# Alien Bases: The Mystery of the Moon



## soham (May 5, 2006)

Found this nice bit of information. Didn't know where to post it. hope its the right section.

For tens of thousands of years mankind has looked to the Moon as a source of superstition and wonderment. When Neil Armstrong took that historical first step on the moon on July 21st 1969, it seemed that mankind had finally conquered our enigmatic satellite. But did we, or did we simply scratch the surface and beat a hasty retreat?

There are dozens of anomalous facts concerning the moon that science is at a loss to explain, not least of which is how it is that according to the analysis of moon rocks, the moon, is at least a billion years older than the Earth itself. This fact alone seems to defy logic, and is something that modern cosmology is unable to explain, if the moon isn’t a fragment of the Earth, what is it, and how did it get here?

When you couple that with the fact that an awful lot of people believe the moon to be an alien base of some kind, we begin to realise that we no nearer understand the moon now, than our ancestors did thousands of years ago.


*Moon base*

 The Apollo Moon landings heralded a new era in mankind’s technological development, man had finally left our own planet, travelled around 385,000 km and was walking on a new and unfamiliar territory. It seemed to all that we had the perfect opportunity to further our understanding of how our universe was created and our knowledge of the moon itself. During the next three years, six missions to the moon were made and a total of twelve astronauts walked on the moon.

 The US has been victorious in the space race between them and what was then the Soviet Union and it seemed natural that they would formalise that victory and claim their territory with something more substantial than planting the American flag. At the very least, it was expected that NASA would create a long term strategy for rock and mineral sampling and exploring the surface of the moon.

 Each of the six lunar expeditions NASA had committed itself to were completed, although the Apollo 13 mission was unsuccessful. However, after Apollo 17, no new missions were scheduled. According to the space agency, there was ‘nothing else that could be learned’ from visiting the moon and the program was shelved. Likewise the former Soviet Union carried out its scheduled lunar exploration and then quietly sidelined its projects. Some commentators have suggested that both superpowers realised that the idea of creating moon bases or long term missions was cost prohibitive.

A growing number of people however, are convinced that both superpowers were ‘warned off’ by an extraterrestrial race that had already established a base on the far side of the moon. In any case, shortly after its ‘discovery’, the moon was abandoned by both superpowers that chose instead to invest tens of billions of dollars doing little more than flying around in circles; for the next thirty years the continuous orbiting of our own planet took priority to the scientific exploration of the moon. It is only recently that plans have been announced for a new expedition and a base to be constructed on the moon, even so, most of the work will be done with robots and humans will not actually return to the moon until 2018. 

*An Alien Base on the Moon*


Creating a base on the moon has been a dream for many people over the years, but is there actually a base on the moon already – one that’s not of our making?

 To many people the idea that the moon could be an alien base sounds preposterous; a fanciful claim straight out of comic books, but there are many strange facts about the moon and the Apollo landing itself that do suggest that our knowledge is far from complete. In fact there is sufficient evidence for us to consider the idea that the moon itself is an artificial construct, a massive extraterrestrial base

 One of the most notable pieces to support the alien base theory are several radio transmissions between the Apollo crew and mission control. Part of the transmission where Armstrong mentioned ‘strange lights’ was apparently broadcast live as was Armstrong’s comment ‘We have company’ before NASA officials hurriedly pulled the plug. A variety of sources claim that radio hams picked up the following communication before the crew switched to a secure channel.

 “These babies are huge, sir...enormous....Oh, God, you wouldn't believe it! I'm telling you there are other spacecraft out there...lined up on the far side of the crater edge...they're on the moon watching us...”

*Transient Lunar Phenomenon (TLP)*

Transient Lunar Phenomenon is the term used to describe the inexplicable change of colour or shape that occurs on the surface of the moon. Could this account for what the Apollo 11 astronauts witnessed? It is thought that some of these phenomena which appear as red or white hazes are caused by gas escaping from underground cavities after moonquakes, so it can’t be ruled out as natural phenomena. The question is, would two highly trained astronauts mistake escaping gas for alien craft? It’s certainly possible but if that was the case surely NASA would have been quick to tell us this?

 It’s not just strange coloured lights that appear on the moon. In 1953, John J. O’Neill and Dr H. Wilkens both independently observed a 12-mile-long ‘bridge’ straddling the crater Mare Crisium. The bridge later disappeared!

*Telling Transcripts and the NASA Officials who spoke out*

Ten years after the moon landings, Maurice Chatelain, the former chief of NASA Communications Systems, confirmed that Armstrong did report seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater. "The encounter was common knowledge in NASA," he revealed, "but nobody has talked about it until now."

