Hellbeard Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 How many roles of toilet paper would it take to go across the moon!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunken_Sailor Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 The only mystery about the Moon landings is why these people believe it was a hoax, but I really shouldn't be so surprised, some people even believe the Earth is flat. I can only assume though it is because they saw the TV program "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" It was shown In the States in February 2001 and later in the UK. The program points out 'errors' in the photographs, that there are no stars visible, that the flag waves in the 'breeze', and a host of other detail. However, the manner in which the so called 'facts' were presented by the programme to support the hoax theory were so biased, unscientific and totally inaccurate, as to be laughable, and believing them makes as much sense as reading a comic to gain information on D.I.Y. brain surgery. This was just a run -of- the -mill sensationalist TV entertainment programme, the sort of programme that refuses to let the truth get in the way of a good story. Unfortunately though, some people will believe anything that involves a wacky conspiracy theory. For a full scientific explanation of every so called error claimed by the program, visit the following excellent site: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html Photographic evidence. Let's just take a look at three photographs that demonstrate how these errors arise. I cannot include them all, otherwise this page would take a week to load, but these three silly claims come up time after time. 1) NASA forgot to paint the stars in the sky. This is a classic, my all time favourite. It is very popular with the hoax believers, but I can't understand why though, it's so easy to prove for yourself. I think it tells us something very important about the way they think. Look mum! No stars, NASA forgot to paint them in! http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Buzz%20Aldrin The real reason is that when contrasted with the brightness of the astronauts and the lunar surface, the stars are just too dim to register on the photographic emulsion of the camera film. If the camera shutter were held open long enough for the stars to register, everything else would be over-exposed into a white featureless glare. You cannot have both visible on the one photograph, so the camera was set for the correct exposure for Buzz Aldrin and the lunar surface, not the stars. When standing on the lunar surface the astronauts could visually observe the stars in the dark sky, just as we can here on Earth. By the same token, if we take a photograph outdoors at night of a brightly illuminated object, our photograph also would not show any stars in the sky. If it is so easy for hoax believers to spot this 'glaring error' - and let's face it, to forget to put the stars in would have been an incredibly stupid mistake to make - do you honestly believe that not one single person involved in the 'hoax' wouldn't have noticed it either? Or is it just that hoax believers are all just so much smarter then all of them? Anyway, no need to take my word for it is there, I could be part of the conspiracy according to your way of thinking. Just pop outside one night and try to photograph the stars with a brightly illuminated person in the foreground. Try it, its easy enough to prove without the need of a massive conspiracy theory, just you and a camera is all that is required. Case closed. 2) The Great Flag Waving in the Breeze hoax. I just love this one, very nearly as much as the 'no stars ' one. Below is one of the pictures in question. http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Moon%20Flag The flag is held out in the unfurled position by an extendable rod running through the top of the flag, so that it can be viewed unfurled, and you can see the unnatural rigidity this gives to the top of the flag in the picture. The rod creates the effect of a breeze blowing the flag into that position. Without the supporting rod the flag would just hang limply down and would not reveal the stars and stripes. Flags are designed to be blown into position by the wind on Earth, so the support was added to replicate this, as there is no atmosphere on the Moon. The rod is not extended the full width of the flag and it looks like a breeze is causing a ripple in the flag. It has also been claimed that some video clips show the flag waving in the breeze when it was planted. Not so. The movement of the flag is because when astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil. Without an atmosphere it takes a while for this movement to damp down. Do you really think that an errant breeze blowing through the set causing the flag to wave in what was supposed to be a total vacuum would not have been noticed? Such an obvious fact could not escape the notice of an entire film crew, besides which they would surely have called upon the services of experts to oversee operations to guard against this very sort of 'error'. They would simply have done another take. Case closed. 3) The cross hairs have been added after and go behind some objects I must admit to being rather fond of this one as well, as it is such a totally pointless 'hoax' that I fail to understand why anyone can believe it was actually done. The most foolish aspect of this claim is that if the cross hairs were added after, how can they possibly be overlaid on the photo and appear behind some of the objects in the photo? Hoax believers are defeating their own argument with this one! http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Cross%20Hairs The explanation:Extract from Moon Hoax Under the section 'Photography and Film'. http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax "The cross hairs on this photograph appear to go behind the objects in the photograph. Does this suggest that the photograph is a faked 'pasted-together' image? (The cross hairs are included as an aid to judging scale.)" The cross hairs on the photographs were produced by a glass plate within the camera, between the lens and film. They result in a black cross on the film because they block the light from reaching the film directly below them. If, however, you are taking a photograph of a really