Man on the Moon.

[Dog]

It's been a while folks, but I can't stand the pain any longer.

Great photographs of the fake moon landings.

 

 

Which of you mugs still believe it happened?

 

Can you see the stars...

[SNSUN]

I watched a programme recently on the Moon landings being a hoax, and I must say, I'm now a doubter. The little "+"signs on the photos are directly from the camera, which means they are always supposed to be in the foreground in front of everything else, but in some photos they actually appear BEHIND some objects. Which means they could be doctored. It also said that the radiation on the moon would have pierced the lining of the suits and killed the astronauts.

 

Now I don't know whether I believe it or not. Perhaps it's true, in which case why haven't we made use of the moon since, then again perhaps it's not, and the Americans were just trying to "outdo" the Russians.

 

Who knows...

[Al de Man]

Can you see the stars...

 

Just because the sky is black, you're equating it to night time on earth. However, look how strong the shadows are. The light levels are what you'd expect during the day on earth, if not then brighter. The combination of shutter speed and aperture required to correctly expose that lunar surface wouldn't pick up the faint glimmer of light emitted by a star.

[St Landrew]

Just because the sky is black, you're equating it to night time on earth. However, look how strong the shadows are. The light levels are what you'd expect during the day on earth, if not then brighter. The combination of shutter speed and aperture required to correctly expose that lunar surface wouldn't pick up the faint glimmer of light emitted by a star.

 

Al, don't bother. It's trendy to debunk things like the Moon landings. I, and a lot of other quite level headed people, lived through them. There's nothing to believe. It simply happened.

 

They'ed rather believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

[Gingeletiss]

Guess I'm a mug......................because it happened, get over it.

[Al de Man]

Al, don't bother. It's trendy to debunk things like the Moon landings. I, and a lot of other quite level headed people, lived through them. There's nothing to believe. It simply happened.

 

They'ed rather believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

 

I know it doesn't matter how much evidence you present, the conspiracy theorists will just bury their heads deeper and deeper into the sand.

 

It reminds me of this article I read last week.

[St Landrew]

I know it doesn't matter how much evidence you present, the conspiracy theorists will just bury their heads deeper and deeper into the sand.

 

It reminds me of this article I read last week.

 

Exactly. I read that article too. Lots of people mistakenly think that the Earth was thought to be flat until only in the last 100 or so years. In truth, it's been the considered consensus for 1000's of years that the Earth is a geiod, i.e. round. The Egyptians and Arabs knew.

 

The funny thing is, I've read a few people actually take Terry Pratchett's Discworld as the truth. Elephants and Turtle, the whole 9 yards.

[Al de Man]

Exactly. I read that article too. Lots of people mistakenly think that the Earth was thought to be flat until only in the last 100 or so years. In truth, it's been the considered consensus for 1000's of years that the Earth is a geiod, i.e. round. The Egyptians and Arabs knew.

 

The funny thing is, I've read a few people actually take Terry Pratchett's Discworld as the truth. Elephants and Turtle, the whole 9 yards.

 

I remember at school learning how the ancient Egyptians even managed to get a good approximation of the circumference of the Earth.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

Exactly. I read that article too. Lots of people mistakenly think that the Earth was thought to be flat until only in the last 100 or so years. In truth, it's been the considered consensus for 1000's of years that the Earth is a geiod, i.e. round. The Egyptians and Arabs knew.

 

The funny thing is, I've read a few people actually take Terry Pratchett's Discworld as the truth. Elephants and Turtle, the whole 9 yards.

 

Flat Earthers are a bit like this though...

 

[Danny]

I watched a programme recently on the Moon landings being a hoax, and I must say, I'm now a doubter. The little "+"signs on the photos are directly from the camera, which means they are always supposed to be in the foreground in front of everything else, but in some photos they actually appear BEHIND some objects. Which means they could be doctored. It also said that the radiation on the moon would have pierced the lining of the suits and killed the astronauts.

 

Now I don't know whether I believe it or not. Perhaps it's true, in which case why haven't we made use of the moon since, then again perhaps it's not, and the Americans were just trying to "outdo" the Russians.

 

Who knows...

 

Well there's a fairly fundamental point here which you've touched upon. Seeing as the Moon landings were at the height of the Cold War, if they didn't happen, why didn't the Soviets expose them as a hoax?

