful.
"If people don't think we were able to go to the moon, then they don't believe in the ingenuity of human achievement," he said. "Going to the moon and returning astronauts safely back to Earth is arguably one of the most profound achievements in human history, and so when people simply believe it was a hoax, they lose out on that shared experience and doubt what humans can do."
In its information campaign against Apollo's "debunkers," NASA may have a potent ace up its sleeve, however. Its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is now circling the moon with powerful cameras, snapping crisp pictures that could reveal Apollo 11's Eagle lander squatting on the moon's surface. Then again, conspiracy theorists may just say NASA doctored the photos.
"Will the LRO's incredibly high-resolution images of the lunar surface, including, eventually, the Apollo landing sites, finally quell the lunacy of the Moon Hoax believers? Obviously it won't," writes astronomer Phil Plait in his blog on Discover magazine's Web site. "These true believers don't live in an evidence-based world." http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/07/1 ... ding.hoax/
"These true believers don't live in an evidence-based world." http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/07/1 ... ding.hoax/
In our "evidence-based world" we invaded a country (Iraq) who allegedly had WMDs. The difference with the outcome is that it took a CIA officer and a former ambassador to Niger to expose the lie. And, it forced the media and congress to answer questions about the lie when so many people (public) were competent to understand that lie. In essence, what happened? Compartmentalization broke down - The left hand found out what the right hand had done.
And that continues today. IRS scandal, AP scandal, and so forth. It pisses me off that these people continue to get elected. None of which have anything to do as to whether or not we went to the moon.
I disagree. Lies beget lies beget lies. A foundation of lies only fosters anger, disassociation, apathy and maladaption.
I understand the point you are making Misha. However this point you've missed altogether with your examples is. The moon hoax believers have had 40 years to find just one outright lie and have failed to do that.
Actually, no. The difference is the media and congress tactically had to deal with WMD fiasco. It was puffed and cajoled because there was a focus of aware people. Apollo does not fit within this need. It is not on the radar and therefore does not have the attention of the ignorant masses or congress for that matter. Other than those who question the Apollo record do we really think that academia, science, congress and whatnot would ever want to open this can of worms when it is accepted as fact? Those who are in power who suspect something is wrong with Apollo won't touch it with a ten foot pole. It is tantamount to political suicide. Again, the invisible electrified fence has its place.
Gosh, I hate to disagree with you Misha, I really do. But for one, you have no evidence of that. You are simply expressing your own feelings. And two, do you really think that if the country had been duped out of $100 billion in today's dollars that someone, especially the media, wouldn't have cried foul? There is also absolutely no doubt in my mind that most everyone in academia, science, and even congress would have questioned NASA. Hell, a LOT of people didn't agree with it to begin with!
"Many people believe that Project Apollo was popular, probably because it garnered signiﬁcant media attention, but the polls do not support a contention that Americans embraced the lunar landing mission. Consistently throughout the 1960s a majority of Americans did not believe Apollo was worth the cost, with the one exception to this a poll taken at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing in July 1969. And consistently throughout the decade 45-60 percent of Americans believed that the government was spending too much on space, indicative of a lack of commitment to the spaceﬂight agenda. These data do not support a contention that most people approved of Apollo and thought it important to explore space." - Space historian Roger Launius of the National Air and Space Museum
My conclusion is that Apollo missions were not popular with the general public and if there was any hint that we didn't go, there wouldn't have been near enough people in NASA to shut up the academics, scientists, media, other countries, or even congress. We went and there is more than enough solid evidence, then and now, to support that.
Again you've expressed nothing more than your opinion. Bring some verified facts of outright lying by NASA.
Yes, opinion. Backed by years of research that the official NASA record is not trustworthy. As for verifiable facts the best place to start is Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing, Jarrah White's research. Look at Percy & Bennett's book Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-blowers. Also, Gerhard Wisnewski's book - One Small Step. Have you read or viewed their research. I have. With that, the official Apollo record just doesn't stand up.
what's an 'outright lie' defined as, and how would you find it?
is an incriminating photo or other evidence an 'outright lie'? was mike collins saying in an interview post-landing that 'he didn't see any stars from the moon' when he was meant to be orbiting in the command module the whole time and never set foot on the moon an outright lie? and that NASA changed the transcript (but obviously not the video taken of the event) to say buzz aldrin said it? they look like outright lies to me, really. then there was the piece of petrified wood claimed to be a moon rock.