 Another NASA official, Christopher Kraft, who was director of the NASA tracking base in Houston during the Apollo Moon missions, revealed the following conversation between Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Mission
*Control after he left NASA:*

 Apollo 11: "Those are giant things. No, no, no .... this is not an optical illusion. No one is going to believe this!"
 Mission Control (Houston Center): "What...what...what? What the hell is happening? What's wrong with you?"
 Apollo 11: “They're here under the surface.”
 Mission Control: "What's there? Emission interrupted...interference control calling Apollo II."
 Apollo 11: "We saw some visitors. They were there for awhile, observing the instruments."
 Mission Control: "Repeat your last information."
 Apollo 11: "I say that there were other spaceships. They're lined up on the other side of the crater."
 Mission Control: "Repeat...repeat!"
Apollo 11: "Let us sound this orbit a ..... In 625 to5...automatic relay connected...My hands are shaking so badly I can't do anything. Film it? God, if these damned cameras have picked up anything. What then?"
 Mission Control: "Have you picked up anything?"
 Apollo 11: "I didn't have any film at hand. Three shots of the saucers or whatever they were that were ruining the film."
 Mission Control: "Control, control here. Are you on your way? Is the uproar with the U.F.O's. over?
 Apollo 11: "They've landed there. There they are and they are watching us."
 Mission Control: "The mirrors, the mirrors...have you set them up?" 
Apollo 11: "Yes, they're in the right place. But whoever made those space ships surely can come tomorrow and remove them. Over and out."

If the Apollo report was a one off, we could maybe put it down to the effects of space or some unknown anomalous lunar phenomena. However, there have been several other ‘contacts’ between NASA craft and UFOs, notably in the early 90’s when according to author William Kliner the following conversation between David Walker, Endeavours shuttle and mission control was recorded. 

 Walker: "Bogey at 3 o'clock . . . God . . . what is it? My God - it's coming right at us . . ." 
 NASA: What's there? 
 Walker: THERE'S NO WAY! Oh God! Get back. MOVE!" 
 NASA: Endeavour! Endeavour! What . . . explain . . . 
Walker: What the . . . where are we? Where is it? Where . . . it's gone IT'S GONE. Not (unintelligible) . . . UFO. Spacecraft . . . huge . . . intelligent . . . OVER THERE! 
 NASA: Endeavour. Switch . . . NOW! 

 The tape ends abruptly with what would appear to be a NASA order for Walker to change radio frequency.

According to Kilner, "…the spacecraft was the size of a small city and glowed bright green as it approached the shuttle. At some point during the encounter, the UFO veered off course to avoid a collision.”

If this really was an alien spaceship, where was it coming from or going to we wonder? Could it be that sitting there on the far side of the moon is an alien base?

*The Far Side of the Moon*


The moon is the only moon in the solar system that has a stationary, near-perfect circular orbit. Over the eons, the gravitational forces of the Earth have slowed down the moon's rotation about its axis until the rotational period exactly matches the revolution period of the Earth. This means that there is one side of the moon that we never see from Earth. In theory, the far side of the moon, often referred to as the dark side of the moon could easily contain an alien base, as this is the side of the moon that we never ever see, even radio signals are blocked in that area.

 There is another theory about alien bases being on the moon which states that the whole of the moon is a completely artificial construct that was put there by an alien race when life on Earth began.

*Our Unnatural Satellite*

One of the strange facts about the moon is that it appears to be hollow. As the Earth’s natural satellite the moon has always been assumed to be a homogenous sphere that was created at the same time as the Earth, but there are various indications that this is not the case, as we’ve already mentioned, the moon is older than the Earth. 

Evidence for the moon being hollow comes from a variety of experts and in some cases predates the lunar landings. In 1962, Dr. Gordon MacDonald, one of NASAs own scientists reviewed data relating to the density of the Earth, which calculated that the moon’s mean density was 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water), in comparison the Earth’s density is 5.5 gm/cm3. This led him to observe, "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data requires that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere."

 The Nobel award winning chemist Dr. Harold Urey, has also suggested that the moon contains a ‘cavity’ and MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon is on record as saying, "the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field . . . indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow." 

According to Dr Carl Sagan in his treatise, ‘Intelligent Life in the Universe’, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object. If this is true and the moon is indeed hollow then that suggests that there is something very strange about our satellite.”

 There is further evidence from NASA missions that suggests the moon is hollow. When the crews of Apollo 12 and Apollo 13 jettisoned modules onto the moon’s surface, they found that they created artificial moon quakes. The impact from the Apollo 12 jettison caused the moon to reverberate like a bell for over an hour. This phenomenon was repeated with Apollo 13 with even more amazing results; in all the reverberation lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and travelled to a depth of twenty-five miles. Analysis of this data led to the conclusion that the moon has no substantial core. If the moon is indeed artificial, it could have been put into place at any time during Earth’s history.

