Moon Landing

[MJ4H]

Just curious if anyone here believes the moon landing was a hoax. I seem to be having this debate a lot lately and I was curious about what people on this board thought about the subject.

So, moon landing: real or hoax?

[EagleFan]

Haven't we been down this road before. Time for the whackos with their conspiracy theories to come out.

[Joe]

it was filmed on an air force base in california

[MJ4H]

I don't know if we have or not. I do have a very particular reason for asking the question though. Maybe I should have done a search, but maybe it will be a fun debate to have again. If not, I guess we will see. :)

[Desnudo]

it was filmed on an air force base in california

I heard that it was made to look like an air force base in California. It was actually filmed in the Gobi desert.

[EagleFan]

I heard that it was made to look like an air force base in California. It was actually filmed in the Gobi desert.


I heard it was actually filmed on Mars but made to look like it was being made to look like it was being filmed in the Gobi desert while being made to look like it was being filmed at an Air Force base ni California. ;)

[Crapshoot]

I wonder what the correlation between the intelligent design nutjobs and the moon fake is.

[MJ4H]

Im actually wondering about a different correlation. If you are wondering, I believe in intelligent design and believe the moon landing was real.

[Desnudo]

I heard it was actually filmed on Mars but made to look like it was being made to look like it was being filmed in the Gobi desert while being made to look like it was being filmed at an Air Force base ni California. ;)

They say that is actually a false version of the story secretly released by the Trilateral Commission to confuse the general public and keep them out of the Gobi where they continue to manipulate the world economy and build a giant laser.

[sabotai]

I've had a very simple "Idiot Test" for several years. It goes like this

Question 1: Did the Holocaust happen?
Question 2: Did we land on the Moon?

If the person gives an answer of "No" to Question 1 And/Or Question 2, they're an idiot.

[tanglewood]

I cannot believe 5 people out of 24 voted no.

[Masked]

I cannot believe 5 people out of 24 voted no.
I am guessing most of those voters were looking for the trout option.

[digamma]

Isn't someone going to quote Californication?

[kcchief19]

They say that is actually a false version of the story secretly released by the Trilateral Commission to confuse the general public and keep them out of the Gobi where they continue to manipulate the world economy and build a giant laser. In conjunction with the Rand Corporation under the supvervision of the reverse vampires.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I am convinced it was real. We had to have a good place to stash the bullet that really killed JFK.

[kcchief19]

I think I have to go with Sabotai on this one. It's pretty much a no-brainer. I've seen the manifestos of people who don't believe it happened and the number of verifiable facts that prove it happened that they overlook to prove the conspiracy theory is staggering.

Then again, I guess I'm a conspiracy nut job because I'm not convinced that Area 51 was a weather balloon experiment.

[Kodos]

Reverse vampires? AHHHHHH!

[sterlingice]

kcchief19 and Kodos get the Shameless Simpsons Quote Seal of Approval ;)

SI

[sabotai]

I think I have to go with Sabotai on this one. It's pretty much a no-brainer. I've seen the manifestos of people who don't believe it happened and the number of verifiable facts that prove it happened that they overlook to prove the conspiracy theory is staggering.

Not to mention that their arguments are some of the worst arguments for anything I've ever heard. Just bad logic, false assumptions....it's just so bad. It makes me shake my head. How can people be so stupid?

[atatange1]

Hoax! It was a totally a bunker :D

[Glengoyne]

I dunno I might have to change my vote after reading this site (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html). They seem to have the whole thing pretty well covered. Hoax.

[sabotai]

I dunno I might have to change my vote after reading this site (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html). They seem to have the whole thing pretty well covered. Hoax.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. :)

[cthomer5000]

Has everyone seen Buzz Aldrin's response to the critics?

http://www.collegehumor.com/?movie_id=65098

[Ben E Lou]

We never walked on the moon.
Elvis ain't dead.
You ain't goin' crazy.
It's all in your head.

[Draft Dodger]

Sabotai++

I can tolerate some conspiracy theories - my dad loved that kind of stuff.
But I have no tolerance for the moon hoax idiots. None.

[Neon_Chaos]

I think that the landings are real. Maybe. :(

[Chief Rum]

The Gobi Desert makes me laugh, since it was located in between the Soviet Union and the PRC at the time (yeah, I know it was a joke--or I think it was ;) ).

I was thinking that in order to get to and out of the Gobi Desert undetected with all the equipment they would need, NASA (or whatever shadow organization would have put it together) would have needed to spend as much as they did on the moon landing.

CR

[AZSpeechCoach]

I believe that it was a trout on the moon.



If nobody else was going to say it...

[WrongWay]

HOAX!

