posted 06-17-2001 12:14 PM               

Curious about your report, Jacqueline!

posted 06-17-2001 12:30 PM               

Tell us what you think after you see it!

posted 06-17-2001 12:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacqueline:
Here we go again. Tonight at 8pm on British television we have a programme called "Conspiracy Theory - Did we Land on the Moon?". I shall watch it out of interest just to see what laughable facts are made. The last programme I saw on this was so bad that I laughed my head off. Will report back!

Jacqueline,

I hope you got the chance to see it.
If nothing else it is interesting, and does make you think.....

Watch it with an open mind, (I know of several who did not......)
and keep saying, "we really did go to the moon!"

Jacqueline

---

posted 06-17-2001 01:03 PM               

They even went as far as to accuse NASA of having Gus Grissom bumped off!!

Even I could refute some of the charges they were coming up with. Pathetic!

posted 06-17-2001 01:55 PM               

First of all all the film and photographs are obviously faked because there are no stars in the background - groan!!!

The American flag is seen waving in the breeze on the moon set which has been built at Area 51!! (The fact that the flag is moving because the astronauts are trying to erect it seems to have been lost on the hoax theorists).

There is no blast crater underneath any of the 6 LEMs than landed on the moon. Therefore they never landed. (The fact that the amount of blast coming from the engine needed to land on the moon was quite small and therefore would not leave a huge blackened crater again was lost to the theorists). But, because the blast would have shifted all the moon dust from the around the LEM then there would be no dust in which to leave footprints, therefore the footprints are all fakeed!!!

Now we come to the still photographs. Apparently it is obvious to see that several sources of light were used for the photographs because shadows are going one way and then another. When you look t the photographs you can infact see that the shadows are all going the same way. Theorists must be blind but probably more stupid!. If the light is behind the LEM or astronaut then they should be a silhouette. I am a photographer and I know how easy it is to avoid the silhouette problem and all these astronauts were trained to take photographs. The best one was that there are two photographs showing the same lunar horizon. One with the LEM, one without. Therefore these photographs are faked. They did not consider for one minute that one photograph was taken infront of the LEM and the other a distance behind it. I mean the horizon was such a long way off that a few hundred feet difference in photographic views would have made no difference to the background!!

The film footage of Neil Armstong descending to the lunar surface was so obviously faked. NASA had total control over it so therefore they used a black and white grainy film so that none of the billions of people watching on Earth would see that it was on a film set!

If you speed up the film by 2X of the lunar rover on the moon and the astronauts moving on the moon you an see that they are not in lunar gravity but moving around as if on Earth!!

The best and most awful part of it was the suggestion that Guss Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee were deliberately killed in Apollo 1 because they knew that the moon landings were going to be faked. There was also footage of Guss's wife and son demanding that NASA give them an explanation and stop covering up things .(Obviously footaage that has been edited to fit the theorists theory).

They also said that between 1964-1967 10 astronauts died by freak accidents which was 15% of the Astronaut Corps at that time. Apparently they were eliminated because they new too much!!

When the LEMs all took off from the moon it is easy to see that they were jerked up by a cable and did not blast off at all (ha ha!).

Some scientist said that no astronauts could ever go to the moon because of the Van Allen Raditation belts. The LEM would have needed 6feet of lead on its hull, not the paper thin hull that it had, and the astronauts spacesuits would not have protected them from radiation. Aparently Apollo 16 coincided with the biggest solar radiation storm of the 20th century, but no astronaut was affected. Infact no Apollo astronaut suffered any ill effects from radiation after the Apollo moon landings so that meant that they never left Earth orbit.

To sum up they said that NASA spent 40 billion dollars on the most expensive movie ever made, and all the moon sets are still in hangars in Area 51 (thats why it is a top secret installation).

There you have it. Hilarious isn't it. There are some sad people out there. Had to watch it though because I wanted a laugh.

Any comments from any of you out there?

Kirsten in was on Channel 5. (They always have crap programmes!!)

posted 06-17-2001 02:57 PM               

The conspiracy theorists haven't proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the moon landing took place.

The defence rests m'lud.

posted 06-17-2001 03:20 PM               

I want to make it clear that I not posting this because I support it, just making an observation.

There were a few seconds that was worth watching, I had never seen the video footage of the fire from outside the apollo one launch tower as it happened. Will probably video the repeat just to get that footage.

I thought it was in really bad taste how they incorporated the apollo one accident in to their theory backed up with no proof, refering to comments made by the Grissom family.

I have heard other reports of Scott and Betty Grissom 'speaking out' like this, taken out of context. I would like to hear their comments in their intended context, does anyone know of any reliable resources ?

posted 06-17-2001 03:46 PM               

The lack of dust on the landing legs was probably the only part of the programme that I missed - but there is probably a very reasonable explanation for that - I understand that the moon dust falls outwards when impacted (I could be totally wrong on that one).

As for the video footage of the Apollo 1 fire as seen from outside the gantry, do you think that was really it? When I saw it I didn't for one minute think that it was footage of the fire. I have seen several documentaries on Apollo 1, and I didn't think that there was much of a fire on the outside, well, not like the video footage we saw tonight. Maybe I'm wrong again.

