Anybody STILL believe the moon landings were faked?

[Confucius]

Lovely to see yet another conspiracy theory and their perpertrators shot down in flames, as seen on 'The Truth Behind the Moon Landings: Stranger than Fiction' last night on five.

[Kevo]

I never doubted it before, this confirms it once and for all.

Yes, good to see another UK doc debunk another conspiracy, JFK and Marilyn Monroe being others that were aired recently.

So obvious when they present you with the facts (rather than pure conjecture and hearsay) as BBC2 did with JFK.

Thing is, you still won't convince a conspiracy nut, even if you took to them to the moon itself. They'd still say they were on a film set in the Nevada Desert

[JohnG]

The problem is that many people make lots of money out of dreaming up these conspiracy theories

[Joe Pineapples]

i forgot to watch this.

What was said of the fluttering flag?

[JohnG]

I haven't watched it yet (recorded it). I've just heard Mike Dicken on Talk Sport saying that last night's program confirmed what he believes that there never were any moon landings

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by Deansimm

i forgot to watch this.

What was said of the fluttering flag?

The flag was on a aluminium pole also at the top as well like a upturned L so when they placed it in the Moons surface it caused a but if springiness/vibration hence the flag moved.

[Azrikam]

Aw crud, I missed this one.

I never doubted that the US landed on the moon, but I always thought it was perfectly conceivable for them to have faked the landing footage due to the technical problems inherent in transmitting a live signal from space back in the old days. (the quality of the footage always seemed too high to me)

But I love a good debunking. The Horizon special on homeopathy with James Randi was brilliant.

[Confucius]

Viewing the show it was quite apparent that, based on the footage seen on television at the time, it would have been virtually impossible to fake the footage - most notably the 'waving' flag!

[eviljohn2]

I only saw the second half of it.

I was previously a little sceptical that we'd landed on the moon for Apollo 11 (Astrophysics lecturer being sceptical really swung me) but the documentary convinced me (as a physicist) that the landings were real. Very good to watch too.

Perhaps the most compelling reason for me was that the Russians would have said something if it was faked!

[Confucius]

This is a very good debunking site, just to 'rub things in' a bit more

[Logo Hater]

Originally Posted by eviljohn2

Perhaps the most compelling reason for me was that the Russians would have said something if it was faked!

I have argued vociferously on an earlier thread several months ago that the Moon landings had to be fakes for several reasons, Having watched that programme I now have to concede that they were in all probability, real.

One of the main reasons for my change of mind is the above quote, which was mentioned in the programme. Lots of my arguments which in my opinion proved they could never have been were shown to be possible, even down to the shadows being in different directions.

It does however, show how easily a programme can be made to prove or disprove any theory, if that is the intention. The last programme I saw about this used very similar arguments but arrived at the opposite conclusion, as it was meant to.

One aspect of the arguments for and against though was not mentioned in this programme, it was to do with the engravings on the lenses of the cameras they used, and how in some of the photographs, the crosses which should have been visible on every photograph taken, were strangely missing on a few of the photographs, the implication being that they had been faked by superimposing the Astronauts onto the film.

Another not mentioned was who filmed the Astronauts coming down from the LEM, after all they were supposed to be the first ones there.

Maybe there is a Man in the Moon after all.

[seany]

I think that program put a nail in the coffin of the doubters.

[JohnG]

If they were going to fake it I'm sure they wouldn't make such elementary mistakes as suggested by these conspiracy people. Let's face it, we could start a conspiracy theory about any major event in history and bend the facts to fit in with the point we want to make.

[figrin_dan]

I reckon this documentary was a fake!

Actually, I missed it. Anyone know if this (and the JFK one) are to be repeated soon?

[Confucius]

Originally Posted by Logo Hater

One aspect of the arguments for and against though was not mentioned in this programme, it was to do with the engravings on the lenses of the cameras they used, and how in some of the photographs, the crosses which should have been visible on every photograph taken, were strangely missing on a few of the photographs, the implication being that they had been faked by superimposing the Astronauts onto the film.

Another not mentioned was who filmed the Astronauts coming down from the LEM, after all they were supposed to be the first ones there.

Maybe there is a Man in the Moon after all.

Cross Hair explanation:

The cross hairs are called reseau-lines and were produced by a glass plate within the camera, between the lens and film. They cause a black cross on the film where they block the light from reaching the film directly below them. If, however, you are taking a photograph of a really bright white object, the white, over-exposed part of the film 'bleeds' into other parts of the film. This is particularly the case if the adjacent part of the film is black. This is what is happening where the thin reseau-lines meet a bright, reflective part of the photograph and is not unusual. It happens on photographs with reseau-lines on Earth too.

It occurs in a number of the Apollo photographs, but you only see it where the reseau-lines seem to disappear behind a bright white part. You never see it happening anywhere else.


Who filmed Neil Armstrong coming out of the Lunar Module when there was no-one on the surface to do this?

There was a video camera mounted and extended from the side of the landing module especially for this purpose. NASA anticipated that the moment that Armstrong stepped onto the Moon would be thought as being particularly significant and something everyone would want to see.

As Armstrong started down the ladder he remotely deployed it, swinging it out from its storage position in the side of the module. Note how the left hand side of the video image is obscured by both the side of the Lunar Module and the arm of the storage compartment that lowered it. (The horizontal black bar across the middle is interference flickering across the TV screen it was filmed off.)

The way the camera was mounted meant that these first pictures were actually upside-down and had to be flipped over once received on Earth. The same camera was then removed and used to send video pictures of the rest of the lunar activities from a stand on the lunar surface.


As I said in the post previous to yours, have a look at this link: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/. It answers pretty much everything thrown up as a fakery argument.

Remember it was only a 50 minute show on five, and could only cover a small number of the 'objections' made by the self-publicists. I would also say that if anything the recreations staged on Earth showed how difficult faking it would have been, since none of them looked like the original and genuine footage. In summary it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that those self-publicists rely on Ignorance, denial and scientific charlatanism to back their fakery cases.