Did man really walk on the moon?
Was it all just a ploy, to make themselves popular?
Or did they really?
It's questionable, I don't think they did but what about everyone else?
:confused: :eek: :confused: :eek:
Printable View
Did man really walk on the moon?
Was it all just a ploy, to make themselves popular?
Or did they really?
It's questionable, I don't think they did but what about everyone else?
:confused: :eek: :confused: :eek:
I think we did.
I've visited many NASA launch sites, both in Texas and in Florida, and unless it's the greatest, most elaborate conspiracy ever, with the amount of technology and capital that we possess, I can't believe we wouldn't have by now. Even if we didn't in 1969, surely by today we have, though I think we did in '69.
Take care all.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
This site, while obviously biased, does answer a lot of the questions put forth about whether the moon landings were faked.
Personally, I don't think it makes a whole lot sense, without any real evidence, to think that they didn't happen. If they didn't, then how much of the space program is/was real? Did they ever get a man into orbit? Did they even launch all those rockets? It seems like it if you extrapolate that idea, then it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Just my thoughts, though.
hmm....when i watched world greatest conspiracy theorys nasa did try to disprovre it by making the same settings as if they were on the moon thus proving they could fake it
i dont really know
Yeah but that raises another question: Why WOULD they fake it? With the rumours flying around, it doesn't exactly do much for them.
ahem i beleive this room is called "eyes on the world" not eyes on the moon....
jk i think we walked on the moon i mean it seems like a big hoax and i have watched alot of shows that show alot of fake stuff...i do beleive maybe it was fake in 69 too i think they were covering up untill they could actuley do it but the pres set 69 as a deadline so they faked it but now if you watch the footage it looks pretty real
Excuse me "Desert merchant" since the world would DIE if we didn't have the moon, I think it is a perfectly plausible thing to talk about in this section and I think you should explain your reasons more. Everyone else did.
:laugh: I think Merchant was joking.
Do I believe that man has walked on the moon? Yes I do. Did they do this in '69? Not too sure.
I watched certain shows on this topic, and some of the evidence against it is fairly convincing. And, as it was a "space race" between the USA and the Soviets, the USA could have felt a bit of pressure to "get one over" on them; seeing as the Soviets were the first ones to send a man into space and all. But I guess cannot really say either way.
Yeah, sorry 'bout that Merchant, I'm a little touchy when people make fun of me, joke or no joke, ask my friends, but yeah, I see your point Cless...and yeah, sorry again Merchant...heh heh heh.
I think the *first* landing was fake. The President SWORE that america would achieve their first lunar landing before the end of the decade. They were getting very close to that limit, and this was an era when people actually TRUSTED the government. That kitchen was hotter than ever, and they were getting desperate. So desperate that they attempted to use ships that they KNEW might not make it into space, much less to the moon. Add into that, they "landed" in a zone that no humans could view from earth, no matter the telescope's power. The "dark side" as they say. As far as all the other landings, every one of them we can view using sufficiently powerful lenses. Only that *first*, most critical, most *unlikely* one... it's invisible to us. And by the time it's proven or disproven, everyone involved will have died of old age.
I disagree. If they did fake the first landing, what about the second one? It also occurred before the end of the decade, so either the US faked that one too, for no apparent benefit, or they faked the first one even though they already had a real one planned that would forfil the 'end of the decade' plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Also, since the president who made that pledge was already dead by that point, I don't think the public would really have any good excuse to react negatively, just because the previous president made a promise that couldn't be forfilled.
Hey, just because the second landing was real, doesn't mean they were SURE it would happen. They made a dozen failed attempts at the moon. And that's just the actual launches, almost all of which were months behind schedual. Not including the ones that never got off the ground. They would have designed a fake landing to go along with a real launch, so that rocket TRIED to make it to the moon. They turn back, but the gov. uses the fake. Or they land, and the gov. quickly destroys the fake.
I think the fake video was probably made months before the launch that it was a part of. The "if, and only if, we have to" mentality. They got as close to the deadline that they could comfortably make, and then did it. Given the other stuff happening in the late 60's, they probably thought it was the best possible way to boost morale and faith in the government. Not to mention shafting the commies.
As for the second landing, they probably never expected it to happen. At least, not in time. So, both launches were certainly real (you can't fake a launch- not with independent press and private citizens all around). But, they could certainly have faked the first landing. Then, the next launch happens either on schedual, or ahead of time... either that, or it was the backup- in case the other didn't even get off the ground- or exploded in view- or whatever. It's known as redundancy, and it's one thing that the US gov. is *REALLY* good at.
Then, they make the "second" landing. The guys in on the fake look at one another, shrug their shoulders, and say "guess we didn't have to". Another says "yeah, but let's keep this little SNAFU hushed up, shall we?" Then, with a few more space launches and the heroes of the "original" landing fading from the public eye, they have a couple decades before anyone goes "hey, something's funny about this."
I think it's real. I mean, if it suddenly got disproved and exposed as fake, it's a great insult to our human intelligence for having been stupid enough to believe such a big lie for so many years.
I recently watched a special on National geographic which debunked all of the conspiracy theories. Sorry I don't remember all of them but it did state.
Theory 1: Why does the flag wave with no wind?
Answer: The Flag was made on a hollow alluminum shaft, now if you twang something flexible like that it vibrates. The pole was vibrating from the motion of being planted, it continued becuase there was no gravity to stop it.
Theory 2: Why are there no stars in the picture
Answer: There are you just cannot see them becuase they are blotted out by the light reflecting from the surface.
