1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Anybody STILL believe the moon landings were faked?

Discussion in 'TV Show Forum' started by Confucius, Jun 3, 2004.

  1. Confucius

    Confucius
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Oxford
    Ratings:
    +90
    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.
     
  2. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,355
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +144
    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 :rolleyes:
     
  3. HMHB

    HMHB
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    25,459
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Ratings:
    +3,767
    The problem is that many people make lots of money out of dreaming up these conspiracy theories
     
  4. Joe Pineapples

    Joe Pineapples
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    6,635
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Doncaster
    Ratings:
    +838
    i forgot to watch this.

    What was said of the fluttering flag?
     
  5. HMHB

    HMHB
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    25,459
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Ratings:
    +3,767
    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 :confused:
     
  6. Garrett

    Garrett
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    31,491
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    The best thief you’ll never see.
    Ratings:
    +4,045
    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.
     
  7. Azrikam

    Azrikam
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  8. Confucius

    Confucius
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Oxford
    Ratings:
    +90
    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!
     
  9. eviljohn2

    eviljohn2
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    7,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Near London.
    Ratings:
    +208
    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! :laugh:
     
  10. Confucius

    Confucius
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Oxford
    Ratings:
    +90
    This is a very good debunking site, just to 'rub things in' a bit more :D
     
  11. Logo Hater

    Logo Hater
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Messages:
    515
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Lancs
    Ratings:
    +24

    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. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
     
  12. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    I think that program put a nail in the coffin of the doubters.
     
  13. HMHB

    HMHB
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    25,459
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Ratings:
    +3,767
    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.
     
  14. figrin_dan

    figrin_dan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,992
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +135
    I reckon this documentary was a fake!

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

    Confucius
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Oxford
    Ratings:
    +90


    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.
     
  16. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,113
    The lack of stars one always gets me : all they had to do was ask one of the cameramen shooting the programme to debunk it!
     
  17. Rad

    Rad
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    688
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +4
    Come on lets be honest here you could do a documentary that would convince you either way depending on how you paint the picture.

    Why don't they just take one of these telescopes they've got in orbit point it at the moon and take a photo of a buggy or something they've left up there.

    Very simply done and it would shut everyone up.
    Or maybe there's nothing there ???
     
  18. eviljohn2

    eviljohn2
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    7,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Near London.
    Ratings:
    +208
    The film they were using in the cameras wouldn't have responded to the stars with the short exposures they were using. Even the most modern CCD array needs quite a long exposure before it can resolve stars. :)
     
  19. eviljohn2

    eviljohn2
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    7,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Near London.
    Ratings:
    +208
    Like the mirrors for laser range finding that they use? ;)
     
  20. HMHB

    HMHB
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    25,459
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Ratings:
    +3,767
    The bloke at the cat sanctuary reminded me of some idiot that everyone avoids at the pub - full of crap. Anyone who ends a sentence with "and that's the truth" is immediately on my list of people to avoid !!
     
  21. Rad

    Rad
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    688
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +4
    I didn't know about the mirror thing, it must be true then :D

    Or maybe Tiger woods hit it up there with a 3 wood :rotfl:
     
  22. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,113
    Yes thats my point.
     
  23. eviljohn2

    eviljohn2
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    7,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Near London.
    Ratings:
    +208
    :blush: I read your post wrong and thought you were conspiring against me. :)
     
  24. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,991
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    Just out of interest, how did they film the moonlander taking off on the return journey. The camera followed the moonlander up into space. My guess is that they used a bit of string tied to the camera mount and the lander.

    Did they explain exactly how they avoided the film being fogged by x,rays etc ? They started talking about it, but never reached a conclusion, they started on about solar flares and how they bulk of the spacecraft and remaining fuel would give shelter.

    Did it happen, I hope so, it was such a major part of my childhood. I used to mark their progress on a special chart and played 'name the spacecraft parts'. They even halted school to let us watch the landing.
     
  25. Nobber22

    Nobber22
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,977
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +109
    You were lucky! We only halted school to see Charles and Di get hitched. :rolleyes:
     
  26. roversd1

    roversd1
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    You are all a figment of my imagination...

    ....and that's the truth!
     
  27. Garrett

    Garrett
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    31,491
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    The best thief you’ll never see.
    Ratings:
    +4,045
    Wasn’t the take off filmed from something like the buggy? I cannot remember it following them to space but remember a shot taken from the lander.
     
