Moon Landing Hoax

Homer Sexual

This video shows the fake 'half way to the moon' shot, uncut:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIw06kd--is


This one shows the flag waving in the 'wind' on the Apollo 15 mission without it or the pole being touched by anyone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

Thoughts?

Mena

The flag and pole were touched, when they were put into position. This caused the ripple effect. And yes, a flag can wave in a vacuum.

1. If there was a "breeze", surely you'd see dust flying about as well?
2. If this was some elaborate hoax surely the director would have yelled cut, and redid the scene to ensure it looked accurate enough?

Aye Matey!

I saw an intersting documentary not too long ago that analyzed potential image editing flaws. A few of the shots showed cross-hair reticules falling behind objects rather than overlaying them. It struck me as odd.

When its comes to the Moon landing and JKF's death my spider sense tingles.

Gaspode

The flag was set in motion when it was put in place - due to very low gravity and the lack of an atmosphere to provide resistance to movement, there was nothing to stop the flag rippling.

simple physics. Trumps silly conspiracies each time.

jhegarty

Simple test for moon landings.

View top-budget 1969 blockbuster films.

Notice special effects and laugh at how fake they look.

Now watch moon landings , looks real.

I am sure they could have faked it (to a standard we would believe today) from 1990 on , but not in 69.

Aye Matey!

jhegarty wrote: »

Simple test for moon landings.

View top-budget 1969 blockbuster films.

Notice special effects and laugh at how fake they look.

Now watch moon landings , looks real.

I am sure they could have faked it (to a standard we would believe today) from 1990 on , but not in 69.

Interesting comparison. Think of the Enterprise ship hanging from a piece a gutline in the original Star Trek

jhegarty

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Think of the Enterprise ship hanging from a piece a gutline in the original Star Trek

Exactly, the pinnacle of 1960's special effects

Homer Sexual

Did any of you actually watch the flag video I posted? It was completely still until the astronaut went past it. Nobody was touching it. It then moved exactly as you'd expect had his air caused it.

Homer Sexual

jhegarty wrote: »

Exactly, the pinnacle of 1960's special effects

Star Trek had a TV budget, not a NASA budget, and they weren't actually trying to fool anybody. Just an observation.

Tomk1

1st vid, so, whats suppose to be the big deal.

2nd vid ok the flag moved:
> What was the flag made out of, was it fabric, if it was it wouldn't of stayed horizontal. therefore there must have of been some kind of support, wire or other.
> Temperature of moon surface is very cold or warm depending on shade. so change of tempereature expansion etc..... un damped movement.

Other cases: Solar wind, every hear of the solar sail?
: Vibrations on the ground, we don't know whats going on of camera.

Also, it would still of been cheaper to send them to the moon than inventing green screen 30 years ago.

Aye Matey!

Tomk1 wrote: »

Also, it would still of been cheaper to send them to the moon than inventing green screen 30 years ago.

Cheaper perhaps. More feasable? Not sure.

Homer Sexual

Tomk1 wrote: »

1st vid, so, whats suppose to be the big deal.

The big deal is that it shows Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins faking a shot of being 130,000 miles from the moon! It raises questions like 1) Why would they fake it if they really went? 2) If that was fake, what else was?

2nd vid ok the flag moved:
> What was the flag made out of, was it fabric, if it was it wouldn't of stayed horizontal. therefore there must have of been some kind of support, wire or other.
> Temperature of moon surface is very cold or warm depending on shade. so change of tempereature expansion etc..... un damped movement.

Other cases: Solar wind, every hear of the solar sail?
: Vibrations on the ground, we don't know whats going on of camera.

Solar wind breezing on the flag right as he passed by? Seems a bit strange and far fetched to me. Maybe an expert here can give their opinion.

Vibrations on the ground would not be strong enough to move the flag. You'd need an earth quake or something of similar power. We're talking about the surface of the moon here. You'd have a hard enough time getting it move jumping up and down on a sprung gymnastics floor.

Also, it would still of been cheaper to send them to the moon than inventing green screen 30 years ago.

Who said anything about green screen? These kinds of effects can be achieved in theatre very cheaply!

321654

Homer Sexual wrote: »

Did any of you actually watch the flag video I posted? It was completely still until the astronaut went past it. Nobody was touching it. It then moved exactly as you'd expect had his air caused it.

How sure are you that the astronaut didnt glance the flag as he went past?

Homer Sexual

321654 wrote: »

How sure are you that the astronaut didnt glance the flag as he went past?

We saw him stand next to it so we know that the flag is higher than him. He appears to be reasonably far from it as he passes, but not so far that his big suit couldn't disturb the 'air' around it. I'd guess that it's possible to work out mathematically how far he was, based on the size differences.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8

Mythbusters special on flag.

Aye Matey!

As a sidenote in reference to jhegarty's post the first Star Wars film was 1977.

Homer Sexual

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8

Mythbusters special on flag.