*Since the Dawn of Time*


Texts from as far a field as Europe and South America speak of ancient people who lived on Earth before the Earth had a moon In Greece they were called Proselene, meaning ‘before the moon’. Apparently, in South America, symbols found on the wall of the Courtyard of Kalasasaya, near the city of Tiahuanaco (in Bolivia), record that the moon first appeared around 12,000 years ago. The appearance of the moon was said to have caused great disruption to the Earth in the form of earthquakes, massive flooding and climate changes. Interestingly, this remote site has been suggested by some scholars as being the actual location of Plato’s legendary Atlantis and this great planetary upheaval as being the cataclysmic event that destroyed Atlantis.

The idea of a world without a moon also survives in oral tradition among the Indians of the Bogota highlands in the eastern Cordilleras of Colombia. “In the earliest times, when the moon was not yet in the heavens,” say the tribesmen of Chibchas, when relating to ancient times. Whether this method of story telling relates to an actual physical absence of the moon or is simply used as a metaphor to say a very long time ago is open to debate. The truth is we just don’t know whether it is yet another tantalising piece of the puzzle.

 The moon governs our tides and seasons so perhaps the easiest way of verifying the data is to look at geological records showing the tides. In ancient times many calendars were lunar based and evidence of Paleolithic knowledge of lunar phases dates back to around 23,000BC as is evidenced by the Perigordian bas-relief known as the "Goddess of Laussel", where the crescent moon is depicted as a horn. There are 13 clearly engraved vertical strokes thought to represent the number of moons in a lunar year. Early evidence of man’s interest in the moon is surprisingly scarce which is surprising given that it should have played such a big part in their every day life, after all the moon would be looking over them every night. 

 Isaac Asimov once commented that: “There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.” This "coincidence" means that the moon is just the right size and distance, to completely block the sun during an eclipse. Eclipses are infrequent events but are often linked to quite serious earthquakes. Was the moon placed in a very specific orbit by a higher intelligence from another world who wanted to either monitor us as a species or exert an element of control over our planet?

 All we can say for sure is that despite our supposed advanced technology, NASA seems to be able to offer very few answers to our questions about the moon. The veil of secrecy that surrounds the truth means that the facts are often suppressed because it is not deemed ‘in the public’s interest’ for them to be made known. Sooner or later though, it is inevitable that the moon will reveal its secrets and a whole new chapter in our understanding of the universe might well be opened when that happens.

 “The moon is the Rosetta stone of the planets."
 - Robert Jastrow, First Chairman, NASA Lunar Exploration Committee


----------



## sms_solver (May 9, 2006)

Presence of aliens of the moon can be a reality.

Visit the link
*www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/moonbase.htm


----------



## sagardani (May 9, 2006)

There are many controversies regarding this topic. But I believe & rather half of the world believe that NASA & USA never sent any man to the moon.
Read this- 
1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air. 

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming? 

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot? 

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

Right now I remember these many evidences. There is also FOX 2001 Documentary on it. No one from us knows what actually happened.


----------



## royal (May 9, 2006)

yeah...I saw pics of "Lunar Landing" which ppl claimed were taken on some desert on earth ... 

in one pic light was coming from multiple directions ... in another the USA flag was flying ...

common people dont know what really happened  

anyway that was some interesting reading material


----------



## aku (May 10, 2006)

Yeah... well man landin on moon is infact concidered 2 b one of da gr8st controverciez of all time...

1> tHE Americal flag is once seein waveing...
2> during da late 60's high rez color cameras wer easily available... but still all the footage ws taken usin a low rez cam. further it ws not telecasted live 2 da public... all footage dat ws released fr public ws da footage of da real footage bein projected on a screen... thir furthr reduced da clarity...
3>Shadowz of diff objects r seein crossin shadows of othr objects. Well physics doesnt allow diz.. 
4>Hotspotz r seein in many pics... possibl only if da lightsource is jus rit behind da objects...
5>in on pic an astronaught in seein climbin dwn da ladder of applo 11.. he can b clearly seein evn in da shadow.. but yet in one anothr pic nothin can b seein in da pitch black shadow...
6>one xtra astronaught is seein on da visor of neil armstrng.
7>there ws not evn a singl speck of dust on da landing pods...
8>the soooo pwrful engin didnt create any crater... but b4 they all feared the space craft mit itslf fall in da crater created by it....
and da list goezzzz on.. and ... on and on........