U beat me to posting that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiegrahf42
Yeh we landed on the moon. I hate it when people say we didnt, but i guess i have a few conspriracy theories of my own also.
the 1st landing was fake it's easy to tell
thers no air on the moon so why was the flag flickering on the video?
how come the shadow of the module is facing a different way to that of the astronauts?
how can a module that hadn't much stability make a huge journey and back again in one piece?
you cannot see any stars at all why is that?
the alluminium pole needs gravity to vibrate no gravity so it couldn't vibrate
Well if u take a flashlight even 1000 (75watt) flashlights and put them 1 mile away, then take the brightest light on the planet and put it 100 yards away you'll never see the lights behind it. Its the same effect the sun has on Earth, during the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
U dont need gravity to vibrate an object number 1, but the moon also has gravity which is why when the astronauts jump they dont fly off into space. An object thats stationary at 1 end can vibrate.
Besides are u suggesting that they faked the moon landing outside in the wind.Or werent smart enough to add stars into the picture, they may have lived in '69, but these people were rocket scientists, quite litteraly.
Yes, we did, and it's foolish to believe otherwise. Bad Astronomy is, as has been said, an excellent resource on this matter.
Furthermore, if you don't believe there's gravity on the moon, or you think that gravity is required for vibration, perhaps you should take a few physics classes before you attempt this arguement again.
man did land on the moon but the 1969 landng was a hoax
the moon hasnt enough gravity to carry out gravitational effects on objects so even if the moon had earth gravity the structure would mean the gravity density would be so small and different.
you can see stars from the moon as there is not much light to see the moon also has no atmosphere so you can see perfectly
Yes, as far as I know, you can see the stars on the moon. Film at that exposure rate, however, cannot.
You don't seem to have the slightest idea as to how gravity works, so I'll just direct you here for a rebuttal .
They're absolutely right: vibration only requires motion that has not yet disipated. Gravity and air aren't needed to cause it, the force from being stuck into the ground should last it a couple hours. Also, the flag was tethered up, because there is no wind to lift it, and what's the point if the flag just sat there dangling?
As for the stars: it's possible for the moon's reflective surface to blur the stars, but, in the case of that FIRST landing, I highly doubt it. The first landing was done in the "dark side"- in a crater, too. Every lunar landing was planned so that the module and crew would not sit in direct sunlight during the time on the surface. It's pretty close to 50/50 that enough sunlight reflected to blur the stars. That's one of those maybe's that neither side could answer right now. And thus, it's one of those that neither side should try and argue.
I just want to point out the *issues* involved. They had everything to gain, and nothing to lose, from faking a landing. I doubt they really wanted to, I'm sure they were hoping for a legitimate landing... especially for all the scientific benefits. But, I'm just as sure that a "constingency plan" existed.
The important part was to out-do the Russians. Showboating, one superpower in direct conflict with the other, an extension of the cold war that was starting to get scary. America NEEDED a victory in the space race, they already lost the "first satalite" and "first manned", we needed the first landing. Heck, we were already taking an international blow due to Vietnam. People were becoming demoralized, loosing faith in the ability of the government. Not to mention the backlash of certain "social revolutions", those weren't doing the establishment any good. Like I said, everything to gain, nothing to lose.
P.S.- for those guys trying to argue on my side... please, PLEASE!, do your homework. Check with me on these things. The moon has gravity, it's just weaker. Vibrations cause flags to ripple. There is no way to distinguish if the flag motions are a result of air or vibration.
has anyone here heard the song 'We Went To The Moon In 1969' from Even Stevens, Influenza: The Musical! doesnt really prove anything, but its a funny song!
Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. Yes, that film probably couldn't spot stars... which supports the possibility of the set being done at night in the middle of the desert. I always wondered about the set... it couldn't have been done indoors due to area and limits in editing tech, but it COULD be outside if the *film couldn't see the stars*. It effectively puts both arguments on the same footing they were before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
Another point... have you seen the the first and second filmings? The first has a bunch of funny walking and whatnot. If you speed up the film around 75%, it looks like a bizarre walk/hop thing. The SECOND, however, shows the astronaughts hopping around, doing things that are blatently impossible to do on earth. Hopping about 10 ft. into the "air" (or, hopping high enough to easily clear a standing person, even a tall man in a suit that adds half a foot). Holding themselves up with just one hand. You couldn't fake THAT in an underwater simulator. But the first landing had none of that stuff. You do that math.
the pole would vibrate but thatd doesnt mean the damn flag would move does it? no because sil requires air to move not vibration
i'm doing higher level GCSE science i know this stuff ppl who dont believe are cocked up retards and thats happened alot these days retards saying im full ofno matter wat i say
Yes, I believe we have landed in the moon. On 1969? Maybe. Yet, was the video fake? I believe so, even if man got to the moon, it seems quite strange they could have the technology for recording all that and sending it to the TVs live, I mean, seems quite complicated. I am no expert, so I couldn't tell, but so many questions around that video rise, it's preety hard to believe. Oh, yes, I have read the famous refutations that state how the whole theory on the fake thing is false, but many things don't seem to make full sense. Why was it done in black and white, for example?
Some rumours actually say it was Stanley Kubrick who did the filming. Some say you can see his ID card somewhere in the video if you zoom in a certain frame, but I am not sure, just heard that, never seen any images.
But yes, I am closer to believing the video was fake. Maybe the landing too, who knows?
at that time the modules they had werent stable enough for transport so what do they do?
make a fake video just to have another reason to laugh at Russia
man did land on the moon theres golfballs on the moon about 12 i think
It's probably, in part, due to your spelling. Proper english makes for a much better impression than netspeak jiberish ;) Quite frankly, if it were YOU trying to convince me that the landing was faked, I wouldn't believe you, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodenthe pole would vibrate but thatd doesnt mean the damn flag would move does it? no because sil requires air to move not vibration
i'm doing higher level GCSE science i know this stuff ppl who dont believe are cocked up retards and thats happened alot these days retards saying im full of
Also, in this case, a vibrating pole is quite capable of causing the flag to shift and ripple. It's a simple transfer of energy from one medium to a connected medium. A tuning fork works by transfering that same type of energy into the air (as sound).
