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

uprising2 · 12-12-2010 01:13AM

FISMA wrote: »

Squod,
I'll ask this question again, as you appeared to have missed it. What evidence or proof will you accept from the scientific community that would allow you to conclude that the moon landings were real?

It is the question that I always ask CT's, one which they always fail to answer.

It is a simple catch 22 matter. I ask what proof they would accept. In reality, there is no proof they will ever accept. Thus, they fail to answer the question.

Their opinions, coupled with an overall lack of general science result in a bad scientific conclusion, intentions not withstanding. It is really the only way to approach a CT.

So Squod, please advise what evidence or proof you will accept from the scientific community that would allow you to conclude that the moon landings were real.

Slan

What evidence do you have?, do you have something the rest don't?, some actual evidence, not your belief's alone.

Here's an article from 1965, about how they are going to get to the moon and walk on it, interesting reading, almost exactly as it supposedly happened 4 years later.
It's funny how they wouldn't be able to write such an article today, 45 years later, I thought technology was supposed to advance not recede.

LINK TO ARTICLE HERE

shedweller · 12-12-2010 02:03AM

squod wrote: »

You're admitting you know the moon rock is fake and that doesn't cause any concern to you regarding the moon landing hoax? How odd.

I meant there are loads of fake samples of moon rock about. Like fake rolexes. It doesn't mean rolexes are fake does it?

squod wrote: »

It's beside the point. You posted a video, it got shot down. Move on!

Remind me again how it got shot down? "likely bonded to something" doesn't cut it.
Re: The point about why hubble should be able to spot anything. It's to do with angular resolution. The landers are simply too small to see from here.
See here, if you can bear the thought of there actually being something man made on the moon!
http://calgary.rasc.ca/moonscope.htm#hubble
And try to understand telescopes a little more.
There, i shot down the hubble telescope lunar lander theory!!:D

shedweller · 12-12-2010 02:18AM

uprising2 wrote: »

Here's an article from 1965, about how they are going to get to the moon and walk on it, interesting reading, almost exactly as it supposedly happened 4 years later.
It's funny how they wouldn't be able to write such an article today, 45 years later, I thought technology was supposed to advance not recede.

LINK TO ARTICLE HERE

Good link actually. Thanks. I too also thought technology would advance. But here we are, having hardly moved ahead at all. That does annoy me. Wheres me bleedin hover car??
Your point about the story being almost exactly the same, 4 years earlier is good, but in space exploration, things happen slowly in terms of design etc. 4 years before they landed on the moon, the final design was virtually complete. The physics of it all were not going to change and the boffins behind the scenes had it all done and dusted on paper. It just had to be built.
Take a look at the conspiracy forum at bautforum.com
There are lots of very techie guys there with more data than most people could handle.

FISMA · 12-12-2010 03:18AM

uprising2 wrote: »

What evidence do you have?, do you have something the rest don't?, some actual evidence, not your belief's alone.

uprising2,

I post the question to you.

What evidence or proof will you accept from the scientific community that would allow you to conclude that the moon landings were real?

Just give us an idea as to what is acceptable to you and we will be glad to take it from there.

uprising2 · 12-12-2010 03:50AM

shedweller wrote: »

I meant there are loads of fake samples of moon rock about. Like fake rolexes. It doesn't mean rolexes are fake does it?

Yea but you don't buy fake rolex's from rolex do you.

97a493bc-80a7-4af8-bd49-d6f1c24f68b3.grid-6x2.jpg

A rock supposedly brought back from the moon, and a note from the then-U.S. ambassador is just a piece of petrified wood.
‘Moon rock’ in museum is just petrified wood

Prized rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts

Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/

FISMA · 12-12-2010 04:30AM

Can you prove that this rock came from NASA?

How do you know that the ambassador did not keep the real one and give the Dutch the bootleg?

Proof please.

uprising2 · 12-12-2010 04:42AM

FISMA wrote: »

Can you prove that this rock came from NASA?

How do you know that the ambassador did not keep the real one and give the Dutch the bootleg?

Proof please.

I've given more proof the moonrock is fake than you have that the moon landings were real.