Actually, I belive that the "Still" pictures were later redone. Using the Astronauts journals they built a set and refilmed everything; the actual Astronauts di not know anything about this. Asking still picture film to go from boiling temps to freezing temps is even hard by todays standards, and then to get the quality that NASA claims in this still pictures is just plain unbelievable.

I believe the live feed because it looks like crap, but NASA's crystal clear pictures I do not believe. I do not blame NASA for "Dramatazing" their pictures, after all without the cool looking still pictures all they would of had for proof they went to the moon would of been a bucket of ordinary looking rocks.

[MJ4H]

HOAX!

What evidence do you have the picture film went from boiling temps to freezing temps?

EDIT:

Note - this is a common misconception among conspiracy believers.

[Glengoyne]

What evidence do you have the picture film went from boiling temps to freezing temps?

EDIT:

Note - this is a common misconception among conspiracy believers. This is true. I'm assuming that the astronauts walked from the shade and into the sun on a number of occassions. I don't know why we would assume that the film was subjected to any more extreme temperatures than the astronauts themselves.

Damn near all of the assumptions/assertions on that page are patently ridiculous. I am sorta curious what the, I guess Moon shot believers/defenders, say about one of the photos with the shadows going in different directions. It certainly looks wrong to me, and I really can't come up with a reasonable explanation for it; other than well perhaps some of the indivisual photo was retouched.

Well that and when Tommy Lee Jones dies on the surface of the moon in Space Cowboys, he clearly looks up and sees stars. Since there are no stars visible in the Lunar Surface pics, they are clearly faked.

[Suicane75]

Hoax.

[Aylmar]

Damn near all of the assumptions/assertions on that page are patently ridiculous. I am sorta curious what the, I guess Moon shot believers/defenders, say about the photos with the shadows going in different directions. That certainly looks wrong to me, and I really can't come up with a reasonable explanation for some of the shots; other than well perhaps some of the indivisual photos were retouched.

If you really want to know about this, here's a link:

hxxp://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#parallel

[WrongWay]

Maybe a Mars Landing could bail out Social Security!

[Poli]

I'm the key figure in an ongoing government charade, a plot to conceal the truth about the existence of extraterrestrials. It's a global conspiracy actually, with key players in the highest levels of power, that reaches down into the lives of every man, woman and child on this planet....So of course no one believes me. I'm a..I'm an annoyance to my superiors, a joke to my peers, they call me 'Spooky', Spooky Ardent, whose sister was abducted by aliens when he was just a kid. And who now chases little green men with a badge and a gun, shouting to the heavens and to anyone who'll listen that the fix is in, that the sky is falling, and when it hits it's gonna be the shit-storm of all time.

[MJ4H]

Well first of all the missions were scheduled for lunar morning when the temperatures were moderate. Second of all don't forget there is a difference between temperature of the lunar SURFACE and things that are not the lunar surface. Heat transfer is certainly not efficient when there is no medium to transfer heat (atmosphere).

As for the pictures, do you really think you would see stars in a photograph from the surface of the moon? Why do you think that? Because you saw it in a movie? The stars are far too faint to show up on the film using the exposure settings used by the astronaut for the BRIGHT lunar surface. If you take a camera tonight and take a picture of the night sky using these same settings on earth, you will not see stars in the picture.

As for the shadows goind different directions that is easily explained by surface angle. See this photo from earth for an example of shadows going in different directions http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html

You see, there really is nothing. Nothing, nothing, nothing to the hoax theory. Everything that is brought up is either extremely poorly reasoned, factually inaccurate, or based on false assumptions. Please, people, for the love of pete, stop believing this nonsense. I'm losing hair over this.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I believe that the moon landings have happened. I have heard that there were peole who were in the sound stage when the landings were taped. There was a debate on the george noory show a while back about the landings. Usually happen 2x yearly.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Maybe a Mars Landing could bail out Social Security!
Speaking of Mars whatever happened to the planned Mars Missions?

[rkmsuf]

Of course it's a hoax. Why the f*ck would we go to the Moon?

[MJ4H]

I think JFK double-dog-dared us.

[sterlingice]

I'm the key figure in an ongoing government charade, a plot to conceal the truth about the existence of extraterrestrials. It's a global conspiracy actually, with key players in the highest levels of power, that reaches down into the lives of every man, woman and child on this planet....So of course no one believes me. I'm a..I'm an annoyance to my superiors, a joke to my peers, they call me 'Spooky', Spooky Ardent, whose sister was abducted by aliens when he was just a kid. And who now chases little green men with a badge and a gun, shouting to the heavens and to anyone who'll listen that the fix is in, that the sky is falling, and when it hits it's gonna be the shit-storm of all time.
Now we have an excuse to call you Fox. Or at least make fun of you for your massive porn collection that you keep in your desk in the basement at the FBI.

