Conspiracy Theory: Did we ever land on the moon?

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
1

I saw this show on TV tonight on FOX as was mentioned
in an earlier post. At first, some of the things they
mentioned/showed seemed highly unusual. While it's
possible that man has never landed on the moon, I don't
think this particular broadcast is very good evidence
for support either way and here are my reasons.

A person must keep in mind that anything you view on
the moon is going to look really weird due to lower
gravity and no atmosphere. (Let's just assume there is
lower gravity and less atmosphere than earth for now.
We can change this assumption later if things are
unexplainable.)

FLAG MOVEMENT AS IF THERE IS AIR PRESENT - Keep in mind
that the flag that was used had a wire along the top
(according to my sources) that kept the top of the flag
sticking straight out horizontally. (So that you could
see the flag instead of it just hanging down.) This makes
sense if you view the photos/video. The top of the flag
appears always horizontal.
In all cases that I've seen of the flag actually moving
there is an astronaut actually touching the flag pole in
some form. Any small movements by a hand could produce
some pretty weird effects on the flag in lower gravity
and no air. The flag could easily flip up as shown in the
videos.
I agree it REALLY looks like air is present but the
lower gravity, no air conditions can possibly account for
all of this. The only real evidence would be to see flag
movement with no hands touching the flag or pole.

NO BLAST CRATER FROM LANDING ON THE MOON - In no atmosphere
conditions, the blast from a nozzle will go in nearly every
direction upon leaving the nozzle. Not just directly down
as would be easy to assume. In fact, it has been observed
that some portions of escaping gases will actually leave
the nozzle at an angle that appears to be straight out to
the side.
Whatever the angle, the direction that escaping gases travel
is not very important for propulsion. You get propulsion
from the fact that you are throwing out matter (action/reaction),
not from the fact that it is escaping in any one particular
direction.
In a no atmosphere condition, escaping gases will expand so
rapidly in all directions as to leave a minimal effect in
any one direction or a crater.

VARYING SHADOW ANGLES IN OFFICIAL PHOTOS - This can probably
be accounted for by changes in terrain as mentioned in an
earlier post. That's one explanation that is reproducible.

VAN ALLEN BELTS ARE LETHAL - These radiation belts are not
necessarily as strong as was implied on the program. Various
information acknowledges that this radiation is strong
enough to penetrate space capsules but is only harmful to
astronauts during extended exposure. You wouldn't want them
orbiting continuously in this area.

NO DUST ON THE LUNAR MODULE LANDING GEAR - Dust that is kicked
up from the engine will tend to get thrown to the side rather
than kicked directly. Weird stuff happens when there is no
atmosphere. You don't get the types of air turbulence that
you expect on earth because there is no air.

SOME OBJECTS APPEAR TO BE HIGHLY ILLUMINATED EVEN IN THE SHADE -
Realize that the sun would be extremely bright in a no atmosphere
setting. You would have to set your cameras to a really fast
shutter speed or your film would soon be over exposed. [This is
one reason the still photos are extremely clear (due to fast
shutter speed.)]
This same bright sun reflects off all of the surface of the moon.
The indirect reflections from the moon soil will serve to highly
illuminate even objects in the shade. This makes a lot of sense
and you can easily do experiments to reproduce this effect.
For example, even though you can be in the shade when riding
in your car, the sun glare off the pavement can be severe to
your eyes during a sunny day. The fact that the roof of your
car shades your body from direct sunlight does nothing for your
poor eyes that get blasted by light reflection off objects.

HOW DID THEY RECORD THE FIRST STEP ON TO THE MOON USING A VIDEO
CAMERA? - No possible from a side angle, of course, because you
have to step on the moon in the first place to setup the camera.
I think it would be easy to assume that that video was the first
step on the moon but I believe no where is it documented that
the video is a representation of the actual first moon step.

I can't remember some of the other points at the moment but
I don't remember any that were not easily explainable. The missing
cross hairs in some photos was a little strange. However, in
faked photos I would expect these to be present. I have heard of
some cases where the cross hairs don't completely show up and
these are due to optical effects rather than parts of the cross hairs
themselves actually missing from the scene. This due to the fact
that rather than using black paint, they can put grooves into the
glass that appear to disappear under the correct lighting & angle
conditions.

It's possible that the first moon landing never happened but I
don't think this particular broadcast did much to further that
theory. If anything, I think it just pointed out how really
strange effects can appear when viewed in lower gravity, lower
atmosphere conditions.

That's one theory anyway...

Jeff

2

Jeff,

I agree that the flag-movement argument isn´t so strong. The flag
coulçd have been jostled somehow.

