The Moon!

[Riffage]

Having watched a documentary a few days about the whole moon landing along with all the evidence, do you believe the US government? Has man landed on the moon?

 

Ill start, i do not think that we have been to the moon for a few reasons. 1) The moon has been mapped several times but there is no evidence of thier studies on the moon, eg. the moon buggy was left there, but it cant be seen on any pictures taken. 2) Some film companies have examined the films taken and have come up with some questions, why is it that some of the cameras are in colour and some not, and why are some really grainy and some perfectly clear, speeding the film up to a certain rate shows the astronauts just walking around at normal speed. 3) Apparently due to the physics of the magnetic poles of the earth the radiation produced would virtually kill the astronauts when they returned to earth, 4) When the landing pod lands on the moon dust is only blown up for about 1/2 second and then everything goes clear, the moon lander is then spotless of dust or any particles. 5) When the moon lander blasts off from the moon there is no dust blown up and no scorch marks are left, also it looks like it could be on a bungee cord and how does that camera follow it up away from the surface? 6) All the ststic pictures taken by the astronauts were taken from chest mounted cameras, of which they could not see what they were taking pictures of, just point in the right direction and take a picture, but all the pictures taken are expertly framed, none are off the edge of a picure, always directly in the middle.

 

So what are your comments, do you believe the US government?

[mercatfat]

Here's some information on why you're retarded:

 

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm

 

Give them a once over.

[Riffage]

you know the forums are called Discussion right, youve just ended it, kinda defeats the point of me asking for comments. nice avatar btw

[mercatfat]

It's not worth discussing. The evidence against it being a hoax is overwhelming, as every hoax theory has been debunked by intelligence.

[Acrylic]

well, mek posted this a long time ago in the escape mi forums, in the harbor, find it and read it

[Huz]

I saw the same programme Riffage did (see, Channel 5 is good for something!). The most interesting part for me was coming up with rational explanations for the 'anomalies' it put forth. Thanks for the links, merc - I never bothered to read up about it myself, but the info on those pages basically tallied with what I thought.

 

Incidentally, Riffage, I was watching a programme on Bravo yesterday (Monday) putting forward the exact opposite view. They'll probably show it again in the near future, so there you go. Something else to think about.

[Dark_Assassin]

With the cameras point...

 

The astronauts (supposedly) used cameras with view screens on the top so that they could see what they were taking photos of.

 

Also... did you notice that in photos of the moons surface taken by the apollo missions there are no stars.

 

Strange considering that the moon has no atmosphere and stars should be visible at all times...

[Tall Guy]

having watched the program i think all the evidence points toward it being hoax...even if nasa do have an answer for everything

[DomStLeger]

Originally posted by Dark_Assassin

With the cameras point...

 

The astronauts (supposedly) used cameras with view screens on the top so that they could see what they were taking photos of.

 

Also... did you notice that in photos of the moons surface taken by the apollo missions there are no stars.

 

Strange considering that the moon has no atmosphere and stars should be visible at all times...

 

Don't forget, they took the photographs on high quality film but we've only ever seen the photos on TV or in magazines. I bet the high res originals are detailed enough to show stars. Though, the pitures were all taken in sunlight, maybe the light of the sun overwhelms the light of the stars even without atmosphere?

[The Adventurer]

Originally posted by Dark_Assassin

With the cameras point...

 

The astronauts (supposedly) used cameras with view screens on the top so that they could see what they were taking photos of.

 

Also... did you notice that in photos of the moons surface taken by the apollo missions there are no stars.

 

Strange considering that the moon has no atmosphere and stars should be visible at all times...

 

Its another lighting issue. In daylight on the moon you can't see the stars.

 

Give it up guys we did land, stop being commies...

[scabb]

Originally posted by Huz

I saw the same programme Riffage did (see, Channel 5 is good for something!). The most interesting part for me was coming up with rational explanations for the 'anomalies' it put forth. Thanks for the links, merc - I never bothered to read up about it myself, but the info on those pages basically tallied with what I thought.

 

Incidentally, Riffage, I was watching a programme on Bravo yesterday (Monday) putting forward the exact opposite view. They'll probably show it again in the near future, so there you go. Something else to think about.

 

Channel 5 & Bravo! I'm disgusted.

 

If Wallace & Gromit can go to the moon, so can we.

[BooJaka]

Originally posted by scabb

If Wallace & Gromit can go to the moon, so can we.

 

I guess someone had to leave that weird oven-thing up there.

[Riffage]

see discussion!!! ill look out for the program about it not being a hoax aswell, cheers

[Riffage]

i still have my doubts, i mean there cant be two identical sets of mountains in two different directions, it just doesnt happen.....

 

 

i still think that we havnt been, even with all the explanations, why? because they seem to good an explanation.

[elTee]

I think that the evidence that the photos are fake is there, but I refuse to believe the conspiracy. It would make a mockery of this subject (Space, and astronomy) which I love.