The lack of atmosphere reduces the inertial resistance of the flag considerably. Not to mention the VASTLY reduced gravity. I can't say it would do what it did, but it easily could have. Whether in space or on earth, there's no real way to distinguish unless they took a fan and waved it at the flag. The flag is not an effective argument for either side.
but think about it
that happens on earth because of it's properties vibration has something to do with magnetism but the moon doesn't have much of that maybe none
even if that did happen it wouldn't be flickering like that would it? no because the energy transfer would have been very small due to the moons properties and it wouldn't go really fast like that it would slowly flciker for about 20 seconds then stop as there is no air to carry the movement on you have to remember the moon has planetery properties very different to that of earth so things could work different there
Those "OMG fake moon landing!" TV shows are pure infotainment crap.
Nothing they claim has any real scientific basis; they were conceived purely to spark this kind of debate among the gullible and uninformed. They selectively disregarded important scientific truths and failed to mention them, then selected about a dozen unusual or distorted photographs and pieces of film (out of 30,000 photos that were taken on the moon's surface) and used those as their 'evidence', along with a few quacks and conspiracy theorists with nothing better to do.[q=Shoden]that happens on earth because of it's properties vibration has something to do with magnetism but the moon doesn't have much of that maybe none
[/q]Anything resonates if you strike it. That has nothing to do with magnetism.Air resistance slows movement; vibrations would last longer in a vacuum.[q=Shoden]the moon hasnt enough gravity to carry out gravitational effects on objects so even if the moon had earth gravity the structure would mean the gravity density would be so small and different.[/q]The moon's gravity is roughly 10% of Earth's. Because of the moon, Earth's rotation is stabilised, giving us more consistent seasons. It also causes our oceans' tides. Your quote suggests that your scientific nous isn't as astute as you might claim.Quote:
it wouldn't go really fast like that it would slowly flciker for about 20 seconds then stop as there is no air to carry the movement
Omfg! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Umm, I believe we did.
Hey, I'm insulted. There's as much proof of that first landing as there is proof against it. Even if some serious idiots are on my side for this one. Seriously, I find myself hurt more by people trying to help than anything... but I won't name any names: you know who you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
To go with a famous quote: "the simplest explanation is usually right". In this case, it's far simpler to believe they faked a landing. The alternative is to believe they got a ship that probably wouldn't have even been launched under different circumstances, landed it under conditions that were at best inhospitable, in an area that no one will ever see from the planet earth.
Yet, they communicated to the earth from that impossible-to-see position (you couldn't do that today). No line-of-sight means no radio communications. Even if the film itself was "real" even if the landing was "real"- there was no way for us to have done it live. Not without some magical radio waves that could travel through hundreds of miles of solid earth.
Yeah, you tell me how that is anything but insanely unlikely.
What makes you think that the Mare Tranquillitatis (the location of the first landing) was not in line-of-sight with Earth?Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
I would like to point out, to all parties involved, that threads like these aren't meant to make you look like genius debaters. If you want to debate, go right ahead, but insulting others as a result of that is silly and pompous.
I think we landed on the moon, because I really have no reason to believe otherwise.
I think the idea that we, in fact, did not land on the moon, and that our supposedly oh-so-corrupt government planned a massive fake event that has remained solidly believable to this day, is pure, unadulterated conspiracy theorist crap.
As has been said (kind of), the Sea of Tranquility is on the side of the moon facing the Earth. Let me ty to find a map...
Here we go.
As Doomy pointed out, it was on the side facing us. There goes the bulk of your arguement down the tubes.Quote:
Yet, they communicated to the earth from that impossible-to-see position (you couldn't do that today). No line-of-sight means no radio communications. Even if the film itself was "real" even if the landing was "real"- there was no way for us to have done it live. Not without some magical radio waves that could travel through hundreds of miles of solid earth.
Your other "evidence" is circumstantial...to put it lightly("completely bogus" to be blunt). To sum it up: "because we were desperate to get to the moon...we obviously faked it!"
Yes, we landed on the moon. There's absolutely no solid evidence to believe otherwise.
Surveyor 6 location: Headshot.
As has been said before, it was the motion of planting the flag that caused the flag to wave. It stopped waving shortly thereafter. In pictures taken after it was planted, it isn't waving. The rod that was meant to hold the flag out straight from the pole wasn't fulling extended. The astronauts liked the effect, so they left it that way. In fact, if there had been enough wind for the flag to be waving, the dust would be blowing around as well. This didn't happen.
If you took a picture of the stars from Earth at the same exposure as they took the pictures on the moon, they wouldn't show up either. In fact, most television shows filming at night put the stars into the sky manually during editing, precisely because of this. The stars are very faint. It takes a much longer exposure to get them to show up. If they had taken that long of an exposure, everything else in the picture would look washed out.
"Dark side of the moon" is a misnomer. The moon rotates. Both sides get sunlight and darkness. If this were not true, we wouldn't have different phases of the moon. What you mean is the far side. And no, we didn't land there. It would have been much more difficult, and yes, radio contact would have been impossible. That's why we landed on the near side.
The shadows of the astronauts differ from the module because the ground is not level. Got that? The ground is not perfectly flat. I know this might surprise some of you inner-city youth-type people, but even here on Earth, there are places where the ground is not level, and paved over, and filled with strip-malls and parking lots.
But you know what? It would be nearly impossible to fake the moon landing. Not because of technology. Not because the government wouldn't do it. Because of the sheer number of people who would need to be in on it. We're talking thousands of government employees and civilian contractors. There were hundreds of astronomers, many of them not even United States citizens, involved in the moon landing. And they would all have to be in on the conspiracy for it to work.
