Sunday, December 21, 2008

Is it true that Neil Armstrong landed on Moon?(part 1)

I've watched a documentary today about the hoax of moon landing,which happened in year 1969.It was fascinating and sometimes I'm thinking,is that everything that our history book told us,is actual real?

The hoax rises up when some of actual things that happened at Moon were not logic,some of them does not make sense at all.

Predominant hoax claims

A number of different hoax theories have been advanced. No one has proposed a complete narrative of how the hoax could have been perpetrated, but instead believers focus on perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the historical record of the missions. Several of these ideas and their most readily identifiable proponents are described below:

Complete hoax — The idea that the entire human landing program was completely falsified from start to finish. Some claim that the technology to send men to the Moon was insufficient or that the Van Allen radiation belts, solar flares, solar wind, coronal mass ejections and cosmic rays made such a trip impossible.

Partial hoax/unmanned landings — Bart Sibrel has stated that the crew of Apollo 11 and subsequent astronauts had faked their orbit around the Moon and their walk on its surface by trick photography, and that they never got more than halfway to the Moon. A subset of this proposal is advocated by those who concede the existence of retroreflectors and other observable human-made objects on the Moon. British publisher Marcus Allen represented this argument when he said "I would be the first to accept what [telescope images of the landing site] find as powerful evidence that something was placed on the Moon by man." He goes on to say that photographs of the lander would not prove that America put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem – the Russians did that in 1959, the big problem is getting people there." His argument focuses around NASA sending robot missions because radiation levels in space were lethal to humans. Another variant on this is the idea that NASA and its contractors did not recover quickly enough from the Apollo 1 fire, and so all the early Apollo missions were faked, with Apollo 14 or 15 being the first authentic mission.

Manned landings, with cover-ups
William Brian believes that the astronauts may have used "a secret zero gravity device" derived from technology found on a "captured extraterrestrial spaceship," but that NASA was compelled to cover up these facts and others relating to the gravity and the presence of atmosphere on the moon in order to maintain secrecy surrounding the alien space ship.
Others believe that, while astronauts did land on the Moon, they covered up what they found, whether it was gravitational anomalies, alien artifacts, or alien encounters.Philippe Lheureux, in Lumières sur la Lune (Lights on the Moon), said that astronauts did land on the Moon, but that, in order to prevent other nations from benefiting from scientific information in the real photos, NASA published fake images.

Actual lunar landing - faked filming – Still others believe that men did land on the moon, but that the photography was of very low media quality and in most cases unsuitable or even unusable. Therefore the U.S. government (NASA), since it had to present proof of the space program's success to justify taxpayers' money and keep the program alive, altered, modified and even faked many of the pictures and video, launching a subsequent media campaign with great success.

History sometimes fascinating,guys,any comment?

Meanwhile,enjoy some of the footage about this fascinating "moon hoax".

"That was done on Earth."

1 comment:

Selamba Menerpa said...

Sejarah dulu mana ada CCTV, tape decorder, kamera SLR, camcoder.

Yang ada dulu pun catatan dari mulut ke mulut je. Kalau ada pun hanya melalui potret. Lihatlah adakah wanita yang bernama 'Monalisa' dalam potret tu benar-benar wujud muka dia macam tu?

Samapi Leonardo Da Vinci pun ambil masa berhari-hari nak siapkan potret tu?

Kalau betul ianya wujud adakah logik dia duduk berhari-hari stay je kat situ yang Leonardo ni pula boleh lak maintain lukis muka dia begitu. Adakah wajah sebenarnya memang begitu?

Tahun 69, takle canggih sangat macam lani. Eveen sejarah buku teks Malaysia pun memang diragui dan sudah ada usul diminta supaya dirombak supaya tidak bersifat berat sebelah.

Orang dulu pun nak tau sejarah melalui temuramah temubual, macam watak dalam cerita Titanic tu pempuan tua yang memang masih hidup dalam usianya 300 tahun bukannya ingat semua dalam tragedi kapal karam Titanic tu. Yang keluar filem sekadar nak bagi komersilla sampai ada adegan cium-mium lepas tu aku tak mau cakap....

Setiap masa yang kita lalui kalau kita sendiri melihat sesuatu peristiwa contohnya kemalanagn jalan raya depan mata itu kita boleh tulis sebagai sejarah. Kalau ada kamkoder ke, tape decorder ke itu kita boleh dokumentasinya sebagai bahan bukti sokongan sampai kita tak perlu cerita heboh pakai mulut je.

Macam dalam teater 'Bilik Sulit' adalah pengalaman Hisham sendiri yang pernah di bawah ISA. itu adalah sejarah yang relevan walaupun ada tokok tambah dalam dialog skripnya.