Fake Moon Landing debate

[milamber_reborn]

Where'd you find out Holbrook?

I read it once in an Expose mag and a great documentary a couple of weeks ago, called Conspiracy. The NASA representitive never actually gave conclusive evidence against the individual claims.

1. Where are the stars? No atmosphere=starry sky all day and night

2. Astronauts standing with backs to the Earth (the only light source) in the photos, so if they are standing in the shadows, why are they lit up in the front as if a studio light is on them?

3. The photos have crosshairs on them, but things like rocks and the flag are in front of the crosshairs (photos have been doctored)

4. If you overlay various photos and films, the scenery doubled up, even when they are supposedly in a different area.

5. There is a radiation belt above the earth, requiring eight-feet thick lead on the tin can shuttles to survive. That's why the Russians have never passed the barrier. Cause it can't be done in current space shuttles.

6. The flag waved around in the wind in the videos - wait a second, it is impossible for there to be wind on the moon.

7. When you double speed the video the buggy and astronauts are moving as if under Earth gravity.

Debunkers are welcome to explain these anomalies.

[Cadfael]

1. Where are the stars? No atmosphere=starry sky all day and night because of the real light source... see below

2. Astronauts standing with backs to the Earth (the only light source) in the photos, so if they are standing in the shadows, why are they lit up in the front as if a studio light is on them? Erm... the earth was not the only light source.... they landed on the side of the moon that faces the sun... and it is this what lights them from the front, and the earth in the background... by the way... can YOU see star in the day time???, the sun was soo bright to the landers... that no other light source apart from the earth could bee seen

3. The photos have crosshairs on them, but things like rocks and the flag are in front of the crosshairs (photos have been doctored) Yes!!! they have been doctored... by extremist advocates of this theory... do you really think Nasa and the US government are THAT stupid

4. If you overlay various photos and films, the scenery doubled up, even when they are supposedly in a different area. so what... if you look hard enough you are bound to find similarities...

5. There is a radiation belt above the earth, requiring eight-feet thick lead on the tin can shuttles to survive. That's why the Russians have never passed the barrier. Cause it can't be done in current space shuttles. ..... the radiation belt you speak of is only about about a mile thick... it would have taken the lunar launcher less than a second to pass through it... if it is so powerful to affect human in that kind of time... we would never have gotten the Voyager craft past it.... oh wait!!!! those are fake too!!!

6. The flag waved around in the wind in the videos - wait a second, it is impossible for there to be wind on the moon. I admit.. I have never seem this.. so I remain unconvinced

7. When you double speed the video the buggy and astronauts are moving as if under Earth gravity. Double speed me on my mountain bike... it looks like I am riding a motorbike...

[Shef]

I'll pick up on the one thing Cad missed. The flag wasn't waving. If you look at an origanal version of the landing, the flag was held out and stiff on supports attached to the pole. Plus, do you think that if they went through all the trouble to make a studio look like the moon, they would leave the door open for a breeze to come through? NO!

[enazwo]

I suppose anything is possible. But there is a remarkable amount of footage that has been released over the years that certainly wouldn't fit into the "faked moon landing conspiracy". I do not believe most of the world has had the opportunity to see the de-classified footage that we have here in the US. Me personally I'm confident that it indeed happened. But you know anything's possible and people do love conspiracy theories.

[Miriamele]

This is a very interesting debate. I've actually never heard of this theory before that the moon landings were faked.

Is the theory that they were all faked, or that maybe the first one was? I can see that, because maybe the Americans were afraid that the Russians would beat them to it or something. The Russians were the first to put a man in space so it would be embarassing I suppose if they put someone on the moon first too.

But even so it does seem rather far-fetched. I am still inclined to believe that the moon landings did indeed take place.

[Jacquin]

[Talaith]

Have you ever seen stars in photos from the Space Shuttle? No. Why? Stars are so faint compared to everything else in the picture the only way to get them to show up on the film would be to increase the length of time the camera shutter stays open. You would see the stars if you increased the shutter time...maybe, the film would end up being so over-exposed you still might not be able to see them!

