How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?

hooradiation

Talk E wrote: »

Weren't they just delighted to be busting the theories....Slightly bias.



Since they weren't actually on the moon and didn't use mood dust etc for their experiments. Unfortunately the whole lot is rendered null and void.

All of which would equally apply to anything you might find online that purports that it was faked.

Monty Burnz

33 wrote: »

I said it here before, ask DaireQuinlann (or something like that) from the photography forum how light, dynamic range, etc work with slide film.....bye

I know a bit about photography, dyamic range etc. - and what you are saying still makes no sense with regard to light sources. By the way, without looking it up, I'd be very surprised if the Apollo guys were using slide film precisely because of its lack of dynamic range compared to print film.

Each film magazine would typically yield 160 color and 200 black and white pictures on special film. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions. On Apollo 8, three magazines were loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film. There were 1100 color, black and white, and filtered photographs returned from the Apollo 8 mission.

Ok, having looked it up, they did bring Ektachrome, which I associate with slide (transparency) film, but then it says that these were 'new films with special emulsions'. I'm not really sure what to make of that, to be honest.

Monty Burnz

33 wrote: »

Light travels in a straight line, a to b kinda way, uneven surface with an albedo of 10-20% doesnt reflect 10-20% light back, half that and u have 5-10% reflection, thats what is reflected back, slide film, kodachome is unable to record such variations in light due to a thing called dynamic range of the film, its actually impossible, it cant be done on earth and cant be done on the moon even in a vacuum pack,vacuum has zero impact on light direction or distribution.

But what has all that got to do with the picture you are disputing with 'three light projections'?

Talk E

hooradiation wrote: »

All of which would equally apply to anything you might find online that purports that it was faked.

On the contrary, I believe people are using actual evidence from the moon, photo's etc.

King Mob

jackiebaron wrote: »

C'mon Mob. I respect the Mythbusters guys and all but if the moon landings were trully faked and the Mythbusters guys exposed it, they'd be quietly shot, dumped in a swamp and the show would never have been aired. So for the Mythbusters guys to do a show on the Moon landing can only have two outcomes.....(a) they disprove the conspiracy or (b) they don't do a show.

Yet Fox is allowed to show crap like their Moon Hoax specials?

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

Weren't they just delighted to be busting the theories....Slightly bias.

How does their "bias" effect the results of the above experiment?

Talk E wrote: »

Since they weren't actually on the moon and didn't use mood dust etc for thier experiments. Unfortunately the whole lot is rendered null and void.

Why does not using moon dust invalidate the above experiment?

The shadows were parallel then by simply adding a few bumps and dips in the dust, made in look like they were not.
How precisely would being on the Moon or using real moon dust effect any of that?

But I doubt very much you do actually have a reason for this and are just desperate for a reason to ignore evidence you don't like.

hooradiation

Talk E wrote: »

On the contrary, I believe people are using actual evidence from the moon, photo's etc.

If the Adam and Jamie not being on the moon renders their work "null and void" then the same would be true of anyone claiming the opposite.
Unless they can go to the moon itself and recreate those shots in order to prove that the ones we have been shown are indeed fakes, then their work is also "null and void".

I mean if we want to be consistent, that is.

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

How does their "bias" effect the results of the above experiment?


Why does not using moon dust invalidate the above experiment?

The shadows were parallel then by simply adding a few bumps and dips in the dust, made in look like they were not.
How precisely would being on the Moon or using real moon dust effect any of that?

But I doubt very much you do actually have a reason for this and are just desperate for a reason to ignore evidence you don't like.

~They used "the closest thing they could find to moon dust" in the footprint experiment.

So there, I do have a reason. :pac:

hooradiation wrote: »

If the Adam and Jamie not being on the moon renders their work "null and void" then the same would be true of anyone claiming the opposite.
Unless they can go to the moon itself and recreate those shots in order to prove that the ones we have been shown are indeed fakes, then their work is also "null and void".

I mean if we want to be consistent, that is.

That's fine with me.

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

~They used "the closest thing they could find to moon dust" in the footprint experiment.

So there, I do have a reason. :pac:

But we weren't talking about the footprint experiment, we were talking about the one that showed how parallel shadows can look non-parallel depending on the topography of the ground.

Now can you actually explain how the results of that experiment would be effected by not using real moon dust or being on the Moon?

But I think we all know you're grasping at straws.

hooradiation

Talk E wrote: »

That's fine with me.

The obvious problem with this is that all evidence from everyone claiming the moon landing is fake is now null and void. As is every counter-claim.
This leaves us where exactly?

Talk E

hooradiation wrote: »

The obvious problem with this is that all evidence from everyone claiming the moon landing is fake is now null and void. As is every counter-claim.
This leaves us where exactly?

