View Full Version : NASA commissions book to prove moon landings real

31st Oct 2002, 19:40
"Stubborn conspiracy theorists claim that NASA's six Apollo-program moon landings were faked. After decades of belittling and ignoring them, NASA has decided to fight back."


31st Oct 2002, 20:24

You don't need a flippin' book :rolleyes:

The corner cube reflectors are up there. How the h3ll did they get there if we didn't actually go to the moon, huh ? Just answer me that - who put them there ????

31st Oct 2002, 20:35
The aliens did Mr Grainger. Apollo was just the government's cover up in order to explain how they got there. :D :D

Anthony Carn
31st Oct 2002, 21:05
Sorry to be uninformed/dim, but HOW do we know that the "corner cube reflectors" are up there ? :confused:

What ARE corner cube reflectors ? :confused:

(Not doing too well here am I ?) :o

tony draper
31st Oct 2002, 21:19
I believe they are reflectors that you can bounce laser beams off.

31st Oct 2002, 21:23
One of the aims of Apollo was an accurate measurement of the distance of the earth from the moon. This was to be achieved by bouncing a laser off the surface. The lunar surface is a dull grainy surface which would tend to scatter the beam. In order to achieve a much more precise return signal/path they left corner cube reflectors on the surface which could be aimed at. (Even a laser scatters enough over a quarter of a million miles that they couldn't miss).

A corner cube reflector is a prism made up of 3 mirror surfaces at angles of 90° to each other in the form of the corner of a cube with the entrance face perpendicular to the cube diagonal. The reflector has the property that any ray entering the aperture is reflected and emerges parallel to the original beam, but in the opposite direction. An incident beam, exactly filling the effective aperture, is reflected exactly back on itself. Thus giving the maximum signal return to the transmitter site.

You don't even have to be able to see them visually, the vastly greater signal return from their locations confirms their presence.

Kalium Chloride
31st Oct 2002, 21:29
You can see the conspiracy theorists' minds ticking over already

Worried that its 33-year cover-up over the faked moon landings is beginning to crumble, in the face of overwhelming evidence supporting the existence of an intricate deception, NASA has launched a cunning new attempt to deflect suspicion away from itself. But the truth is that NASA's so-called 'proof book' is simply a ruse designed to...etc etc etc :rolleyes:

Anthony Carn
31st Oct 2002, 21:47
The corner cube thingy is amazing, on reflection. Thanks for the info.

In addition, I recall that there is a Japanese orbiter due "soon"(?) whose purpose is to scan the moon's surface in detail never before achieved. Apparently, this will be able to return pictures of moon landing remnants, e.g. the base of the lander, the "buggy" etc.

31st Oct 2002, 21:54
Ah, those pesky aliens again - when will they quit foolin' around and get a proper job ??

Anyway, one of the things we've been able to measure with the reflectors is that the Moon is actually receding by a few centimetres every year.

In about a million years' time there will be the last ever total solar eclipse as the Moon gets ever further away... :(

31st Oct 2002, 22:43
Don't understand people, why they think like that?

Must have been harder to pull of a TV fake footage that realistic then than actually do the landing.

Capt. Amazing
31st Oct 2002, 23:33
Not true? Not true?

But I bought the DVD of Apollo 13???

I always thought that Tom Hanks was a shady character...


Windy Militant
1st Nov 2002, 10:13
Can't wait to see the Pictures from the Japanese Satelite. It's even money that the Rovers will be on bricks and the batteries will be gone! Oh, yeah and there'll be a Police aware sticker flapping on it. Let's see NASA explain that lot away then!:D

1st Nov 2002, 12:21
I beg to differ, the following link takes you to a website with some pretty damning evidence that proves NASA faked the whole thing :


"The truth is out there, honest....I ain't making it up." Kev Mulder, Nuneaton. Jan '97.

The Nr Fairy
1st Nov 2002, 12:29
Quork :

Damned fine site.

As to the book, I think it's called "Full Moon" and me and my nipper spent 15 minutes perusing it at Blackwells in Oxford the other day.