----------



## True Geek (May 10, 2006)

I saw a Show on Discovery regarding the same...
they easily prooved all the claims to be wrong. 
C'mon , NASA is not runned by LALOO, they won't fake it. 
If they had did it, then Russia would do all it can do to prove it.


----------



## Vyasram (May 10, 2006)

i received an email reg this a few months back

*rapidshare.de/files/20082110/spam.rar.html

this doc has all the claims with pict ref

What abt the iraq-nuclear allegation thing, Bush faked it though he and everyone else knew that there was nothing lik dat. Many say nasa faked it coz they didnt wanna be below the russians after their gagarin space mission


----------



## vmp_vivek (May 10, 2006)

Adding Akucracker's comments, if you increase the speed of the moon's video video footage of astronauts roaming here and there by foot and in the rover to 1.5 times or 2 times, the video will play exactly at the same speed as on earth, which concludes that they had just decreased the speed of the video  and showed us in the slow motion. 

And, I strongly believe that they NEVER went to the moon by examining the evidence. LOL.


----------



## .:deadman:. (May 10, 2006)

For all you guys who believe that it wassa fake project, i would suggest you to learn some Physics. Some wise man said that Half Knowledge is Dangerous than No knowledge or something.

Ask me any claim and i will prove it wrong.
For instance you guys says that there was Waving in Flag indicating air. But actually it indicated that there was no air.
When Astronought (spelling mistake lol) touches the Rod , the vibration in the Rod Transfers to the Flag and it waves. It dont occours in Earth since theres Atmosphere and the the waves will not provide sufficient energy here. But if you'll band a Metal rod hard, u will that effect here to. Its common sense


----------



## mehulved (May 10, 2006)

.:deadman:. said:
			
		

> For all you guys who believe that it wassa fake project, i would suggest you to learn some Physics. Some wise man said that Half Knowledge is Dangerous than No knowledge or something.
> 
> Ask me any claim and i will prove it wrong.
> For instance you guys says that there was Waving in Flag indicating air. But actually it indicated that there was no air.
> When Astronought (spelling mistake lol) touches the Rod , the vibration in the Rod Transfers to the Flag and it waves. It dont occours in Earth since theres Atmosphere and the the waves will not provide sufficient energy here. But if you'll band a Metal rod hard, u will that effect here to. Its common sense


No I am not convinced enough that NASA austronauts went to moon,ever. Well, I have heard stories of NASA using technologies that are considered cutting edge for 20 years before it is released to the general public. 
And yet, after landing on moon in 1960, they have made nil progress. Why did they scrap mission to moon then? I think alien story is one made up by NASA themselves and given out so that it creates uncertainty in minds of public why the mission to moon has been stalled. 
If they had technology in 60's to go to moon by now they should atleast have technology enough to send men to mars if not outer bounds of solar system.


----------



## royal (May 10, 2006)

.:deadman:.

kindly explain the following :

<1> On the moon there are no air molecules...so anything in a shadow should be pitch black.Then how come an astronaut in a shadow is clearly visible ?

<2>In another pic lengths of shadows of Armstrong and Aldrin (who were more or less of same height) differ greatly in length even if there was no artificial source of light.

<3>The lunar lander had a landing mechanism that gave several thousand pounds of thrust yet no crater was formed on the moon's surface.However the footprint of a man was clearly visible on the moon's surface.

<4>The moon does not have any atmosphere so stars should be clearly seen from the moon.But the pics released by Nasa dont show any.

<5>The various directions of light as suggested by shadows in different directions though no artificial source of light was present.

Its true that I have a rather limited knowledge of physics   so kindly prove these claims false with proper reasons.Even I would like to believe that man really landed on moon ...


----------



## sagardani (May 11, 2006)

if u think u can prove all the claims wrong, good for u!
tell me one thing, if they had technology that can send man to moon & return safely to earth 4o years back, today they would have send man on pluto or out of even solar system. today's technology cann't even put a satellite in its orbit successfully & the mission 1000 times more complicated succeeded in its 1st attempt 40 years back!! prove me how they survived from the deadly radiation in the deeper space. Above some thousand kms of earth there is "Van Halen" radiation belt. all satellites, international space station are maintained below 100 miles. its even today impossible for every living thing (exist on earth) to pass this radiation belt. also appolo mission co-incides with one of the most dangerous magnetic storms from sun ever recorded. neil armstrong never gave any face to face interview to media or in any press conference except the one after this so-called moon landing. explain why shadows are casting in different directions...........


----------



## soham (May 11, 2006)

Here are a few answers to all you sceptics out there. 

