Faked moon landing?

intangible child · 06-28-2007, 02:08 PM

The Apollo Hoax

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

NASA . 'Buzz' Aldrin Threatens Lawsuit

NASA . 'Buzz' Aldrin Threatens Lawsuit

knot_e_lady · 06-28-2007, 02:22 PM

Oh, come on.

Do you really think the government could have kept something like this secret for so long? Shoot, they couldn't even keep the President getting a blow job in the Oval Office a secret, and that was only between 2 people!!!!!

New Science: The Moon Landing Hoax (03/30/01)

The Great Moon Hoax

"
The best rebuttal to allegations of a "Moon Hoax," however, is common sense. Evidence that the Apollo program really happened is compelling: A dozen astronauts (laden with cameras) walked on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. Nine of them are still alive and can testify to their experience. They didn't return from the Moon empty-handed, either. Just as Columbus carried a few hundred natives back to Spain as evidence of his trip to the New World, Apollo astronauts brought 841 pounds of Moon rock home to Earth."

Redzero's Moonhoax - How Apollo moon landings really happened

"
This web site examines the theories that suggest the NASA Apollo moon landings were faked. It hopes to prove, without any doubt, that these theories are wrong and a combination of a poor understanding of basic science and a desire to make a fast buck. Ultimately, however, you're going to have to reach your own decision."

The above actually makes much more sense to me....

intangible child · 06-28-2007, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

Oh, come on.

Do you really think the government could have kept something like this secret for so long? Shoot, they couldn't even keep the President getting a blow job in the Oval Office a secret, and that was only between 2 people!!!!!

O.K. check this out!
Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1

This one is very heavy, Nixon Rumsfeld & Kissinger involved!!
Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1

Murder!
Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1

Are you sure the camera is off.....Next day he was dead!
Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1

knot_e_lady · 06-28-2007, 02:37 PM

Gee, who should I believe?

Hundreds of professionals, scientists and laypeople who actually worked on a project that said it DID happen, or a bunch of conspiracy nuts that have no knowledge of basic science?

Looking at the first site you posted, on two of the pictures I could figure out why the pictures were the way they were, and I'm far from a scientist.

Anyone ever interview someone who supposedly worked on these films?

No.

Just like the 'bomb' in the WTC, you will never find anyone who actually did the work, just lots of speculating by people who have nothing better to do.

Oh, and one more thing....

But didn't NASA have good reasons for faking the Apollo missions? What about the Russians?
Absolutely. America was desperate to land on the moon before the USSR, and J.F. Kennedy had made it's NASA's responsibility to do so within a decade. The embarrassment if they had failed would have been considerable. You have to remember that the main driving force behind the Apollo missions was political, not scientific or military. It was a question of putting the commies in their place.

But, having said all that, none of this is proof that they did fake them. And you can be sure that if they were faked, the USSR would have made sure everyone knew about it. They would have been able to tell better than anyone if the missions were faked.

intangible child · 06-28-2007, 02:51 PM

[quote=knot_e_lady;118464]Gee, who should I believe?

Hundreds of professionals, scientists and laypeople who actually worked on a project that said it DID happen, or a bunch of conspiracy nuts that have no knowledge of basic science?

Looking at the first site you posted, on two of the pictures I could figure out why the pictures were the way they were, and I'm far from a scientist.

Anyone ever interview someone who supposedly worked on these films?

No.

Just like the 'bomb' in the WTC, you will never find anyone who actually did the work, just lots of speculating by people who have nothing better to do.

For the 'bomb' in the WTC, let's detain and ask Marvin Bush! Some time in Gitmo along with a little water boarding, he'll talk!
9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush

knot_e_lady · 06-28-2007, 02:58 PM

Why doesn't the dust stay in the air longer than in earth? Surely with the less gravity it would float around for ages?
This is one of the most common reasons for confusion and claims of hoaxery. Let's get straight two basic facts;

<LI class=kadov-p>Dust does not float in a vacuum. The only reason it 'floats' on Earth is because of the air that surrounds it. In a vacuum dust behaves exactly like any other object. You throw it up and it will then fall. It is no different from what a rock would do. Rocks do not float or billow around nor does the dust, even if it is lighter.
Because there is no air, dust falls quicker on the moon than on Earth. This may seem strange, as the Moon's gravity is much less. But the lack of an atmosphere is far more significant to the dust. But it still falls slower than you'd expect a rock to on Earth.