The basalts found at the Apollo 11 landing site are generally similar to basalts on Earth

The lunar highlands are primarily a light-colored rock known as anorthosite, which consists primarily of the mineral plagioclase. It is very rare to find rocks on Earth that are virtually pure plagioclase.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/samples/

Nothing about "moon rocks" says they need to be actually from the moon, seem's they are also available right here on earth.

plagioclase

shedweller · 12-12-2010 10:14AM

Oh well, looks like the moon landings were faked then. Well done uprising and squod. You have proved what so many have set out to prove with exceedingly scientific knowlege and rigorous experimentation and observation. Well done.
Damn you nasa for tricking us.

12-12-2010 12:24PM

The reason the VLT, the Very Large Telescope can't see the Apollo landers despite it's amazing resolution is simple. It is designed to observe very faint very far away objects like distance stars and galaxies, not very bright and relatively very close objects like the Moon. If there were to point it at the Moon they would just damage the equipment because the light would be far too intense.

As for the petrified wood being claimed to be moon rocks, the one example you have of that was of a display rock, not one of the hundreds of kilograms of samples used in tests and experiments all over the world.
A likely scenario is that someone nicked the rock and replaced it with something that looked similar, then either sold it or kept it.
And on top of all that, the only reason you've heard about it was through the controlled mainstream media....

Continuing on the samples I would love to know how exactly Nasa where able to have an entirely secret space program of unmanned probes to returned samples...
The most any unmanned probe had brought back at that stage was a few grams of dust, Apollo brought back upwards of 300Kg.

As for the reflectors, there is only 2 unmanned ones on the surface, both Russian. One was totally lost until they spotted it on some LRO pictures in March, the other's position is known to a less accurate degree that the Apollo ones. So again there's another secret space program t explain how the got the reflectors up there, deployed and positioned.

And as for the Moon rocks containing basalts similar to earth's: well duh really.
The best theory we have is that the Moon was formed from debris ejected from the Earth after a massive impact. The fact that the rocks contain such similarities is strong evidence for this.
But there are some major differences between moon rocks and earth ones. Micro-meteorite impacts, as has been mentioned, total lack of weathering for another example...

So what's wrong with FISMA's question exactly? Seems entirely reasonable and clever to me...
I mean if you have an open mind it shouldn't be a problem to answer.

scudzilla · 13-12-2010 12:14AM

I've watched the documentaries and IMO WAY too many things just don't add up.

From the Landscape in the background, to the shadows of itmes, to the blast crater, to how you can see the astronauts perfectly while they were in the shadow with NO light.

If it was just 1 or 2 things then i wouldn't be convinced, but there's way too many for my liking

uprising2 · 13-12-2010 01:10AM

King Mob wrote: »

The reason the VLT, the Very Large Telescope can't see the Apollo landers despite it's amazing resolution is simple. It is designed to observe very faint very far away objects like distance stars and galaxies, not very bright and relatively very close objects like the Moon. If there were to point it at the Moon they would just damage the equipment because the light would be far too intense.

Great explanation, did you write it down first or just make it as you went along?

Ok for starters, light from the moon cannot damage "glass and mirrors".

Almost all optical equipment have an iris to control the light input level.
If it doesn't have an iris, a neutral density filters will stop down light to any possible level required.

To counter bright light simply increase exposure time, for low light increase it. Some of the images from VLT require a 1 hour exposure.

Lastly, the cruncher, and another reason to strenghten my long held belief that you make simply make things up for the sake of it.
Here's a pic of the moon, taken with...................

namloc1980 · 13-12-2010 01:18AM

scudzilla wrote: »

From the Landscape in the background, to the shadows of itmes, to the blast crater...

Whot so bothers you about these things?

scudzilla wrote: »

...to how you can see the astronauts perfectly while they were in the shadow with NO light.

Was the Sun and it's reflections off the ground not good enough. It works on Earth so no reason why the Moon would be different.

Divorce Referendum · 13-12-2010 01:24AM

scudzilla wrote: »

I've watched the documentaries and IMO WAY too many things just don't add up.

From the Landscape in the background, to the shadows of itmes, to the blast crater, to how you can see the astronauts perfectly while they were in the shadow with NO light.

