Related Information to Man on the Moon? Yeah Right!

Man on the Moon? Yeah Right! - Page 7

Cyrillo - you kind of contradict yourself though. In your first post you said man did land on the moon, but then you went on proving that the moon is worth another travel although there weren't any.

Offtopic but, when you have something that answers a previous question but doesn't directly have to do with the topic, you could always use the offtpic code button like I did here, and use it for all info that may be considered offtopic.

Edited: Smudge on 21st Nov, 2004 - 7:37am

Right Yeah Moon the Man

OK, let's imagine we didn't land on the moon... that is what should have happened!

Almost 1 milion people worked direct or indirect with Appolo program (they all should had lied about it and no one EVER talked about it)

Soviet Union (KGB) would never had discovered we didn't landed on the moon...it mean their spies were not working right.

The Coutries like Australia had to agree with the lie when they received on the Radio telescope the images direct from the moon.

And several other things...

On the other hand, we have and had the technology to go to the moon, capability to land and take off from there, the EVA (space suits), the astronauts and the government already had paid all the design, development and built of the appolo program...

wouldn't had being easier just to launch an mission to the moon??? is just 3 days trip...

Man on the Moon? Yeah Right! UFO & Writing Art Education Sciences

Well, I am personally of the opinion that man did NOT go to the moon. I recently watched a documentary of the whole affair and learned a good deal of incriminating 'evidence'. In any case, the following is what I have learned:

Note: This is my recollection of what I heard/saw, it may not be 100% accurate.


First; it was apparent that man did not have the required technology to safely make a trip to the moon at the time. Tests were done with the spacecrafts and equipment of that time period, and it was determined that the odds of success for the mission were nearly 1 in 100000.

Second; the lunar lander that was apparently used by those first to land on the moon, would always create a blast crater from it's bottom jets. In the photos and video, there is no evidence of a blast crater having ever been created.

Third; recent satelite photos of "Area 51", where the illegitimate first lunar landing was supposed to have been filmed, displayed a 'moon' crater identical to the crater presented in photos of the moon from the first lunar landing. This strongly suggests that they are one in the same crater, which leads us to the conclussion that the 'moon' crater pictures are fake.

Fourth; in the photos supposedly taken on the moon by the astronautes, obvious evidence of tampering was present. For example, in many of the photos, the snapshot crosshair is actually BEHIND many objects in the picture. This obviously would be impossible were the photos legitimate.

Fifth; as JB stated, the flag in the moon video is blowing. There is NO ATMOSPHERE on the moon. How could the flag have POSSIBLY been blowing? It must have been a windy day in Nevada. . .

Sixth; a large number of shadows in the photos do not match up. On the moon, a single light source (the sun) should have been present. Yet, in the photos many shadows actually lay in OPPOSITE directions. This would be impossible without multiple light sources. One VERY incriminating photo, is one of an astronaut standing in the shadow of the lunar lander. The astronaut is perfectly illuminated, even though he is in a pure dark shadow. This would be impossible by practical laws of physics if there were not multiple light sources.

Seventh; there are no stars in the background of any of the photos or in the video. The moon having no atmosphere, stars should be easily visible at all times when on the moon.

Eigth, is the consideration of Nasa's motivation. At that time during the cold war, the people were in need of a moral boost. The president needed the support of his people, and the best way to gain that was by showing that their efforts weren't going to waste. It would have been very easy to create a fabrication. Other than the vain hope that we can completely trust our government, there is no reason to believe that the lunar landing was not a lie.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't even scratched the surface of the evidence. However, I'm having difficulty recalling the additional details (many involving intertwined conspiracies). Yet, what I have presented is easily enough to remove any logical doubt. Nearly any one of those points is enough to refute NASA's claims.

In any case, I hope you've found this somewhat informative.

-peace

Page 7 Right Yeah Moon the Man

This does not mean the moon is in a vacuum devoid of any climate or wind.

Right Yeah Moon the Man

"Wind, air in motion. The term is usually applied to the natural horizontal motion of the atmosphere; motion in a vertical, or nearly vertical, direction is called a current. Winds are produced by differences in atmospheric pressure, which are primarily attributable to differences in temperature. Variations in the distribution of pressure and temperature are caused largely by unequal distribution of heat from the sun, together with differences in the thermal properties of land and ocean surfaces."
© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Now, I'm simply speculating, (I certainly don't have any hard proof), but considering how thin and insignificant the atmosphere of the moon must be if scientists are tentatively considering it to have an atmosphere based on the trace amounts of a few different elements located around it's planetary body, then how likely is it that such an "atmosphere" could truly produce winds as strong as those seen in the moon video? That flag blew as though it were a windy day in april. I have great difficulty believing that such winds could be produced without a significant atmosphere like that of earth's.

Granted, I was not previously aware that they had ANY evidence of an atmosphere on the moon, and am forced to conclude that: While it seems unlikely the flag could have blown in such a manner on the surface of the moon, considering what little we seem to definitively know, it is at least possible that the moon could produce such wind.

Regardless, in light of all other 'evidence' against the first moon landing, I still lean highly towards the supposition that it was all a big fake.

Man on the Moon? Yeah Right!

The flag wasn't blowing! It had wires in it, to hold it out for the photographs! Everyone who watched the landing and placing of the flag knew that, so why are people now, 36 years later, unable to comprehend that simple little fact?

Man the Moon Yeah Right! - Page 7

I've done quite a bit of research into this topic and have found the website below to be a great resource. It was my goal to work at NASA when I was a kid and I've followed the space program closely as an adult.

Here's the website:

https://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Let me know what you think.

Message Edited! Fixed the link

Edited: funbikerchick on 21st May, 2005 - 4:10pm

Man the Moon Yeah Right! Sciences Education Art Writing & UFO - Page 7

so it seems no one on this forum is sure of the whole man on the moon thing which is very understandable..... as for myself I am convinced even with no outstanding evidence man never landed on the moon. I believe the only way I will believe is if I go there myself.