On the Moon landings.

Jaafa

Frankly I never believed the moon landings were faked, on the sole reason that if they were Russia would have called BS by now. However I watched this video and while I'm still not in anyway convinced it seems he is fairly well informed (despite his reputation on some matters I like to keep an open mind) and I'd like if someone here could provide a counter to his arguments or provide some proof as to their legitimacy. Skip to 0:50

Jaafa

Jaafa wrote: »

Frankly I never believed the moon landings were faked, on the sole reason that if they were Russia would have called BS by now. However I watched this video and while I'm still not in anyway convinced it seems he is fairly well informed (despite his reputation on some matters I like to keep an open mind) and I'd like if someone here could provide a counter to his arguments or provide some proof as to their legitimacy. Skip to 0:50

Well the first one he makes regarding the radiation being instantly lethal is an oft repeated one. But notice how he did provide any figures for this, he just stated that it was lethal.
I've asked people who believe this claim to detail exactly how much radiation is a lethal dose and how much radiation the astronaut would experience. But I have never once received an answer for this.
This is simply because the people who believe it, like Joe Rogan heard the claim from somewhere else and swallowed it uncritically.

He also seems to put some weight on James Van Allen's opinion, thinking it to be better than NASA's. However I wonder if he would be as accepting of Van Allen's opinion of the theory he was putting forward....

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

More here:
http://user.xmission.com/~jwindley/envrad.html

Is there any other of his claims you think have merit and would like to see addressed specifically, cause he makes a lot and sort of gets rambly.

Jaafa

I suppose I'll just list them:

1. Why did the Astronauts go into a deep depression (or is this even true)? And why does Neil Armstrong refuse to give interviews?

2. Why does Bill Clinton seem to grant some legitimacy to the conspiracy theories in his book?

3. What about the missing data? The 14,000 reels of data?

I understand the first two are hard to give reasons for but give it a shot anyway.

Jaafa

Jaafa wrote: »

1. Why did the Astronauts go into a deep depression (or is this even true)? And why does Neil Armstrong refuse to give interviews?

Because sudden fame does funny stuff to people.
Buzz Aldrin absolutely did suffer from alcoholism and depression, as do millions of other people, but this doesn't stop him from being everywhere and doing guest bits on the Simpsons and 30Rock (includes him speaking about his depression and drinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcWweblGjnU&feature=related)

But I can't say why Armstrong does not do as much as Aldrin, it could be as simple as he does not like the limelight.
However he does make a lot of appearances, such as at the 40th anniversary of the mission.

But if we are to accept Joe Rogan's idea, why are they still alive?
Isn't their depression and reluctance to go out and speak giving the game away, since Joe Rogan is using as evidence as such?
Why didn't Nasa have them killed like Joe accuses them of murdering the Apollo 1 astronauts?

Jaafa wrote: »

2. Why does Bill Clinton seem to grant some legitimacy to the conspiracy theories in his book?

Chances are the quote is probably horribly out of context.
Just from the tone I inferred from it, I think Clinton was having a go at the media, rather than implying the moon landing was fake.

And again, assuming that he was letting the cat out of the bag, why would he do so? Why in his autobiography? Why in such a cryptic manner?

Jaafa wrote: »

3. What about the missing data? The 14,000 reels of data?

Well first I'd like to see what he was referring to and where this is coming from. A quick google search provides no reputable sources for this.

Nor does it make any sense. Why couldn't they fake the data? Why did they need to pretend it was lost?

If this stuff was actually lost, chances are it was due to laziness and budget cuts and bureaucracy. I would imagine 14,000 reels would be taking up a lot of space they could be using for important stuff so it's entirely possible they just threw it all out unthinkingly.

ROFLcopter

I'm on the fence with the moon landings. I do believe they faked some photos for the media, they had to have the best photos for the public. Maybe it was this aspect that back fired.

Let's say they went to the moon and the photos were not up to standard, they couldn't say "sorry the pictures are crap" after a huge public build up of these missions after Kennedy's speech. Maybe they thought faking the iconic ones was the better idea at the time. The iconic Armstrong one and the footprint look fake.

Now this is not saying they didn't go to the moon, just aspects look a bit "hollywood"

ROFLcopter

ROFLcopter wrote: »

I'm on the fence with the moon landings. I do believe they faked some photos for the media, they had to have the best photos for the public. Maybe it was this aspect that back fired.