Guys, for the second time, please watch the video I posted, and read what's being said here. Mythbusters did NOT show this video at all. In the video I posted, nobody touched the flag or the pole. It was perfectly still before the astronaut went by.

Flamed Diving

Homer Sexual wrote: »

Guys, for the second time, please watch the video I posted, and read what's being said here. Mythbusters did NOT show this video at all. In the video I posted, nobody touched the flag or the pole. It was perfectly still before the astronaut went by.

I couldn't give a toss if they were faked, tbh.

321654

Homer Sexual wrote: »

We saw him stand next to it so we know that the flag is higher than him. He appears to be reasonably far from it as he passes, but not so far that his big suit couldn't disturb the 'air' around it. I'd guess that it's possible to work out mathematically how far he was, based on the size differences.

Well why dont you work it out then?
Would it because you are afraid it wont fit your theory?

Is it possible that that part of the video was faked too?

Tell us the one about the shadows going the wrong direction again. I love that one

Homer Sexual

321654 wrote: »

Well why dont you work it out then?
Would it because you are afraid it wont fit your theory?

Not sure what you mean.

Is it possible that that part of the video was faked too?

If it was, then that is quite serious, don't you think?

Tell us the one about the shadows going the wrong direction again. I love that one

Don't know what you're talking about. I didn't mention anything about shadows.

Homer Sexual

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I couldn't give a toss if they were faked, tbh.

I think people should care when governments lie. IF all or some of the footage was faked, that is quite a big deal.

bubonicus

Mythbusters can go and shove it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhi4gVd011o

Homer Sexual

Anybody fancy a respectful and serious discussion? No? Just the old predictable attempted ridicule and BS?

It's funny, I really could have predicted this entire thread.

1. Post videos with the words 'moon' and 'hoax' nearby.
2. Cue 3 or 4 people with stock responses about 'simple physics' and 'silly conspiracies'.
3. Plead with people to actually watch posted videos.
4. New person does so, offers possible explanation.
5. Discussion gets under way.
6. Some people are stumped and claim simply not to care.
7. Cue people who dislike serious discussion, and want to bring thread down to point-and-laugh level as quickly as possible.

Goodshape

Aye Matey! wrote: »

As a sidenote in reference to jhegarty's post the first Star Wars film was 1977.

2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968 and looks pretty convincing to this day.

Probably just a coincidence that the film which redefined, with much help and consultation from Nasa, how special effects looked and were created was released just a year before Nasa landed on the 'real moon'.

Just saying

Homer Sexual

Exactly what kind of 'special effects' would be required to fake the moon landings? None as far as I can see.

bubonicus

Goodshape wrote: »

2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968 and looks pretty convincing to this day.

Probably just a coincidence that the film which redefined, with much help and consultation from Nasa, how special effects looked and were created was released just a year before Nasa landed on the 'real moon'.

Just saying

I did hear a few years ago that it was Kubrick who NASA got to make the Moon landing "movie".

bonkey

Homer Sexual wrote: »

Did any of you actually watch the flag video I posted? It was completely still until the astronaut went past it. Nobody was touching it. It then moved exactly as you'd expect had his air caused it.

Look more closely. Someone was touching it.

At 15-17 seconds, we see the first astronaut putting the plag into the mount for it. At this point, the flag is turned away from the camera - the horizontal pole supporting the top of the flag points away from us at maybe 40-45 degrees, pointing to the right (and away from the camera).

At 24 seconds, the closer astronaut is moving past the camera. Just as he moves past, we see the horizontal pole. To me it looks to be moving, but I can't be certain. Either which way, after he moved past, the flag is almost parallel to the camera - the horizontal pole now points almost straight to the right - not away from the camera as it had been previously.

This would suggest that while the view was obscured, the flag was rotated by the guy still standing at the flag-pole....the guy still touching the assembly. OK - he may not have been touching the material, but moving or rotating the flag pole, or shaking it into its socket more securely will cause ripples.

Not only that, but watch what happens in the following seconds...as soon as the guy at the pole moves back...the rippling stops pretty quickly.

321654

Homer Sexual wrote: »

If it was, then that is quite serious, don't you think?

I mean faked by conspiracy theorists.

Homer Sexual

bonkey wrote: »

Look more closely. Someone was touching it.

At 15-17 seconds, we see the first astronaut putting the plag into the mount for it. At this point, the flag is turned away from the camera - the horizontal pole supporting the top of the flag points away from us at maybe 40-45 degrees, pointing to the right (and away from the camera).

At 24 seconds, the closer astronaut is moving past the camera. Just as he moves past, we see the horizontal pole. To me it looks to be moving, but I can't be certain. Either which way, after he moved past, the flag is almost parallel to the camera - the horizontal pole now points almost straight to the right - not away from the camera as it had been previously.

This would suggest that while the view was obscured, the flag was rotated by the guy still standing at the flag-pole....the guy still touching the assembly. OK - he may not have been touching the material, but moving or rotating the flag pole, or shaking it into its socket more securely will cause ripples.