*No Stars in Sky*

Perhaps the first point raised, or at least the one most memorable, is the stars. Or more precisely, the lack of them. People who are skeptical of the moon landing point out that even though the sky in all the moon pictures is black, as it should be if there is no atmosphere on the moon (and there isn't), no stars can be seen. This is taken as an indication that the pictures were faked and NASA forgot to paint stars on the studio backdrop.

The truth is that if you were to see stars in the sky in those moon pictures it would be a definite indication that they were faked. Why? Well, all the landings were done during daylight hours on the moon. That means that even though the sky was black, the sun was up. The lunar surface is mostly a light gray and reflects light extremely well. The light levels during the landings were probably similar to those in a western desert in the morning, bright enough to warrant sunglasses, or in the case of the astronauts, sunvisors on their spacesuits.

For this reason the NASA cameras had to be stopped down (this mean a minimal amount of light was allowed to enter the camera) and the exposure times shortened to allow only enough light onto the film to properly illuminate the surface. The stars were much too faint to show up on these pictures. Expecting them to show up would be similar to going out into that western desert at midmorning, setting the camera properly to take pictures under those conditions, coming back after nightfall to take pictures of the stars without readjusting the exposure on the camera and then expecting to get something. Stars are hard enough to photograph under any conditions, let alone with an exposure setting appropriate for daylight.

Ironically, many of the conceptual drawings of the moon landing done by NASA artists at the time show stars appearing in the lunar sky. It seems unlikely NASA would have forgotten to paint them on the backdrop if they were trying to fake it.

Even modern NASA pictures of the space shuttle or earth from orbit do not usually show stars. This is for the same reason: When in direct sunlight the earth and and shuttle are very bright and the cameras must be stopped down too low to capture starlight.

*Shadows Too Light*

Moonlanding skeptics point out that if the photographs the astronauts supposedly took on the moon were actually taken there, the shadows should be absolutely black. The sun is the only source of light and there is no atmosphere to scatter the light around. In the images, though, the shadows are often well lit. Skeptics use the argument that this was because the shots were filmed in a studio that had an atmosphere.

There is a basic misconception with this thinking, however. In a single light situation, shadows are filled in not just from the light rays being scattered by air. The light in the shadows also comes from being bounced off other objects. You can see this effect from a simple home experiment. Get two pieces of construction paper, one black and one white, then go into a dark room and light a single lamp. Place an object in front of you to create a shadowed area. Now bring the black construction paper near the shadow on a 45-degree angle partly facing the light, partly facing the shadow. Because the black paper is absorbing the light, the shadow does not change. Now slide the white construction paper in front of the black. The shadow should grow lighter from the light reflecting off the white paper.

The same effect is present on the moon. The light bounces off the surface of the moon as well as the astronauts spacesuits and other equipment around the lander. Because the moon's surface is a light gray, and very reflective, the shadows can be lit very brightly.

*Non-Parallel Shadows*

Another argument often used to disprove the authenticity of the Apollo photographs involves the direction of the shadows. According to skeptics, the shadows in the NASA pictures appear to diverge. If the sun is the single bright light in the pictures, then the shadows should be parallel. This, according to NASA's critics, shows that the single light source was much closer to the astronauts than the sun, or there were multiple lights involved.

Clearly there were no multiple lights involved as there are no multiple shadows in the pictures. Whether the shadows appear to diverge, instead of running parallel is dependent on the camera lens used in taking the photographs. A slightly wide-angle camera, as was used on the moonwalk, can make parallel lines appear to diverge. Even so, some photographs (like the one to the right of Alan Shepard planting the flag) do not show any divergence at all, but the parallel shadows converge on the photo's vanishing point, just like they should.

*www.unmuseum.org/moonshep.jpg
Astronaut Alan Shepard plants an American flag on the moon. Notice the wrinkles in the flag and the direction of the shadows on the ground. (NASA)

*The Waving Flag*

While the American flag was being put up on the moon it appears to wave. Skeptics argue that this was caused by a breeze on the set where the hoax was filmed because a flag cannot wave in a vacuum. This is wrong thinking, however. The flag waves because the astronauts were wiggling the flagpole back and forth trying to get it to stick in the lunar soil. Given that kind of motion, any cloth would wave whether it is in a vacuum or not.

Later on, still pictures show the flag apparently waving even after the astronauts have moved away from it. A glance at the moving video reveals that the flag is not waving. It simply had a ripple in it from not being fully extended across its length as it hung from its top supporting pole much like a gathered curtain. This was done accidentally on Apollo 11, but the astronauts loved this effect so much that they did it on every subsequent moonlanding.

*The Radiation Belt*

The van Allen belts are a region in space where Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles from the solar wind. Skeptics of the moon landing argue that an astronaut would get a lethal dose of radiation if he were to pass through the belts on the way to the moon.