NO BLAST CRATER FROM LANDING ON THE MOON - In no atmosphere
conditions, the blast from a nozzle will go in nearly every
direction upon leaving the nozzle.

I just have to completely disagree with you here. Bill Kaysing quoted
NASA sources as saying that the racket motor was turned off only 2
meters from the surface of the Moon. The exhaust cup at the end of
the rocket motor funnels at least most of the exhaust downwards- from
only two meters above! A good amount of agitation should be visible,
but the area underneath is completely smoothed over, even though the
area in front of the LEM, just a few feet away, has all kind of
impressions from footprints. There are no oversimplistic
understandings on this one.

VARYING SHADOW ANGLES IN OFFICIAL PHOTOS - This can probably
be accounted for by changes in terrain as mentioned in an
earlier post. That's one explanation that is reproducible.

There are no such explanations available in the new diverging shadow
photo which I put up on this page,:

http://www.skyboom.com/hollowearthpuranas/index3.html

We can talk more later, got to run.

Dharma/Dean

3

[email protected] wrote:

Jeff,

I agree that the flag-movement argument isn�t so strong. The flag
coul�d have been jostled somehow.

> NO BLAST CRATER FROM LANDING ON THE MOON - In no atmosphere
> conditions, the blast from a nozzle will go in nearly every
> direction upon leaving the nozzle.

I just have to completely disagree with you here. Bill Kaysing quoted
NASA sources as saying that the racket motor was turned off only 2
meters from the surface of the Moon. The exhaust cup at the end of
the rocket motor funnels at least most of the exhaust downwards- from
only two meters above! A good amount of agitation should be visible,
but the area underneath is completely smoothed over, even though the
area in front of the LEM, just a few feet away, has all kind of
impressions from footprints. There are no oversimplistic
understandings on this one.

I had a long discussion about this point with my next door neighbor
last night. In that argument, I pointed out the same thing as a major
point of problem for me.

Keep in mind that since there is no atmosphere on the moon (let us
assume that for now) the only way the engine can interact with the
moon surface is through direct H2O molecules hitting the moon surface.
(i.e. burning hydrogen & water gives H2O) If you used the same engine
on the earth you would see the water vapor exhaust (because our atmosphere
prevents it's extremely rapid dissipation) and you would set up wind
turbulence which would interact with the ground as well to help form
a crater and to help blow away particles.

If you look at the video that the lunar module has of the surface as
it is landing, you can see duct particles moving sideways. This is the
dust/small particles that are getting hit by water vapor. If there is a
hard surface within inches of where the lunar module landed then there
would be no crater. (That's one explanation.) There would also be no
blackening of the surface as this would only occur in an atmosphere
filled with oxygen as a result of material oxidation.

I also have a problem with the amount of dust that surrounds the
lunar module (one might think that much of it would get blown away)
but due to my ignorance on this I can't use that as a source of an
air-tight case either way.

> VARYING SHADOW ANGLES IN OFFICIAL PHOTOS - This can probably
> be accounted for by changes in terrain as mentioned in an
> earlier post. That's one explanation that is reproducible.
>
There are no such explanations available in the new diverging shadow
photo which I put up on this page,:

If the ground is slightly higher to the right of the lunar module
and it drops off in the case of the near rocks then this could explain
this effect. You would have to have a surface altitude map for this
photo to have any air-tight significance, unfortunately.

Here's one I missed yesterday:

NO STARS VISIBLE FROM THE MOON SURFACE - Keep in mind that the still
photo camera shutter speed is going to have to be really fast to not
let in much light. Otherwise the extremely bright sun illumination
will over-expose the film. It is for the same reason that the
relatively faint stars (compared to the sun) are not visible on film.

According to my neighbor, some people in several other countries were
able to receive the same audio & video broadcasts from the moon that we
did in the US. To do that, they had to point satellite dishes or highly
directional antennas directly at the moon to pick up the weak broadcasts
(according to him.) So this implies (assuming the info is correct) that
we at least had to send an audio/video transmitter to the moon even if
we didn't send people.

Just stuff to ponder,

Jeff

4

VARYING SHADOW ANGLES IN OFFICIAL PHOTOS - This can probably
be accounted for by changes in terrain as mentioned in an
earlier post. That's one explanation that is reproducible.

Jeff,

I had to go real quick when I was writing the last time.