 

I'm pretty sure they'd want to and if there was an ounce of doubt they would have done in a heartbeat.

 

The reason is just the same as why the West didn't claim that Yuri Gagarin didn't actually orbit the globe - because he did.

[Colinjb]

All sounds a bit 'Capricorn 1' to me.

 

Quite interesting though that the US cancelled the last Apollo missions when they realised the Russians where on the verge of mastering tracking object in deep space. Conveniently they needed a few budget cuts at the time.

Edited 10 August, 2008 by Colinjb

[St Landrew]

All sounds a bit 'Capricorn 1' to me.

 

Quite interesting though that the US cancelled the last Apollo missions when they realised the Russians where on the verge of mastering tracking object in deep space. Conveniently they needed a few budget cuts at the time.

 

Considering that the Apollo missions were being tracked by many nations on Earth through their radio telescope tracking stations, I would have thought that little floater was drowned years ago.

 

Just as nowadays, the USA population had a 10 minute attention span [well 10 seconds nowadays, I suspect] in the early 1970's. Budget cuts were due to many factors: Vietnam War financing, Poverty, Falling interest, etc... And the Republican Presidency [Nixon] were never overly keen because Space missions didn't directly make money in those days.

 

EDIT: Capricorn One is just a fun idea. Not too bad a film either.

[Al de Man]

Just as many of us took time out of our normal schedule to sit in front of the tv and watch the first Space Shuttle launch at school or work, but by the third or fourth time most of us didn't even know there was a launch occuring.

[gaz]

Considering this is The Muppet Show, damn, this is a sensible thread.

 

Come on, everyone knows the Moon Landing was actually the Mars Landing. Just in black and white.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I find it had to believe that if they were faking the photos that they'd "forget" to include the stars.

[Baj]

I find it had to believe that if they were faking the photos that they'd "forget" to include the stars.

Equally, faking the photos and not adding the crosses on last.

"Dave, DAVE, YOU NOB, YOU PUT THE ****ING ROCKS ON THE PHOTO AFTER THE CROSSES AGAIN!"

[Al de Man]

I'm sorry but I just can't let it lie.

 

Here is a photo I took of a structure at the middle of a shopping centre.

 

 

That was pretty dark (camera settings were 22mm, ISO 800, ½ sec at f/11) and certainly nowhere near as bright as the lunar surface would be if bathed in direct sunlight with no atmosphere, so these settings are going to be far more sensitive to picking up the faint emissions from stars. However, the only celestial object visible is the moon (where those pictures at the beginning of this thread were taken).

 

In reference to the little crosses, they certainly don't appear to be behind any of the subjects in those pictures, and even if they were, how do you know that they weren't doctored by an attention-seeking conspiracy theorist to given their pathetic argument a tiny modicum of credibility? Let's face it, no one's interested in writing an article or making a tv program about someone who believes the moon landings actually happened or thinks who the Earth is spherical.

[Ponty]

TBF, there are all sorts of things that lend weight to the 'faked landings' theory, if you're open minded about it, but the photographs aren't one of them.

[Deano6]

I see no evidence in those photos that there is any fakery.

 

Of course, if you try hard enough you can find evidence for just about anything.

[St Landrew]

We live in a world of cynicism. It used to be the province of the jaded and political. Now it seems cynicism is so cool people will try to debunk anything that smacks of purity. The U.S. moon landings were aimed by the Whiite House as a political statement to the rest of the world that Western Democracy [and especially America] was more powerful than the Communist Eastern bloc. When the media and populaced interest had died, the Apollo Project were well into the scientific missions. Excellent work was done, and there are still many years of research to come out of the rock and soil samples brought back. Nowadays, the origins of the Moon and the Earth are far clearer than they were prior to the Apollo Project, and as a direct result of the missions.

 

In all honesty, if you look hard enough, you'll find overwhelming evidence that the Apollo missions took place. It should take you at least 5 minutes to do so.

[Baj]

Whats harder, faking the biggest event of the 20th century infront of billions and making the lie last for 40 years, or actually putting a man on the moon! I think NASA went for the easy option, actually doing it!