While continued exposure to the concentration of radiation found in the belts might well be fatal, the space capsule the astronauts were traveling in was going very fast and passed through the belts in a few hours. The metal hull of the capsule also gave the astronauts some protection from the radiation as well. While there was a certain risk in passing through the belts, as there is in every venture into space, the astronauts exposure from the van Allen belts was minimal: about 2 rem which is the equivalent of a 100 chest x-rays. 

*Moon Dust and Feathers*

There are any number of points skeptics of the moon landing can bring up that don't "look right" to them, but all have simple scientific explanations when examined closely. Let's try doing the opposite: Look at some things seen on the video or in the pictures that would indicate that these things really happened on the moon.

Phil Plait of the Bad Astronomy site points outs that video footage taken of some of the moon rovers shows dust being thrown up by the wheels as it rolls across the lunar surface. The dust rises and falls in nearly a perfect parabolic arc. This can only happen in a vacuum. Dust thrown up in earth's atmosphere would float and swirl around as it was carried by eddies in the air. Wherever the rover was at the time the video was taken, it was certainly in a location that had no air. Skeptics might argue that NASA took the trouble to build a sealed set and pump the air out, but this would be a tremendously difficult undertaking. It would also contradict evidence of the "waving" flag, as described above.

Astronaut Dave Scott also did a quick physics lesson in front of the video camera during Apollo 15 that showed he was on the moon. He dropped a hammer and a feather and watched them fall to the ground. On Earth the feather's high wind resistance and low weight would have caused it to slowly drift slowly down. On the moon, however, the feather fell just as quickly as the hammer. Both dropped to the ground at exactly the same rate one would expect to see if the objects were being pulled to the ground by the moon's one-sixth Earth gravity.

*A Conspiracy of Numbers*

Even without the above evidence, the claim that the Apollo mission to the moon was fabricated by NASA makes little sense. For a conspiracy of silence to be effective, those involved must be very few in number. Every additional person added to the conspiracy raises the chances that somebody will, accidentally or on purpose, "spill the beans."

*www.unmuseum.org/moonaldrin.jpg
"Buzz" Aldrin walking on the moon in 1969. Should there be stars in the sky? (NASA)

In the case of the Apollo program hundreds of thousands of people were involved. Not only NASA employees, but also the companies who were contractors of NASA for the project. Even if you argue that most of the contractors and much of NASA staff did not have to be in on the hoax, we are left with thousands of people who had direct knowledge of the events. Starting with the NASA employees that saw the astronauts climb into the rocket to the hundreds of sailors on the recovery ship that saw them emerge out of the space capsule when the trip was over.

There are also hundreds of scientists that analyzed the rocks returned from the moon and had no doubt that they were authentic. The moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions are not like anything else on Earth. They show the effect of billions of years exposure to vacuum, no moisture, and high energy cosmic rays. They are also pitted with tiny meteoroids. None show the burned effect typical of meteorites that have landed here on Earth. Could they have been faked? No. As one geologist put it, "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one."


----------



## .:deadman:. (May 11, 2006)

Quite Fortunatly, I didn't have to bang my head. The answer was quite within net.


			
				royal said:
			
		

> <1> On the moon there are no air molecules...so anything in a shadow should be pitch black.Then how come an astronaut in a shadow is clearly visible ?



The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. At the Earth-Sun distance, maximum solar illumination is about 10,000 lumens per square foot; however, if the Sun is not directly overhead its rays will strike the surface obliquely. This decreases the intensity of sunlight per unit area. A typical Sun elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, thus the illumination per square foot was about 3,400 lumens. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photographs. 


			
				royal said:
			
		

> <2>In another pic lengths of shadows of Armstrong and Aldrin (who were more or less of same height) differ greatly in length even if there was no artificial source of light.



This claim comes from David Percy, who displays this image *www.braeunig.us/space/photo06.htm on his Web site. A brief examination reveals that Percy's explanation cannot possibly account for the shadows. If the shadows were produced as described, then the closer an astronaut is to the light source, the shorter his shadow will be, which is just the opposite of what we see. Percy claims ground slope cannot explain the shadows because the terrain is essentially flat. On a large scale the Apollo 11 site was essentially flat, however there were local undulations in the ground surface. Since we are looking at a two-dimensional image we cannot see the slope of the ground, but we can infer it from the shadows. It appears the ground is sloping upward and away from left astronaut either to the top-left, the bottom-right, or a combination of both. Remember, shadows cast on a downward slope are lengthened, while those cast on an upward slope are shortened. It seems that a change in ground slope is the only feasible explanation for the shadows we see. 


			
				royal said:
			
		

> <3>The lunar lander had a landing mechanism that gave several thousand pounds of thrust yet no crater was formed on the moon's surface.However the footprint of a man was clearly visible on the moon's surface.