1st Nov 2002, 12:37
I'm not sure how the presence of cube corner reflectors on the surface of the moon proves that real live human beings climbed out of a spacecraft and placed them there. :confused:

Meanwhile, the whole moon landing controversy arises from many of the photos being impossible. I imagine that NASA now wish they never faked the National Geographic quality publicity images and just published the fuzzy, badly framed holday-snap style photos that their amateur photographer moonwalkers really brought back.

Through difficulties to the cinema

1st Nov 2002, 13:04
Check out




on the 'moon hoax' or lack of hoax, and


about the man who annoyed Buzz Aldrin by repeatedly asking him to swear on the bible that he had walked on the moon.
"When Mr. Sibrel physically blocked his path, Mr. Aldrin (who is 72, 5'10" and 160 pounds) punched Mr. Sibrel (37, 6"2" and 250 pounds) in the face." :eek: :)


1st Nov 2002, 15:13
Ah, the corner cube. Would that be the scientific name for what drivers all over the world know as "cat's eyes" then?


1st Nov 2002, 16:25
as Blacksheep says, how can the presence of laser reflectors prove man visited the moon?

the things they can do with unmanned spacecraft is incredible

tony draper
1st Nov 2002, 16:35
Including sticking a few seats in em, and a couple of astronauts.;)

1st Nov 2002, 16:50
EGLD, absolutely. Like I said, it's the aliens wot done it, everything else is a cover up. :D :D

1st Nov 2002, 20:26
Who is it that claims to have bounced a laser beam off those reflectors?.

Anthony Carn
1st Nov 2002, 21:08
I've found mention of, at least, observatories in France and Germany, as well as the USA, where laser bouncing has been done. There are reflectors from the Apollo missions, but also from Russian unmanned missions. However, the Russian reflectors are in two distinctly different locations to the USA reflectors.

So either the conspiracy includes at least the French and the Germans as well, or their aim is [email protected], or the American reflectors ARE there.

Trouble is, this still does'nt prove that manned USA missions put them there.

1st Nov 2002, 22:35
Cat's eyes FFF are more of a concentric spherical reflector sort of arrangement - but same principle. Light comes back out in the same direction it went in.

Corner cubes are what you get on a bicycle reflector, that sort of thing.

tony draper
1st Nov 2002, 22:38
I think Princess Di's butler put them there.

2nd Nov 2002, 00:01

nay nay and thrice cliche

for that he would have to be dressed as kylie and there is no evidence photographic or ortherwise too back up your claim

go straight to jail and do not contact cps on passing:D

2nd Nov 2002, 01:29
When NASA was preparing for the Apollo Project, it took the astronauts to a Navajo reservation in Arizona for training.

One day, a Navajo elder and his son came across the space crew walking among the rocks. The elder, who spoke only Navajo, asked a question. His son translated for the NASA people:
"What are these guys in the big suits doing?"

One of the astronauts said they were practicing for a trip to the moon. When his son relayed this comment the Navajo elder got all excited and asked if it would be possible to give the astronauts a message to deliver to the moon.

Recognizing a promotional opportunity when he saw one, a NASA official accompanying the astronauts said, "Why certainly!" and told a flunky to fetch a tape recorder.

The Navajo's comments into the microphone were brief. The NASA official asked the son if he would translate what his father had said. The son listened to the recording and laughed uproariously, but refused to translate. The NASA people took the recording to a nearby Navajo village and played it for other members of the tribe. They too laughed loudly but also refused to translate the elder's message to the moon.

Finally, an official government translator was summoned. After he finally stopped laughing the translator relayed the message:
"Watch out for these pr***s! They have come to steal your land."

compressor stall
2nd Nov 2002, 07:05
Ah yes, there is a sad prefection with any conspiricy argument in that it is irrefutable. From Chemtrails to the Moon to JFK, they revel in what cannot be disproven, and feel a unifying superiority in the knowledge that they know "more" than the average citizen. It boils down to an insecurity complex.

When the Japanese satellite returns those pics of the moon's surface complete with lunar lander, the conspiricy theorists will claim that either the pics were doctored, or unmanned craft placed them there.

Get a life. :mad:

Anthony Carn
2nd Nov 2002, 08:51
NOW you've done it ! ( no not that, I already know I need to get a life )

An unmanned mission put the buggy etc. there ! Possible ! Back to the drawing board !