bright white object, the over-exposed part of the film 'bleeds' into other parts of the film. This is particularly the case if the adjacent part of the film is black. This is exactly what is happening where the cross hair meets a bright, reflective part of the photograph. It occurs in a number of the Apollo photographs, but you only see it where the cross hairs seem to disappear behind a bright white part. You never see it happening anywhere else." Why do you think NASA would want to add the cross hairs after? If they had somehow changed cameras and forgot to insert the etched glass plate that produces the cross hairs, they would have just ditched the photographs, not gone to the trouble of faking them in afterwards. It would be a hell of a lot easier just to do a re-take if the photographs were considered to be important enough. The photograph shown here can hardly be considered to be in that category, its about as mundane as they come, so why fake it? Case closed. 'Wrong' shadows. " This is a general category and covers many photographs based on the shadows being 'wrong'. This is a good one as well. It shows how easy it is to make wrong assumptions when looking at a 'problem' with tunnel vision instead of trying to understand what is really going on from a scientific point of view. This I feel is a concept that must be alien to Moon hoax believers. Lots of the hoax claims rest on the belief that the shadows shown in the photographs are somehow wrong, that they indicate more than one light source because the object shown is illuminated from the front and the sides, and so on. This leads them to believe it is due to lighting mistakes on a film set. The simple fact is that there IS more than one light source. The light does not come directly from the Sun and illuminate only the one object in question, as a narrow beam spotlight would in a dark room. It shines on the entire 'daytime' surface, just as it does here on Earth. Therefore it also illuminates the surface, the astronauts themselves, rocks, mountains, the Lander and all the other objects on the surface. The reflections from these various objects is why there is more than one light source, it is not because there was more than one spotlight used on a film set. It is also worth noting that on the lunar surface the reflected sunlight from the Earth is 68% brighter than that of the full Moon as seen from Earth. You must visit this site, its very good: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm It shows some of the photos in question with alongside little models of the scene appropriately illuminated. It is an ingenious and foolproof way of silencing the critics. Do check it out, its great, and worth a visit just to see the little models. Here is a sample from the site. http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Moon%20shadows http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Moon%20shadows The model on the left replicates a photo that hoax believers show how NASA got it wrong. They claim the astronaut standing in the shadow of the lander should not be illuminated, but should also be in shadow. The model on the right shows that it is the reflected light from the surface that is illuminating the astronaut, by placing a dark sheet of paper over the surface to reduce the reflection. There is nothing wrong with the photo, its just showing it how it is, the astronaut being lit by surface reflection, which is a lot brighter than the surface of the Earth. It is not because they used too many spotlights in a film set. Case closed. So there you have it, the most commonly believed hoaxes shown not to be. Personally I find the most surprising thing about the whole business is that hoax believers think that NASA, armed with a budget of billions of dollars and the best experts in the world, could make so many incredibly stupid errors that even the most novice, untrained, inexperienced amateur can spot them easily. I think that basically, this is what this is all about. Hoax believers consider themselves to be very smart and all the experts at NASA incredibly stupid. This is the same hoax believers that didn't even think to try to photograph the stars themselves, because they just know its a hoax, no need to test it, they saw it on the internet. Oh yes, very smart. All the other 'fake' photographs are explained just as easily with a little knowledge, and an understanding of how conditions on the Moon are very different to those here. With no atmosphere to scatter the light, things look a little odd on the Moon, we have a very black sky and a very bright surface. We see strong shadows everywhere, and our sense of distance is also fooled because there is no atmosphere to produce the familiar atmospheric haze that creates a distance perspective on Earth. Furthermore, with the gravity being only a sixth of Earth's gravity, things move and behave differently as well. It's hard to make straight comparisons, because we cannot, the Moon is just not like the Earth. We have to think differently when interpreting the images from the Moon, and that's what causes the problems, people are not allowing for those differences when looking at the lunar photographs. They are looking at them as if they were taken under normal Earth conditions, and concluding wrongly that there must be something wrong with the photographs. There isn't! Scientific Errors It isn't just the photographs that have misled the hoax believers either, it's also a lack of scientific knowledge. It's difficult to select a favourite hoax that makes the most ridiculous claim, because there are so many to choose from, but personally I think this has to be number one, its a beaut! I just love it to pieces. The Moon rocks are just Earth rocks. Here's the explanation of why they can't be Earth rocks. Extract taken from The Great Moon Hoax: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm "Moon rocks are absolutely unique," says Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). McKay is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "They differ from Earth rocks in many respects," he added. Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. "There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don't normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays," says McKay. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere. Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies. Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one." "I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]." Another popular hoax theory, this time sounding more plausible than usual because it is difficult to verify without a very good understanding of the nature of particles and their effect on the human body. Astronauts could not survive passage through the Van Allen radiation belt. As this is a very complex subject I have wisely decided against attempting to summarise it here. You can either take my word for it that all the astronauts travelled through it with no apparent ill effects, or go to this site and study the full technical and scientific explanation yourself. http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html It explains in great detail why the hoax believers have got it all wrong (as usual) and shows scientifically calculated radiation dosage levels that the crews would have been exposed to. If you happen to be smart enough you can check the figures yourself. The site explains that it is possible that some of the astronauts may possibly develop cancer because of this exposure, but so far the group have not developed cancer at any significant level different to that of any other group of normal Earth-bound people. They certainly managed to survive the round trip to the Moon in good health. The Moon hoax believers however, believe that in order to survive, the astronauts would have required lead shielding ranging from 4 to 6 feet thick depending on which hoax site you happen to prefer. As this is a hard one to prove or disprove because of the mathematics and knowledge of particle physics involved, most of us are at the mercy of others. So do your own research if you are unhappy about this issue, but just be careful to ensure that the source is acknowledged as a creditable. Select your sources carefully! For example, having to decide which view is correct here, would it be from someone who makes a living selling second hand cars, or an acknowledged expert in the field of astro-physics? Who's opinion would you logically accept? We do accept things on trust, we do it all the time. Do you not accept the fact that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth? Why do you accept it? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Why doesn't the Hubble Space Telescope provide proof? This argument runs along the lines that as the HST can provide images of galaxies millions of light years away, why can't it provide images of a lander on the Moon, which is on our door step? Bit of a funny question really, anyone with normal eyesight can see the Andromeda Spiral Galaxy easily with the naked eye, and that's over 2 million light years away! As an amateur astronomer of some 4 years standing I have always understood why the HST could not provide images of the lunar landers on the surface of the Moon, but to get the correct figures I checked out the HST site at Hubble Space Telescope http://hubble.stsci.edu/ Its all down to the size of Hubble's main mirror, which is 2.4 metres. One of the factors of the worth of a telescope is its resolution, the smallest amount of detail it can see, and this depends on the size and quality of the mirror. Hubble's resolution is an amazing 0.05 arc seconds. This is how I calculate the minimum size object that HST can image on the Moon, in as simple a way as I could devise. Visual maximum diameter of full Moon = 31'40" = 1900 arc seconds (a fraction over 1/2 a degree) HST resolution = 0.05 arc seconds Therefore HST can resolve an object on the Moon of (1900 divided by 0.05 ) = 1/38,000th of the Moon's diameter Actual diameter of Moon = 3476 km Therefore resolvable object size = 3476 km divided by 38,000 = 91 metres As the landers can only be around 10 metres across at the very most, it is not possible for the HST to resolve them, they just wouldn't show up on any image of the area under examination. I emailed the HST site to make sure I had got my sums right, explaining why I needed it for this site, and their reply was as follows: "You are correct. Hubble's resolution is good and can resolve objects and areas as small as 280 feet, (86 meters) which rules out the Apollo debris on the moon. Hope this helps!" Yes it does! Thanks to the HST Office of Public Outreach. http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Copernicus HST maximum detail image of the 58 mile wide crater Copernicus. Imagine trying to see a lander! Anyway, what would be the point even if the HST were able to image the landers? The good old Moon hoax believers would only claim the images were faked. Enough of scientific errors, I cannot answer them all here, it would take a book, but a little research will always reveal that the hoaxers have got it wrong every time. If you wish to check out further sites that debunk the Moon hoax theory, this one is very good on facts, with clear easy to follow explanations, with a host of photographs, and offers a good choice of further sites.The Moon landings were not faked http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked I think that's enough for now. It's all down to a poor understanding of physics, photography and science, sounding just plausible enough to convince others who also have only a limited knowledge in these subjects. Ask any photographer about photographing the stars, they will understand at once why they do not appear in the dark sky. Look back through any old photographs you have taken outdoors at night, you will not see a single star in any of them. It would only take a few seconds for you pop outdoors one night and prove it for yourself. What do I think? The Apollo missions landed 12 men on the Moon, no doubt about it. The so called 'fake' photographs are not fakes, it's just some people's mistaken interpretation of them that is the problem, the photographs themselves contain no problems. The Apollo crews did leave Earth orbit and did survive the Van Allen radiation belt. If you think you still have any problems remaining, then a visit to the sites I have put in links to should dispel them. As a matter of interest, if you believe otherwise, how do you explain the Moon rock samples held in laboratories throughout the world? As explained above, they REALLY ARE Moon rocks, and cannot possibly be Earth rocks that have been faked. You could, I