If it was just 1 or 2 things then i wouldn't be convinced, but there's way too many for my liking

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I found this documentary very good however analysing some of those theories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGfdbvHuC6Y

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntax5zSOnP8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYjnOPk0Qjc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a45wDyxnM8M

Check out this docu i posted earlier in the thread. It explains alot of what you are talking about and alot more.

uprising2 · 13-12-2010 01:38AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Whot so bothers you about these things?

Was the Sun and it's reflections off the ground not good enough. It works on Earth so no reason why the Moon would be different.

I've gone through this before with you, you simply don't understand the dynamic range of KodaChrome transparency film, them images wouldn't have worked on earth either without a second light source.

adam500 · 13-12-2010 01:44AM

And have you wondered why they haven't been back to the moon since apollo 11, the reason would blow your mind.....

scudzilla · 13-12-2010 01:48AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Whot so bothers you about these things?

Was the Sun and it's reflections off the ground not good enough. It works on Earth so no reason why the Moon would be different.

2 seperate pictures/videos taken, according to NASA, 2 miles apart, yet the backgrounds were identical, and they were filmed at different angles

And how come no blast crater? there was nothing at all

13-12-2010 02:02AM

adam500 wrote: »

And have you wondered why they haven't been back to the moon since apollo 11, the reason would blow your mind.....

Yes.
Lack of money and political will to do so.
Robotic probes are cheaper and less dangerous.

As has been said at least twice of this thread.

Divorce Referendum · 13-12-2010 02:03AM

uprising2 wrote: »

I've gone through this before with you, you simply don't understand the dynamic range of KodaChrome transparency film, them images wouldn't have worked on earth either without a second light source.

Are you saying that its impossible for the astronauts to be seen in shadow? Or is the film that is the problem?

scudzilla · 13-12-2010 02:22AM

adam500 wrote: »

And have you wondered why they haven't been back to the moon since apollo 11, the reason would blow your mind.....

So blow my mind then

Divorce Referendum · 13-12-2010 02:34AM

scudzilla wrote: »

2 seperate pictures/videos taken, according to NASA, 2 miles apart, yet the backgrounds were identical, and they were filmed at different angles

And how come no blast crater? there was nothing at all

Do you have a link to these 2 seperate photos?

I presume by blast crater you mean the lunar module descent? The module had decreased its power to 25% in descent and it was also moving forward rather than straight down as can be seen in the video which would have lessened its impact in one area. Some of the photos show a disturbance of dirt/dust on the surface.

scudzilla · 13-12-2010 02:46AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Do you have a link to these 2 seperate photos?

I presume by blast crater you mean the lunar module descent? The module had decreased its power to 25% in descent and it was also moving forward rather than straight down as can be seen in the video which would have lessened its impact in one area. Some of the photos show a disturbance of dirt/dust on the surface.

It was in the documentary

Divorce Referendum · 13-12-2010 03:07AM

scudzilla wrote: »

It was in the documentary

Ok are these the two? http://www.braeunig.us/space/pics/hoax/photo14.jpg

This is an explanation offered on this website: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

. In this case, as in all such claims, the backgrounds are clearly not identical. If you examine the photos with scrutiny, differences can be easily identified. For example, look closely at the hill on the right of each photo and you will notice that the angles of view are significantly different. It is obvious the photos were taken from different camera positions, thus we see different foreground terrain. In the right photo it appears the LM is off-camera to the left.

Another factor to consider is, due to the lack of an atmosphere, distant objects on the Moon appear clearer than they do on Earth, thus the background mountains may be more distant than they appear to be. As such, a change in camera position may, at first observation, have a nearly unperceivable affect on the appearance of the background. However, close examination will reveal otherwise

uprising2 · 13-12-2010 04:34AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Are you saying that its impossible for the astronauts to be seen in shadow? Or is the film that is the problem?

It's both!, the film has a very narrow dynamic range, the ev value between the highlight and shadow is waaaaayyyy out of range of this type of film, it simply cannot record both highlight and shadow and keep detail, ask anybody on the photography forum, who has experience of shooting with transparency film and they will tell you a 2nd light source had to be used.

Heres a picture with a single light source, looks just as it should.