What I was saying is that in the new picture which I have titled "
Diverging Shadows " has a field of view which is decidely flat, such
that the split nature of the shadows is obvious.
http://www.skyboom.com/hollowearthpuranas/index3.html

VAN ALLEN BELTS ARE LETHAL - These radiation belts are not
necessarily as strong as was implied on the program. Various
information acknowledges that this radiation is strong
enough to penetrate space capsules but is only harmful to
astronauts during extended exposure. You wouldn't want them
orbiting continuously in this area.

No comments- I have some ideas, but it´s not my forte.

NO DUST ON THE LUNAR MODULE LANDING GEAR - Dust that is kicked
up from the engine will tend to get thrown to the side rather
than kicked directly. Weird stuff happens when there is no
atmosphere. You don't get the types of air turbulence that
you expect on earth because there is no air.

The " rooster tails " thrown up by the lunar buggy strongly suggest
an atmosphere, at least in the place where the film clip was shot.

The transient lunar phenomena ( TLP ), which are always chalked up
to lighting and outgassing, also suggest an atmosphere. There isn´t
much wind because there isn´t much of a magnetic field- in Cater´s
scheme, air currents are pulled along by soft particles which follow
the magnetic lines of force. But David Hatcher Childress has a video
out which shows some interesting clouds fingering their way through a
valley. An outgassing of some kind of sub-soil gas, in a place with
no atmosphere, with as little gravity as they say, wouldn´t behave
like that.

If they admit that there is an atmosphere, then they have to admit
that there is enough gravity to hold it down. I don´t think that the
standard 1/6 of the Earth´s gravity would do the trick. If they admit
that the Moon does have enough gravity to hold down an atmosphere,
then the concept of gravity being related to the density of mass gets
threatened.

And there are so many pictures of glare showing on the Moon- you need
an atmosphere for that.

I just don´t think that the Apollo filming is defendable. I
personally think that the reality in the solar system is such that
the-powers-that-be don´t want to tell people, for some reason. Maybe
it would cause a panic.

SOME OBJECTS APPEAR TO BE HIGHLY ILLUMINATED EVEN IN THE SHADE -
Realize that the sun would be extremely bright in a no atmosphere
setting. You would have to set your cameras to a really fast
shutter speed or your film would soon be over exposed. [This is
one reason the still photos are extremely clear (due to fast
shutter speed.)]
This same bright sun reflects off all of the surface of the moon.
The indirect reflections from the moon soil will serve to highly
illuminate even objects in the shade.

About the NASA lettering being illuminated in a region of shade-
No doubt that sunlight can reflect a beam into a region of shade, but
then that would be unusual, or better to say statistically unlikely.
And it happened to several different LEMs on several different
occasions, that a beam of reflected sunlight just happened to bounce
off of some rock and illuminate the NASA lettering on the backside of
the LEM which was in darkness. I doubt it. I really don´t feel that
the Apollo filming is defendable.

HOW DID THEY RECORD THE FIRST STEP ON TO THE MOON USING A VIDEO
CAMERA? - No possible from a side angle, of course, because you
have to step on the moon in the first place to setup the camera.
I think it would be easy to assume that that video was the first
step on the moon but I believe no where is it documented that
the video is a representation of the actual first moon step.

For them to come back later on and say " Oh yeah, we actually walked
out first and staged the whole ´one big step for mankind ´" drama is
not reasonable. It smacks of deception in a big way.

I can't remember some of the other points at the moment but
I don't remember any that were not easily explainable.

I´ll stand by the idea that the smooth patch under the rocket motor,
the glare in various photos and the diverging shadows on flat soil
are all impossible given the Moon which we are told about.

And how did they power a mobile air conditioner in their space suits
for as much as an hour and a half, an air conditioner so small that
they carried it on their backs and it kept them cool in 250* F heat?

And how could Niel Armstrong have piloted the LEM laterally for 16
seconds if the lateral thrusters were high on the top of the LEM,
above the center of gravity? He should have tipped over. He couldn´t
even see because of the dust which obscured his view, so how could he
manually juggle such a feat, even if he could see?

I still feel that NASA is unreliable, the Russina space agnecy, too.
We should expose ourselves to as much info as possible on the subject
and, of course, each one should decide for his or herself.

If we free ourselves from some of the false NASA propaganda, then we
are that much freer to consider the hollow Earth theory.

Dharma/Dean

The missing

cross hairs in some photos was a little strange. However, in
faked photos I would expect these to be present. I have heard of
some cases where the cross hairs don't completely show up and
these are due to optical effects rather than parts of the cross

hairs

···

themselves actually missing from the scene. This due to the fact
that rather than using black paint, they can put grooves into the
glass that appear to disappear under the correct lighting & angle
conditions.