Right. Anyone who seriously believes the moon landing was hoaxed has way too much time on their hands, and far too little critical thinking.
i think someone has been reading a little too much world news weekly.
yeah we landed on the moon. some of the rocks we have in custody can't possible have come from somewhere else. did we land on the moon.... that's one crack pot question if you ask me right there.
Go to an observatory in August. You can see the American flag with a powerful enough telescope. Now cram it and make some more interesting threads.
Umm...I know it's not really my place to say so I'm sorry if I'm speaking out of place. I also know that fire of avalon has already stated this point but I think it needs to be said again.
To those concerned, there is no need to insult people in this discussion.
I don't think we have any telescopes with both a high enough resolution and a near enough focal distance to see the landing sites.Quote:
Originally Posted by princeofdarknez
According to some astronomy texts, you can indeed see the landing sites. The landers' bases are clearly visible, even if other structures are too small to be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
You can see EVERY landing site, except the first one. It's supposedly concealed from view. Oh, and the "dark side" is refering to the parts of the moon we can't see from earth. Don't ask me why that's the terminology, I never asked. The moon rotates at the same rate it revolves, so we always see just one face of the moon. Not to mention the craters all over the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
Actually, I should say that first is the only *manned* landing site you cannot see. There are a lot of probe launches. And I haven't really bothered researching those. I have no idea which of those are visible, and which are not. With satalites such as they are, we can communicate with the dark side now. But, seriously, if the first site was visible, don't you think they'd pick some of the more influential theorists, march them to a powerful observatory telescope, point it at the landing zone and show the world that first site? They don't, because they can't. Even the Hubble can't see the first landing.
But that first manned landing isn't visible from earth- I've checked. Supposedly hidden in the crater, not visible because the sun won't reach it, ever. Nor will our spectral scans. All the lunar modules have beacons on them, too... we can't hear the first's. Granted, it might just be busted. I did get to see a couple of others, though, but I couldn't tell you if there were really people on the vessels that landed- probably were, though.
And, really, how many people would *have* to know? You'd need 3 or 4 guys to be in on the planning level. Another three to make the movie (it's not a complex movie) a real lunar landing module (where could they get one of those? ;)) and the crew of the vessel itself. Maybe a couple head guys from the control tower. Boiled down, you'd only need about 12 or so guys to do this. Maybe less if some of them did multiple roles.
Record the voices in later, using the crew itself. An utterly believable voice-over, after all... it's not the best recording, you don't need great acting ability, and your faces are conveniently hidden by a reflective (why reflective?) face mask. They were reading from a script even IF the landing was real. And either way, the surest means to trick observers would be to transmit the images from the ship itself. Quite frankly, knowing the situation and what that landing *meant*, if I was there, I'd help fake it, too. Then I'd keep my trap shut about it.
I believe the faceplates were reflective (gold plated, I think) in order to prevent the astronauts from being blinded by the unshielded sunlight. Without protection, the intensity of the light as opposed to the filtered light we get here on earth would be too much for their eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Possibly. I could point out that, on the moon, they never were in direct sun. But, realistically, Astronauts do stuff like space-walks and whatnot, so they probably just make all the visors the same way to save people the trouble. Yeah, that makes sence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick
Udsuna: You're making a lot of unsupported claims there. The photos taken while on the moons surface certainly suggest that the astronauts and the lander WERE in full sun at times. This photo, for example. Note the well defined shadows, as well as the lens flare. As this particular photo was of a test involving solar flares, that test would probably work better when in LOS of the Sun. ;)
Also, provide evidence that the Apollo 11 launch site is not visible from Earth. Has this point ever been raised by any mainstream organisation, even in passing?
If you couldn't see the Landing Site from Earth, you couldn't see the Earth from the landing site, which they did :p
By the same token, I can see the Eiffel Tower from my room, but you can't see my room from the Eiffel tower, so my room is fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
Edit:
Map of the landing sites.
Transcript of the Apollo 11 landing.
You could, though, with a good enough telescope. You have line-of-sight.
EDIT: Ohhhhhh. I just realized what udsuna is talking about.
Yes, as far as I know, we do not know where the Apollo 11 Lunar Module is. Yes, we know where the site is, but for some reason, we don't know where the LM ended up after it was released from the Command Module. Apollo 16's LM was also lost. The rest were deliberately impacted into the moon, with the exceptions of Apollo 10, which just released its LM off into a heliocentric orbit, and Apollo 13, which obviously burned up in the Earth's atmosphere.
I hadn't read the post before about using a telescope. >.>
Edit: omg Ba. <3 Ba.
I originally meant to type "if you couldn't theoretically see the landing site from Earth..."
Lost a word somehow.
Neil Armstrong would say he was there.
If I read this correctly, what Doom means is that if the moonbase couldn't be seen because of being on the far side, then the Earth couldn't be seen either. The Earth could be seen, ergo it wasn't on the far side.
who said the pole was even made of alluminium?
it would be a more stable and better supportive metal like steel
i can't help being dyspraxic you know i struggle enough to keep up to date with the higher level science but it pays off i'm enjoying it and i'm still learning i only started the course and my laid back attitude does no good im 15 not a 25 year old astronomer
Look, the pole wasn't vibrating like a tuning fork. It was moving because the astronaut was moving it. The motion transferred to the flag. The metal used for the pole makes no difference in this case.
I can't really comment on this , and I know this is a bit off-topic , but did anyone hear the theory about " Close Encounters of the Third Kind " receiving government funding to prepare people for an alien visitation ?