Wonder if this Jap orbiter will be able to pick out FOOTPRINTS ! That'd sort it ! (???)

2nd Nov 2002, 10:27
Nah, AC - the unmanned mission contained a robotic arm to which were attached two pairs of wellington boots.... Ahhh you can guess the rest.

The unmanned probe then took samples of Moon rock and returned them to Earth :rolleyes:

Or maybe fraudsters at NASA took some ordinary Earth rock and adjusted the Oxygen-16 / Oxygen-18 isotope ratio just to fool us all. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Anthony Carn
2nd Nov 2002, 10:55
Did you have to put the boot in ?

I'll never be happy now ! :(

2nd Nov 2002, 20:06
My Physics Lecturer, who holds a PhD in Computational Plasma Physics (or something like that), swears blind that the moon landings were faked, and i would consider him to be a reasonable intelligent man.


tony draper
2nd Nov 2002, 20:08
Oh must be true then .;)

2nd Nov 2002, 21:12
Reckon they should get that orbiter to look for Occam's razor. Find that and it proves they must have put men on the moon, a robot wouldn't need a razor. :D

3rd Nov 2002, 07:27
How do we know the Moon isn't a fake in the first place??:confused:

3rd Nov 2002, 08:22
I have a piece of Green Cheese in my fridge.

If that doesn't prove that I have been to the moon, nothing will ....

3rd Nov 2002, 10:53
tch, here's my thoughts.......

One, about the reflectors, if they got there by unmanned space craft, then the technology is around to get to the moon, so why not?

two, anyone who has seen the power of a rocket engine first hand, and seen the design of the Apollo rockets, and witnessed the rockets blasting off into space, I'd say they're pretty sure of the guys being there

three, I'm sure that somewhere back in the 1960s when these guys were up there, someone had a telescope watching.

Get real, please! I'll try to get to the moon myself if that'll prove it to ye heathens....

Anyways, it's not important whether Armstrong and co. walked on the moon or not, what's important is that with the technology it's possible!!!!

oooh err, I seem to have posted twice!

3rd Nov 2002, 11:43
Are there really a Moon?.

Tricky Woo
3rd Nov 2002, 13:14
Hmm, even the angular resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope is insufficient to see details on the moon of less than 100 meters or so: the bits 'n' bobs the astronauts left behind are far smaller than that.

Them pesky NASA people probably limited the 'scope's size to ensure their moon-landing scam doesn't get rumbled.

I guess when the next space telescope goes up in the few years time, they'll have to doctor the photos a bit to show the landing site.

They already doctor satellite photos of earth to show images of Australia that (as discussed elsewhere) doesn't even exist!



There really is a moon. However, there's no such planet as Pluto.

Hope this helps.


3rd Nov 2002, 13:59
Here we go again.

From time to time the issue of Apollo moon landings arises on these pages. Did man walk on the moon, or did he not? Is there a conspiracy about to suggest he did when he didn't? Or is there not?

And from time to time I remind contributors to these pages that if there was a conspiracy about to hoodwink the international public regarding this matter then the Soviets were in on it too.

You see, the Apollo programme was a politically motivated rather than a scientifically motivated effort. The cold war was in full swing with national and ideological prestige at stake. (From memory, I believe only one scientist was reported to have walked on the moon.)

The Russians themselves had a serious lunar program in place at that time and it was with some embarrassment that they congratulated the American success.

The point is that if the data stream and telemetry from the Apollo 11 astronauts had not been eminating from the Sea of Tranquillty then the Soviets would have been the first to shout from the roof tops that that was the case. Their silence at that time about that matter should be sufficent evidence that a manned Apollo lunar landing in fact did occur.

Now with regard to MMEMatty's Physics lecturer with the PhD who swears blind that the manned lunar landings were a fabrication I say this: As a scientist the lecturer would be familiar with the 'scientific method' and would be aware that relevant data, observations, experiments and theory used to construct or test a hypothesis takes precedence over swearing blind. The lecturer's contiribution to this debate is welcome.

