StarGateWars Forums

i've seen tonnes of footage about how the moon landings were hoaxed and there is allot of unanswered questions regarding the moon landings validity, such as:
how did they survive multiple trips through the van allen belt without any kind of radiation shielding?!
multiple shadow lines indicating multiple light sources.
lack of stars in the background shots.
why were no shots taken of the stars by themselves away from the suns glare or the only other source of light, the earth?!
the flag waving while it was being planted and still waving after being planted.
the lack of a blast crater underneath the lander after landing.
there was also a high def colour camera taken on the trip but was not used outside of the lander. what was used to broadcast back to earth was a low def B/W camera...why?!
and just lately i watched a film called A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon, which contains damming evidence that we never went to the moon.

there's so much evidence against the landings having taken place, and i've seen very little to support that we did go but still i cant come to a conclusion 1 way or the other...

over to you guys

funny in what way?

are you saying the van allen belt doesn't exist and that radiation shielding was used even tho NASA has stated on every occasion that no shielding was used?

cant wait to see what you have to say when you post properly


i'm sort of playing devils advocate here since i really cant tell if we went or not, i'm literally on the fence with this one.

Well considering how they re taped over the original tapes, some of the conspirasists can definately gain support with that fact.

I don't know enough about this to really argue either way, but I've heard a few of the arguments before (ie: the flag waving)

Wikipedia actually has a surprisingly good article on it - both the for and against.....makes for an interesting read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moo ... y_theories

I'm indifferent, though I have recently seen photos of the moon through telescopes that show footprints, a flag, and the landing site. Conspiracy theorists would cry fake at those though.

SuperSaiyan wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:are you saying the van allen belt doesn't exist and that radiation shielding was used even tho NASA has stated on every occasion that no shielding was used?

cant wait to see what you have to say when you post properly


i'm sort of playing devils advocate here since i really cant tell if we went or not, i'm literally on the fence with this one.

I never said anything about that, LMAO

I was referring to the ones grasping at straws

ah! my bad

and for those who have 45 mins spare:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7520427064

Unfortunately I don't have the internet capabilities for a Youtube vid at the moment, but I did go through the whole page that Jayne provided.. Was quite an interesting read

I'm also 'on the fence' with this one, I think I'm leaning toward at least partial phony'ness

I loved the pics from LRO.
I say it's all real, and that the people who want to disprove that, should do a damn good job at convincing me otherwise. So far, nothing I have seen that supposedly 'disproves' the whole moon landing creates a shred of reasonable doubt.

those were obvious replies, i was expecting better responses (no sarcasm or criticism intended).

as you rightly point out, there are opposing opinions of "the evidence", but 1 fact remains incontrovertible and that is the van allen belt and the solar winds...how did they survive it not once but multiple times without any protection???
the fact of the matter is that in order to survive on our planet we need our magnetic field, and when they travelled to the moon they would have been outside of that protection and burnt to a crisp.

my reference to a blast crater was that there is not even any scorching on the lunar surface from the landers rocket, look at the picture, something is just not right.

and just one more point (not going to respond to each of your responses just yet). what is the point of taking a low def B/W camera as well as a H/D colour camera when weight is a major factor? if its for backup in case 1 broke down, surely they would take another H/d?!
you would think that after so many billions spent to get there they would have a strict POA once there and that EVERYTHING would be documented.



as i said earlier, i really don't know 1 way or the other, and all i'm doing is asking obvious questions trying to understand

lol the NASA police, i like that maybe they got there ahead of the actual landings?! lol

ok, lets go pint by point, the biggest of which IS the van allen radiation belts and the solar winds.

its simple really...outside of the protection of the earth's electromagnetic field, organic matter is toast, and a simple thin aluminium tube just wont protect anything that's inside of it when there is that much radiation outside. that's a VERY simplistic breakdown but that's it in a nut shell.

Just to throw into this, we did go to the moon, otherwise how do you account for long range telescope (both visual & radio) calibration equipment been on the moon?

And no it couldnt have been sent there by rocket as to do so would involve impacts, which would have destroyed the accuracy of the equipment.


It is also imperative that we return to the moon & establish a long term presence there if we ever want to explore and expand outwards into space. If we arent going to do that we might as well pack away all of the space programs for the next couple of hundred years or so until technology progresses to the point where we can build a decent sized ship that can escape from our gravity well (which would require some sort of anti-grav tech). Such an endeavour would be much easier on the moon with less gavity to contend with and it would be safer than trying to build such a craft in orbit.

Kit-Fox wrote:Just to throw into this, we did go to the moon, otherwise how do you account for long range telescope (both visual & radio) calibration equipment been on the moon?

And no it couldnt have been sent there by rocket as to do so would involve impacts, which would have destroyed the accuracy of the equipment.

the biggest stumbling block i have is STILL the van allen belt and the solar winds, no one, not even NASA has explained how they survived it, thats like me saying i took a merry go round trip inside a giant microwave without any kind of sheilding and lived to tell the tail

as for the equipment on the moon, i don't know, i really don't know

Kit-Fox wrote:It is also imperative that we return to the moon & establish a long term presence there if we ever want to explore and expand outwards into space. If we arent going to do that we might as well pack away all of the space programs for the next couple of hundred years or so until technology progresses to the point where we can build a decent sized ship that can escape from our gravity well (which would require some sort of anti-grav tech). Such an endeavour would be much easier on the moon with less gavity to contend with and it would be safer than trying to build such a craft in orbit.

i couldn't agree more, again the trouble is still how do we survive the radiation?!