Anything in shadow has no detail, you can see the shadow cast by the backpack on the side of the white suit, the shadow is black even on the white suit because the dynamic range isn't able to cope and keep detail in highlight and shadow, highlight is exposed for, shadow area is black.

Here's an astronaut clearly lit from a fill in light, the shadow of the LEM gives reference to the sun's position, the side of the backpack appears to be in highlight, the back of the backpack is in shadow yet the underside of it well lit.
The direction of the light hitting the LEM and casting shadow and the direction of the light hitting the back of the astronaut are so inconsistant it's embarrassing, yet all were lit up by the one light source.
The back of the astronaut should be black in shadow, the shadow lines follow the box structure of the backpack, theres so many irregularities with this one image.

The sun is behind this chancer, yet he's nice and bright on the front side, this can not be without fill in light, his front should be as black as the shadows, the film cannot record both.

Latitude
Latitude is the degree by which one can over, or under expose an image, and still recover an acceptable level of quality from an exposure. Typically negative film has a better ability to record a range of brightness than slide/transparency film or digital. Digital should be considered to be the reverse of print film, with a good latitude in the shadow range, and a narrow one in the highlight area; in contrast to film's large highlight latitude, and narrow shadow latitude. Slide/Transparency film has a narrow latitude in both highlight and shadow areas, requiring greater exposure accuracy.
Negative film's latitude increases somewhat with high ISO material, in contrast digital tends to narrow on latitude with high ISO settings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)#Latitude

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I presume by blast crater you mean the lunar module descent? The module had decreased its power to 25% in descent and it was also moving forward rather than straight down as can be seen in the video which would have lessened its impact in one area. Some of the photos show a disturbance of dirt/dust on the surface.

Then they got out the MrSheen and dusted off the LEM landers.
013-apollo-11-AS11-40-5918-Landefuss-der-mondlandefaehre-o-staub.jpg

shedweller · 13-12-2010 10:59AM

uprising2 wrote: »

I've gone through this before with you, you simply don't understand the dynamic range of KodaChrome transparency film, them images wouldn't have worked on earth either without a second light source.

Tell me exactly what film they used and exactly what its dynamic range is and what it means. Exactly please.
This fill in light source you mention. It wouldn't be the light reflecting off the surface of the moon by any chance? Or the photographers space suit?
You are forgetting an interesting property of lunar soil too. But i won't say what it is due to you picking holes in it. So i'll let you figure it out, since you know it all already.

scudzilla wrote: »

2 seperate pictures/videos taken, according to NASA, 2 miles apart, yet the backgrounds were identical, and they were filmed at different angles

And how come no blast crater? there was nothing at all

Imagine you were photographing somebody with a mountain range far away. Now say you both go to another location 2 miles away and photograph them again, with the same mountain range in the background. The mountain range is going to look virtually indentical. And if you say otherwise you have to be on drugs or something!
edit
Could you tell me how far from the photographer those mountain ranges are, that look identical.

scudzilla wrote: »

So blow my mind then

Me too!

scudzilla wrote: »

It was in the documentary

Oh go on, show me where, i haven't the time.

13-12-2010 11:48AM

gbee wrote: »

Oh no, film can survive in space but the missing stars are the clue, not that the film did not record any stars, but it should have looked like it did.

What should be the argument in the context of CT is that the landing took place somewhere else, because the star pattern was not right, instead we have no stars.

The picture should have looked like they were taken on another galaxy with unfamiliar 'star' patterns.

The distance between the earth and moon is tiny when compared to the distance to the stars, therefore the pattern of stars visible from the moon would be almost identical to those visible on earth. The diameter of earth's orbit is far greater than the distance between the earth and the moon, yet the patterns of stars we see do not change appreciably* between summer and winter, when the earth is at oppossite sides of its orbit.

*There is a tiny shift in the apparent position of near stars compared to distant objects, which astronomers use to calculate the distance to those stars.

Also, for your viewing pleasure, a photo of the apollo 14 landing site, taken recently:

shedweller · 13-12-2010 12:40PM

Ah but shure James, those pics could be photoshopped!!:eek:
And you should be able to see the stars in the pictures anyway!!:eek::eek: FAKE!!!
Run for the hills!!!!!!!:rolleyes:
Love those LRO pics though.