Well yes some photos were altered or touched up for magazine covers and the like.
Why would they cover this and stuff like it up?

ROFLcopter wrote: »

Let's say they went to the moon and the photos were not up to standard, they couldn't say "sorry the pictures are crap" after a huge public build up of these missions after Kennedy's speech.

But there are tons of photos like that. Photos with crap framing, tons with just images of rocks and so on.
These just aren't the ones they bother to release because the public at large simply would not find them interesting.

The "good" ones where due to staged moments in the mission schedule to take them and a few lucky shots from the astronauts themselves.

ROFLcopter wrote: »

Maybe they thought faking the iconic ones was the better idea at the time. The iconic Armstrong one and the footprint look fake.

Now this is not saying they didn't go to the moon, just aspects look a bit "hollywood"

So which photos are you referring to?
This and this ?

What precisely looks fake about them? Why would they need or want to fake these two images specifically? Why couldn't they just do them on the Moon?

namloc1980

ROFLcopter wrote: »

I'm on the fence with the moon landings. I do believe they faked some photos for the media, they had to have the best photos for the public. Maybe it was this aspect that back fired.

Let's say they went to the moon and the photos were not up to standard, they couldn't say "sorry the pictures are crap" after a huge public build up of these missions after Kennedy's speech. Maybe they thought faking the iconic ones was the better idea at the time. The iconic Armstrong one and the footprint look fake.

Now this is not saying they didn't go to the moon, just aspects look a bit "hollywood"

This argument just makes no sense whatsoever and you nearly always know that the people who use this argument of "staged photos" have never looked at the full Apollo photographic records, they just look at the most iconic photos and think these were staged and are just repeating same old tired arguments.

Large numbers of the Apollo photos are rubbish, many are sunstruck, others are over exposed, more are under exposed. Many are of "boring" things patches of regolith or of rocks or stones. And then amongst all these the astronauts managed to capture some pretty nice images. But even then some of the most iconic ones are not that great really. Look at probably the most famous one of Aldrin from Apollo 11:



Looks picture perfect right? But when you look at the original image you can see it wasn't so perfect.



Armstrong cut the top off of Aldrin's suit and captured a load of less interesting dirt and soil in the foreground.

Think of it like an amateur photographer on their holidays, most of their pictures will be boring but amongst those boring ones there is probably a handful of nice images where everything (light, contrast, subject) were just right.

CyberJuice

maybe we did go maybe we didnt but why the hell would joe rogan be the man to listen to on the subject?

hes a stand up comedian and a gameshow host,where is his studying and knowledge ragarding space and radiation and such come from?hes heard a few things from tv shows and interviews and hes swallowed it all hook line and sinker and now hes trying to ram it down other peoples throats..


i know as much about traveling to the moon and what is needed to do it than joe fear factor rogan knows.

Pablo Sanchez

Didnt the Mysthbusters comprehensivly prove that all the conspiracy theories re the moon were untrue?

Pablo Sanchez

Pablo Sanchez wrote: »

Didnt the Mysthbusters comprehensivly prove that all the conspiracy theories re the moon were untrue?

No, just the easiest to test and disprove and that were the most entertaining to do. But the ones they did were fairly common arguments and they were pretty conclusively taken down.

Course, this clearly shows that the arguments aren't wrong, it's just that the mythbusters are in on it too.

kevmy85

The most definitive way of proving the moon landing were real - and they were - is the fact that you can bounce a laser beam of the retroreflectors left on the surface of the moon.

Now you and me can't do it because we don't have access to a 1GigaWatt laser with expensive and sensitive alignment and measurement equipment. However it's done routinely enough by professional observatories.

The moon landing hoax idea is one of the many examples of the lack of trust awarded to professional scientists these days. Despite the fact that scientists form one of the most open, transparent and trustworthy professions around today.
I don't really know the reason why this is, perhaps because the general population don't understand how things are done they failed to believe people can do it ... but then they trust mechanics to know what they are doing with cars.

stuar

namloc1980 wrote: »

This argument just makes no sense whatsoever and you nearly always know that the people who use this argument of "staged photos" have never looked at the full Apollo photographic records, they just look at the most iconic photos and think these were staged and are just repeating same old tired arguments.