[Junction 9]

Regardless of the previous missions and their validity, can anyone explain to me why "we" have never been back in all this time? I would imagine there are thousands of TV execs out there desperately trying to come up with the next big idea to put on the telly. What sort of audience would the moon landing live on TV get nowadays, and what would the advertising revenue be? Just seems strange to me that the US attitude is "Been there done that"

[Crouchie's Lawyer]

Equally, faking the photos and not adding the crosses on last.

"Dave, DAVE, YOU NOB, YOU PUT THE ****ING ROCKS ON THE PHOTO AFTER THE CROSSES AGAIN!"

 

I lol'd.

 

I now have the impression there is a buffoon who has been employed byt these people trying to 'con' everyone.

 

His name is Dave and he is a work experience monger.

[Dog]

Whats harder, faking the biggest event of the 20th century infront of billions and making the lie last for 40 years, or actually putting a man on the moon! I think NASA went for the easy option, actually doing it!

 

 

 

Ask Pinnacle.

[Thedelldays]

do people really believe that the moon landing was a fake

[Evo]

We live in a world of cynicism.

 

Which neatly answers the question of why we've collectively done very little to advance any "real" aerospace barriers in the last 40 years or so.

 

FFS, it took c. 65 years from the first powered flight by an aircraft to putting a man on the moon. They didn't worry about the impossibility of it all, they just f'ing went ahead and did it anyway. In the 40 years since, the western world has been sitting on our hands, slowly falling into a pit of introversion, cynicism and self-loathing. Concorde? The X33? How on earth can the proposed STS replacement be an advancement on the Space Shuttle?

 

Today's can't-do attitude must be a gut reflex reaction to the can-do baby boomer generation.

 

End of rant.

[Thedelldays]

Which neatly answers the question of why we've collectively done very little to advance any "real" aerospace barriers in the last 40 years or so.

 

FFS, it took c. 65 years from the first powered flight by an aircraft to putting a man on the moon. They didn't worry about the impossibility of it all, they just f'ing went ahead and did it anyway. In the 40 years since, the western world has been sitting on our hands,.

a lot do do with it in the last 20 years or so is the end of the cold war...

[Wildgoose]

Regardless of the previous missions and their validity, can anyone explain to me why "we" have never been back in all this time? I would imagine there are thousands of TV execs out there desperately trying to come up with the next big idea to put on the telly. What sort of audience would the moon landing live on TV get nowadays, and what would the advertising revenue be? Just seems strange to me that the US attitude is "Been there done that"

 

They're planning to do it again in 2011 I think it is, then on to Mars! See the NASA website.

[Wildgoose]

Recently watched NASA's greatest missions on cable/satellite and it has been absolutely brilliant to watch, showing just how NASA learned from the results of one mission to another till they finally reached the moon. It makes perfect sense and shows how it became achievable.

 

I was 12 years old when it happened and I still find it quite moving and inspiring even to this day. I think I can understand why those who were born after it happened could go to one extreme or the other ie disbelieve it, or just see it as no problem at all in todays society.....

Edited 16 July, 2009 by Wildgoose

[Saint in Paradise]

In the photo of the "astronaut" on his own he has a shadow which is at an angle showing the position

of the light source. However in his faceplate reflection there is another shadow presumably from the photographer

taking the photo which is at a totally different angle. Where is the source of this light then ? There ain't 2 suns.

[St Landrew]

In the photo of the "astronaut" on his own he has a shadow which is at an angle showing the position

of the light source. However in his faceplate reflection there is another shadow presumably from the photographer

taking the photo which is at a totally different angle. Where is the source of this light then ? There ain't 2 suns.

 

I would have thought you may have worked this one out S-i-P. Primary light source - The Sun; Secondary light source - reflected light from the Sun bouncing from the Earth. The Moon makes excellent light shadows on the Earth when Full, and it's as reflective as a non-reflective thing. The Earth is a very reflective planet.

 

Case closed.

[Dog]

It never happened.

[Evil Monkey]

Isnt the whole 'flag blowing in the wind' another point of debate on this topic? Supposedly there isnt enough wind up there to make it do that...or so has been suggested.

[Thedelldays]

do people really believe that it was all a fake..?

 

seriously..?

[Danny]

It never happened.

 

Translation:

 

 

We can repeat things too.

[Danny]

do people really believe that it was all a fake..?

 

seriously..?

 

Yep, because the Internet tells them it was a fake.

 

If it's on the innernets, it must be FACT. Never mind the evidence to the contrary. That's all fake too.