As for the little crosshairs in the picture, just about all those early NASA pictures have those little crosshairs in them. Here is a picture taken of Melbourne during the Skylab 4 mission:



You can see the little crosshairs in the photo. There are a few that are incomplete, but I don't think that means the existance of Melbourne has been faked by NASA!

[DarthV]

Wasn't this a Fox Special ? Come on folks... if you do any research at all, you will find every one of the accusations debunked. Fox + News don't fricking mix...

[Holbrook]

An apology.....

Jacquin has spent all afternoon on my machine.( he is my house guest) I thought he had logged out as him, so posted but it was me (place red face here I couldn't delete it so put a smilie in.) It will teach me to check.. *sigh*

I don't think the landings were faked at all, too many folk involved for that to be so...

You can't fool a radar dish in the middle of Aussie that it is receiving signals from a ship on the moon when it is not....

[Jacquin]

My fault entirely, forgot to log out when I had finished earlier.

J

[Killer Chicken]

I trust that the US government would never lie to me.... *starts laughing hysterically*

[DarthV]

What scares me is that 2 people actually voted "yes" ?

[Alucard]

"7. When you double speed the video the buggy and astronauts are moving as if under Earth gravity."

Here's the deal with that. When speeding up the film to two times the speed, it appeared just like the gravity here on earth. But here is the problem. The ratio between Earth's and the moon's gravity is much more extreme. They should have had to speed up the film six times, not two, for it to match up (I don't remember all the exact numbers . . . this is all from the back of my head, but I'm fairly sure that is what is was).

And with the light sources, the real problem is that there were multiple or split shadows. In order for such shadows to appear, there had to have been multiple light sources, which does not match up, considering they were on the moon.

And if my memory serves me correctly, they could not have launched OFF the moon with the technology used during the first launch, there was not enough resistance for them to get the necessary momentum. Again, it's been a while, so I'm not 100% I'm relating this correctly.

As for the answer to the main question--did we land on the moon?--I'm not sure. There are always conspiracies floating about, but at the same time, the U.S. certainly had the motive, and I have never been all that trusting of our government. I mean, look at JFK. That story is so full of holes that it's likely to make swiss cheese a little jealous. I'm still undecided about the moon thing, but if I had to choose, I'd say we didn't. (Oh, suspicious little me ).

[enazwo]

The most troubling thing to me is, that if it indeed turns out to be true that NASA faked the moon landing. It will derail my "Blowing up the Moon" Project. I was counting on using some of NASA's technology to carry out this mission. A mission that would save the earth's human population from the imminent attack of lunar navigating insects. This could spell trouble.

[Cadfael]

And with the light sources, the real problem is that there were multiple or split shadows. In order for such shadows to appear, there had to have been multiple light sources, which does not match up, considering they were on the moon.

I agree, and as many photographs show... especially the TV footage... they DID have arc lamps set up on the surface... this wan becuase of the poor contrast in the video images they had to beam back to earth. This would cause 'cross-shadowing'... I was an amature photographer... and we had to think about lighting in the studio to avoid this...

I have noticed that only captures from video footage is being used as evidence in this argument (not here... but in general). None of the still photographs that only were developed after the return to earth are offered a proof. The video stuff beamed to eath was very poor quality... and is open to mis-interpretation.

And if my memory serves me correctly, they could not have launched OFF the moon with the technology used during the first launch, there was not enough resistance for them to get the necessary momentum. Again, it's been a while, so I'm not 100% I'm relating this correctly.

They could lift a launch vehicle weighing a thousand or more times more that a lunar lander from a planet with 1G, but they did not have the technology to lift a vehicle that two men could lift, from a planet with 0.6G... now... come on! I think they used solid fuel rockets for this... very short lived.... but incredibley powerful