Let's consider several facts: (1) Although the Lunar Module descent engine was capable of 10,000 lbs of thrust (the usual hoax advocate's claim), it was throttled down to below 3,000 lbs as it neared the lunar surface. While still several feet above the ground, the descent engine was shut down as probes, extending 5 feet below the footpads, sensed contact with the surface. (2) The LM descended at an angle, moving laterally across the ground. When the astronauts identified a suitable landing site, the LM leveled off and dropped to the surface. The LM did not hover over its final landing site for any significant length of time. (3) The Moon's surface is covered by a rocky material called lunar regolith, which consists of fine dust particles, glass spheres and a jumble of large boulders and rocky debris. Lunar regolith has many unique properties, the most obvious being that the particles are very jagged, which causes them to interlock. When subjected to pressure, the regolith will resist, almost like solid rock. (4) In a vacuum exhaust gases expand rapidly once exiting the engine nozzle. 

When one considers these facts the truth becomes obvious - The exhaust stream was not powerful enough or centralized enough to displace the regolith and blast out a crater. In this Apollo 11 photograph *www.braeunig.us/space/photo17.htm one can see some discoloration and a general lack of dust, which was mostly blown away. After the dust was removed a hard surface was exposed. 


			
				royal said:
			
		

> <4>The moon does not have any atmosphere so stars should be clearly seen from the moon.But the pics released by Nasa dont show any.



This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon. 

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example [see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour. 


			
				royal said:
			
		

> <5>The various directions of light as suggested by shadows in different directions though no artificial source of light was present.



Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here. 

This photograph *www.braeunig.us/space/photo04.htm, taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film. In this example *www.braeunig.us/space/photo05.htm the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows. 


If you guys have any other doubt then plz visit:
*www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

All the above answers are frm there and quite convincing. If you still don't find any answer, then ask me. But I guess you will find every answer there. Quite a great site.


----------



## Apollo (May 11, 2006)

Good summarisation, soham!

The Apollo moon landing mission was not a hoax.  Those who reject it and are akin to conspiracy theorists fall into the category of misunderstood skeptics; a revision course on Physics { viz. mechanics(esp. dynamics), optics (esp. photometry) along with others } is definitely in order.

As much as one wants to disprove NASA's claim by rubbishing it, one should also be eager to find out claims that support this historic mission.  There's already a lot out there to be digested.


----------



## reddragon (May 11, 2006)

after returning  from MOOM  niel never went to any public interview   ..  why?


----------



## royal (May 11, 2006)

appolo , .:deadman:. , soham

thx guys for the gr8 post  

from your logic it seems man really landed on moon  

however I'll have to do a bit of research on my own to be finally convinced


----------



## .:deadman:. (May 11, 2006)

@soham
Atleast give the source dude 
*www.unmuseum.org/moonhoax.htm

@royal
Yes dude. Glad to know that your opinion has started to change .


----------



## soham (May 11, 2006)

A European spacecraft now orbiting the Moon could turn out to be a time machine of sorts as it photographs old landing sites of Soviet robotic probes and the areas where American Apollo crews set down and explored. New imagery of old Apollo touchdown spots, from the European Space Agency’s (ESA) SMART-1 probe, might put to rest conspiratorial thoughts that U.S. astronauts didn’t go the distance and scuff up the lunar landscape. NASA carried out six piloted landings on the Moon in the time period 1969 through 1972.Fringe theorists have said images of the waving flag -- on a Moon with no atmosphere -- and other oddities show that NASA never really went to the Moon. No serious scientist or spaceflight historian doubts the success of the Apollo program, however."We are observing some of the landing sites for calibration and ground truth purposes," said Bernard Foing, Chief Scientist of the ESA Science Program. 

Foing told SPACE.com that the SMART-1 orbiter circling the Moon has already covered the Apollo 11, 16, 17 landing sites, as well as spots where the former Soviet Union’s Luna 16 and Luna 20 automated vehicles plopped down. The images have not yet been released.Given SMART-1’s initial high orbit, however, it may prove difficult to see artifacts, Foing explained. Using its ion engine, the probe has successfully spiraled down further to an altitude closer to the Moon.Foing said that each Apollo site, where the engine blast of the two-person landing craft stirred up the landscape, could be worthwhile targets for SMART-1 imaging. 

Source :*www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=35785

Full Article:*www.space.com/missionlaunches/050304_moon_snoop.html


----------



## jamyang312 (May 11, 2006)

that's nice bit of news.well, ialso believe that NASA did not send anyone.