That said, Nasa have made some pretty amateurish errors in the past.

[The Adventurer]

Originally posted by Riffage

i still have my doubts, i mean there cant be two identical sets of mountains in two different directions, it just doesnt happen.....

 

 

i still think that we havnt been, even with all the explanations, why? because they seem to good an explanation.

 

Guys did you read the site? The first picture is with the lander in the shot. The second shot is the same shot only PAST the Lander. It is the same moutian range. There so far away they just don't look closer when your past the lander.

 

See the big black spot on the second image? Thats the landers shadow their standing in.

[ptdc]

It's hard to get an idea of scale and distance in these pictures, the mountains look like hills, but they are probably VERY big. Therefore it would be hard to detect a small change in the location of the camera.

[Drunken_Sailor]

Originally posted by Riffage

Having watched a documentary a few days about the whole moon landing along with all the evidence, do you believe the US government? Has man landed on the moon?

 

Ill start, i do not think that we have been to the moon for a few reasons. 1) The moon has been mapped several times but there is no evidence of thier studies on the moon, eg. the moon buggy was left there, but it cant be seen on any pictures taken. 2) Some film companies have examined the films taken and have come up with some questions, why is it that some of the cameras are in colour and some not, and why are some really grainy and some perfectly clear, speeding the film up to a certain rate shows the astronauts just walking around at normal speed. 3) Apparently due to the physics of the magnetic poles of the earth the radiation produced would virtually kill the astronauts when they returned to earth, 4) When the landing pod lands on the moon dust is only blown up for about 1/2 second and then everything goes clear, the moon lander is then spotless of dust or any particles. 5) When the moon lander blasts off from the moon there is no dust blown up and no scorch marks are left, also it looks like it could be on a bungee cord and how does that camera follow it up away from the surface? 6) All the ststic pictures taken by the astronauts were taken from chest mounted cameras, of which they could not see what they were taking pictures of, just point in the right direction and take a picture, but all the pictures taken are expertly framed, none are off the edge of a picure, always directly in the middle.

 

So what are your comments, do you believe the US government?

 

The way this argument was presented to begin with

almost sounds like a shop steward filing a grievance for a lost cause at the post office.

 

Too many telescopes were watching that night when

Neal Armstrong and the crew made its landing back

around '69 and plenty caught reflections of

descent.

 

There's been too many advances about our study of

the weather and oceans since and too many huge

photos of the

earth from just past the Moon's horizon.

 

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74834

[The Adventurer]

3) Apparently due to the physics of the magnetic poles of the earth the radiation produced would virtually kill the astronauts when they returned to earth,

that is false

 

6) All the ststic pictures taken by the astronauts were taken from chest mounted cameras, of which they could not see what they were taking pictures of, just point in the right direction and take a picture, but all the pictures taken are expertly framed, none are off the edge of a picure, always directly in the middle.

There were hundred of "crap" pictures. and because they were crap you never see them.

[Hellbeard]

I went to the moon once.

[SamNMax]

I think we already did. I think we have (had) the techknolagly to do so.

[Riffage]

Long Live Communists!

[Wossname]

Reasons why I think the moon landings were real:

 

1) A reflector was placed on the moon which has been used by many independant scientists for a variety of experiments.

 

2) If no-one went to the moon, the russians would have called the Americans on it in a heartbeat. To fool the russians, they basically would have had to send _something_ to the moon, so why not people?

 

3) Hundreds of thousands of people would have to be in on it. Now, I know the conspiracy-theorists say that only a few people at the top were in on it, but that means that the other 400 thousand people actually _were_ designing and building equipment that _could_ take men to the moon. The contractors knew what their stuff could do. It would have been a terrible waste of money to build a ship that could land on the moon and then not actually do it.

 

4) None of the objections withstands more than 3 minutes thought, or a simple experiment:

- No Stars: Try looking at the sky on a brightly lit city street and see if you can see stars. It's an issue of contrast, and cameras are much worse than the human eye.

- Mapping the moon: Was at too low a resolution to see the moon buggies. Have you ever seen your car on a weather sattelite picture?

- Some pictures are black and white and some are colour, and some are grainy and some are not: Gee, I've never seen any variation in pictures taken on earth. Remember that the Apollo pictures are taken over the course of 6 different moon landings, and they didn't always take the same equipment along.

- Speeding up the film makes it look like they're walking normally: I have to say that to me it doesn't look normal at all. It looks like sped up film taken in a low-g environment.

- Radiation: Simply false and wrong.

- Moon dust doesn't get everywhere: On earth dust blows about because it's in an atmosphere that's constantly moving. On the moon there is no atmosphere, so dust that's blown up travels in a neat parabolic arc. This is convincing proof to me that the landings were real - what's the conspiracists explanation for this effect?

- No scorch mark: The moon has low gravity, it doesn't take a powerful engine to get off the moon.