Think of it like an amateur photographer on their holidays, most of their pictures will be boring but amongst those boring ones there is probably a handful of nice images where everything (light, contrast, subject) were just right.

I've read here before about impossibilities of some of the photographs that simply cannot capture the dynamic range due to film type used.

Ever heard of Jan Lundberg?, he was the designer of the still camera's used on the moon so I assume he should know a thing or two about photography and it's capabilities.

Have a listen to what he has to say about the images that should have been silhouetted astronauts.
Watch this from 2mins to 2.20 and when asked to explain why the astronaut wasn't silhouetted at 4.20-4.43 he says:
"He seems like he's standing in a spotlight, and I can't explain that, ehh, that, that escapes me, why", this remember is the designer of the very camera's taken and used on the moon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWW8swrvWs

Or maybe this would be better, he says a little more and is a shorter video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAVasA0FOkw

I followed the rather long thread here a while ago about the moon landings, some valid points came up.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055822925


Also the reflectors on the moon, the Russians put some up there too, with unmanned missions, and collected moon rock with unmanned missions, ohh and the USA gave a moonrock to Holland that turned out to be petrified wood.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/

stuar

kevmy85 wrote: »

The most definitive way of proving the moon landing were real - and they were - is the fact that you can bounce a laser beam of the retroreflectors left on the surface of the moon.

Now you and me can't do it because we don't have access to a 1GigaWatt laser with expensive and sensitive alignment and measurement equipment. However it's done routinely enough by professional observatories.

The moon landing hoax idea is one of the many examples of the lack of trust awarded to professional scientists these days. Despite the fact that scientists form one of the most open, transparent and trustworthy professions around today.
I don't really know the reason why this is, perhaps because the general population don't understand how things are done they failed to believe people can do it ... but then they trust mechanics to know what they are doing with cars.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetary_lunar.html

These are USSR UN-Manned missions, doesn't take men to put reflectors on the moon or retreive moon rock samples.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

I've read here before about impossibilities of some of the photographs that simply cannot capture the dynamic range due to film type used.

Ever heard of Jan Lundberg?, he was the designer of the still camera's used on the moon so I assume he should know a thing or two about photography and it's capabilities.

Have a listen to what he has to say about the images that should have been silhouetted astronauts.
Watch this from 2mins to 2.20 and when asked to explain why the astronaut wasn't silhouetted at 4.20-4.43 he says:
"He seems like he's standing in a spotlight, and I can't explain that, ehh, that, that escapes me, why", this remember is the designer of the very camera's taken and used on the moon.

But then this begs the question about why this guy isn't dead.
That is assuming his words were in context and not dishonestly manipulated or that he was shown a picture that was touched up (which the video shows) rather than the actual photo.

But taking his statement as he said it, what's wrong with the explanation that it was due to the light reflecting back off the moon?
And if his suggestion that it was a spotlight is true, why is there only one set of shadows rather than two?

stuar wrote: »

Also the reflectors on the moon, the Russians put some up there too, with unmanned missions, and collected moon rock with unmanned missions,

Firstly the Apollo missions returned over 300 kilograms of samples. The most ever returned by a unmanned space craft was 170 grams.
The only modern unmanned spacecraft to return samples returned a few hundred particles.

But to assume your explanation you must believe that there was a secret space program to develop, build and launch unmanned spacecraft with robotics at least as good as we have now which would then retrieve more samples than any probe has ever done,then return. And all of this would have to be in total secret and kept secret for nearly 50 years by every single person involved and never once ever use the equipment developed in the project ever again for fear of blowing it all.

Now do you really think that's reasonable?

stuar wrote: »

ohh and the USA gave a moonrock to Holland that turned out to be petrified wood.

But that's not actually true.
The rocks the US gave to countries looked like this: http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Vatican-City-Moon-Flag.jpg/116px-Vatican-City-Moon-Flag.jpg
They were tiny flecks of already used and contaminated samples that the PR people had to fight the scientists to give up.
(We actually lost ours.)
The rock you posted to is simply too large and can't possibly be a moonrock, nor is there anything to suggest that NASA, the US government or anyone actually presented that rock as such.