suppose, argue that every laboratory, university, research centre, geological institution, professional scientist, etc, throughout the world that has examined the Moon rocks, are so incredibly stupid that they have failed to spot that they are really only faked up Earth rocks? (This is ignoring the fact that they cannot be faked anyway). Or perhaps you prefer the good old standby that it is all part of a world wide conspiracy. (No, you're not paranoid, they really are all conspiring against you). Or perhaps instead you think that a probe was sent to the Moon to bring back the Moon rocks? Well yes, that is possible, sort of, but not on this scale. Three robotic Soviet Lunar probes returned a total of about 3/4 lb. (301 grams) from three lunar sites in the 1970's. However, the Apollo crews from 1969 to 1972 collected a total 840 lbs, (382 kgs.) of rock and other surface material. One rock alone weighed 25 lbs. (11.7 kgs.) In comparison to the Apollo total of 840 lbs. the Soviet total of 3/4 lbs. is miniscule. Probes simply could not have returned that much material, (especially a single rock weighing 25 lbs.) and if they could have, it would have been the Soviets that achieved it as they were always way ahead in the field of robotic probes. Do you really think that all those people spread across the globe and tuning into the broadcasts from the Moon, both professional and amateur alike, were unable to tell the difference in the signal from one based in Earth orbit to one 240,000 miles away? The transmissions could not be 'altered' to give that effect. I have received emails suggesting that this was if fact what happened, that the signals were 'faked' to make it appear that they came from the Moon. However, this could not be accomplished even today, let alone back in 1969. Do you think Apollo 13 was just for fun, why fake that? You think every single one of the thousands of photographs was faked? All the video was faked? Think just how many people would have to be involved in the cover-up, and they all kept quiet? Really! Whatever arguments are presented claiming the Moon landings never happened, the fact is they did. I have even been emailed to have it pointed out to me that as the 'Apollo 13' film was made in Hollywood, so could the Moon landings have been made in the Nevada Desert. This theory also clearly demonstrates that the 'Titanic' may not really have sunk either! Just how bad can some people's reasoning get? How on Earth do you begin to reply to this type of nonsense? I sometimes just despair at some people's mentality. However, in reply to the person who emailed me to ask why I am so sure that the Earth is not flat, the answer is very simple. If it were flat then I'm sure that you would have been the first to fall off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 Thats the second biggest.........no wait that IS the biggest post ive ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeysee Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 Does it really matter I mean nowadays people are like "...oh wow it's... it's the moon. pretty cool that's neat. Hey look they are seving Tacos at lunch today All Right! (hellbeard is that single or double ply?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbeard Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 Single Ply! (Does he really expect us to read all of that!?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meksilon Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 Okay, number 1 Drunken_Sailor, this has nothing to do with the TV program. We have in fact discussed further evidence and taken a deeper look rather then cry about crosshairs (which can disappear). 1) NASA forgot to paint the stars in the sky. The real reason is that when contrasted with the brightness of the astronauts and the lunar surface, the stars are just too dim to register on the photographic emulsion of the camera film. If the camera shutter were held open long enough for the stars to register, everything else would be over-exposed into a white featureless glare. You cannot have both visible on the one photograph, so the camera was set for the correct exposure for Buzz Aldrin and the lunar surface, not the stars. You have forgotten that SOME photos taken on the moon have one, two or even three stars in them (never any more then 4). How is THAT possible? Case closed? HAHAHAHA.2) The Great Flag Waving in the Breeze hoax. I just love this one, very nearly as much as the 'no stars ' one. Below is one of the pictures in question. ... Case closed. Perhapps you haven't seen how much it flutters? It is questionable.3) The cross hairs have been added after and go behind some objects I must admit to being rather fond of this one as well, as it is such a totally pointless 'hoax' that I fail to understand why anyone can believe it was actually done. The most foolish aspect of this claim is that if the cross hairs were added after, how can they possibly be overlaid on the photo and appear behind some of the objects in the photo? Hoax believers are defeating their own argument with this one! ... Case closed. Again, you have a poor understanding. Yes crosshairs can disappear behind bright objects and I don't see any need to prusue the matter. BUT if a crosshair is behind an object it is possilbe the the photo was airbrushed (not that it was "added in later").'Wrong' shadows. " This is a general category and covers many photographs based on the shadows being 'wrong'. This is a good one as well. It shows how easy it is to make wrong assumptions when looking at a 'problem' with tunnel vision instead of trying to understand what is really going on from a scientific point of view. This I feel is a concept that must be alien to Moon hoax believers. Lots of the hoax claims rest on the belief that the shadows shown in the photographs are somehow wrong, that they indicate more than one light source because the object shown is illuminated from the front and the sides, and so on. This leads them to believe it is due to lighting mistakes on a film set. The simple fact is that there IS more than one light source. The light does not come directly from the Sun and illuminate only the one object in question, as a narrow beam spotlight would in a dark room. It shines on the entire 'daytime' surface, just as it does here on Earth. Therefore it also illuminates the