Or the one about Elvis being Jesus reincarnated ????
who even said there was a jesus?
hello the astronaut did move it but the flag shouldnt have been moving so violently where there is no air to carry it and where the gravity is so low earth's laws are screwed
Actually, the flag would wave even MORE without wind resistance. It would also wave more with less gravity to pull it down. The flag would have a much easier time of things on the moon than on earth. As I've said repeatedly, there is no way available to determine things by the behavior of the flag itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
And how am I supposed to prove a negative? You say "prove we can't see the site"- how the HELL does that work? The point is, there is no image of the first landing site, aside from the ones supposedly taken AT the site itself. It seems to me that "hey, look, it's a picture of the thing!!!" is the ultimate way to prove we really landed there. Yet, there is none. I can't even find a close-up image of that little corner of the moon. Even on NASA's site. You can find from-earth images of other landings, though.
Which means one of only 3 things:
1. Our landing is invisible from earth, as is the generally accepted theory. Something that was actually disproven by that one pic taken. It'd HAVE to be visible from earth to show the earth, no doubt.
2. The landing happened somewhere other than it was reported to. I don't know how effective 1969's tracking tech was. But I'm pretty sure they had triangulation tech. advanced enough to make sure. Sailors could triangulate thousands of years ago using just the stars, a compass, a map, and a sextant.
3. The landing site itself is invisible. Either by not being there, or having been destroyed. Since nothing happens on the moon, it probably wasn't destroyed. We haven't had a suitably large meteor strike since the landing occured.
Can't give you anything more than that to chew on. Unless you have an alternate theory?
it was a hoax filmed to make it look real as possible
the flag would actually not move as it doesnt have gravity to wave against so if it did wave it would wave differently and very strangely depending on how much force energy was transferred and by what i interpret it aint much
another piece of evidence
the shadows are facing the wrong place if you know this the light reflecting there would mean the shadows would be facing a whole different way to that in these movies the evidence shows that the real light was coming from a different source causing the shadows to stay away from the point they need to be and another thing after the camera goes back to the astronauts the shadows are pointing the opposite way
answer 1. the light is from a spotlight which can be controlled with its brightness and moved at will
Answer 2. the sun is demented and deranged so the light comes and goes at different angles
Answer 3. there is more things behind the cameras
Search better?
Edit: I guess they also faked the liftoff? And the pictures from the spaceship of Earth? Aswell as the close to a hundred other pictures?
I still don't think there's ever been a picture taken from Earth of the landing sites sharp enough to see anything manmade. If someone can actually find a picture, that would be great, but I don't think it's been done.
If it was done as "real as possible" and your assertations about the flag are correct, don't you think they'd make the flag not move? These are experts. They wouldn't fake the landing just to leave evidence someone with an elementary school science education (barely) such as yourself could figure out.
Now then.
THE MOON HAS GRAVITY. This is somewhat important, because you will note that the flag does not fly off into space, nor do the astronauts.
Now then, there were several forces acting on the flag. The astronaut moving the pole (remember Newton's first law? The flag will want to stay put, and the pole will pull it along). Gravity is pulling the flag down, hence it's not sticking out sideways or anything like that. Finally, the act of driving the pole into the lunar soil would set the pole and flag to vibrating. Also, as has been said, the top pole to hold the flag out is not fully extended - the astronauts liked the rippling effect.
As for the shadows... like Ba said, the moon is NOT FLAT. Here's an excellent debunking of that part of the hoax.
Anything else you'd like us to shoot down?
flat or not light doesn't have that type of power unless mirrors and artifical lights involved
If you'd click the link, it explains everything.
i'm busy at the minute so i cant
...
Then stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about, please...
No, it wouldn't. It is very expensive to transport things into space, they would want to keep the mass to a minimum. They aren't going to waste any more mass than is absolutely neccessary on something as useless as a flagpole, are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
Theoretical line-of-sight is different than viewable. Just because the sun reaches the Earth at all points on the Earth(which means it was illuminated to be able to see from the moon) doesn't mean the sun reached that point on the moon, making it invisible to people from the Earth.Quote:
1. Our landing is invisible from earth, as is the generally accepted theory. Something that was actually disproven by that one pic taken. It'd HAVE to be visible from earth to show the earth, no doubt.
Your main theory still is "we could have faked it, so we must have faked it." Your logic(or lack thereof) confounds me. Every single piece of "evidence" you have is countered by logic and physics. The rest of your proof stems from ability - sure, we had the capability to fake the first landing, but why, since, logically and scientifically, there's no reason whatsoever the doubt the validity of the landing?
Of course we did, even excluding all the points raised here, we would know by now just from the pictures. There's NO way that way back then they'd be able to mimic/doctor the pictures. Even if they could do so convincingly, there are ways available today where you can be damn sure an image was doctored or not. In short, by examining the film and pictures we'd be able to tell if we didn't. Even if the american government stiffled opposition, someone would've uncovered it with real proof if it were a real threat. Y'know, maybe the countries the US was bitterly competing with, like China and Russia. They'd have a field day if it were really fake.
Ah, but the point was raised earlier: you see sunlight (or something that is supposedly sunlight) in the pictures. If that's sunlight: then that location gets solar light, as well as terran reflection, and should be imageable from earth. But, they cannot, so they do not... it's a simple correlation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
And your wrong: MY stuff isn't about the physics, it's about the conditions. Location and circumstances. Means, motive, and opportunity, and very good ones. Shoden is trying to argue physics. And doing a *REALLY* bad job of it... I wish he'd stop... he's already making this difficult enough.
I don't quite follow. We can clearly see sunlight in the Apollo 11 pictures...Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Ah, but that's the point. The didn't doctor the pictures. They faked the landing. My theory's simple: they prepped their dozenth or so launch, sent it up, found they lost their chance to land on the moon, broke out the contingency fake, sent it from the shuttle itself, and played that off as the landing itself, then drifted a while before going back to earth. They wanted to land, they tried to land, they couldn't land, they faked the landing. Hence, the launch itself was definately real. Also, they'd probably dumb the landing module towards the sun itself. Burn, baby, burn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris
Your scenario doesn't make any sense. So they... went to the moon, somehow... couldn't land? Somehow took pictures of them on the surface without being on the surface, and cut the LM loose to float off into space?