a stereoscopic analysis of 'moon' photos shows that distant mountains seem to be only tens of metres away. is that an 'outright lie', or just faking photos? what about the many shots of the moon rover parked with no wheel tracks? and many inconsistencies about where they left the rover, and supposedly trudged 5km back to the LEM? and the lack of scorch marks and the presence of ample moon dust under the landers, which looks like wet sand. and the fact that the LEM landing sensor sticks are pointing the wrong way after the landing, also sitting in wet sand. and moon dust boot prints with their perfect edges. that the hatchway between the modules was too small for space-suited astronauts to pass through? that the working spaces in the LEM were too small to move in? the 'damaged hands' spiel form the Apollo 17 astronauts who did not demonstrate damaged hands on their return? the many problems with the video footage and photos that were returned? the computer analyses of NASA pics that show extensive manual blacking out of areas by touch-up artists, and sticking the earth onto one picture of the sky, at the wrong scale? another pic where the sun appears to have a light bulb in its centre? many technical problems with the Hasselblads focus and difficulty in framing any shot? the fact that the film would have melted in the camera on the surface of the moon? the fact you cannot move your fingers in a truly pressurised space suit and gloves, let alone do intricate work? and so many other things, big and small.
why weren't the press allowed to use the live video feed from Apollo, and instead had a grainy TV image to shoot, so that the public only saw a grainy image of a grainy image on their TVs?
then there is the claim in the OP article that lunar surveyor craft can show up the landing sites. well, on the most recent effort, it seems foot tracks were added later to the photo. and the 'abandoned gear' is oriented wrongly, i.e. north-south instead of east-west. all very interesting. then there was the lie told by the current geeky looking lying shill employed by NASA for PR who started claiming the Kodak films used were specially developed 'thin film gel emulsions' or some crap he made up off the top of his head -- when in fact the Kodak executive who actually supplied the film in the 60s insists that it was stock standard Kodak film, no development work was done at all. Is that an 'outright lie' then? Or are you calling the Kodak exec a liar who was actually there supplying the film and a film expert?
there are plenty of pointers, both circumstantial and direct, but what do you define as an 'outright lie', when the whole thing was an outright lie? it strikes me that assiduous researchers have been finding these outright lies since the early 70s when the missions ended. I think it's easier to perpetrate an outright lie when so many people are prepared to gloss and elide over the details rather than think the detailed evidence through.
what a sick game the pseudosceps here like to play with the facts and evidence.
C'mon, guys. Hasn't Sydney succinctly at least presented a solid argument that all is not right with the Apollo program. Everything he has listed is there for you guys to read with those books I mentioned. One cannot help walk away using their God given common sense that the official record is full of holes with that big cheese in the sky. And if I can quote from the film Avatar - "That's a lot of cheddar."
Now who is going to point out that it's limburger cheese?
Is there any chance I could talk you into watching this 13 minute video?
I've already seen it.
We've already done it to death on another thread.
Jarrah White has already posted a rebuttal. Then SG Collins recanted and tried another angle. Then Jarrah White rebutted that as well.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 28 May 2013, 19:46, edited 2 times in total.
Okay, so let's review what we've learned. China has sent a probe to the moon that detected evidence of the moon landing. Japan has sent a probe to the moon that detected evidence of the moon landing. India has sent a probe to the moon that detected evidence of the moon landing. The Russian government has never claimed we didn't go to the moon. There are reflector mirrors on the moon that could not have possibly been put there by anyone other than someone being there. The U.S. has sent a recent probe that took equipment from an academic university not associated with NASA that detected evidence of the moon landing. All of these countries and pieces of evidence are not affiliated with NASA, yet you are basing your conclusions on a guy who has little formal training in anything who says some pictures look faked when we've already determined that even if they are faked, has no bearing on whether or not we went to the moon and wasn't even alive when we went? Yea, okay, you guys just keep eating your cheese.
No, you c'mon
Books shmooks. Anyone can write a book.
Yes, we can walk away when people such as Sydney and all the others you hold in esteemed authority don't recognize in themselves they aren't using common sense.
Do you wonder why you can so easily smell the cheese in the "official" story yet can't for the life of you smell it coming from the ct'ers?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 4 guests