surface, the astronauts themselves, rocks, mountains, the Lander and all the other objects on the surface. The reflections from these various objects is why there is more than one light source, it is not because there was more than one spotlight used on a film set. It is also worth noting that on the lunar surface the reflected sunlight from the Earth is 68% brighter than that of the full Moon as seen from Earth. ... Case closed. You have a VERY poor understanding of this too. Two distant light sources would give every object on the moon two shadows - or if the sun is so bright it may wash out the shadows the eath make. So either every object has one set of shadows, from the sun's rays and all run parallel with each other - OR every object has two shadows each one being from the sun's light and running parallel with the other shadows from the suns light, the other being from the eath and also running parallel. However each object does not have two shadows so we assume that the earth's light is not bright enough to make a shadow. Therefore there should be one shaddow per object which runs parallel with all the other shadows of every other object. But this is not the case, NASA said they didn't use any lighting, and in some pictures (eg see below) the shaddows are as if they are on a sound stage with many overhead lights (ie capricorn one). This is also what produces the spotlight. So there you have it, the most commonly believed hoaxes shown not to be. Personally I find the most surprising thing about the whole business is that hoax believers think that NASA, armed with a budget of billions of dollars and the best experts in the world, could make so many incredibly stupid errors that even the most novice, untrained, inexperienced amateur can spot them easily. NASA had to make SOME mistakes. For instance the film Buz shot of the distant eath (showing no signs of van allen) and both the earth and the window frame being in focus at the same time.I think that basically, this is what this is all about. Hoax believers consider themselves to be very smart and all the experts at NASA incredibly stupid. This is the same hoax believers that didn't even think to try to photograph the stars themselves, because they just know its a hoax, no need to test it, they saw it on the internet. Oh yes, very smart.It is a lot harder to pghotograph stars on earth then it is on the moon for the following reasons: 1. The Earth has an atmosphere, 2. The earth is more reflective then the moon (the moon's surface is about as reflective as ashphelt). *** Look, when I first heard of the idea that the moon was a hoax all those years ago I thought "what rubbish" and swa plenty of evidence to prove the hoax-theory wrong. However I later discovered that this so called "evidence" was not nrealy proved conclusivly. The explinations are short and don't touch on the major details. There are also major ponits these people "forgot" to explain, for instance there's no explination on why we see dust being blown away by the LEM and then foot prints where the dust has just been blown away. There's no explination of why up to 4 stars are in photos taken on the moon. That is counter-argumentative - if no stars can be photographed because of the contrast to the moon, where did they come from? There are compleatly stupid explinations for shadows, such as "two light sources" which don't bother to mention that they are two DISTANT light sources and can't possibly simulate a sound stage with MANY close light sources. They don't explain why Apollo didn't know how thick the Van Allen radiation belts were even though they went through them 14 times. They don't explain why Apollo 16's take off shows a flame. They don't explainwhy doubleing the speed of the films makes the dust kicked up fall at earth speed. They don't explain how the camera film survied (and the manufacturer dosen't know either). They don't explain why The US government felt they had to go to the moon, not once - but SIX times. They don't explain the Apollo One fire - the cause of which was never made public and the capsule still being locked away. They don't explain why NASA "lost" the blueprints for Apollo!! They don't explain why Thomas Baron and his family died after receiving threats from NASA when their car was hit by a train (seems like a fishy accident to me) or why his 500 page report on why 'it is impossible we could get to the moon' was never seen again. NASA dosen't explain any of it either. And neither does the US government. I'm sorry but there is too much evidence to ignore. CASE CLOSED. =mek= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raVen_image Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 Originally posted by Hellbeard Does he really expect us to read all of that!? I don't see why not. It can't be more than 4000 words ... perhaps 5 minutes time is spent reading Drunken_Sailor's post with understanding. Aside from his argumentative flaw of repeating "Case Closed", it is the most thoughtful post (indeed, the most thoughtful thread) I've seen on mojo in quite some time. Compare this to the typical "Look at my avatar" and "See how many posts I have now" and "Chain games of spam" threads, and you can see the inherent possiblilities of a message board that is so often denied. It is one of the few threads that is worth spending your valuable time reading. This is the kind of thread that enhances mojo--the kind that speaks well of its members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 Yeah, repeated "case closed"'s aside (though re-using them in the rebuttle was even lamer) it would be hard to claim in here that the moon landings were faked. Of course, thinking they're faked is a stupid idea to begin with. Thousands of people were involved and they havent talked or mysteriously been killed or something. Also, you'd better check out my avatar, bitch. I made it for you. Again also, raVen, I agree that the quality of the posts in this place is, well, not so good. For instance this post here. For instance posts about toilet paper to the moon and the like. That is classified as spam as its poster is classified as a spammer. At least I'm typing about something, maybe? And I tried to stay mildly self-aware of my lameness in that "check my avatar" post, by referencing the lame "how many posts do I have [from spamming]" threads. However, all of that aside, forums exist to share thoughts and information, and to entertain. If you get nothing out of these forums but a desire to complain about them, perhaps you should find another forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien426 Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 Originally posted by Hellbeard How many roles of toilet paper would it take to go across the moon!? About 5730! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffage Posted September 6, 2002 Author Share Posted September 6, 2002 Originally posted by raVen_image It is the most thoughtful post (indeed, the most thoughtful thread) I've seen on mojo in quite some time. Compare this to the typical "Look at my avatar" and "See how many posts I have now" and "Chain games of spam" threads, and you can see the inherent possiblilities of a message board that is so often denied. It is one of the few threads that is worth spending your valuable time reading. This is the kind of thread that enhances mojo--the kind that speaks well of its members. Wow,. didnt think of it like that, well at least i can say i started one of the more interesting threads that has become succsesseccessful, (and the thread with some of the longest posts ever). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbeard Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 This is a message board, and I'm not going to read a bloody 4000 page essay on "why man actually went to the moon!". Other people might, but that in my mind is a complete waste of time! btw, do not post something like "you spam, and in my oppinion that is a waste of time" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffage Posted September 6, 2002 Author Share Posted September 6, 2002 Theres a simple solution, dont read it. You also have posted a few times which is complete crap, and your probably just trying to increase your post count Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunken_Sailor Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 You are starting to become boringly repeatitive. Most of what you are mentioning has already been explaned to you. Originally posted by Meksilon You have forgotten that SOME photos taken on the moon have one, two or even three stars in them Exposure time again as well as relative brightness. Originally posted by Meksilon According the flag: Perhapps you haven't seen how much it flutters? It is questionable Easy to explain. Originally posted by Meksilon showing no signs of van allen It´s invisible to normal eye sight. Originally posted by Meksilon The earth is more reflective Earth reflectivity varies greatly according to surface type. Originally posted by Meksilon NASA dosen't explain any of it either. And neither does the US government. I'm sorry but there is too much evidence to ignore Sorry, most of this is a pure figment of imagination. See: [] http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html http://astronomylinks.com/satellites_and_missions/moon/landing_conspiracy/ http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/motives.htm http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/debunking.htm http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/ http://www.nasastooge.fsnet.co.uk/ http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/expmoon/apollo_landings.html http://www.nasm.edu/apollo/apollotop10.htm http://www.clavius.org/ http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/strangeshadows.html http://www.the-indigestible.com/specials/moon.htm http://www.valleyskeptic.com/moon_hoax.html Also, I think you might find this interesting as well, mek: HERE YOU GO! space.com report dated April 27,2001 2:11PM EST Lenord David reporting To start off> By line Washington. Space Scientist Misha Kreslavsky Dept. Geological Sciences at Brown University, found while going over Clementine images. < Just so you know sir, Clementine was a spacecraft that photographed the back, So.Pole, and large areas of the Earth facing side of the moon. I wonder if you believe in that either.---After all the Clementine spacecraft did detect and photograph what was water ice in a crater at the South Lunar Pole.) Marks from the Appolo 15 takeoff on the moons surface. In case you did not know Apollo 15 carried enlarged fuel tanks to support the weight of its extra cargo the Lunar electric powered car. It does seem that Astronauts Scott and Irwin scuffed up the moon a bit. Actually those scuff marks will outlast mankind on this planet. I really am tired of hearing people like yourself babbleing about things they know nothing about. So believe what you want and if you want truth, please check out the post from space.com. I doubt that you will as you seem the type to be too intensely radical to do any research that will prove you incorrect. I would have posted the whole article if it were not for copywrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbeard Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 I'm sorry, I just like being to take part in popular threads:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercatfat Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 Then you'd think you'd put some effort into making your posts worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbeard Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 You seem very upset with me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wossname Posted September 7, 2002 Share Posted September 7, 2002 You have forgotten that SOME photos taken on the moon have one, two or even three stars in them (never any more then 4). How is THAT possible? Case closed? HAHAHAHA. The exact same explanation. The exposure time on the camera was too short for all but the few brightest stars (Or planets) to show up. What's the hoax explanation for this phenomenon? They only had time to paint in 4 stars? Perhapps you haven't seen how much it flutters? It is questionable. I've seen. Remember the low gravity of the moon. The small force used by the astronaut to jiggle the flag caused a seemingly violent movement because the gravity keeping it hanging flat is so low. The movement itself looks nothing like a flutter to me. The flag is swinging, like a pendulum, not like something that is having its movement disrupted by breeze. And if the supposed gust of wind is so strong, why isn't a cloud of dust kicked up on