[Junction 9]

They can't do it and never have been able to.

[Wurzel]

I would have thought you may have worked this one out S-i-P. Primary light source - The Sun; Secondary light source - reflected light from the Sun bouncing from the Earth. The Moon makes excellent light shadows on the Earth when Full, and it's as reflective as a non-reflective thing. The Earth is a very reflective planet.

 

Case closed.

 

I believe that they got there but I also reckon that a lot of the photos and/or recordings were faked back ups just in case things didn't turn out as planned. Reference to the above, the dual light source makes sense but look at the horizons, behind the astronaut and in the reflection. Makes the moon look about a mile across at best.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Al, don't bother. It's trendy to debunk things like the Moon landings. I, and a lot of other quite level headed people, lived through them. There's nothing to believe. It simply happened.

 

They'ed rather believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

 

Also my opinion. Although I can understand my now dead grandmother (born at the turn of the 20th Century) disbelieving.

[Gingeletiss]

In the photo of the "astronaut" on his own he has a shadow which is at an angle showing the position

of the light source. However in his faceplate reflection there is another shadow presumably from the photographer

taking the photo which is at a totally different angle. Where is the source of this light then ? There ain't 2 suns.

 

I suggest you re-examine the photo...........you are so wrong.

[Master Bates]

Suppose Vietnam was faked too huh?

[Atticus Finch of Maycomb]

people who think it was faked are clearly mental

[OldNick]

Exactly. I read that article too. Lots of people mistakenly think that the Earth was thought to be flat until only in the last 100 or so years. In truth, it's been the considered consensus for 1000's of years that the Earth is a geiod, i.e. round. The Egyptians and Arabs knew.

 

The funny thing is, I've read a few people actually take Terry Pratchett's Discworld as the truth. Elephants and Turtle, the whole 9 yards.

I know Terry Pratchett and visited his house on a few occasions

[OldNick]

How was the camera put into

position before armstrong came down the steps, it seems away from the craft, there again I was only 9 when it happened and have not studied the film since.Isnt there alos a radiation belt between the earth and moon that would kill humans? The Van something belt

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

How was the camera put into

position before armstrong came down the steps, it seems away from the craft, there again I was only 9 when it happened and have not studied the film since.Isnt there alos a radiation belt between the earth and moon that would kill humans? The Van something belt

 

The Van Morrison belt. Causes the phenomenon known as an Avalon Sunset which lasts for Astral Weeks. It was what caused the astronauts to do the first Moondance.

[OldNick]

The Van Morrison belt. Causes the phenomenon known as an Avalon Sunset which lasts for Astral Weeks. It was what caused the astronauts to do the first Moondance.

Not Van nistlerooy then that makes them horse

[Dimond Geezer]

Isnt the whole 'flag blowing in the wind' another point of debate on this topic? Supposedly there isnt enough wind up there to make it do that...or so has been suggested.

 

The flag waving was not caused by wind, and is it actually exacerbated by the lack of wind. The flag is mounted on an aluminium pole, with a horizontal aluminium arm across the top to keep the flag ‘flying’ rather than hanging down, as it wound in a vacuum.

The waving of the flag is explained by the natural ‘spring’ in the supporting frame (pole & arm). When the astronauts planted the flag (and whenever they walked close to it) this would cause the frame to spring (or wobble), this wobble is transferred to the flag and makes it look like it is waving. The lack of atmosphere means there is no air resistance to stop the flag from flapping, and it would continue to flap until the energy causing the vibration in the pole/arm had naturally dissipated into the moons surface.

 

Originally Posted by nickh

Isnt there alos a radiation belt between the earth and moon that would kill humans? The Van something belt

 

 

 

It’s the Van Allen belt, and I can’t remember exactly, but it is either a local effect, which they didn’t pass through, or the effect on humans is insignificant when passing through it at speed.

[Marsdinho]

Some of the comments on here make me laugh

 

"can anyone see the stars"

 

"there isnt enough wind up there..."

 

Some people need to do learn about space and physics.

[SB]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/mysun/2541696/Moon-landing-pie-in-the-sky.html

[Dog]

THIS is the clearest image yet of astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the Moon.

Nasa yesterday released new digitally remastered footage of the 1969 moonwalk - as it was revealed bosses TAPED OVER the original high-resolution film.