It's very interesting what everyone has to say and I really do wish that a programme could be made to rubbish all the hoax theorists ludicrous claims.

posted 06-17-2001 03:47 PM               

Couldn't get that website up that you posted!

posted 06-18-2001 05:47 AM               

I had similar thoughts about the dust on the landing legs, I felt they were paying too much attention to how they expect things to react on the earths surface. I wouldn't expect the dust to react the same with less gravity, very fine dust, and no atmosphere.

I had doubts about the fire footage as well, but not as strong as yours. I would like to see it again for a closer look, I wasn't really paying much attention. I know very little about the fire, but I have heard reports that the fire did penetrate the hull. How much of the fire would be visible outside the tower, if any, I don't know. Will have to do some research.

posted 06-18-2001 08:02 AM               

The first and only time I have seen any "videotape" of the fire from a longview of the entire spacecraft occured in Nova's show on "To The Moon," which it ran in 1999, on the 30th aniversary of the lunar landing. As I recall the clip was very short and only showed a bright light appearing around the gantry which was attached to the CSM. I do not know if it was real footage or simply a creative reenactment. I strongly suspect the latter is true, although I am sure that NASA at camera's in place and it is even possible that they were running during the entire plugs-out test. Oddly, I seem to recall the image from the Nova program as involving a Saturn V (as opposed to a 1B), which would certainly confirm the piece as an inaccurate recreation -- I suppose I could check on that.

posted 06-18-2001 11:56 AM               

Sorry, try
www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

posted 06-18-2001 03:22 PM               

I just checked out that website - it is excellent. I think the person who made that website should make a TV programme and put an end to all this conspiracy crap once and for all!!!!!

posted 06-18-2001 04:27 PM               

which states :-

Flames and gases flowed rapidly out of the ruptured area, spreading flames into the toroidal space between the Command Module pressure vessel and heat shield, through access hatches and into levels A-8 and A-7 of the service structure. These flames ignited combustibles, endangered pad personnel, and impeded rescue efforts. The burst of fire, together with the sounds of rupture, caused several pad personnel to believe that the Command Module had exploded or was about to explode. Pad personnel fled from the immediate area.

The immediate reaction of all personnel on level A-8 was to evacuate the level. This reaction was promptly followed by a return to effect rescue. Upon running out on the swing arm from the umbilical tower, several personnel obtained a fire extinguisher and returned along the swing arm to the White Room to begin rescue efforts. Others obtained fire extinguishers from various areas of the service structure and rendered assistance in fighting the fires.

posted 06-21-2001 02:35 AM               

The only thing that troubled me was the flag blowing around as the astronauts planted it. But there must have been some explanation for it.

Take any major achievement that man has accomplished and you'll find a million conspiracy theorists to hit against it. Its pathetic.

Well, thats my steam blown off!

I'm fairly new to the site and think its excellent. I kinda got into Space in a big way last year just before the Autographica show. Now Im totally hooked.

posted 06-21-2001 08:08 AM               

The flag looked like it was waving in the wind because

(A) It was threaded through with wire so that it would not flop like a limp rag on the moon's surface.

(B) The astronauts obviously had fiddle around trying to erect the pole and flag, and with wire being at the top of the flag it was bound to move about, afterall it is fabric and therefore it looked like it was fluttering in the breeze. Even after the astronauts hd finished erecting it it would still move about for a second or two until the vibrations in the pole had stopped. Anyway if the hoax theorists are so convinced that the moon landings took place in a hanger at Area 51, how come there was a breeze blowing in the hangar? Maybe they had a few hairdriers blowing on it to give it that breezy fluttery look. Oh well!!

posted 06-21-2001 10:09 AM               

I hate conspiracy theorists!

Anyway, the prog was on Channel 5, not exactly known as purveyors of quality t.v. are they?

Thanks for clearing up my only teeny niggle with an otherwise nonsense excuse of a t.v. programme.

posted 06-21-2001 12:31 PM               

Too right, we would have seen all the dust flying around and landing on the lunar landers foot pads!!!!!

I think we all rest our cases!!

Jacqueline

posted 06-21-2001 01:22 PM               

More than anything, I was upset that people would allow themselves to be so easily misled. Unfortunately, one look at the history of the past century stands as a perfect example of how easy it can be to mislead people.

The most powerful arguements are the simple ones. Why would NASA fake the landing, mastermind a billion-dollar hoax and then forget to dig out a blast crater under the lander? Why would they "forget" to put the stars in the sky? Why would they "forget" to add the noise of the engine during lunar descent? Why would they "forget" to put a surge of flaming exhaust under the ascent stage when leaving the moon?

At first I was quite mad...now I just find it rather laughable.

posted 06-21-2001 05:50 PM               

To hear Scott and Betty Grisson IN CONTEXT, go to http://www.airlinepilots.com/Interview/Grissoms.htm

You will need at least a 28.8 modem and Realplayer.

Any accusations of "murder" have nothing to do with "faked" moonlandings.