  28. HMHB

    HMHB
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    25,459
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Ratings:
    +3,767
    I have to believe it's true also as the whole of our school watched the landing together. Even at the age of 8 it was an awesome thing to watch.
     
  29. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,991
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    They showed the footage on the program, but Ive seen it several times. The camera keeps the lander in sight after it takes off. I suppose they could have used some sort of radio tracking, but a light gauge fishing line is probably more reliable, as the craft takes off it would pull on the camera mount and would finally just snap.
     
  30. Confucius

    Confucius
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Oxford
    Ratings:
    +90
    :suicide:

    Why don't people read the website at the frickin' link I've supplied twice already? :rolleyes:

    It's no wonder there is so much of this conspiracy theory crap when people don't even bother to look at the evidence. :mad:

    Main LINK. Click here for more debunking !!

    :lesson: So, here we go AGAIN:

    Where Are The Stars?

    There's really no difference between the sky on the Moon and the sky during day time on Earth. The fact that the sky on Earth is blue because of the atmosphere and it is black on the Moon makes no difference. You cannot see stars during the day.

    The lunar surface is very bright. Brighter than the brightest day in the hottest part of the world. This is obvious when you think about it. There are no atmosphere or clouds on the moon. In comparison to this bright surface, the stars are very dim.

    It is very difficult to get a photograph of a very dim object and a very bright object at the same time. If you set the camera to take a photograph of the bright object (using a fast exposure) you won't capture the dim object at all. If you set the camera to take a picture of the dim objects, then the bright objects will appear as very fuzzy and over-exposed blobs.

    The cameras and films the Apollo missions took with them were also designed to photograph activities on the moon's surface. They were not designed to take photographs of the stars. It doesn't mean the stars weren't there, just that the photographs did not capture them. The exposures were set to work with the brightly light surface and astronauts.


    My comment: Try taking some fast shutter speed (<1/60 sec) photographs at night yourself if you don't believe the evidence.


    What do satellite pictures show on the moon?

    Why don't we just point Hubble or some other big telescope at the moon to show the moon landing sites? Wouldn't that settle the argument once and for all?

    If only it was that easy! The biggest problem with this is that they simply are not powerful enough. The lunar landers are very,very,very small in astronomical terms and they're pretty far away as well. There isn't a telescope in existence that could take a picture of one.

    There are lots of mathematics we could show to demonstrate this, but's it's very complicated and we don't fully understand it anyway. But here's our abridged dumbed-down version.

    Size of Lunar Module. Let's be really generous and say 10m square.
    Distance between Hubble and Moon. About 350, 000km.
    This works out as an visual angle of (10m)/(3.5 x 10^8m) * (180/PI) = 1.6 x 10^-6 degrees = 6 milliarcseconds.
    The WFPC2 'telescope' on Hubble has the following resolution: 800x800 pixels of a 35 arcseconds field of view with a pixel scale of 46 milliarcseconds. Actually resolution in practice is a little below this.

    So what does this all mean? Well, roughly speaking, it means that the lunar lander would have to be 15 times larger before it would even cause a dot on a Hubble picture.

    (We have to thank Terry Hancock for helping us out with this info. You didn't think we worked it out ourselves, did you? If there's any errors in it, they almost certainly lie with our interpretation of his explanation.)
    or, to look at it another way....

    We stole the following off a NASA discussion board. We would usually just link to it, but discussion messages have a habit of expiring and this was too good to lose. Ed Cheng explains there's a law of physics that would prevent Hubble seeing the Lunar Module, and it's to do with the size of its light collecting mirror.

    The wavelength of visible light is around 550x10^-9m (i.e. very very small).
    The diameter of Hubble's mirror is 2.4m.
    Highest ever physically possible resolution = 1.4 x 550 x 10^-9 /2.4 m = 3.2 x 10^-7 radians
    At a distance of 350,000km this works out as about 124 metres. As Ed says, roughly the size of a football field.

    So even if Hubble's camera had a greater resolution, it still couldn't see the Lunar Module.

    But doesn't this same Hubble take photos of things billions of light years away? Yup.

    Makes you feel very very very small, doesn't it?


