An old one...the Great Moon Hoax

[Dave~]

Did NASA go to great lengths to make a movie that showed that the U.S. landed on the moon when it fact they landed on a lot in a Hollywood studio? Did the U.S. do this merely to beat Russia in their space program?

I really find this interesting, though it's many years old. 1960 what?

[James Lewitzke]

Yeah, the moon landing event occurred during July of 1969.

With Russia launching Sputnik, the Vietnam War debacle, etc., the U.S. needed *something* to give them an edge in the cold war. So, IMO, the U.S. had all the reason in the world to fake the moon landing.

Other curious points I've wondered about include:

• How did the camera get on the moon to record the first steps?
• Why aren't there any stars in the background of the footage?
• Was the technology of the 60's *really* advanced enough to send three people to the moon?

[hamesy]

If it wasn't for this post I wouldn't of joined. But I have some points to put across

Originally Posted by James Lewitzke

[*]Why aren't there any stars in the background of the footage?

This was on of the first questions I asked. However the camera was actually positioned outside of the craft, hence the pictures.

Originally Posted by James Lewitzke

[*]Why aren't there any stars in the background of the footage?

No stars would be visible , as it was day light on the moon. If the landing was on the dark side of the moon, then stars would also be visible. Also what pictures have you took at night where stars are visible.

Originally Posted by James Lewitzke

Was the technology of the 60's *really* advanced enough to send three people to the moon?

Interesting question. Today’s modern home computer is more powerful than the computers back in the 60s. All that is really needed to send someone to the moon is a lot of money and some math calculations. Computers are not really needed.

However, you may be thinking that I think we really went to the moon, but I have to point on thing out. Why on some photos do the crosshairs disappear behind the object? See my example below:

[James Lewitzke]

Originally Posted by hamesy

If it wasn't for this post I wouldn't of joined. But I have some points to put across

Hey Hamsey, Glad you decided to join the Conspiracy Forums

[James Lewitzke]

Originally Posted by hamesy

This was on of the first questions I asked. However the camera was actually positioned outside of the craft, hence the pictures.

(I think you meant to quote my camera question ) But anyways, from the position it appears the camera is taking the first shots, doesn't it look a little *far away* from the craft? (Just me guessing here)

Originally Posted by hamesy

No stars would be visible , as it was day light on the moon. If the landing was on the dark side of the moon, then stars would also be visible. Also what pictures have you took at night where stars are visible.

Good point concerning the stars, I've never taken pictures or videotaped during the night (I'm not a photographer) so I wouldn't know for sure whether any stars would be visible or not (Although Earth's Atmosphere probably makes it more difficult to catch the stars here, even at night).

Originally Posted by hamesy

Interesting question. Today’s modern home computer is more powerful than the computers back in the 60s. All that is really needed to send someone to the moon is a lot of money and some math calculations. Computers are not really needed.

It would seem, from my point of view, that it would take more than just computers to get to the moon, like (I'm just throwing out some random, valid questions here):

• Was there enough fuel to make the journey to AND back from the moon?
• And to carry that much weight, such as all the moon rocks, golf clubs, etc. in the capsule (And did the capsule that landed on the moon really have enough "fuel" to liftoff back into the moon's orbit, and reconnect with the larger craft?)
• Or how about enough oxygen, they spent hours on the moon, collecting samples, etc. To really last that long?

Originally Posted by hamesy

However, you may be thinking that I think we really went to the moon, but I have to point on thing out. Why on some photos do the crosshairs disappear behind the object? See my example below:

Similar with me, some may assume I believe in the hoax, but I'm just asking questions on the subject (Also, like I said I'm not a photographer, so I wouldn't know the photo questions )

[hamesy]

Originally Posted by James Lewitzke

(I think you meant to quote my camera question ) But anyways, from the position it appears the camera is taking the first shots, doesn't it look a little *far away* from the craft? (Just me guessing here)

Ye sorry about that

Originally Posted by James Lewitzke

It would seem, from my point of view, that it would take more than just computers to get to the moon, like (I'm just throwing out some random, valid questions here):

• Was there enough fuel to make the journey to AND back from the moon?
• And to carry that much weight, such as all the moon rocks, golf clubs, etc. in the capsule (And did the capsule that landed on the moon really have enough "fuel" to liftoff back into the moon's orbit, and reconnect with the larger craft?)
• Or how about enough oxygen, they spent hours on the moon, collecting samples, etc. To really last that long?

It wouldn't take that much fuel to get to the moon. Once the capsule got into orbit and on its way to the moon, it wouldn't use any fuel (maybe a little for course adjustments). For lift off from the moon, well, that would use the most fuel, but still possible.

The weight wouldn't be that much of an issue. Remember that the weight of something in the moons surface is a lot different to as if it was on Earth.

The oxygen would have been compressed. They also had some air-recycling unit, which would take the CO2 gas out and leave oxygen.

[James Lewitzke]

Originally Posted by hamesy

It wouldn't take that much fuel to get to the moon. Once the capsule got into orbit and on its way to the moon, it wouldn't use any fuel (maybe a little for course adjustments). For lift off from the moon, well, that would use the most fuel, but still possible.

So are you saying the craft basically "floats" to the moon?

Originally Posted by hamesy

The weight wouldn't be that much of an issue. Remember that the weight of something in the moons surface is a lot different to as if it was on Earth.

I believe the ratio is something like 12:1 or something, but still it seems like it would require a lot to liftoff, just imagine how much is required to launch shuttles into orbit from places like Cape Canaveral, takes a *lot* of fuel to do that.

Originally Posted by hamesy

The oxygen would have been compressed. They also had some air-recycling unit, which would take the CO2 gas out and leave oxygen.

Air-Recycling unit? Interesting

[hamesy]

[quote=James Lewitzke;52]So are you saying the craft basically "floats" to the moon?[quote]

Once the craft is in orbit and heading towards the moon, there is no resistance to slow it down like there would be on Earth. It's like you can throw a ball hard enough to leaves the Earths atmosphere and away from its gravitational pull, it will carry on going forever.

Originally Posted by James Lewitzke

I believe the ratio is something like 12:1 or something, but still it seems like it would require a lot to lift-off, just imagine how much is required to launch shuttles into orbit from places like Cape Canaveral, takes a *lot* of fuel to do that.

Also remember less power is required to lift off from the moon because there is less gravity. Also the craft doesn't weight as much as the space shuttles.

[Dave~]

Good food for thought.

Hamesy, do you think they actually made it to the moon?

[jbjbw]

Of course they made it to the moon. They just never left.

[jbjbw]

Bush wants a base on the moon. As much as I agree that we will need a base on the moon, I don't believe now is the right time. There are too many pressing needs on earth to spend the HUGE sums of money it would require to build and maintain.
The moon will be our first stepping stone to the stars. It must be built. It is man's destiny. However, let's get our act a little more together first.
Thoughts?

[James Lewitzke]

Who wouldn't want a base on the moon when Armageddon comes? Plus it's a safe haven from the terrorists, they'd have no way of reaching him .

[hamesy]

Originally Posted by Dave~

Hamesy, do you think they actually made it to the moon?

I'm 80-90% sure we went to the moon. It's just that a couple of things don't add up, i.e. the photo of the crosshairs that disappear behind the object. I mean, it could be due to the photo quality.

A part of me wants to believe it, while the other part of me wants to prove that it was one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.

[Barcs]

Ya know. This is one of the things that I'm completely unsure of. I've heard great arguments from both sides. The one thing that makes me think that we did is that my Grandfather was one of the engineers that helped design the ship that went there. Would they have actually designed and made the expensive space ship if they never used it?