Viewing Thread:
"Moon Landing Hoax?"

On Channel 5 at 9pm tonight there is a program about whether the Apollo Moon landings were faked.

What do you think about this? I have seen some pretty convincing evidence to say that they WERE faked...but then convincing evidence that they actually happened.

Now I'm no conspiricy theorist...Kennedy WAS killed by a lone gunman...Elvis IS dead...AREA 51 is just a testing ground for top secret planes, but I lean more towards fake myself, although I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

[URL]http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html[/URL]

[URL]http://batesmotel.8m.com/[/URL]

I imagine that the program will have a very Pro-moon landings bias...I bet they leave out alot of stuff just and just feature the things that can be explained away...and completely ignore the unexplainable.

Lou Role wrote:
> But ask yourself this: If they managed to land on the moon, why
> aren't they still doing it now? Surely with the advances in
> technology it should be a doddle by now.

Might be due to the fact that, and this is a total stab in the dark, it would cost half a billion dollars for nothing.
Just maybe.

But how can you explain the reused backgrounds? The EXACT same mountain range being seen it pictures allegedly taken many miles apart...even if it is the same set of mountains they would look different depending on where you are, but these photo's show it looking EXACTLY the same no matter where they are take from.

No idea. I have a 56k and can't be bothered to wait to watch the films, but all I can say is, it's the moon, and the landscape may look similar, although those mountains do look identical.

magnius wrote:
> possible :) But look at that site (the first one) and scroll down to
> "The Hills Are Alive" (just over half way down) and explain
> that to me.

As I said, I suck at Science, so I can't provide you with many good answers here. All I can say is that the Moon landings probably were real- the actual craft used betray the strains of it, plus there are various accounts of everything happening.

These conspiracy theories are just products of the minds of the hyperactive- Everything has a rational explanation, and they just try and make it look false.

Speaking of fake Moon landings, did anyone notice the film studio in Vice City which had a set for the Moon Landing in it? Pretty funny.

possible :) But look at that site (the first one) and scroll down to "The Hills Are Alive" (just over half way down) and explain that to me.

RoJ wrote:
> magnius wrote:
> No chance...no wind.
>
>
> Aye, but when the astronaut screwed (ahem) the flag pole into the
> ground, this will have given energy to the flag enabling it to move.
> Perhaps.

I think it would have been that. Or because the flag was bound up quite tightly, for example by using a tight rubber band, so there would have been a large amount of kinetic potential energy- and energy cannot be destroyed, it is merely transferred, therefore creating the movement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I am rubbish in all the areas of Science.

As for Lou Role's comment- We no longer need to send men to the moon- space probes do those jobs nowadays. Plus, the Americans no longer need to show the Russians how much they suck.

I think it is called the Van Allan belt? or something like that.

There's one other, very serious flaw with the moon landing though. There's this really strong radiation layer between the Moon and Earth, don't ask me what that layer is called though. But apparently this layer would have made it impossible for anyone to reach the moon, and certainly not with the protection the little space shuttle thing had.

But ask yourself this: If they managed to land on the moon, why aren't they still doing it now? Surely with the advances in technology it should be a doddle by now.