You don't SEE any pictures of them on the moon, per se. You see a bunch of spacesuits walking around on a rocky, grey, poorly lit surface. You're told it's the moon. You're told it's the crew of that particular ship. It's not like you can see any faces.
And many of the prior lunar launches came within very close range of the moon. They usually couldn't slow themselves enough to be able to land the module, launch it, and catch it. Remember, the rocket itself never actually touches the moon. Those things are designed to be disposable. Also, sometimes, there were technical glitches. Most of the early attempts at the moon were *painfully* close to success. Aside the ones that were called off on account of weather or whatnot.
So, the missions follow this plan: launch rocket, achieve orbit around moon, drop module in general landing area, walk about on moon, launch pod that comes with module, catch pod with shuttle, go back to earth, and crash-land in the ocean. If the module cannot safely land and be retrieved, you give up and go home. Then, when they pick everyone up, they take what they can back with them and leave the trash to sink into the depths of the sea.
The only change you need to make is *really* simple: bring along a taped fake of a lunar walk. Quite probably, the voice-over was done on earth, by the astronauts. It's not like you have to worry about audio slips... just use the actual com. radios of the suits themselves. And a simple enough order: if you can, land on the moon. If you can't, use the fake. We probably won't have another shot of this within the deadline, and the american people need this victory. Good luck.
And then, the very next launch happens ahead of schedual (or, at least, not behind schedual like all the others). And everything goes so perfectly, and they manage a moon landing. Making the fake unnecessary, but it's not like the guys in charge could go. "Oh, the first was a fake". And until the crew of that first launch are dead, any person who knows is going to keep quiet to protect them.
Yes, I can see how that's plausible, but I still don't understand why it makes more sense than an actual landing.
Because, they felt like they HAD to land before the end of that decade. To mainain the credibility of a (granted, now dead) president. Not to mention make sure they do it before the Russians. That's your motive, the cold war, a motive that sparked espionage suicide missions (espionage has only one punishment- execution). And the means... well, that's obvious. Opportunity- this was their LAST reasonably safe chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick
So, the fake is easily possible. And as for the evidence to prove that we did land. None of it's conclusive, anything we've seen could be fake. And all we need to do to prove it is one independent photograph of the landing zone. Of which, if the location is visible from earth (as it should given that one picture). And since it also gets sunlight- actually, the entire moon gets sunlight- "dark side" means earth can't see it, something that I thought was a reason we couldn't see the landing. Eh, my bad. But, I digress, the point is that, with our technology, any observatory should EASILY see the lunar landing sites. We can look at most of the others. See the lander base and all. But not that first.
As for the rest of the landings, well, I have no reason to doubt them. I mean, really, we CAN see most of them. Anyone who wants to and has a few grand to spend on a reciever is fully able to pick up on the Rover's transmissions. But the first... that's where I am suspicious. I mean, seriously, why can't we just turn a telescope over there? We have satalites that can read a license plate. We should be able to see the footprints left behind.
Not that I'm saying there's no way the first landing wasn't real. It entirely possibly could have been. Nothing exists that draws a 100% conclusion. But I think the chances of that first landing being real are far less than the chance of it being faked. Both plausible, and a simple photo would prove it, one way or the other. Which is why I think it's a fake... the general public believes the landings were all real, so they have no reason to prove it (if it is true), and I've already covered a bunch of reasons to deny it (if it's false). Nothing to gain, everything to lose, not the best odds for a gamble.
As has been said earlier... why wouldn't the Russians call the US out on it, if the race to the moon was so important that the US would go to such lengths to fake the landing?Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Could you provide an example of a website with photos of the other sites? Are your sources referring to individual missions, or to the programme as a whole?Quote:
But, I digress, the point is that, with our technology, any observatory should EASILY see the lunar landing sites. We can look at most of the others. See the lander base and all. But not that first.
The spy satellites which are rumoured to be so accurate are all in very low orbits, part of the reason they can see comparatively small things is because they are quite close, relatively speaking. Besides which, conspiracy theorists often have a habit of disbelieving evidence opposing their view. Even if NASA did aim a ground-based telescope at the landing site and took photos of it, I think many of the people concerned would continue to believe the landing was faked anyway. After all, they didn't believe any of the other photos or video NASA took, did they?Quote:
But the first... that's where I am suspicious. I mean, seriously, why can't we just turn a telescope over there? We have satalites that can read a license plate. We should be able to see the footprints left behind.
of course man has landed on the moon but the very first landing was a hoax it wasnt till later the technology was good enough to build a module stable enough to travel into space and back and stay in piece.
Apollo 11 and other modules before it weren't very stable and poorly put together making it unlikely for it to make a journey like that with men in it in one piece think Apollo 13 it wasn'[t the best of miodules butbetter than its predecessor 11 model
ever think of satelites? they have the ability to take pictures like that and good artists and graphic people could make things similar to that but after Apollo 11 i believe they were real
POST A PICTURE OF ONE OF THE OTHER LANDING SITES, with sufficient resolution to see the lander's platform, or the rover, or ANYTHING. I dare you. I'm telling you, I'm almost positive it has not been done.
"So, the missions follow this plan: launch rocket, achieve orbit around moon, drop module in general landing area, walk about on moon, launch pod that comes with module, catch pod with shuttle, go back to earth, and crash-land in the ocean. If the module cannot safely land and be retrieved, you give up and go home. Then, when they pick everyone up, they take what they can back with them and leave the trash to sink into the depths of the sea."
Why would they be unable to land?
"The only change you need to make is *really* simple: bring along a taped fake of a lunar walk. Quite probably, the voice-over was done on earth, by the astronauts. It's not like you have to worry about audio slips... just use the actual com. radios of the suits themselves."