Finally, I believe that millenia hence historians will judge the twentieth century as the most bloodthirsty to that date yet acknowledge that among the bloodletting the Apollo project was the most noble and supreme of human endeavors in that century.

(How did that flag fly in an airless environment??)

3rd Nov 2002, 16:51
It had a wire coat hanger in it. Really.

3rd Nov 2002, 20:11
My Physics Lecturer's argument basically boils down to the fact that Man could not survive passing through the Van Allen Radiation Belt, a point disproven on the bad astronomy website preveiously mentioned.

I Personally believe we went to the moon, i mean, how many people would have to have remained silent for nearly 40 years if this was a hoax? Deathbeds have a nasty habit of coughing up secrets. I mean if we know what Monica and Bill got up to in the Oval office, and also the size of Saddams pecker, how come we know nothing of this hoax?

I think we give the government too much credit sometimes.


North Shore
3rd Nov 2002, 20:59

Green Cheese in your fridge? Time to do some cleaning, I'd say:D

3rd Nov 2002, 21:09
North Shore, always thought green cheese means it's new cheese. Now if the meat in his fridge was green....:D

Anthony Carn
3rd Nov 2002, 21:34
I realise that Jet Blast is "Not for the faint hearted", as advertised, but, really North Shore......
...............CLEANING ! ! ! ! :eek: :eek: :eek:
The use of some words should be prohibited, or at least spell it cle**ing or something !

Q -- Why have'nt they sent a woman to the moon ?

A -- Because it does'nt need cle**ing yet !

And therein lies the answer to the topic question; When photographs of the landing sites are eventually obtained, if it's a f*****g mess then men have been there ! :D

Windy Militant
4th Nov 2002, 08:58
Everybody knows that Both the Russians and NASA were in on the scam! It's all part of the master plan as the man said "All that hardware to put two men and a bike on the moon....".
Next you'll be telling me that Wallace and Grommit's "Grand Day Out" was just fiction and not a documentary about the British space programme!:D
Mind you it's a shame that the Americans were distracted from their original line of research. I wonder what would have happened if they'd have continued with what they started with the X-15. I suppose that without the cold war they wouldn't have had the will to go into space as ultimately happened. But how far along would we be with hypersonic lift vehicles or MUSTARD type space shuttles rather than solid rocket boosters. Would we have a genuine reusable system by now or would we have ignored space completely?

4th Nov 2002, 09:09
Cleaning :confused:

Wossat then ?

Mind you, you do NOT want to see the stuff I found behind the cooker the other day ... :eek:

4th Nov 2002, 17:43
Actually the United States Air Force did have an excellent space program running in the early 1960’s. The X-15 was to be the first step for outer space travel, not the last.

However due to the Cold War, President Kennedy decided that the US had to beat Russia to the moon and the manned spaced program was handed over to NASA with a unlimited budget to get a man on the moon before the Russians and before the end of the decade. And guess where a lot of that money came from. Edwards damn near became a ghost town.

There have been some excellent programs on the Wing Discovery channel and the History channel on the Air Force space program. This is some what backed up in the movie “Right Stuff”. There was a scene in a bar (surprise, surprise) where Veager and other top pilots talked about the NASA program and basically they all had the same opinion, why leave a proven well planed program where they were the senior pilots and go into some unproven new plan. Well we all now know what happened to the guys that stayed, nothing.

The current Space Shuttle program is actually a continuation of the old Air Force space program with one major difference. In the old Air Force program the spacecraft were to put into orbit buy other aircraft. The Air Force plan never called for the spacecraft to fired off the ground like a rocket as the current shuttle. I remember as a child building models of piggyback launch and spacecraft.

Sadly for the Air Force landing on the moon was not a high priority item and it paid the price.

8th Nov 2002, 17:39

NASA have apparently 'pulled' the book.

8th Nov 2002, 17:56
Here's one for you all:


While Nasa was doing work on getting to the moon, they and the AF were doing excellent research on wingless fast flight, definately needed to develop the shuttle, and the now expired CRV for the station (That I hope one day to see revived).

This type of research was also revived int he new batch of hypersonic test vehicles, unfotunately the first of which suffered a demise after launch.