The reason why people think the rock you posted is from the moon and the exact, detailed reasons about why it's not and never was are presented more thoroughly in these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ&feature=plcp&context=C3f8b268UDOEgsToPDskILuWPdYNcDN4a8M3Ek1fT0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGQhArtFqIM&feature=plcp&context=C3ee696bUDOEgsToPDskKtwys9ehNBC3j9uUN5bUVS

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

But then this begs the question about why this guy isn't dead.
That is assuming his words were in context and not dishonestly manipulated or that he was shown a picture that was touched up (which the video shows) rather than the actual photo.

But taking his statement as he said it, what's wrong with the explanation that it was due to the light reflecting back off the moon?
And if his suggestion that it was a spotlight is true, why is there only one set of shadows rather than two?

He's not dead because his vital organs seem to be still functioning!

He designed the camera, you think that's the first time he's seen the photo?, and I'm sure he's seen the original film from them camera. Either way as stated in the other thread I linked, slide film cannot be manipulated to add detail where it does not exist in the original, the altered image actually is slightly closer to how the original should have looked:ie less detail/more shadow.

The moon reflects 7%, not nearly enough for the film type used to prevent a backlit white suit to appear black in the shadow front half facing the camera.

The spotlight is of an intensity lower than the backlight or "sun", just strong enough to give detail to the shadow side of a white reflective suit, but not strong enough to cancel out shadow from the "sun" or cause its own shadow to cast behind the astronaut, also the placing of the spot light has an effect on shadow, the higher up it is it will cast shadow downward (onto the ground), the lower it is it will cast its shadow up to nothing because a shadow needs a surface to land on to become a shadow to begin with.
Hope that makes sense to you.

The moon rock I'll not get into just some thing I remembered and threw in there, but my main point was concerning the falsified photographs.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

He's not dead because his vital organs seem to be still functioning!

I thought my question was clear.
I meant: why hasn't he been murdered by NASA to stop him from speaking out?

stuar wrote: »

He designed the camera, you think that's the first time he's seen the photo?, and I'm sure he's seen the original film from them camera.

That was not the point I was making, nor does it answer the point I was making.
For all we know he could have been referring to an entirely different image to the one the filmmakers showed, let alone the original of the one they did show.
So one out of context statement is not convincing.

stuar wrote: »

Either way as stated in the other thread I linked, slide film cannot be manipulated to add detail where it does not exist in the original, the altered image actually is slightly closer to how the original should have looked:ie less detail/more shadow.

So the original was brighter but NASA darkened it?
Why? How does that make any sense? I thought the whole point of them cheating and using a second light source was so they could show more detail so they could have a nice propaganda picture?
If this is not the case, why did they bring in a second light source at all?

stuar wrote: »

The moon reflects 7%, not nearly enough for the film type used to prevent a backlit white suit to appear black in the shadow front half facing the camera.

According to what source and based on what information?

It's all well and good to declare stuff like this, but I can claim the exact opposite and it would be just as valid, unless you provide something to back yours up.

stuar wrote: »

The spotlight is of an intensity lower than the backlight or "sun", just strong enough to give detail to the shadow side of a white reflective suit, but not strong enough to cancel out shadow from the "sun" or cause its own shadow to cast behind the astronaut, also the placing of the spot light has an effect on shadow, the higher up it is it will cast shadow downward (onto the ground), the lower it is it will cast its shadow up to nothing because a shadow needs a surface to land on to become a shadow to begin with.
Hope that makes sense to you.

But again we run into a contradiction. If they did all of this to prevent someone from noticing that there was a second light source (other than the surface of the moon) why did they bother with it all in the first place when you think it's such a dead give away?

But here you say that the lighting up of the shadow side can be accomplished by a lower intensity light shining back up and onto the subject, so again, why specifically can't this be from the lunar surface?

stuar wrote: »

The moon rock I'll not get into just some thing I remembered and threw in there, but my main point was concerning the falsified photographs.

But even though you only half remembered it and did not check the facts about it, you posted it up? Why exactly?
Do you now believe that it indicates a conspiracy?

And what about your points about unmanned probes? Do you honestly think they are a viable explanation?

celtictiger32

i dont believe they were ever there there seems to be more evidence to say that they werent. and i would have imagined there would have been a lot more trips to the moon by the americans as well as russians and chinese etc.

celtictiger32

celtictiger32 wrote: »

i dont believe they were ever there there seems to be more evidence to say that they werent. and i would have imagined there would have been a lot more trips to the moon by the americans as well as russians and chinese etc.

It's simply because America lost the political will to fund more missions. The Russians ran out of money. And the Chinese are only just starting.

