View Full Version : Fake Moon Landing debate

Home - Discussion Forums - News - Reviews - Interviews

New reviews, interviews and news

New in the Discussion Forum

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

July 20th, 2002, 10:51 AM
Keep the posts rolling in.

The Americans were failing miserably. Astronauts dead, space shuttles not even taking off without exploding. Then Russia beat them into space and they are crapping themselves. Suddenly, a few years later, their tin cans are able to travel to the moon without a single hitch.

Talaith - The pictures in the doc. had those crosshairs, but there were things like rocks and the flag and equipment that overlapped in front of the crosshairs. The crosshairs have to be in front. Props were put in later.

It's our atmosphere that stops us seeing the stars all day long. The moon has no such problems. They knew they would not fool people with static backgrounds of stars, so that's why it is always black.

Cadfael - The scenery is not just similar. They overlayed different parts of the moon. The positioning of everything from rocks to craters to hills are perfect matches.

With the double speed thing. If you think of the double-speed as the original, then slow it down, it proves that moon gravity can be faked by anyone who knows how to slow down film.

Something I forgot was an astronaut being snapped from tqwo angles. From behind, part of the upper suit is sticking up. From the front at the same time, the piece is not there. Either they doctored in the piece of the suit, or they doctored it out.

As for the light source thing. Forget about the earth and the sun. In one of many pictures, an astronout was standing in front of the shuttle. Light from behind - legitimate. But the shuttle is in the darkness of the shadows, but not the astonaut. Either it was a spotlight on a set, the photos were doctored, or the astronaughts and some of the equipment are radioactive.

Debunk me like I've never been debunked before by all means.

July 20th, 2002, 11:46 AM
It's our atmosphere that stops us seeing the stars all day long. The moon has no such problems. They knew they would not fool people with static backgrounds of stars, so that's why it is always black.

Not true... if you stand in a darkened room with three candles burning and you are facing them... and then someone shines a torch in you face... closer than the candles... you will no longer see the candles...

What I am saying is... because out sun was the closest star, with all other stars behind it... the suns light 'drowned' out the light from other stars... it is all down to contrast. If you are siting in front of a computer monitor... and sunlight is flooding the room.... the picture is hard to see in certain instances... this is down to the contrast.

July 20th, 2002, 12:13 PM
As for not seeing stars...you go get a 1960's era movie camera and start pointing up to the skies...and see if you see stars. You won't, the exposure is too short for the camera to pick up the very dim light sources (stars). Even with modern video cameras I doubt that you can catch starlight with an exposure of 0.03 seconds ;)

July 20th, 2002, 10:16 PM
At the risk of beating a dead horse, here is a picture from a Space Shuttle Mission:

Note the lack of stars in the background. In order for the stars to show up on film, be it modern film or 1960s era film, the camera shutter would have to be left open so long that the rest of image would be overexposed (i.e. look like a big white blur). That is the way film works.

As for those little crosshairs...they are reference marks. They add the silly little things in when they develop the pictures. Since it would have been done by hand, nothing says whoever was developing the pictures had to put a silly crosshair over interesting parts of the picture.

The biggest flaw in the "moon landings were faked" theory would have to be all those rock samples they brought back from the Moon. Kind of hard to do without actually going there to get them.

July 21st, 2002, 12:16 AM
Like the female orgasm, who cares if it was faked or not, just as long as we got our rocks off.

July 21st, 2002, 03:46 AM
These are tidbits from various sites:

Why are there never any stars showing in any of the moon pictures? If the Hubble Telescope can see them, why can't the Astro-Nots?


On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's


If you will look at area B you will notice a shadow cast across Buzz Aldrin's space suit. Once again, if the Sun is the only light source used on the moon, this shadow would have been MUCH darker.
Looking at area C you will notice that the surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.
Looking at area D you can plainly see some type of structure reflected through Aldrins helmet. I do not know what it is, but it is there.