    My comment: Do the maths! Hubble is, in effect, an inverted 'Key Hole' spy sat (KH-11 I seem to recall). This 1970s piece technology was good, but not THAT good - resolving a 30' x 30' object at 250,000 miles is akin to resolving around 1/3" x 1/3" on our planet from low Earth orbit. Despite what some fanciful dramas would have you believe this is beyond what is currently possible. Besides, the dumb-ass doubters would still claim the images were fakes. :rolleyes:

    UPDATE: Published KH-11 (yes, Hubble was inded a 'spare' '11 once TRW started making the KH-12) resolution is 4" at ~200 miles altitude - a 'standard' spy-sat LOE. As calculated above that roughly equates to 127 metres* resolution at the surface of the moon. One would need a telescope in Earth orbit with a mirror almost 80' accross to resolve the lander!! It ain't going to happen chaps!!

    * So, if an object 4" can be resolved at 200 miles, an object 250000/200 x 4 can be resolved at 250000 miles. 250000/200 x 4 = 5000, 5000" = 416' (127m)


    Clementine Satellite Photos

    The Clementine Lunar orbiter has taken photographs of the moon's surface. They're not detailed enough to see any small features on the surface such as a lunar module, but that hasn't stopped people looking.

    This is a composite picture of the area that Apollo 15 landed in. This mission spent 3 days on the moon's surface, far longer than earlier missions. This gave the astronauts more time to stir up dust in the surrounding area. This, coupled with the disturbance cause by the lander's rockets made enough of a mark on the lunar surface to be just visible on the photograph. The dark spot indicated by arrow A corresponds exactly to that landing site. Arrows B & C show recent meteor impacts. (see photo at end of post)

    Now I'd be the first to admit that this isn't conclusive proof, but still evidence and the clearest pictures we're going to get until the SELENE mission.


    My comment: Q E frickin D. Not that it will convice the scientific charlatans :rolleyes:


    SELENE Project

    The SELENE project is a Japanese space mission that will place an orbiter around the moon in the year 2005. Part of the tasks it will complete is a mapping of the moon's surface at a resolution that should make it possible to see the Apollo landing sites. This will be proof positive indeed.

    Unfortunately it won't put an end to the hoax theories, that we can guarantee. Here's what the theories will be couple of years time. Yes, they're that predictable.

    * The Japanese have been paid off by NASA to fake their photos. Well, we all know they're shifty foreigners with no morals, don't we? They'll do anything for the mighty dollar.
    * NASA sneaked faked landers up there during the last five years in preparation for the Japanese photos. Don't bother asking about where the money came from to do this, or how they managed it all in total secrecy.
    * What we can see aren't the Apollo sites, but alien bases that NASA are pretending are theirs. And if you join up all the dots on the photos it spells out a Masonic chant in ancient Greek.

    The thing about the hoax theories is they are based on either blind faith or ruthless capitalist marketing. Facts make no difference to either.


    My comment: Not sure about the dimissive capitalist comment, but the basic tenet it there!

    Filming The Take Off

    This often shown footage was taken by a remotely controlled camera, mounted on the lunar rover which was left behind. They knew exactly how fast the lander would ascend, so knew how fast it had to pan up. It could all be set up in advance of the take off and triggered remotely from Earth.

    My comment: Believe it or not the Apollo program had some fairly bright people involved - lots of 'professors of hard sums' in fact. Knowing the mass of the lander, the gravity of the moon and the thrust of the motor allows an extremely ACCURATE calculation of the landers acceleration, trajectory & therefore position at any given moment during take-off.


    Lander Take-Off

    Why does the lander take off look funny, almost like it was on wires? And why can't we see any of the flames from the rocket?

    The take-off looks strange to our eyes because the lander is blasting off against the moon's gravity, so it needs to exercise far less thrust than our Earth-bound perceptions are used to.

    We cannot see any flames from the lander because the lander rockets used a combination of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide. These substances burn with practically an invisible flame in a vacuum. So no flame would be seen.


    My comment: In addition, the dispersal pattern of the fragments seen at ignition would be nigh-on impossible to recreate in a higher gravity environment - like Nevada or the Mohave Desert


    I urge anyone to do this: By all means read all you want about conspiracy theories concerning 'faked' moon landings; BUT, before you press send on your keypad please, please back it up with a modicum of balanced research and scientific fact - NOT guesswork, NOT lies, NOT urban myth and NOT denial.


    Thank you.


    I need a drink. :p
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page

Loading...