We used to have Concorde, a supersonic passenger jet that was built in the 70's, so surely now 40 years later all jets would be supersonic.
But they're not and we no longer have any supersonic passenger planes...

Does this mean that Concorde was a hoax?

amacachi

celtictiger32 wrote: »

i dont believe they were ever there there seems to be more evidence to say that they werent. and i would have imagined there would have been a lot more trips to the moon by the americans as well as russians and chinese etc.

Americans can't even get their act together to put roundabouts on roads. Roundabouts are safer and quicker than lights but people there don't like them so they're not built. Once the initial euphoria of "winning" the space race wore off people stopped giving a crap. Also NASA itself became pretty large and cumbersome as the years passed.

celtictiger32

King Mob wrote: »

It's simply because America lost the political will to fund more missions. The Russians ran out of money. And the Chinese are only just starting.

We used to have Concorde, a supersonic passenger jet that was built in the 70's, so surely now 40 years later all jets would be supersonic.
But they're not and we no longer have any supersonic passenger planes...

Does this mean that Concorde was a hoax?

ive always just thought that after the supposed breakthrough they would have gone a lot more for maybe tests etc and probably would have lowered the costs involved by finding out more, maybe thats why they cut the dollars didnt they want to explore mars some more and too much technology these days to call their bluff

celtictiger32

celtictiger32 wrote: »

ive always just thought that after the supposed breakthrough they would have gone a lot more for maybe tests etc and probably would have lowered the costs involved by finding out more, maybe thats why they cut the dollars didnt they want to explore mars some more and too much technology these days to call their bluff

But Concorde was a break through as well. They could have tested and developed the technology there and lowered the cost and made supersonic flight more accessible.
But it the end it wasn't cost effective because the customers weren't there.

It's the same for the Apollo missions. The politicians who decide the funding NASA gets simply didn't think it was worth the money after they beat the Russians, the public mostly agreed.
So NASA tried to work within a smaller budget and tried to develop more cost effective, long term technologies like reusable spaceplanes.
But that didn't quite pan out and we got the space shuttle.

On the plus side NASA never really neglected it's unmanned exploration and over the years that provided more science for a lot less.

Unfortunately, like Concorde, money is the deciding factor in exploration of the moon.

kevmy85

celtictiger32 wrote: »

ive always just thought that after the supposed breakthrough they would have gone a lot more for maybe tests etc and probably would have lowered the costs involved by finding out more, maybe thats why they cut the dollars didnt they want to explore mars some more and too much technology these days to call their bluff

There was huge political and patriotic pressure to get there in the first place - and as mentioned huge amounts of money pumped into it - along with emotional pressure to honour the memory of JFK.

The main American aim wasn't really to get to the moon - it was to show that they were better, smarter, more technologically advanced than the Russians. It wasn't at all easy - 3 men died in Apollo 1 and there was the whole Apollo 13 incident - and after putting 12 men on the moon NASA and the US decided that going to the moon wasn't worthwhile; politically, scientifically or economically.

Politically they beat the Russians and the novelty had worn off for the public.
Scientifically Apollo was designed to do one thing - get people to the moon and back. It was limited in terms of re-usability and in the amount of matter that could be brought back safely. Little space science was done on the missions - more could be done in orbit for less.
Economically the Government cut the funding to NASA - this can be partly blamed on harsher economic times in the 70's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_per_capita_change.PNG) - and as I previously said NASA decided that better science could be done for less in orbit.

You are right in saying if they continued with the Apollo program they might have made it cheaper and safer to go to the moon but at the end of the day thats not the point of NASA. They are their to get the best space science from the budget they have.

stuar wrote:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/space...ary_lunar.html

These are USSR UN-Manned missions, doesn't take men to put reflectors on the moon or retreive moon rock samples.

So you can believe that the Russians - with less economic and technological support - can put a probe onto the moon and safely land retro reflectors which still work; but saying the US put men on the moon is just a step too far?

celtictiger32

valid enough points but sorry folks still a doubter here......

maybe its time for an irish space centre lol:D

celtictiger32

celtictiger32 wrote: »

valid enough points but sorry folks still a doubter here......

maybe its time for an irish space centre lol:D

But why do you doubt it exactly?
What specifically made the moon landings impossible? Because it would need to be a very very good reason to make your position in anyway reasonable.