I would like to direct your attention to the circled portion of the screen. These Lunar Rover tracks are quite well defined, don't you agree? Well, the fact is, you need a mixture of a compound, and water, to make such defined lines. I don't know if that idea is so convincing, but I assure you, this next one is.

If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?


Here is a portion of the previous picture, blown up. Take a look at the cross hairs that appear on the picture. These hairs appear on EVERY lunar picture. These cross hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film, supposedly. If you take a look at the cross hair on the left, this cross hair was placed behind the lunar rover, you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs.

July 21st, 2002, 05:12 AM
Okay, the whole "no stars in the photo" thing really has been beaten to death. The astronauts can see the stars. Human eyes are not film. The Hubble can see the stars. It is a telescope. That is what is does. The Hubble is so light sensitive that it can only be used when it can be pointed no where near the Sun, the Earth, or the Moon or the optics will burn out.

The fuzzy horizon business...we are talking the 60s here. they didn't have the super fine grained films the we have today.

There is another light source on the Moon. It is called "reflected light." If one were to stand near a spacecraft with metallic gold foil covering its lower portions, for example, one would end up being bathed in reflected light. The Earth, what with all those clouds, also reflects alot of light.

There were other structures on the Moon. The astronauts put them there. There was the flag. There were various and sundry science pallets with nifty things like seismographs on them.

Funny little crosshairs in NASA photos. I was given my first book with NASA photos in it when I was 6. I am now 32 and I have amassed quite the collection of books with NASA photos in them. The little crosshairs do not only appear in the photos from the lunar missions. I have seen them in pictures from some of the early shuttle missions. It is a developing the pictures thing.

Uneven ground would alter the length of the two shadows.

Defined lines on the surface. No need to explain how that works - I have a degree in geophysics. You wouldn't expect the fine grained dust covering the surface of the Moon to behave like dirt on Earth. Scientists were worried that an astronaut might step off the lunar lander and sink over his head into the lunar dust. Fortunately it was only a few inches thick - thick enough to leave all those nifty footprints and tire tracks.

When you develop a photo you shine a light through the negative to make an image on a piece of light sensitive paper. There is a lens between the negative and the paper. Dust on lenses tends to make annoying little "C" shapes on your photos.

July 21st, 2002, 05:58 AM
Well, from what I can tell, I don't think anyone's minds are really being changed either way. Those who believe we landed will continue to do so, those who don't will do the same. I'm more in the latter category, because the whole thing smells pretty fishy to me, but I've found that most people have an opinion on this and stick with it. So how do we solve this problem? Blow up the moon and pretend it never existed, then get cheap sex off of porn quality one-liners.

July 21st, 2002, 07:49 PM
In the second photo, why are there three stars in the sky?
Is this what a star on earth would look like, or is this what a star that travels through no atmosphere would look like?

Oh and please don't blow up the moon, as it counters our planet and helps it to remain spinning on a straight axis.

Now I have no opinion on this as I've learnt to take everything witha grain of salt. If I don't see it then it may not have happened, for example WWII, Never happened.

July 22nd, 2002, 12:35 AM
Just want to say that I'm not trying to convert people. I'm just throwing some evidence up for those who want to explain it away. I still believe it possible that it happened, but the sheer number of anomalies is disconcerting.

Facts about the Moon

An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260 F to 280 F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.

About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.

If you look at the pictures/video of people on the moon, you will never see more than 3 stars.

When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched.

Some oddities

1. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming? (Unless they left cameras on the moon)

2. 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?

3. 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.

4. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

5. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

6. The flag always appears to be lit, no matter what the lighting around it.

7. The response time in instantaneous transmitting from the moon to Earth. Yet light, radio waves, and all energies of the electromagnetic spectrum travel at roughly 186,000 miles per second, meaning the response time of the astronauts to comments made
by Mission Control should have been a little over two seconds since the
moon is over 200,000 miles from the Earth.

8. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?

http://www.moonmovie.com/images/5A.jpg http://www.moonmovie.com/images/topten5B.jpg