[Wossname]

Reasons why I think the moon landings were real:

 

1) A reflector was placed on the moon which has been used by many independant scientists for a variety of experiments.

 

2) If no-one went to the moon, the russians would have called the Americans on it in a heartbeat. To fool the russians, they basically would have had to send _something_ to the moon, so why not people?

 

3) Hundreds of thousands of people would have to be in on it. Now, I know the conspiracy-theorists say that only a few people at the top were in on it, but that means that the other 400 thousand people actually _were_ designing and building equipment that _could_ take men to the moon. The contractors knew what their stuff could do. It would have been a terrible waste of money to build a ship that could land on the moon and then not actually do it.

 

The design of the lunar module, for example, can be seen to address real issues regarding visibility out of the windows. It's a bizarre shape that no science fiction writer would ever have come up with. Why bother to spend so much time designing such features if they weren't ever going to be used?

 

4) None of the objections withstands more than 3 minutes thought, or a simple experiment:

- No Stars: Try looking at the sky on a brightly lit city street and see if you can see stars. It's an issue of contrast, and cameras are much worse than the human eye.

- Mapping the moon: Was at too low a resolution to see the moon buggies. Have you ever seen your car on a weather sattelite picture? My god! You've been lying about having a car!

- Some pictures are black and white and some are colour, and some are grainy and some are not: Gee, I've never seen any variation in pictures taken on earth. Remember that the Apollo pictures are taken over the course of 6 different moon landings, and they didn't always take the same equipment along.

- Speeding up the film makes it look like they're walking normally: I have to say that to me it doesn't look normal at all. It looks like sped up film taken in a low-g environment.

- Radiation: Simply false and wrong.

- Moon dust doesn't get everywhere: On earth dust blows about because it's in an atmosphere that's constantly moving. On the moon there is no atmosphere, so dust that's blown up travels in a neat parabolic arc. This is convincing proof to me that the landings were real - what's the conspiracists explanation for this effect? Incidentally, this effect can be seen very impressively on some of the moon rover movies, where the dust kicked up goes in neat parabolas - how would this special visual effect be achieved in the 1960s/70s? Why would people faking the moon landings remember to achieve such a sophisticated effect which 99% of people wouldn't understand, yet forget to put stars in. Maybe they actually filmed in a vacuum set - oh no, that can't be it, because of the 'waving flag' and the 'people standing in shadows' and all the other crap the conspiracy theorists think proves they weren't in a vacuum.

- No scorch mark: The moon has low gravity, it doesn't take a powerful engine to get off the moon.

- How did the camera follow the lander up: That picture was taken remotely by an operator on earth. It was taken on Apollo 17, and was the last chance to get such a picture. Previous attempts failed because the operator on earth misjudged the delay in the signal.

- All good pictures: A modicum of research would reveal that there are lots of pictures that aren't so great.

 

5) Basically, in order to make all the 'mistakes' that conspiracy theorist allege (Forgetting to put in stars! Accidentally labelling rocks with letters! Painting crosshairs behind objects instead of in front of them! Somehow deliberately lighting the moon "set" so that shadows go in funny directions), the people making the fake moon landing would have had to be complete and utter morons. I'm not talking about your average Joe Moron here, I'm talking about stupidity on a vast and humungous scale never before encountered outside a school for the mentally handicapped. Forgetting to put in stars?!? They may as well have painted the sky yellow - except that the lack of stars is _correct_!!!

 

Frankly it's easier for me to believe that human beings are both capable of going to the moon and actually went to the moon than it is for me to believe that stupidity on this level could actually have occurred.

 

I wrote a story a while back that details in a comedic manner many of the brain-dead decisions that would have had to be made for the conspiracy theory to be true. It's on my website at:

http://www.frabjous.org/writing/moon-hoax.html

 

6) Inconsistencies in the conspiracy theorists explanations for things: For example there is a 'waving flag' (Which is in fact simply the astronaut jiggling it trying to put it in the ground), which according to the conspiracy explanation is caused by a gust of wind, which implies the hoax filming is taking place outside. But hang on - there _are_ stars in earth's night sky. Where'd they go? The no-stars theory, and the rock-with-a-letter-on theory, imply that the filming was taking place on an inside set, which had a painted backdrop (Which the painters apparently forgot to paint stars on) and 'fake' rocks (Like there aren't enough real rocks that they have to make their own and stamp letters on them). On an interior set, where did the wind which blew the flag come from?

 

7) In one of the missions, one of the astronauts dropped a hammer and a feather, and they fell to the ground at the same speed. This only happens in a vacuum. (One of the conspiracy theorists claims that this actually happens in earth atmosphere too, more proof that they don't even take basic steps to actually verify that the crap they're spouting is true - how difficult would it be for the guy to find a hammer and a feather and drop them and observe the effects? Try it yourself. Hell, if you can't find a hammer and a feather, try a remote control and a piece of paper)

[Hellbeard]

Is the Moon Made of Cheese!?