I can only speak for myself.

hooradiation

Talk E wrote: »

I can only speak for myself.

Of course.
This was all an exercise in pointing out the inherent futility of writing off the evidence presented by people on the basis that "they were not on the moon at the time".

If for no other reason the list of people who can credibly claim to have been on the moon totals about nine right now and they all say it happened.

Talk E

hooradiation wrote: »

Of course.
This was all an exercise in pointing out the inherent futility of writing off the evidence presented by people on the basis that "they were not on the moon at the time".

If for no other reason the list of people who can credibly claim to have been on the moon totals about nine right now and they all say it happened.

It's like what the other fella said. There was only gonna be one result of their experiments or the program would never have been released.

Especially since folk like Obama visit the show.

NASA's way or the highway.

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

It's like what the other fella said. There was only gonna be one result of their experiments or the program would never have been released.

Especially since folk like Obama visit the show.

NASA's way or the highway.

And as we all know, you never see conspiracy shows which put forward the exact same claims the Mythbusters debunk....
Nor would we see such a show on Fox...

Ironically, the real situation seems to be that there's only gonna be one explaination for the Mythbusters in the CTer's world: either they prove the conspiracy or they are part of the conspiracy.

shanered

I believe there is a possibility that it was another spectical just like sept 11, it was used as a strategic military objective so as to enlarge the industrial militry complex of America. The first thing that strikes me is; why hasn't anybody been able to go back?
The inconsistancies with the pictures were only spotted on analysis such as where the various different inconsistancies with the whole hi-jacking al qeuida and bin laden things where, the were all part of a great mind control experiment conjured up by post-freud military public relation strategists.
Serious thought went into behavioural science on how to minipulate the masses to do certain strategic agendas that the elite class were thinking about at the time.
Such as those that are portrayed as the bilderberg group.
They wanted people to willing part with privecy, money and their will to stop people thinking too much about what is going on.
The moon landing were a hugh political boost for america, but think of what came out of them, think of the monies, the war, the global geopolitics at that time and see what effects it had on the nation spirit at the time and to what political uses those emotions where used to further what aims.
People think about this things and they do affect us.

stoneill

33 wrote: »

can u explain the light anomalies Kingmob?, I can see 3 different projections from this one photo, its only possible with a local light source, not the sun which was the only light source...according to nasa

I can only see one direction of light.
Creating the shadow on the lee side of the small ridge under the engine bell
Creating the y shaped shadow of the landing strut
Creating the shadow of the small rock.
And the light source coming from the lower left of picture.

FISMA

Here's proof positive that NASA faked moon landing photos.

Case closed!

alphabeat

i thinks its likely apolo 11, 12 , 13 ( OBVIOUSLY ) never went to the moon ,
more likely done in a film set .

i dont think NASA was able to be ready in time , technically to land .
so they faked it until they were actually ready to go.
they had to do this becasue of kennedys big mouth , and the russian space race.


if they did go the photo record is highly manipulated - as are all the apolo missions to some degree.


11 has a miniscule photo record , all of which looks fake.
12 is similar , and the tv cam was convienently burnt out a few minutes after landing .
13 had its own issues and never even made it down .



14, 15 , 16 and 17 likely did go to the moon .
they were technically capable at this stage - alhough the risks even then were huge.
NASA were pretty sure at least one mission would not make it back .

but again, the photo record has been heavily altered - for what ever reason.

Monty Burnz

Hi Alphabeat -

Which do you think is more likely:

The US claimed they had men walking around on the moon, and published lots of photos and video - and the Russians either didn't notice or care to point out the fakery (thus losing the propaganda battle with the US)

or

The photos were not faked at all, but plenty of people ignorant of the science of photography spotted 'fakery' that just wasn't there?

It's got to be one or the other, surely?

King Mob

alphabeat wrote: »

i dont think NASA was able to be ready in time , technically to land .
so they faked it until they were actually ready to go.
they had to do this becasue of kennedys big mouth , and the russian space race.

Why were they not ready exactly? What technology were they lacking?

If this technology was lacking and the photos so obviously fake why didn't the Russians say anything?

squod

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Hi Alphabeat -

Which do you think is more likely:

The US claimed they had men walking around on the moon, and published lots of photos and video - and the Russians either didn't notice or care to point out the fakery (thus losing the propaganda battle with the US)

or

The photos were not faked at all, but plenty of people ignorant of the science of photography spotted 'fakery' that just wasn't there?

It's got to be one or the other, surely?

Russians seen what you did. Sure there's non believers amongst them too.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

Russians seen what you did. Sure there's non believers amongst them too.

So then if the Russians and their highly trained scientists could spot "mistakes" that even laypeople could identify, why didn't they say anything?