It's possible that the first moon landing never happened but I
don't think this particular broadcast did much to further that
theory. If anything, I think it just pointed out how really
strange effects can appear when viewed in lower gravity, lower
atmosphere conditions.

That's one theory anyway...

Jeff

5

Members,

I put up that Greenland Colony article at:

http://skyboom.com/hollowearthpuranas/index5.html

The map is up with it. It was the only graphic of the article worth
anything, the others were just pictures of the Zepplin, ect.

Dharma/Dean

6

By the way, about that map, which is at the bottom of the Arctic
page- you´ll notice that the area in question is the same area that
Rod points out, the area North of the New Siberian Islands, on the
Siberian side of the Arctic.The opening really does seem to be on
that side of the Pole.

Dhama/Dean

7

Dean (and all),

A really interesting book is "Unconventional Flying Objects: A scientific
analysis" by Paul R. Hill. He never published this book, himself. After he
died, his daughter found it and published it to get the information out.

Paul became interested in these objects after he made his own, first
sighting of several of these. He noticed that they had capabilities that
were far advanced of any technology that he knew about.

It is interesting that Paul worked for NACA, which later, was renamed
NASA. According to the book, he was in a position to get and collect
information on UFO's but he was not allowed to share this info due to
their policies: "That policy was that flying saucers are nonexistant."
"When the name of the organization was changed from NACA to NASA, the
same officials remained in charge, and one could notice no change in
policy. The only difference was that individuals were going into space,
when astronauts sighted unknowns in space, a grounded official couldn't
rationally contradict them. But they could shut them off the air
(APRO Bulletin, Feb 1976)."

I, personally, feel that NASA hasn't been totally honest with us on
everything. However, I personally haven't yet seen any strong evidence
that there is anything majorly fishy about the moon landings. I guess
this boils down to individual interpretation of photos & results.
As a result, this is probably one of those where we can agree to
disagree. As such, I'll make these last few (possibly flawed) points
and leave it at that.

[email protected] wrote:

About the NASA lettering being illuminated in a region of shade-
No doubt that sunlight can reflect a beam into a region of shade, but
then that would be unusual, or better to say statistically unlikely.

You can reproduce these results yourself if you wish.
Place an object in sunlight on a very dark surface. View the shadow
side of the object. Any letters on the object will appear relatively
dark.
Now, place a white sheet of paper just outside of the objects shadow.
The letters on the object will now get much brighter even though they
are in the shade. This is due to the paper acting as a mirror to
make the dark side of the box lighter:

                           O <--- light source
White Paper +-------+

               > >

V | |
------------ +-------+
------------------------------------------- <-Dark surface

[email protected] wrote:

For them to come back later on and say " Oh yeah, we actually walked
out first and staged the whole �one big step for mankind �" drama is
not reasonable. It smacks of deception in a big way.

I don't know that NASA has ever said in the first place that the
popular video that shows John Glenn stepping on to the moon surface
is the actual first step. I think many of us just assumed that we
were seeing the actual first step. It would have been helpful if they
had subtitled the video with words that mentioned that they were showing
a recreation of how the first step would have appeared but there was
no real subtitling equipment in those days I think. I could be wrong.

And how did they power a mobile air conditioner in their space suits
for as much as an hour and a half, an air conditioner so small that
they carried it on their backs and it kept them cool in 250* F heat?

Keep in mind that 250*F on the earth would be totally different than
250*F in a condition of no atmosphere. In 250F on earth, they would
very much probably be in big trouble real quick. The reason being that
the 250F air would act similar to the effect if you jumped in a bowl
of 250*F liquid.
In a condition of no atmosphere, heat doesn't exist until the sun hits
the space suit or actual molecules. In that case, you just have to cool the
surface of the suit that faces the sun. Since the suits are light
colored, much sun energy will be reflected instead of absorbed. With
very good thermal insulation, I think relatively little of this heat
would enter the suit.
I don't know that this is a complete, adequate answer to this question
but it is certainly something to consider.

And how could Niel Armstrong have piloted the LEM laterally for 16
seconds if the lateral thrusters were high on the top of the LEM,
above the center of gravity? He should have tipped over. He couldn�t
even see because of the dust which obscured his view, so how could he
manually juggle such a feat, even if he could see?

On some questions, such as this one, I don't know that I know enough
about the equipment to comment on what might be happening. I don't know.

Cheers,

Jeff

8

Jeff and all,

I think that we might just have to be comfortable with differing
opinions about the Moon landings. I think that the doubters and
undecided on this one should feel free to present opposing views. The
list members can think how they want to on this issue.

A really interesting book is "Unconventional Flying Objects: A

scientific

analysis" by Paul R. Hill. He never published this book, himself.