They did slip up. - "One small step for man, on giant leap for mankind."
That makes NO SENSE. It's supposed to be "a man." I think Armstong claims that he said "a" but the radio just didn't pick it up. Why don't you make a conspiracy theory about that, it'd actually have some grounds.
"We have satalites that can read a license plate"
Those satellites are maybe a thousand miles away from said license plate. They're 239,000 miles away from said footprints. Figure it out.
"of course man has landed on the moon but the very first landing was a hoax it wasnt till later the technology was good enough to build a module stable enough to travel into space and back and stay in piece."
Numerous space flights preceded Apollo 11, including TWO flights to the moon - Apollo 8 and Apollo 10. (Apollo 9 was a test of undocking and redocking the LM done in Earth orbit)
yeah but they werent manned spaceflights once i'm not so tired i'll post some better evidence
if u think america actually landed on the moon in 1969 then u're either in denial, or u're a redneck, or u're just uneducated.
Says he without any proof whatsoever (and lack of proper spelling).
Yes they were. Here you can find a rundown of the Apollo project, mission by mission. You're also forgetting about the Mercury and Gemini projects, both of which put Americans into space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
Actually, this answers your own question of why they couldn't land. Several flights were aimed to land on the moon. 11 was the first to succeed (I still think it was fake). 12 made it. And 13 just went haywire. The russians made their attempt, too. Any number of thousands of things can go wrong to call the landing off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
Even an abnormally high amount of solar wind. Which would iradiate more than the lander could withstand... not to mention communication failure and such. Or just a miscalculation that put the orbit too high for safe transit, or too low to maintain. Or once they got close enough, finding that spot isn't safe to land upon. Or maybe they got diahrea from eating that god-awful packaged crap that NASA calls space food.
As for pictures of the landings, I can't find any from a serious distance. I've seen them, some of our space probes made snapshots when they were slingshot into the outer system. I'm pretty sure the Voyager probe sent back a few, but I don't really remember the details that well. I've sent an e-mail to NASA requesting an image or two, and a little detail. All the junk I tried to sort through was surface stuff. I don't have THAT much spare time on my hands.
Less words, more actions. Go do it. Bye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
And yes, it does involve shutting up until August. Sorry for the inconvenience.
I have a Phi Beta Kappa graduate friend who swears up and down that man never went to the moon according to calculations that him and his collegues did at Purdue University as a part of some study. Something about a radiation barrier in front of the moon that would require three feet of lead to prevent instant death from passing through?
Since I have no background in physics or advanced mathmatics, I cannot argue with him. Although I technically believe we (U.S.) did visit the moon, I do not discount the possibility of government conspiracy centered around the Cold War during that time. Until I am educated enough on the mechanics/technology available at that era, I cannot really make an absolute decision either way.
I couldn't help but chuckle inwardly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glendon
The Earth is far bigger, more powerful and more radioactive than the moon, yet we can come and go as we please. There are some crackpot conspiracy theorists who say that humans have never been into space, and it's all a big hoax. Their "proof"? The belief that passage through the Van Allen radiation belt would be fatal.
The "radioactive moon" is an interesting notion, but simply not true. Earth's radiation field doesn't harm someone in a spacecraft; the moon barely even has a magnetic field to call its own.
princeofdarknez... in fact, nearly everybody: Please be civil and keep this debate polite.
I don't remember how indepth he went into the radiation theory, I'd have to ask him again. I do remember his main argument was the mathmatics involved in not sending man into space, but sending them to the moon and having them return to earth safely. He claimed that with the technology available at the time, it was mathematically impossible to pull off.
If I get the chance, I'll ask him to divulge deeper next time we speak (and ask him what he meant about the radiation deal), and make another post so we can pick it apart :)
I think I know what you're talking about. Long story short, the earths ionosphere shields us from cosmic radiations. Yes, the earth is more radioactive than the moon, but the SUN makes everything else in this solar system a comparitive drop of water in the ocean. The earth is more-or-less protected. The moon, well, is not. You need a considerable magnetic polarity to protect a planet from the solar winds.
However, radiation isn't immediately fatal unless in quantities far greater than you get this far away from the sun. A manned trip to Venus might get you close enough to experience immediately dangerous radiation poisoning (I'm not sure). But the moon is safe. Unless you're *very* unlucky and pass through one of the "streams" created by the earths magnetics, which condences the energy as it's pushed out of the way. Much as a snowplow does to your driveway. Then, yeah, you'd probably get torched.
But, aside from a vastly increased chance of cancer, sterility, or a slow death over a few weeks, you're fully capable of wandering about in space.
I hear that space agencies prefer older people as candidates for manned missions because they are less likely to be effected long-term by the radiation effects of space (older men and women are not so concerned about having children etc..). Perhaps this is just a lucky benefit though, as qualified people generally meet those qualifications after many years in related fields.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Possibly... it would make an odd sort of sence, I suppose. And, actually, older individuals are slightly more resistant to the cancer-causing aspect. Not a great deal, but since their cells divide slower, and radiation cancers usually are caused during the cell division itself, maybe. But I'm not a oncologist, I don't know for sure. Although, it doesn't matter what age you are when it comes to radiation poisoning or sterilization. Nothing can repair what is that far gone.
Reread it. Neither Apollo 8 or 10 was MEANT to land on the moon. 8 was to see if we could get to the moon, and 10 was a test of the LM in lunar orbit. This was known to the public before their launches. They were NOT failed attempts, they were steps along the way to Apollo 11.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Surely, they also went through the trouble of doctoring of over 500 pictures, too?
Whos to say the moon even exists?
Anyone who's been to an ocean :p.
Weather Machine, duh :rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick
Everyone! Play nice. Be happy and be good little debaters, OK?