the dusty 'set'. Again, you have a poor understanding. Yes crosshairs can disappear behind bright objects and I don't see any need to prusue the matter. BUT if a crosshair is behind an object it is possilbe the the photo was airbrushed (not that it was "added in later"). Okay, so you admit the standard NASA explanation is sufficient to explain the phenomenon. Unless, that is, you can find a supposedly airbrushed picture which is not bright enough to cause the bleeding effect. Strangely enough, every airbrushed picture has an area of bright white just around the crosshairs. (Crappy airbrushing? They must have only had one colour of paint) Therefore there should be one shaddow per object which runs parallel with all the other shadows of every other object. But this is not the case, NASA said they didn't use any lighting, and in some pictures (eg see below) the shaddows are as if they are on a sound stage with many overhead lights (ie capricorn one). This is also what produces the spotlight. Shadows from a point light source don't always run parallel with each other. That's only true on a flat surface. The moon is most assuredly not flat. Most of the shadow anomalies can be explained by slopes and bumps in the ground. As for that picture you posted earlier in the thread, would you not say that is an unusual shape for a NASA moon photo. No camera I know of takes pictures of that shape - not even Panavision cameras for widescreen movies make pictures that wide. The most reasonable explanation for that picture, then, is that it is simply several normal-shaped pictures stitched together (By NASA, quite legitimately), to create a panoramic view. The way you take such pictures is you stand at a point. Take a picture, turn a little, take another picture, and so on. Because each picture is taken at a different angle, the shadows will not line up. Take a look at http://www.remarkable.co.nz/experiments/akl360a.htm See how the shadows fail to line up, for the exact same reason. (Edit) Alternatively, it's just a very wide-angle shot, with the distortion that creates. And then of course there's the fact that perspective will cause parallel lines to converge towards a vanishing point. This effect may well be exaggerated in this picture because of the type of lens used. Possibly the true answer is a combination of these explanations. (End edit) It is a lot harder to pghotograph stars on earth then it is on the moon for the following reasons: 1. The Earth has an atmosphere, 2. The earth is more reflective then the moon (the moon's surface is about as reflective as ashphelt). It would be easy to photograph stars on the moon, and if that's what the astronauts wanted to do, they could have done so easily. But what they were doing was taking photographs of the surface of the moon during the moon's daytime. In those conditions, the camera simply couldn't register the relatively dim stars (Except for a few of the brightest), because it was set to a short exposure to capture the daylit surface. There are also major ponits these people "forgot" to explain, for instance there's no explination on why we see dust being blown away by the LEM and then foot prints where the dust has just been blown away. There's no explination of why up to 4 stars are in photos taken on the moon. That is counter-argumentative - if no stars can be photographed because of the contrast to the moon, where did they come from? I don't know what you mean about the dust, could you elaborate? The 4-stars is explained above. There are compleatly stupid explinations for shadows, such as "two light sources" which don't bother to mention that they are two DISTANT light sources and can't possibly simulate a sound stage with MANY close light sources. You're right there. That's really a response to a different hoax objection (There are so many you never quite know which 'shadow' objection you're responding to) - that shadows on the moon should be pitch black and you shouldn't be able to see anything in them. It's the reflected light from the moon's surface, and from the earth that makes the shadows less than pitch black. The explanation for the diverging shadows is sloping ground as explained above. They don't explain why Apollo didn't know how thick the Van Allen radiation belts were even though they went through them 14 times. I'll have to take your word on that one. Why do you think they didn't know, given that apparently the hoaxers believe several real probes were sent to the moon (To fool the russians, to place the reflector, etc.)? They don't explain why Apollo 16's take off shows a flame. They don't explainwhy doubleing the speed of the films makes the dust kicked up fall at earth speed. Perhaps your information that no flame should be visible is incorrect. If NASA were hoaxing it, why would the flame only be visible on one occasion, rather than them all. Surely consistency is paramount when one is performing a hoax. And as for the dust, again I'll have to take your word on that. My own feeling is that on earth the dust would form a cloud that would not settle for some time. They don't explain how the camera film survied (and the manufacturer dosen't know either). Couldn't make a comment about that. Perhaps your information that the film shouldn't have survived is wrong. They don't explain why The US government felt they had to go to the moon, not once - but SIX times. Why not? You expect them to only go once? The moon is an enormous body. Imagine someone landing on earth, in the middle of the sahara desert. If they never landed anywhere else, they might form very incorrect opinions about what the earth is like. What's the hoax explanation for this? It seems only fair that if you demand an explanation from others, you provide an explanation of why it is more plausible that there be six faked moon missions rather than six real ones. They don't explain the Apollo One fire - the cause of which was never made public and the capsule still being locked away. The cause of the Apollo 1 fire, as I understand it, was a 100% oxygen atmosphere being used at high pressure for a test on earth, rather than the relatively low pressure it would be at in space. They don't explain why NASA "lost" the blueprints for Apollo!! Explain why anyone loses anything. The culture was different back then - for example around the same time period a large number of