Weylin

karaokeman wrote: »

Firstly this is not a general topic, if you post you can simply state whether or not you believe the conspiracy theory as if it was a poll.

Most people I know think they were real, and from the arguments I've heard against the Hoax movement I can easily assume 98% of the world are probably convinced they were real.

As for me I am not sure whether the landings were real, but I am more sure they were real than I am that they were fake.

FAKE,FAKE,FAKE. they never went to the moon.their is not one piece of evidence that can prove 100% that it happened.

Monty Burnz

Weylin wrote: »

karaokeman wrote: »

Firstly this is not a general topic, if you post you can simply state whether or not you believe the conspiracy theory as if it was a poll.

Most people I know think they were real, and from the arguments I've heard against the Hoax movement I can easily assume 98% of the world are probably convinced they were real.

As for me I am not sure whether the landings were real, but I am more sure they were real than I am that they were fake.

FAKE,FAKE,FAKE. they never went to the moon.their is not one piece of evidence that can prove 100% that it happened.

How about photos me the landing site showing where view were and the moon buggy view used? And the mirrors view left behind to measure the speed of light? And of course the testimony and work of tens of thousands of people?

King Mob

Weylin wrote: »

FAKE,FAKE,FAKE. they never went to the moon.their is not one piece of evidence that can prove 100% that it happened.

Except the hundreds of kilograms of lunar samples they returned...
And the lunar range finders still in operation today...
And the increasingly high resolution photos from the LRO.

alphabeat

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Hi Alphabeat -

Which do you think is more likely:

The US claimed they had men walking around on the moon, and published lots of photos and video - and the Russians either didn't notice or care to point out the fakery (thus losing the propaganda battle with the US)

or

The photos were not faked at all, but plenty of people ignorant of the science of photography spotted 'fakery' that just wasn't there?

It's got to be one or the other, surely?

you need to consider why ALL the photo record of all the moon missions was manipulated -

the russians as well as the USA saw the same stuff on the moon
( ie ancient ruins - whether manmade or otherwise )

the russians could not whistle blow this , as it would have caused chaos.

and its obvious the photo records has been altered
you do not need to be a photo expert to see that .

King Mob

alphabeat wrote: »

you need to consider why ALL the photo record of all the moon missions was manipulated -

the russians as well as the USA saw the same stuff on the moon
( ie ancient ruins - whether manmade or otherwise )

the russians could not whistle blow this , as it would have caused chaos.

and its obvious the photo records has been altered
you do not need to be a photo expert to see that .

So why couldn't the Russian just expose the fakery without giving away the other stuff?
You said that the Americans were trying to beat the Russians and presumably vice versa.
And there's plenty of people here who believe that the moon landings were fake but also believe that stuff about aliens is abject nonsense.

So again, why didn't the Russians say anything?

Tordelback

I think we're caught in some kid of positivist/existentialist/even solipsistic trap here. True, there's no way of 'proving' that anything happened in the past, that the world wasn't created just this second exactly as is, or that everything you perceive isn't utterly twisted by your sensorium, or exists just in your imagination.

That's the childish level that this debate operates at - and at that level, and only at that level, can anyone honestly claim that the moon-landings are 'fake'. To those people I'd ask: what do your thetans* tell you?

Meanwhile, why does anyone really believe that governments think the revelation of ruins on the moon, or aliens at Roswell, or UFOs in Wiltshire would 'cause chaos'? Would any of those things distract most people from X-Fcator for more than a few minutes? And if they would, surely governments would relish the chance to divert people from scrutinising their dirty deals and dirtier wars?



*Or Midichlorians. Or the FSM. Or Dana. I'm not biased when it comes to imaginary friends.

Monty Burnz

alphabeat wrote: »

you need to consider why ALL the photo record of all the moon missions was manipulated -

It wasn't.

alphabeat wrote: »

the russians as well as the USA saw the same stuff on the moon
( ie ancient ruins - whether manmade or otherwise )

No they didn't. There are no ancient ruins.

alphabeat wrote: »

the russians could not whistle blow this , as it would have caused chaos.

Ah come off it. Would have caused chaos? The Russians were looking out for our welfare, is it? Is this the same Russia that crushed half of Europe and most of Asia and treated their own people like dirt?

alphabeat wrote: »

and its obvious the photo records has been altered
you do not need to be a photo expert to see that .

The photos were not altered. Someone with no idea of the science of photography obviously wouldn't understand a lot of what they see, but then a caveman would think that aeroplanes and cars are magical too. They aren't.

ballinue

Definately Fake, I believe there is a radiation belt outside the earth that if they passed through it the Spacecraft or suits they had, would not protect them from the radiation and
they would all have died.