SI

[Glengoyne]

If you really want to know about this, here's a link:

hxxp://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#parallel Actually I had pretty well been able to dismiss all of the photo problems except one, and I haven't seen it specifically debunked as of yet. I'm sure the explanation is just as sensible as the more obvious one's, I just didn't find it.

This is the pic.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/goodphoto.gif

I'm just not seeing how a slope, even if it is more severe than it looks could effect the shadow of the flag in that manner. I'm sort of wondering this this isn't some sort of panoramic lens issue.

[Suicane75]

Actually I had pretty well been able to dismiss all of the photo problems except one, and I haven't seen it specifically debunked as of yet. I'm sure the explanation is just as sensible as the more obvious one's, I just didn't find it.

This is the pic.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/goodphoto.gif

I'm just not seeing how a slope, even if it is more severe than it looks could effect the shadow of the flag in that manner. I'm sort of wondering this this isn't some sort of panoramic lens issue.


The hand puppet in the lower right hand corner makes it so obvious that this was a fake.

[MJ4H]

At first glance I would say that the panoramic view contributes to any uncomfortableness you feel about shadow angles.

[MJ4H]

http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html

This link should help, too.

[Glengoyne]

I can resolve the discrepancy between the LEM's shadow, and the photographer's. I can also resolve the flag's shadow with that of the photographer's. I just have trouble with the three shadows together. The slope to the right doesn't seem steep enough to cause such a difference.

I'm not saying that that I buy into this stuff in any way at all, I'm just saying that I'm not 100% happy with the explanation of perspective to resolve the shadows above. I'm sure the explanation exists, and perhaps it really is just perspective.

[Huckleberry]

It's a combination of perspective and panorama. The specific location of the photographer's shadow further proves this point. The flag is to his right and the LEM is to his left.

[Glengoyne]

It's a combination of perspective and panorama. The specific location of the photographer's shadow further proves this point. The flag is to his right and the LEM is to his left. I just came back here and looked again at that picture, and ...

When I noted where the camera was actually pointed, and forced myself to realize that the shadow of the "photographer"(Thank You Huckleberry) was not the direction of the photo. It is an optical illusion of sorts, that draws the eyes to that area of the photo. I believe that the three shadows actually perfectly coorespond to a light source behind the photographer and to his left. All I had to do was realize that the shadow of the photographer was incidental so to speak.

[Fritz]

if my first memory is a hoax, there is going to be some hell to play

[Ragone]

I really wish you had made the user vote visible on this poll matt :)

[RendeR]

If you notice closely this is not a single photograph, it was taken in three sections (the center area having a heavier shading than the outer two.

The cameras of the time couldn't take panoramic shots like this as one piece. So this image was pieced together from three shots at three seperate times, not necessarily within moments of one another.

That eliminates any corroboration of shadows altogether.

People that honesly think the moon landings were a hoax are seriously in need of something...not sure what would help..but something....

[MJ4H]

i think you are thinking of a brain, RendeR

[Glengoyne]

If you notice closely this is not a single photograph, it was taken in three sections (the center area having a heavier shading than the outer two.

The cameras of the time couldn't take panoramic shots like this as one piece. So this image was pieced together from three shots at three seperate times, not necessarily within moments of one another.

That eliminates any corroboration of shadows altogether.

People that honesly think the moon landings were a hoax are seriously in need of something...not sure what would help..but something....
I can't see any real evidence of it clearly being pieced toghether, but you could be right about that being the case. But really after considering that the camera wasn't pointed in the same direction as the photographer's shadow, I don't think you have to go so far as to say that the individual shots(if there were more than one) were taken at different times to reconcile the shadows. The sites linked above or from a Google search offer numerous examples of the effects of Terrain and perspective on shadows.

One of the sites I found on a Google search has some footage of one of these Hoax Believers interviewing Buzz Aldrin, who looked like he was in his seventies. Aldrin busted the guy right in the mouth when he asked if the moon landings were faked.

[21C]

I watched a TV show that set out to debunk a lot of the hoax arguments by setting up their own "moon set" ( I nearly didn't watch it at first since I thought it was promoting the whole hoax argument ).

They actually showed that a single light source, both on the set and in real life, doesn't always produce parallel shadows.

What's interesting to me is that the hoax supporters say that the shadows are not parallel because of the use of different light sources. I'm no expert on this but I would have thought that this would have produced multiple shadows of different "intensity" much like you would see at a football stadium.

I just went to find a picture to support this and found this interesting one instead.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/maznsaz/pictures/geneva/large/shadows.jpg