The moon is a ridiculous myth perpetuated by the liberal elite.
did man land on the moon? if he didn't you've got to ask yourself why he sent so many very big very expensive rockets up there. would there be any point in wasting that amount of money just for propaganda? the russians didn't even bother with it. maybe a few pictures were doctored as noone could be sure how photos on the day would turn out.
all but apollo 11 were real
theres been several different images over the years of the moon plaque and flag theres also a video to show there been golf played
And there's pictures and video from Apollo 11, so?
Oh, yeah, like they couldn't have faked video images. Little naive of you, eh? All I'm asking for is a little proof that no-one could falsify.
As I said earlier, only the conspiracy theorists can provide proof for themselves that the missions were real, because they have already shown that they won't believe evidence provided by others.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
So, Udsuna, have you personally tried to identify the landing site, using a telescope that is powerful enough?
Only in-so-much as going to an observatory and learning that the first site isn't visible from earth. I looked, I asked, I was told. We can see the other landing sites. Or, a few of them... I didn't personally verify every single supposed landing on the rock. But, we can see the lander bases for at least some of the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexholker
I personally believe we did land, though the arguements the other way are interesting. I've always wondered what would have happened if the Russians had beat us up there. At the time, I bet it would have seemed like a big deal, but in retrospect...I don't think it would have changed a thing. Just thought I'd throw that one out there. I know if has no bearing on this debate.
Has anyone ever wondered about the rover? I was always curious why I've never seen any photographs of it before it was detached from the lander, or while it was being setup. I'm not just talking about Apollo 11 either...I don't believe I've ever seen pictures or video from any of the missions. In your search for data for this arguement, have any of you come across stuff on the rover? I'd love to see it, just to satisfy my curiosity. :)
You mean the little vehicle thingy that looks like a LEGO toy? Actually, I haven't seen any images of it specifically in digging up stuff. I'm having trouble finding images of the landing zones taken from either earth or orbit. I don't have time to sort through the 100,000+ pages that meet my search criteria.
I've seen plenty of views of the rover(s) on various TV shows. Discovery likes to show them off almost as much as the rockets. The last one I saw figures on us launching Rovers to every body in the inner solar system (except mercury) by the end of this decade.
But, you're absolutely right. At the time, Russia beating us to the moon would have been considered a national emergency like none our country had ever seen... Now, it's one of those "eh, who cares?" issues.
PROVE IT. What we do have at some of the sites are reflectors that NASA bounces a laser off of to measure the Earth-Moon distance. It's entirely possible Apollo 11 did not leave one of these behind, I'm not sure. However, NO HARDWARE HAS EVER BEEN PHOTOGRAPHED FROM THE EARTH. If you want to keep using that argument, you're going to have to prove otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Dark Falken - There was no rover on Apollo 11. It was first used during Apollo 14, I believe.
EDIT: Yes, Apollo 11 left behind a reflector, and it is still in use.
Well, from Earth, I provided plenty of links. The problem is that there is no high resolution picture of any of the site. From orbit, there are pictures from the LM that I guess you will dismiss as "fake". How easy. I mean, I see plenty of evidence that it did happen (500+ pictures archived, videos, crappy live transmission, recordings of the conversations in the LM/on the Moon plus transcripts, the huge gap between making up fake pictures in 1969 and 2005, not to mention the ability to see it, the materials brought back, all the people involved at the NASA, etc... So far, the only defense of your opinion is "the pictures/video/voice recordings are fake", and even that has been seriously damaged by evidence posted here.
Edit: http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/i...1-37-5447l.jpg
Oh, it was Apollo 15 that first used the rover. Anyway. Are the people pinging the reflector at the Apollo 11 site also working for the CIA to cover up that the landing was a hoax?
I'll have to look into the reflector thing, now THAT could be workable physical evidence. And, I never said FAKE pictures, just STAGED areas. The difference should be obvious. The pictures themselves are real and unedited (probably)- it's the location that is suspect.
And I should think most people would be smart enough to know better than trust a government that has the means and one helluva motive, not to mention a history of coverups and black ops, operating so far away that they couldn't be discredited. Leave someone alone in a diamond mine for a few hours, then they go home, and you ask a couple weeks later if they took anything with them. They say no. And they prove it by showing that they're not carrying one on them, but never let you enter their house to check there. Damning? No. But very, very suspect. I wouldn't be too surprised if we made that first landing... I just doubt it highly.
Ah...I didn't know it didn't ride up there with them till 15. Still, anyone have any pictures of it? I've always been curious how it was transported and how much assembly was required to get it going....and how they assembled it in that harsh environ. That laser reflector find was pretty cool. The funny thing is, now that you posted it I recall learning about it way back when in gradeschool. They kinda made a big deal about finally being able to acurately measure the distance between the Earth and moon. Good work all...like I said earlier, the arguements against an Apollo 11 landing are intriguing, but I still think the landing did occur. Now all that we've been led to believe about the landing might not be entirely true, but I think it did occur.
Well, I'm trying to verify this reflector deal. I know we didn't even have lasers until 1960... I wonder if we had astronomical laser tech by the time Apollo 11 was launched. I've got the timeline for all kinds of other crap :mad:. We had CDs in '65 and fiber optics in '70. Yeah, we probably had them. I'm still :mad2: about it not actually giving that little detail anywhere, but...
No reason to dis-believe the reflector was placed. A reflector like that couldn't have been placed without local-area manuals (meaning people, because we didn't have robots that smart back then, nor did we have remote-control tech that advanced). Congradulations on the first piece of believable, incontrovertable evidence ;). But we still can't visibly see the damned thing from earth. :mad2:
EDIT: They use the He-Ne (helium-neon) lasers. Invented in 1965. Appearently, the old ruby-laser weren't NEARLY good enough for that kind of distance, but these things were far better. Given the scope of calculations necessary to prepare for liftoff, the application of a reflector would have been a last minute inclusion, but still within the area of possibility.