These two facts make almost dead certain proof of a lunar landing. There is absolutely nowhere on Earth that you could make dust behave in this, to us, peculiar way. If you were to create a vacuum on Earth, the dust would fall very quickly, just as we are used to a rock doing. But here is evidence of dust behaving like it's in a vacuum and in low gravity. Without modern computer movie graphics there is no way this could be faked on Earth.

Floating Dust

highway80west · 06-28-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

Why doesn't the dust stay in the air longer than in earth? Surely with the less gravity it would float around for ages?
This is one of the most common reasons for confusion and claims of hoaxery. Let's get straight two basic facts;

<LI class=kadov-p>Dust does not float in a vacuum. The only reason it 'floats' on Earth is because of the air that surrounds it. In a vacuum dust behaves exactly like any other object. You throw it up and it will then fall. It is no different from what a rock would do. Rocks do not float or billow around nor does the dust, even if it is lighter.
Because there is no air, dust falls quicker on the moon than on Earth. This may seem strange, as the Moon's gravity is much less. But the lack of an atmosphere is far more significant to the dust. But it still falls slower than you'd expect a rock to on Earth.

These two facts make almost dead certain proof of a lunar landing. There is absolutely nowhere on Earth that you could make dust behave in this, to us, peculiar way. If you were to create a vacuum on Earth, the dust would fall very quickly, just as we are used to a rock doing. But here is evidence of dust behaving like it's in a vacuum and in low gravity. Without modern computer movie graphics there is no way this could be faked on Earth.

Floating Dust

I can't believe this silly argument is still lingering. What was I watching on NBC television on the night of July 20, 1969? How could a black and white camera not show a grainy live show of the moonscape?

It seems that the conspiracists probably watched too much of the movie "Capricorn I".

intangible child · 06-28-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

I can't believe this silly argument is still lingering. What was I watching on NBC television on the night of July 20, 1969? How could a black and white camera not show a grainy live show of the moonscape?

It seems that the conspiracists probably watched too much of the movie "Capricorn I".

I watched it on a old black & white t.v. and realize now it sure was lit up! I guess it isn't dark in any place up there, the moon must spin so fast that the sun shown everywhere?

highway80west · 06-28-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intangible child

I watched it on a old black & white t.v. and realize now it sure was lit up! I guess it isn't dark in any place up there, the moon must spin so fast that the sun shown everywhere?

Uh well, the moon don't spin so fast. Yeah, it was lit up - one-half of it by the sun. And the TV I watched it on was a new color TV in those days.

knot_e_lady · 06-28-2007, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intangible child

I watched it on a old black & white t.v. and realize now it sure was lit up! I guess it isn't dark in any place up there, the moon must spin so fast that the sun shown everywhere?

Please, oh please, go to the website I posted...

Why can we see the astronaut in this picture when he is in the shadow of the lander? Shouldn't he be in the dark?

This is a question posed about a lot of the photos taken on the moon. What needs to be realised is that the sun, while being the only source of direct light, was not the only light source. Light reflects off everything around the astronauts and because this is very bright light, the reflected light can be very significant.
So the answer to all these questions is reflected light. In the photograph above the astronaut is significantly above the ground and is lit by reflected light off the surrounding lunar landscape. The fact he is wearing a pristine white spacesuit also helps, as it reflects most of that light again. So he really shows up against the shadow on the ground below him.
The highly reflective white spacesuits also explain some of the light in individual pictures of the astronauts. These were taken with the sun's light reflecting off the photographer, providing a great deal of infill on the astronaut being photographed. Remember that the photographer would be reflecting a lot of light, think of a snowy landscape on a bright winter's day. This is a very common trick also used by photographers on Earth. They get someone to hold up a large sheet of white card or cloth. This reflects the sunlight back across the shadows on the person being photographed, providing a natural infill to any harsh shadows.

In The Shadows