Not only that, but watch what happens in the following seconds...as soon as the guy at the pole moves back...the rippling stops pretty quickly.

The flag comes to a standstill, and nobody touches it - the part of the video I'm talking about is at 2:38.

Aye Matey!

Homer Sexual wrote: »

Anybody fancy a respectful and serious discussion? No? Just the old predictable attempted ridicule and BS?

It's funny, I really could have predicted this entire thread.

1. Post videos with the words 'moon' and 'hoax' nearby.
2. Cue 3 or 4 people with stock responses about 'simple physics' and 'silly conspiracies'.
3. Plead with people to actually watch posted videos.
4. New person does so, offers possible explanation.
5. Discussion gets under way.
6. Some people are stumped and claim simply not to care.
7. Cue people who dislike serious discussion, and want to bring thread down to point-and-laugh level as quickly as possible.

For what it’s worth Homer Sexual I honestly inherently believe that the US moon landing was staged. I didn't declare it immediately since it isn't something that can definitively demonstrated. I’ve always been wary about to US’ fervor to prevail in the initial space race.

As Mods and the charter will point out there is little wrong with thread divergence or members disagreeing. There exists however an issue with the means of disagreement as deployed by a handful of skeptics in this thread to date:

“Trumps silly conspiracies each time”

deswalsh made a suitable point pertaining to physical elucidation but blemishes it by referring to your proposition as “silly”. This characterizes the usual derogatory and dismissive attitude replete in the CT forum. It’s a blatant endeavor to smugly disparage and belittle the proposition and whether directly deliberated or not is offensive to the OP. It also represents the odious prejudice that skeptics equip themselves with when passing through the CT forum. Is there really a need for disrespect to debate a proposition? This shouldn’t be allowed.

“I couldn't give a toss if they were faked, tbh.”

Flamed Diving submitted a Myth Busters video clip as what initially seemed like a fair counterpoint to your initial proposition though upon your dismembering of the clip and highlighting of its extraneous irrelevance he states that he simply doesn’t care. Is this really good enough? Should skeptics be allowed to apathetically challenge a proposition with such lethargy and declare indifference only after a successful counter-rebuttal? Why post in the first place? This shouldn’t be allowed.

“Tell us the one about the shadows going the wrong direction again. I love that one”

321654 bestows upon us a leaping conjecture that the poster must be a campaigning advocate of every supposition that envelops the hoax despite Homer Sexual never having motioned the item of the above quote. These pursuants of ‘logic and rational’ conduct there affairs much like the Spanish Inquisition yet if they conduit but half that inquiry into their interpretation of what actually has been posted then there would be little to misconstrue. This shouldn’t be allowed.

“I mean faked by conspiracy theorists.”

This is just palpable mockery. Where I’d hope to see decorum and shared respect I find them substituted with derision and the logically haughty. This shouldn’t be allowed.

humanji

Aye Matey! wrote: »

For what it’s worth Homer Sexual I honestly inherently believe that the US moon landing was staged. I didn't declare it immediately since it isn't something that can definitively demonstrated. I’ve always been wary about to US’ fervor to prevail in the initial space race.

As Mods and the charter will point out there is little wrong with thread divergence or members disagreeing. There exists however an issue with the means of disagreement as deployed by a handful of skeptics in this thread to date:

“Trumps silly conspiracies each time”

deswalsh made a suitable point pertaining to physical elucidation but blemishes it by referring to your proposition as “silly”. This characterizes the usual derogatory and dismissive attitude replete in the CT forum. It’s a blatant endeavor to smugly disparage and belittle the proposition and whether directly deliberated or not is offensive to the OP. It also represents the odious prejudice that skeptics equip themselves with when passing through the CT forum. Is there really a need for disrespect to debate a proposition? This shouldn’t be allowed.

“I couldn't give a toss if they were faked, tbh.”

Flamed Diving submitted a Myth Busters video clip as what initially seemed like a fair counterpoint to your initial proposition though upon your dismembering of the clip and highlighting of its extraneous irrelevance he states that he simply doesn’t care. Is this really good enough? Should skeptics be allowed to apathetically challenge a proposition with such lethargy and declare indifference only after a successful counter-rebuttal? Why post in the first place? This shouldn’t be allowed.

“Tell us the one about the shadows going the wrong direction again. I love that one”

321654 bestows upon us a leaping conjecture that the poster must be a campaigning advocate of every supposition that envelops the hoax despite Homer Sexual never having motioned the item of the above quote. These pursuants of ‘logic and rational’ conduct there affairs much like the Spanish Inquisition yet if they conduit but half that inquiry into their interpretation of what actually has been posted then there would be little to misconstrue. This shouldn’t be allowed.

“I mean faked by conspiracy theorists.”

This is just palpable mockery. Where I’d hope to see decorum and shared respect I find them substituted with derision and the logically haughty. This shouldn’t be allowed.

Take it to feedback.