Right now, just to "doubt" the moon landings you have to believe that hundreds of thousands of people all worked together to produce the hoax and each and every single one of them to this day have stayed totally quiet. Every single engineer, physicist, programmer, administrative staff and everyone else all would either need to be in on it or be able to figure out what was going on. Then there's the thousands of people who'd have to be involved in the secret space program to build unmanned probes with super advanced robotics which you need to explain how NASA got their samples.
And then there's the millions of scientists and photography experts who aren't employed by NASA between the moon landings and now, all of whom would be able to cop that it's a fake and explain how. And then there's the thousands of people who actually currently work in projects that are imaging the Moon, you need them to stay quiet about the fact they've never seen any of the equipment as well as the team you need to fake the images showing exactly those.
Then you need staff to keep all of this straight and in check, to manage the money to keep all of this going and to send out the deathsquads when they are needed.
And then you need to pay off the Mythbusters...

So do you honestly believe all of this is just as (or more) likely as the idea that they just went to the moon?
If so, why?

Jonny7

King Mob wrote: »

But why do you doubt it exactly?
What specifically made the moon landings impossible? Because it would need to be a very very good reason to make your position in anyway reasonable.

Right now, just to "doubt" the moon landings you have to believe that hundreds of thousands of people all worked together to produce the hoax and each and every single one of them to this day have stayed totally quiet. Every single engineer, physicist, programmer, administrative staff and everyone else all would either need to be in on it or be able to figure out what was going on. Then there's the thousands of people who'd have to be involved in the secret space program to build unmanned probes with super advanced robotics which you need to explain how NASA got their samples.
And then there's the millions of scientists and photography experts who aren't employed by NASA between the moon landings and now, all of whom would be able to cop that it's a fake and explain how. And then there's the thousands of people who actually currently work in projects that are imaging the Moon, you need them to stay quiet about the fact they've never seen any of the equipment as well as the team you need to fake the images showing exactly those.
Then you need staff to keep all of this straight and in check, to manage the money to keep all of this going and to send out the deathsquads when they are needed.
And then you need to pay off the Mythbusters...

So do you honestly believe all of this is just as (or more) likely as the idea that they just went to the moon?
If so, why?

Plus you had the Russians watching the whole program tracking the mission every step of the way. The entire world's press analysing every single detail.

Also the Japanese probe which recently took photos of the sites.

weisses

Another interesting site

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Another interesting site

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Wow, this page is a joke.

It's just repeating the same long debunked claims that have been answered and blown away again and again.

And it too repeats the claim that the radiation was lethal but does not provide any figures or references for it.

namloc1980

stuar wrote: »

I've read here before about impossibilities of some of the photographs that simply cannot capture the dynamic range due to film type used.

Then I'm sure you'll also have read and seen images taken on Earth using the exact same film type which clearly show that the film indeed has sufficient dynamic range to capture what the Apollo images show. As I remember the hoaxers had no real answer to those images. Repeating what someone else said is not really an argument.

stuar wrote: »

Ever heard of Jan Lundberg?, he was the designer of the still camera's used on the moon so I assume he should know a thing or two about photography and it's capabilities.

Have a listen to what he has to say about the images that should have been silhouetted astronauts.
Watch this from 2mins to 2.20 and when asked to explain why the astronaut wasn't silhouetted at 4.20-4.43 he says:
"He seems like he's standing in a spotlight, and I can't explain that, ehh, that, that escapes me, why", this remember is the designer of the very camera's taken and used on the moon.

He didn't design the camera, he modified it to NASA's specs for use on the Moon. He is not a photography or film type expert. Asking an engineer who modified a camera what a specific photo taken on a specific type of film using that camera should look like is not a definitive case-closed smoking gun!

weisses

And another

http://www.clavius.org/

Tea 1000

King Mob wrote: »

But why do you doubt it exactly?
What specifically made the moon landings impossible? Because it would need to be a very very good reason to make your position in anyway reasonable.