episodes of Dr. Who were destroyed by the BBC to create space in their vaults. In this day and age we would not think of permanently destroying such things, and it's hard for us to understand why this would have been done. Now of course Dr. Who is not as important as Apollo Schematics. My point is merely to demonstrate the difference in thinking at the time. Is it the hoax-theorists position that this stuff never existed at all? The Saturn 5 rocket most certainly existed. Thousands of people watched the launches of the rocket in person. It would be a very strange thing to create the largest rocket ever made just to provide a little extra believeability for a hoax. Surely existing rockets would have been sufficient to convince 99.999% of the public. The Command, Service, and Lunar modules, also most certainly existed. As I said before, hundreds of thousands of people were involved in designing and building them. If they were never made, that's hundreds of thousands of people who would have to be in on the hoax. Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead... 400 thousand people? Never. Okay, but maybe, they were made, but they didn't work - well, that's still a huge number of designers who would have had to be in on it. So, having established that the hardware existed, along with a rocket large enough to send it to the moon, what's stopping NASA from actually doing it? It sounds to me like this hoax business would have been a stupendous waste of money. It would have cost just as much to actually do it. They don't explain why Thomas Baron and his family died after receiving threats from NASA when their car was hit by a train (seems like a fishy accident to me) or why his 500 page report on why 'it is impossible we could get to the moon' was never seen again. Well, at worst, maybe NASA did bury the report to prevent bad publicity. It's still no proof that the moon landings were fake. And people die. Cars do get hit by trains (Surprisinly and tragically often, it seems to me). If I say that's pure coincidence, hoax theorists will prick up their ears and say 'Aha!'. But think of this. Around the world every day, thousands, even millions of people are speaking out against one thing or another. The simple laws of probability mean that some of them will die. Dying after speaking out against something is not sufficient to prove they were killed because they spoke out. NASA dosen't explain any of it either. And neither does the US government. I'm sorry but there is too much evidence to ignore. I've explained all but about two or three of your points with very little difficulty, and I'm just an interested layman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffage Posted September 7, 2002 Author Share Posted September 7, 2002 possibly the modules and everything were made and that they could work, but infact the designers thought that thier modules had been to the moon, but in fact just circled the earth for a few days, just a thought. Also the thing about it costing too much money to be a hoax, if your country (USA) is shown to be less technically advanced than russia your gonna have a few problems, "USA less advanced than Russia" nice newspaper headline isnt it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elTee Posted September 7, 2002 Share Posted September 7, 2002 The thing you must remember about the van allen belt is that it is just that - a belt. Spend too long in it, you're history. Pass through it quickly in a rocket - don't be too worried. Its the same as on Earth. Hang around uranium all day you're in the ****. Run past a piece one time and you needn't have tests for cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffage Posted September 8, 2002 Author Share Posted September 8, 2002 but but i wanna have cancer, means time off work and school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbeard Posted September 9, 2002 Share Posted September 9, 2002 So far who is winning? Man has gone to the Moon, or Man Hasn't gone to the Moon? Personaly, I think man has gone to the Moon. I don't care how much proof there is against it, I just don't think the government would lie about something like that! As for aliens, that is a different story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunken_Sailor Posted September 9, 2002 Share Posted September 9, 2002 Originally posted by Riffage possibly the modules and everything were made and that they could work, but infact the designers thought that thier modules had been to the moon, but in fact just circled the earth for a few days, just a thought. Also the thing about it costing too much money to be a hoax, if your country (USA) is shown to be less technically advanced than russia your gonna have a few problems, "USA less advanced than Russia" nice newspaper headline isnt it You should not forget that this was during the Cold War, and USSR would have loved nothing else than to be able to demonstrate such a fraught to the world to see. After all in that time they had already varyous satellites in Earth orbit as well as all sorts of listening stations on their wast territory. I think they would have noticed if the broadcasts were not coming from the Moon. I will also like to point out: Is it a national thing? Is it political? Or is it religious? Or is it just plain gullibility to detractors of the U.S.? By the way I would put some Russians in the caliber with Hawking, Einstein, Wheeler and others of the West. This is not an USA superiority thing. It is about reality. And not about Paranoia, and fear. And note the proof of the landing did not come from the first landing. It came from Apollo 15 much later. By the way have you ever seen a moon Rock? Sealed in its vacuum tight cubicle it is notably different from anything on Earth. I am sure it walked here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elTee Posted September 9, 2002 Share Posted September 9, 2002 I'm not sure who's winning, but I have to agree with Hellbeard - we went. We were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffage Posted September 9, 2002 Author Share Posted September 9, 2002 bit of a bugger we cant add a poll now, ill go start another poll thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffage Posted September 9, 2002 Author Share Posted September 9, 2002 Poll: The Moon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.