----------



## sagardani (May 11, 2006)

everyone is now required to make a judgement based on all available information.... im arrived on this point of conspiracy theory! he eh he he


----------



## Blazingfire (Jun 10, 2006)

Here are the funda breaker's:

1.Moon facts hope it clear your mind:

a.Moon and earth were created on same orbite, moon was not older than earth but earth and moon were of same size and that moon was surely less denser than earth purely due to the fact that earth was majorly made of iron and other heavy metals.

Thats why moon was reduced to 1/6 th of earth and most of part of moon was embeded on earth itself. 

But it gave birth to severel possibilities
1.Earth was no more a uniform factore and had some huge crater (hope you made that out.)

2.Moon it self was shattered but orbited earth and its rotational speed was reduced to match time period of revolution which happens due to close distance of moon and earth.

This will happen to earth as well in future when sun will be red giant.

b)Moon is atnosphere less and could not have any refraction or totalinternal reflections, but moon itself is luminous and thus hide out the stars on light part of moon.

This results in black sky.

c)Trust me on this:Moons poles are covered with ice and most part of mental too.

d)But the core is of lava, now who was saying that there were eruptions on moon guess you can make it out.

c)Colours could be produced due to dispersion from water.(Sure on this)

d)Now the dark part mystery. Trust me on thiss that whatever we witness is only tip of iceberg NASA have prototypes of ships that can be launched using laser light now you can imagine its speed.

e)NASA have hubble, chandra and spitzer now who said that radio can't penetrate moon, here is answer there are these particals: mesons, quarks, neutrino(specialy) which penetrates through earth(moon is nothing) and can be used to read the hitory of universe long away from here.Spitzer is based on these particals.

Now I am not saying that moon could or will not be used as base for alien or us(humens). But the point is that its time waste to argue about something like space walk at this age, trust me no use wheather it was genuine or not.
Information from it were as useful as our arts class.

The real story will begin in 2010 (Read NASA site).

Fact is and the point is that we are never told of actual facts and that we have to make it out.Especialy when it concerns firms like NASA.

But if you plan to controvert anything do some research first and have upto date knowledge about it.

Ex:In artical it is mentioned that moon and earth have age difference it may be true but what actualy matter is how they behaved and thats what I have provided you.

Thanks.

You can bring on any querry related to this topic.


----------



## harsh471 (Jun 12, 2006)

Just tell me from your knowlege that whether we can see artificial satellites send from the earth with naked eyes revolving and is there anything there naturally or artificall that is sent by us that have a flash same as flash in our camera or if naturally phenomene exist please tell me just for knowledge


----------



## anispace (Jun 13, 2006)

obviously u cant see artificial satellites with naked eyes from the earth`s surface.they r too small and very far(ionosphere and further) in orbit.


----------



## TechGuru#1 (Jun 13, 2006)

I for all HONESTY can claim to have seen (many times) artificial satellites with naked eyes or whatever in the skies @dark pitch nights....sum artificial things,dDAMM sure NOT natural heavenly objects or stars,moving at extremely slow speed across the horizon,beeping out lights@regular intervals (very UNLIKE stars,etc which shimmmer or twinkle & almost remain fixed at the horizon)

Dont know REALLY what i saw(saw more than once) & particularly at very dark nights or when there r power outages & THE SKY is CLEAR( w/o clouds).Mayb that was sum artificial satellites......or who knows mayb unknowingly Saw "UFO's"

whatever that was....could make out THEY WERE VERY HIGH UP IN THE SKY....mayb in the Ionosphere level or beyond.

Heysum1 else having such 'out-of-zone' x'priences ?


----------



## freshseasons (Aug 9, 2006)

TechGuru#1 said:
			
		

> I for all HONESTY can claim to have seen (many times) artificial satellites with naked eyes or whatever in the skies @dark pitch nights....sum artificial things,dDAMM sure NOT natural heavenly objects or stars,moving at extremely slow speed across the horizon,beeping out lights@regular intervals (very UNLIKE stars,etc which shimmmer or twinkle & almost remain fixed at the horizon)
> 
> Dont know REALLY what i saw(saw more than once) & particularly at very dark nights or when there r power outages & THE SKY is CLEAR( w/o clouds).Mayb that was sum artificial satellites......or who knows mayb unknowingly Saw "UFO's"
> 
> ...


            What you saw was definatly man made satellite. In fact when did we get this notion that man-made satellites cannot be seen. Any moving star is a artificial satellite. And most people do seem them with naked eyes.


----------



## hanwant (Sep 2, 2006)

Read this and you will find out that it was all a HOAX...eevn the moon landing of Apollo...watch the video as well

*www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html


----------