Right now, just to "doubt" the moon landings you have to believe that hundreds of thousands of people all worked together to produce the hoax and each and every single one of them to this day have stayed totally quiet. Every single engineer, physicist, programmer, administrative staff and everyone else all would either need to be in on it or be able to figure out what was going on. Then there's the thousands of people who'd have to be involved in the secret space program to build unmanned probes with super advanced robotics which you need to explain how NASA got their samples.
And then there's the millions of scientists and photography experts who aren't employed by NASA between the moon landings and now, all of whom would be able to cop that it's a fake and explain how. And then there's the thousands of people who actually currently work in projects that are imaging the Moon, you need them to stay quiet about the fact they've never seen any of the equipment as well as the team you need to fake the images showing exactly those.
Then you need staff to keep all of this straight and in check, to manage the money to keep all of this going and to send out the deathsquads when they are needed.
And then you need to pay off the Mythbusters...

So do you honestly believe all of this is just as (or more) likely as the idea that they just went to the moon?
If so, why?

Then there's the smaller things like the Air NewZealand captain who, with his full plane of passengers, doubled back for about 50 miles on a trans-pacific flight so they could see Apollo 11 re-enter the atmosphere. If they're all telling the truth about actually seeing it re-enter, it would have meant that NASA had men in space at the same time as men in a studio somewhere. And the men bouncing around the studio would have to have had their voices dubbed by Armstrong and Aldrin, but they must have been in what ever craft was in space, cause there's footage of them emerging from it in the sea.
Also, how come none of the hoax claimers have much data on debunking the other Apollo missions which successfully landed on the moon? Do those ones look too real?

chooochooo

Anybody who tinks the americans got to the moon is niaive. You can see the asternauts are like so hipnotised really it was a black ops job done too make the Rusians look losers. The val alan belt would mean any asternaut would be cooked like a microwave diner. The whole ting is a joke with all scientists but they keep stum cos they need money from the fed.

namloc1980

chooochooo wrote: »

Anybody who tinks the americans got to the moon is niaive. You can see the asternauts are like so hipnotised really it was a black ops job done too make the Rusians look losers. The val alan belt would mean any asternaut would be cooked like a microwave diner. The whole ting is a joke with all scientists but they keep stum cos they need money from the fed.

Are you going back up this claim with figures of what constitutes a lethal radiation dose for astronaut or are you just repeating the same old tired argument you've read elsewhere?

Jonny7

Well there's always this..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGQQ-rziMd4

shizz

Haven't got a chance to read it all but this may be of help here regarding the radiation from the Van Allen belt http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

FISMA

"The Dark Side of the Moon"? - there is no dark side of the moon. Both "sides" of the moon receive sunlight.

Just bothers me when I hear this expression used.

xflyer

No rational person can still believe the moon landings were faked. The evidence is even more overwhelming than it ever was. Right down to the recently taken photos.

I remember staying up all night to see Neil Armstrong step on the moon all those years ago. I probably thought that by now I would be visiting the moon. Not to be I'm afraid.

Actually if you want a conspiracy theory. The biggest is the idea that we're ever going back to the Moon or Mars or anywhere in the solar system. It's possible but no one will every fund it. What the moon missions proved is that it's too bloody expensive. That's why they never went back.

clever_name

chooochooo wrote: »

Anybody who tinks the americans got to the moon is niaive. You can see the asternauts are like so hipnotised really it was a black ops job done too make the Rusians look losers. The val alan belt would mean any asternaut would be cooked like a microwave diner. The whole ting is a joke with all scientists but they keep stum cos they need money from the fed.

Just a suggestion here, you really should setup a new account for your troll posts like this one, when looking at all your posts and seeing that you only lose the ability to spell only in this forum... well it gives the game away, must try harder.

stoneill

For all the conspiracy theorists that belive that the Apollo Mission were a hoax
Go through all these photo's and pick out the obvious hoax images:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/

Go through these transcriptions and pick out the makey uppy ones:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html

Please - do a bit of research to back up your claims instead of bland statements. It's easy to make hoax claims, impossible to prove.
It's easy to prove the landings did happen, there is so much collective evidence documented, studied, stored and shared.

So, before making your hoax claims - use supporting evidence for if you don't then at best you show a lack of technical or scientific knowledge, at most you show a lack of intelligence.

charkee

watch the stephen fry qi eoisode on conspiracies.

brilliantly demolishes the moon landing hoax arguments.

Dr Expired

Just wondering, apart from video and photo's, what other evidence exists that men set foot on the moon ?

NIMAN

I could never understand why we don't just train one of the huge telescopes we have on Earth at the landing sites, show us the flag and left over bits, and put this **** to bed once and for all.

