rigorousintuition.ca

As the use of quotes should imply, I've never bought into the "moon landing were fake" conspiracy theory. Why not, as I believe just about every other crackpot unproven theory involving the US government?<br><br>1 Why? Who benefits?<br><br>No-one's ever answered this one to my satisfaction. To show the US was "better" than the Russkies? Who were monitoring the program and would have been the first to cry "foul"? The risks of a scam of that scale being discovered - and the following national disgrace - were surely great enough to find other, better, ways of winning the cold war.<br><br>2 How many moon shots/missions were faked?<br><br>All of them? Some of them? Even the ones that went wrong? The later moon landings? <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>What would be the point of that?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I'm pretty gullible when it comes to conspiracy theories, but for me to get on this particular bandwagon I need to see (in addition to answers to the above):<br><br>- First-hand testimony from someone who was directly involved in the scam, with verifiable corroboration, either personal or evidential.<br><br>Evidence - documents, photographs - and I'm not talking about the NASA photography that has been interpreted as fake.<br><br>Anyone want to enlighten me? Believe me, I'm very willing to be convinced. <p></p><i></i>

Did you have a chance to read late William Cooper's oppinion on this subject?<br>I think that he was correct(like on many other things) when he stated how impossible was for "us" to go to the Moon.<br>If you haven't had the chance,google for it,it's interesting read for sure.<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ivanbo2003>ivanbo2003</A> at: 1/2/06 12:57 pm<br></i>

didn't believe that we landed on the moon. Of course, he was born in 1902, didn't have indoor plumbing in his house until the 1970's and never flew in a plane.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

...believe people like Ingo Swann who did some early remote-viewing work at the Stanford Research Institute. He "saw" installations on the moon, as well as other places. --MaryK <p></p><i></i>

This is one dog that's never hunted for me. I place it in the same category as "No planes hit the towers, it was all done with holograms." That is, I don't regard myself as closed-minded because I won't even entertain the possibility.<br><br>I can appreciate, with passing years and the tremendous downsizing of manned space exploration, it must seem like science fiction that technology 40 years old was able to accomplish that. But I'm pursuaded it did. <p></p><i></i>

I've heard the argument made that if the moon landings are true, why hasn't the Hubble telescope sent back images of the landing sites? Is this a valid argument? I admittedly haven't looked much into this issue and I'd appreciate it if someone could confirm if it's possible or not to photograph the landing sites with Hubble.. If it is possible, why wouldn't NASA want to make these images public? Wouldn't they want to show off a little by publishing the landing site images and putting the rumors to rest - Unless they have and I'm just not aware of them. <p></p><i></i>

The lay person assumption about Hubble is that the moon is too close for it to focus on.<br><br>I have memories of NASA from the late sixties and early seventies. But the chance of someone taking my memories seriously is pretty slim, isn't it? They definitely put people in orbit. (That was not meant to be metaphoric, although it could be.) <p></p><i></i>

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The lay person assumption about Hubble is that the moon is too close for it to focus on.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>This is my understanding of it as an ametuer astonomer.<br><br>The Hubble scope's optic range is devoted mainly to wide field cameras.<br><br>As far as the hoax thing goes, I never really bought into it either. One thing I've noticed though, is there's an inverse relationship in the proportions between a cutting of funds for NASA and the increase in speculation towards NASA's integrity/honesty. I'm wondering if there's not disnfo seeded to sew disaffection in the public mind over NASA in the hopes that we'll overlook the drastic budget cuts that have taken place over the decades in our nosedive back to the Dark Ages..<br><br>And yes, I'm refering to people like Hoagland. <p></p><i></i>

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>(upper left) The Moon is so close to Earth that Hubble would need to take a mosaic of 130 pictures to cover the entire disk. This ground-based picture from Lick Observatory shows the area covered in Hubble's photomosaic with the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1999/14/image/a">hubblesite.org/newscenter...14/image/a</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?<br><br>Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?<br><br>No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.<br><br>An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.<br><br>Here is a picture that Hubble took of the Moon:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1999/14/">hubblesite.org/newscenter...e/1999/14/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=77&cat=topten">hubblesite.org/reference_...cat=topten</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=etinarcadiaego@rigorousintuition>et in Arcadia ego</A> at: 1/3/06 12:39 am<br></i>

<br>In the early 60's Kennedy announcd the ambition after the USSR was winning the space race.<br><br>As time went on they realised they could not get through the Van Allen Belt (Google)<br><br>The hoax was carried to save face and to score a cold war victory over the USSR - propagadnda.<br><br>I strongly reccommend a film called "Astronauts gone wild" by Bart Sibrel. He Asks many of the apollo astronauts to swear on the bible that they walked on the moon.<br><br>The responses to his request ar facinating and astonishing...and cumulatively deeply suspicious.<br><br>In that context, the multiple light sources on the moon seen in the photos....the landing photos were at least fake.<br><br>Did you ever see the moon walk footage sped up - it's clearly a slomo fake - <br><br>The moon Hoax is a bit of a laugh really. Quite unimportant in the scheme of things. But it could have an interesting effect if the hoax became more widely known.<br><br>If people could accept that the moon landings were a hoax...the leap to the 911 hoax is easier to make.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

I'm in the blutopia camp. I remember as a child, one of my parents' drinking buddies used to say the moon landing was a hoax, and everyone thought he was just a crackpot 40 yr old who still lived with his mom. Then a few years ago, at a high level state government meeting of one particular cabinet where I was general counsel, one of the commissioners expressed his belief that the moon landing was a hoax. I need to look him up now that I'm no longer with state government. He may know something!<br><br>Thanks for the film recommendation. I was curious about that movie, saw the box at my local video store. I will go and rent it this week! <p></p><i></i>

Hey, if y'all have a hard time swallowing the story of the fake moon shots, then I know you aren't yet ready to learn that the whole Cold War drama was a fake. <br><br><br>But it was.<br><br><br>Dragon <p></p><i></i>

"But it was."<br><br>A lot of people suspected that each side was beneficial to the other (lovely EXPENSIVE Pentagon missiles).<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Yeah, the Earth isn't round, either. And those landers on Mars? Spielberg, with some help from Kubrick (who isn't dead, but is living in Cheney's bunker) is responsible for that hoax.<br><br>In fact, there is no such thing as outer space. The stars are just Jesus's light fixtures.<br><br>Back to the realm of the sane,<br><br>PP <p></p><i></i>

ProfessorPan - Come on. Surely you can do better than that.<br><br>Also by the same director - "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" - Made before AGW and talks about technical issues. Good Double pack if that's in youre video store aswell. <p></p><i></i>