After he

died, his daughter found it and published it to get the information

out.

Do you have this book Jeff? Is it very technical?

I, personally, feel that NASA hasn't been totally honest with us on
everything. However, I personally haven't yet seen any strong

evidence

that there is anything majorly fishy about the moon landings. I

guess

this boils down to individual interpretation of photos & results.
As a result, this is probably one of those where we can agree to
disagree. As such, I'll make these last few (possibly flawed) points
and leave it at that.

Jeff-

You don´t have to leave it at that. I don´t want to set the tone on
what the belief of the list should be. Be constructively critical.

Dean

9

Jeff,

One more thing about the exhaust-

Niel Armstrong mentioned said that he lost visiual contact for 16
seconds before touching down. He lost visual contact because of the
dust flying up from the ground. So right there he is saying the the
ground was already getting disturbed, even before the motor cut off,
which ocurred at 2 meters above the surface. And again, in the photos
the ground below the LEM is completely smooth.

You´ve already said that you don´t feel that NASA has been completely
honest, maybe we are both basically on the same side. It just a
matter of how honest, and exactly where did they cheat. For example,
I actually believe that they have gone to the Moon, only that the
videos were prepared, and that the Lunar Excursion Module wasn´t the
principal vehicle involved.

DD

Keep in mind that since there is no atmosphere on the moon (let us
assume that for now) the only way the engine can interact with the
moon surface is through direct H2O molecules hitting the moon

surface.

(i.e. burning hydrogen & water gives H2O) If you used the same

engine

on the earth you would see the water vapor exhaust (because our

atmosphere

prevents it's extremely rapid dissipation) and you would set up wind
turbulence which would interact with the ground as well to help form
a crater and to help blow away particles.

If you look at the video that the lunar module has of the surface

as

it is landing, you can see duct particles moving sideways. This is

the

dust/small particles that are getting hit by water vapor. If there

is a

hard surface within inches of where the lunar module landed then

there

···

would be no crater. (That's one explanation.) There would also be no
blackening of the surface as this would only occur in an atmosphere
filled with oxygen as a result of material oxidation.

I also have a problem with the amount of dust that surrounds the
lunar module (one might think that much of it would get blown away)
but due to my ignorance on this I can't use that as a source of an
air-tight case either way.

10

About clouds on the Moon-

I went back last night and looked at the David Hatcher Childress
video called Extra-Terrestrial Archaeology- mostly on the Moon.

I waited for the picture of the cloud on the Moon. It is basically a
cloud bank working its way through some foothills at the base of a
crater rim. It is a long cloud bank, and the cloudy part works its
way around the base of the hills, leaving the peaks exposed.

Again, I really think that an outgassing, on a planet with no
atmosphere and little gravity, would not bunch together and hug the
ground like that. It would disperse itself.

Dharma/Dean

11

Sorry about the delay in response.

[email protected] wrote:

> A really interesting book is "Unconventional Flying Objects: A
scientific
> analysis" by Paul R. Hill. He never published this book, himself.
After he
> died, his daughter found it and published it to get the information
out.

Do you have this book Jeff? Is it very technical?

Yes, it's a good book. Probably the best ufo book I've bought.
To me the most interesting part is at the beginning where he
summarizes the frequently seen ufo shapes and their relative
sizes. Here are some highlights from the many cases he studied.
The following are put into my own words from the text:

color - varies from polished silver to a dull aluminum.
        At night time they often have various running lughts.

halos - Most or all have a visible neon halo that is easier
        to see at night. This makes the craft edges less defined
        and is caused by ionization of surrounding air.

radioactive - Many people have been burned, some have died from
              prolonged view at a close range. They all exhibit
              similar symptoms of radiation poisoning if the
              duration is long enough.

maneuvers - All saucer shaped ufos tip to one side to go that
           direction and they tip away from their direction of
           travel to stop.

landing - Usually they let down landing gear when landing. Most
          often, they don't land but may hover in one spot for
          extended periods. When they do land, the impressions
          they leave in the earth suggest that they weight many
          tons.

interference - They interrupt all electric circuits, burn out
              batteries, and stop gasoline engines. However,
              don't affect diesel engines.

weaponry - Unconventional objects employ heat beams, paralyzing
           beams, and force beams as tools and weapons, generally
           applied in moderation.

habits - Among preferred locations for ufos are defense installations,
         hydroelectric plants, dams, and lakes. They are sometimes
         attracted by blinking light signals.

There are some other interesting things in there as well. Much of
the rest of the book goes into case studies and his own explainations
for the forces at work.

Jeff