NIMAN

Jonny7 wrote: »

Also the Japanese probe which recently took photos of the sites.

Were these published?

Dr Expired

NIMAN wrote: »

Were these published?

I'd say if we dont know the truth by 2019 we never will.

Phill Ewinn

NIMAN wrote: »

Were these published?

Google Jaxa apollo sites. You can still see Armstrongs jocks still hanging on the clothes line.

Dr Expired

Dr Expired wrote: »

Just wondering, apart from video and photo's, what other evidence exists that men set foot on the moon ?

Among others there's the 300+kgs of samples returned from the Moon.
The placement of laser rangefinders which are used regularly by observatories around the world.
The tracking of the missions at the time by other agencies and a few amateurs.
And now there's images of the equipment, rovers and decent stages taken by recent lunar orbiters.

NIMAN wrote: »

I could never understand why we don't just train one of the huge telescopes we have on Earth at the landing sites, show us the flag and left over bits, and put this **** to bed once and for all.

Most telescopes don't have the resolution to pick that stuff out from the moon. And AFAIR, the few that do risk damaging their instruments if they pointed it at such a bright object.
Plus most of them are probably busy doing important astronomy to bother looking at the moon to provide proof for people who won't be convinced anyway.

But there are a few missions recently that are mapping the surface of the moon and were able to snap a few images of the sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter#Imagery

And it recently took even better shots:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/03/08/lro-zooms-in-on-apollo-15-once-again/

Andy!!

Jaafa wrote: »

Frankly I never believed the moon landings were faked, on the sole reason that if they were Russia would have called BS by now.

Definitive proof right there.

Dr Expired

King Mob wrote: »

Among others there's the 300+kgs of samples returned from the Moon.
The placement of laser rangefinders which are used regularly by observatories around the world.
The tracking of the missions at the time by other agencies and a few amateurs.
And now there's images of the equipment, rovers and decent stages taken by recent lunar orbiters.


Most telescopes don't have the resolution to pick that stuff out from the moon. And AFAIR, the few that do risk damaging their instruments if they pointed it at such a bright object.
Plus most of them are probably busy doing important astronomy to bother looking at the moon to provide proof for people who won't be convinced anyway.

But there are a few missions recently that are mapping the surface of the moon and were able to snap a few images of the sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter#Imagery

And it recently took even better shots:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/03/08/lro-zooms-in-on-apollo-15-once-again/

I'm still a 'doubting Thomas'.
I'd be more inclined to wait and see will China try a mission.
If they can / can't land a man on the moon; that when i'll make my call.

Dr Expired

Dr Expired wrote: »

I'm still a 'doubting Thomas'.
I'd be more inclined to wait and see will China try a mission.
If they can / can't land a man on the moon; that when i'll make my call.

But why is any of that suspect? Do you honestly believe that the hundreds of thousands of people you'd need to fake all of that have been able to keep totally quiet for 40 years?

Why would China's mission change this?

bennyineire

Dr Expired wrote: »

I'm still a 'doubting Thomas'.
I'd be more inclined to wait and see will China try a mission.
If they can / can't land a man on the moon; that when i'll make my call.

And how will know if China will actual do it, will they not fake it to, c'mon man how can you still question it. Do you serouisly think that if the rooskies even had a wiff of the landings been fake that wouldn't have tried to expose it. Can you explain why when the russians were in the middle of a cold war with the U.S. and didn't deny the landings if they were fake.
Heres another good link
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Dr Expired

King Mob wrote: »

But why is any of that suspect? Do you honestly believe that the hundreds of thousands of people you'd need to fake all of that have been able to keep totally quiet for 40 years?

Why would China's mission change this?

The hundreds of thousands of peolple; i don't know; maybe its down to compartmentalization in a organization like NASA.

I hope any China mission would make a curtesy call on historic landing sites.

Dr Expired

bennyineire wrote: »

And how will know if China will actual do it, will they not fake it to, c'mon man how can you still question it. Do you serouisly think that if the rooskies even had a wiff of the landings been fake that wouldn't have tried to expose it. Can you explain why when the russians were in the middle of a cold war with the U.S. and didn't deny the landings if they were fake.
Heres another good link
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

I honestly dont know why the Russians remained silent; perhaps the cold war were'nt so cold. I remember alot of big talk back then but no action from either side.
Listen, its just in my nature to question things, aint nothing wrong with that.