Phill Ewinn · 13-12-2010 06:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Post up the rest of the sweries there . Let the viewers at home distinguish the difference between the rest of the higher definition pics and these lower definition ones of the landing sites. They've already been proven as fakes, lol.

uprising2 · 13-12-2010 06:50PM

shedweller wrote: »

Tell me exactly what film they used and exactly what its dynamic range is and what it means. Exactly please.
This fill in light source you mention. It wouldn't be the light reflecting off the surface of the moon by any chance? Or the photographers space suit?
You are forgetting an interesting property of lunar soil too. But i won't say what it is due to you picking holes in it. So i'll let you figure it out, since you know it all already.

Kodak Ektachrome 160 ISO, one stop of light away from the exposure set will lose detail either too dark or too bright.
Photographic film has a set standard of the amount of light required to make the correct exposure, the more light there is the faster the shutter must open and close OR it can also be controlled with an iris inside the lens (apature measured in F/stops), for lower light the shutter must be left open longer to allow the correct amount of light reach the film plane OR the apature opened wider (lower F/stop)
EDIT:
Tranparency film exposure is very critical, pro's have a hard time with it on sunny days due to it's low tolerance, in any given scene there are differing light values, but a photographic exposure can only be set for one value, newer digital cameras have HDR (high dynamic range) 3 exposures(1 underexposure, 1 correct exposure, 1 overexposure) into one image which partly solves the problem. EDIT END

Light travels in straight lines, the angle it hits something it will reflect off at the same angle.

Lunar soil reflects about 20% light if I remeber correctly, the same as asphalt, so whats your big secret?

Divorce Referendum · 13-12-2010 07:04PM

uprising2 wrote: »

It's both!, the film has a very narrow dynamic range, the ev value between the highlight and shadow is waaaaayyyy out of range of this type of film, it simply cannot record both highlight and shadow and keep detail, ask anybody on the photography forum, who has experience of shooting with transparency film and they will tell you a 2nd light source had to be used.

Heres a picture with a single light source, looks just as it should.

Anything in shadow has no detail, you can see the shadow cast by the backpack on the side of the white suit, the shadow is black even on the white suit because the dynamic range isn't able to cope and keep detail in highlight and shadow, highlight is exposed for, shadow area is black.

Here's an astronaut clearly lit from a fill in light, the shadow of the LEM gives reference to the sun's position, the side of the backpack appears to be in highlight, the back of the backpack is in shadow yet the underside of it well lit.
The direction of the light hitting the LEM and casting shadow and the direction of the light hitting the back of the astronaut are so inconsistant it's embarrassing, yet all were lit up by the one light source.
The back of the astronaut should be black in shadow, the shadow lines follow the box structure of the backpack, theres so many irregularities with this one image.

The sun is behind this chancer, yet he's nice and bright on the front side, this can not be without fill in light, his front should be as black as the shadows, the film cannot record both.

Latitude
Latitude is the degree by which one can over, or under expose an image, and still recover an acceptable level of quality from an exposure. Typically negative film has a better ability to record a range of brightness than slide/transparency film or digital. Digital should be considered to be the reverse of print film, with a good latitude in the shadow range, and a narrow one in the highlight area; in contrast to film's large highlight latitude, and narrow shadow latitude. Slide/Transparency film has a narrow latitude in both highlight and shadow areas, requiring greater exposure accuracy.
Negative film's latitude increases somewhat with high ISO material, in contrast digital tends to narrow on latitude with high ISO settings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)#Latitude

Then they got out the MrSheen and dusted off the LEM landers.

Really its both is it? Fast forward to 5:25 in the video below and explain to me how the astronaut is lit even though according to you he should be in shadow?

In regards to the dust on the landers if there was no air to slow the dust down expelled by the thruster it would fly away rapidly and not settle slowly like a dust cloud on earth. This adds further weight to the fact that it was shot on the moon. Cheers:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntax5zSOnP8

Phill Ewinn · 13-12-2010 07:10PM

How about the landers that do have dust on their landing gear- are they the real ones? lol

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

Comments