Was the moon landing for real ???

[devilzangel]

Hey guys,

check this video out!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifC6dqmsY1k

devilzangel
..

[Koen1]

Amongst the rocks collected by the Apollo teams there were a number of specimens that had been gathered from the surface.

Perhaps, if you had a very large meteorite, you could split it and pass the core off as the real thing.

With a rock that has been lying on the surface for millions of years on an atmosphere lacking celestial body this becomes quite a different matter. The passage of time as well as the inevitable bombardment with micro particles leave their mark. Here on earth we do not get this as small particles burn up in the atmosphere before reaching the surface.

On the moon this is not so. These high energy collisions leave traces. It would be impossible to fake samples to such perfection as to fool a really good geologist.

Ah, obviously it is totally impossible to treat rocks with particle bombardments etc to make them look almost exactly like moon rocks... or is it?
And on top of that, how would we know if a rock was from the moon or not? The only "moon rocks" we know are the ones Nasa shows us... Seems quite easy for them to simply dig up some earth rock, bombard it with high energy radiation to simulate exposure to cosmic radiation, and then present them as "real" moon rocks; after all, who is going to prove them wrong? The Russians? Lol!

No, I believe the samples are real, as to when and by whom they were collected I cannot say, I wasn't there.

Exactly. You were not there when the rocks were "collected"/"produced". So you can believe all you want, but it is still no convincing proof.

I have seen so much faked or otherwise dodgy footage by Nasa that I would not simply assume they are being honest.
For example, you must have seen the renormalised colour photos from the latest Mars Rover? They very clearly show a 'normal' sand-coloured desert scene, in contrast to the official Nasa pictures which were clearly colour doctored to make everything look very red. (the bright yellow wires on the lander show dark orange on the Nasa pics, and renormalised to yellow the pics show a very normal looking sandy and rocky desert landscape, nothing special. One could even doubt if the pics were not made on earth somewhere, what with the light blue sky and all). So either Nasa is trying to make us think Mars looks a lot redder and less earthlike than it really does, or they have doctored pictures taken on earth to make them look like they were made on Mars.
Rover pictures also show a lot of very unnatural looking chunks of rock, with right angles, square holes, metallic-looking shiny surfaces... either the rocks on Mars look nothing like the moon rocks for reasons unexplained, or they are not actually rocks... Some of the chunks have shapes that suggest they might be constructed. In any case, very odd. Since it seems unlikely for Nasa to plant unnatural looking rocks on a staged set on earth, as that would counteract the entire goal of a staged natural looking Mars-picture, it appears to be more likely that Nasa actually did take pictures on Mars but altered the colour schemes to make them look a lot more red, so they look like the original viking lander pictures.
After all, if people would see a normal patch of earthlike desert, people would probably exclaim "huh? but you guys said it was the RED planet!" or even "why aren't we there yet? It's just like earth, only dryer!".

Oh, and what about these vids? This one shows one of the original movie sets where the first couple of "moon landings" were staged: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMJugPGGe7E&NR=1 And this one shows some type of craft (crashed?) on the lunar surface, filmed by the apollo crew before landing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7mkHtuLOs.
Of course they could be fake, but then again so could all of the other "official" Nasa footage.

Whatever is really going on, fact remains that it is extremely odd to pump billions into a spacerace lasting over a decade, only to reach the destination, plant a flag, and never go back. That just does not make sense.
If you've managed to come all that way, you would expect them to at least build a base there. I mean, you've already spent all those billions of dollars trying to get there, you can just as well spend another couple of million putting the finishing touches on it. You've researched and developed all this technology, for what? To try if it works and after you figure out that it does... just leave it and forget about it? When in history has that ever happened? They researched and developed nuclear fission so that they could do nothing with it? They developed computer technology so they could leave it to gather dust? They developed radio to not use it? No, of course not! So it would be naive and quite ignorant to assume they would really spend billions on space technology only to do the primary proof of concept test (which was reaching the moon).
So either there is a base on the moon, and it was built by people from earth, and probably built in a spot where we cannot see it, or there is not which would mean there is some very good reason for us (them) not to build it.

[shruggedatlas]

If you've managed to come all that way, you would expect them to at least build a base there. I mean, you've already spent all those billions of dollars trying to get there, you can just as well spend another couple of million putting the finishing touches on it.

You think a moon base can be built for $2 million?  You are seriously deluded.

[Koen1]

You think a moon base can be built for $2 million?  You are seriously deluded.

1) I said "a couple of million". That does not necessarily mean "2 million", it could just as well be 10 million. As long as we're comparing it to the enormous amount of several billion dollars, "a couple" of million can be quite a lot still.
2) It is not at all inconceivable to build a lunar base even for the amount of 2 million dollars. After all, the transport craft had already been developed (using those billions, remember?), and the USAF had a nuclear powered tunnel boring machine in the 60s already... All you'd need to do is get it to the moon and start tunneling, thn seal off the entry point with an airlock, and they could continue to build for as long as they would need to dig out the entire complex.
I assume you thought I was talking about building it on the lunar surface? That is simply dumb. It would get hit by meteorites all the time, and it would be visible, and it would also be a hell of a difficult construction project what with all those construction workers having to stumble around in their space suits. No, obviously if one were to build on the moon, one would build at least the basic living and working areas underground, if not the entire thing. Tunneling inside rock is a much easier way to build a base than actually constructing one on the surface.

Please read and think properly before calling people seriously deluded.

[shruggedatlas]

You think a moon base can be built for $2 million?  You are seriously deluded.

1) I said "a couple of million". That does not necessarily mean "2 million", it could just as well be 10 million. As long as we're comparing it to the enormous amount of several billion dollars, "a couple" of million can be quite a lot still.
2) It is not at all inconceivable to build a lunar base even for the amount of 2 million dollars. After all, the transport craft had already been developed (using those billions, remember?), and the USAF had a nuclear powered tunnel boring machine in the 60s already... All you'd need to do is get it to the moon and start tunneling, thn seal off the entry point with an airlock, and they could continue to build for as long as they would need to dig out the entire complex.
I assume you thought I was talking about building it on the lunar surface? That is simply dumb. It would get hit by meteorites all the time, and it would be visible, and it would also be a hell of a difficult construction project what with all those construction workers having to stumble around in their space suits. No, obviously if one were to build on the moon, one would build at least the basic living and working areas underground, if not the entire thing. Tunneling inside rock is a much easier way to build a base than actually constructing one on the surface.

Please read and think properly before calling people seriously deluded.

You are still seriously disconnected with what things cost in the real world of space travel.  I think building a lunar base is a $300 billion (with a "B") plus project.  You just have no idea of the cost of getting materials to the moon and the cost of building there.

To give you perspective.  The U.S.'s share of the International Space Station's cost was $100 billion.  And this involves getting materials only to Earth's orbit, and this is only part of the entire cost.  So figure it out.

Oh, and now you want to dig up/drill into the moon?  Multiply that number by 3, 4?  Who knows.  How are you even going to get the equipment to drill or dig to the moon?  That stuff is real heavy.