moon landing : did we, or didn't we ?

[Frank]

Yep, absolutely right. The whole world was watching (well, those with a telly that is). In my school, I cannot remember anyone who didn't get up at, like, 3am to see it. It was a MAJOR buzz.

Yours,
Frank

[seekenergyaz]

Hi

I used to read a lot of newsgroups and remember one guy saying that the whole we-didn't-land-on-the-moon movement was started by the same people who ran the earth-is-flat movement.  After all, a trip to the moon where a round earth was seen would be the death of flat earth ideas.  

This origin makes sense to me though, since the first time I ever heard anyone claim that the moon missions were faked was on a TV program some 20 years ago or better (called "Real People" which often featured unusual people or people with unusual ideas).  The featured guy was a believer in a flat earth who had some kind of organization going to promote this idea.  Since, in his mind, the earth being flat was a given, then also in his mind the moon missions had to be faked.

I also heard recently that somebody's website had a good set of refutations of the "fake landing points."  I think it might be Richard C. Hoagland's website but I'm not sure.  A lot of folks would consider his ideas strange too, but in my mind not nearly as strange as the idea of a flat earth.  

[k2sixx]

Numbers of celebrities and wealthy folk have booked trips to the moon.

As for the initial landing, I have no argument to prove it false or otherwise.

[liefmichael]

yea i recently read on a website (get back to you on where it was) about the silliness of a consipiracy theory about the moon landing.

flag: it has a piece of rigid material inserted along the top of the flag, apparently not all the way, theres no wind on the moon... how could we see it otherwise...

lighting: the most important point to remember is that the moon itself is very reflective, part of its makeup in the dust. (which is why the moon lights our earth at night..)

no stars: go outside with your camera and take a picture with a flash of the sky.  no stars... the exposure is too quick, to get the stars in the pic you need longer exposure which would cause everything else to flare out

gravity: never heard this one, but ok... say you do double the speed of footage and its normal speed, what happens if you actually had footage of low gravity movement and sped it up? it would look like our earth gravity...

the moon does look very similar up close over most of it, what else is there apart from craters, dust and rocks?  and yes, some places in the desert would come very close to looking like the moon (which means absolutely nothing, unless youre paranoid...)

you americans and your consipiracy theories.  do you not think the russians would have been tracking it on radar and would have been the first to tell the world that they didnt actually leave orbit?  what about australia being used to pick up the radio from the spacecraft, which was where they were told it was... not in some wierd orbit.

look at the facts and make an observation, or look at a theory and make up facts.

just my thoughts, as it was fresh in my mind. (and i didnt actually go so i cant say they did or didnt)
peace
lief

[Rob]

OK then:

"flag: it has a piece of rigid material inserted along the top of the flag, apparently not all the way, theres no wind on the moon... how could we see it otherwise..."
So? It is obvious it would need to be rigid in some way. But I am told the flag was fluttering - ie moving on its own, with no wind...Can't remember myself though.

"lighting: the most important point to remember is that the moon itself is very reflective, part of its makeup in the dust. (which is why the moon lights our earth at night..)"
Stand in the desert and you will only get one shadow. The reflections off the ground would be random and the only possible thing they could do would be to lower the contrast between the shady and light areas. The main shadow from the sun would be massively brighter than any reflections, just like on earth. This does not explain the only shadows being cast converging just off screen, or double shadows (both sets converging). Perhaps if you had a huge mirror, but otherwise forget it.

"no stars: go outside with your camera and take a picture with a flash of the sky. no stars... the exposure is too quick, to get the stars in the pic you need longer exposure which would cause everything else to flare out"
No idea, can't say, but you certainly should see stars in the video footage even if you are right. I would like to test this though.

"gravity: never heard this one, but ok... say you do double the speed of footage and its normal speed, what happens if you actually had footage of low gravity movement and sped it up? it would look like our earth gravity... "
No! Of course not! Gravity on the moon is what, 1/3rd of earth gravity - that means you would be jumping 3 times as high. Well, I would anyway! Also even if they decided not to jump so high, they would be able to jump much further forwards with each step, having much more time to glide. The video would not be the same as a slowed down one from earth.

"the moon does look very similar up close over most of it, what else is there apart from craters, dust and rocks? and yes, some places in the desert would come very close to looking like the moon (which means absolutely nothing, unless youre paranoid...)"
If you are referring to the two pictures supposedly miles apart which were of the same landscape, no they were exactly the same piece of land down to the last little lump of rock, you can superimpose them and show they are the same place (only I think one has a moon lander and the other doesn't...not sure though). Again, if you took one picture of a desert on earth I guarentee you could spend your entire life searching for another piece of land which looked exactly the same and die a very unhappy (and lonely!) man.

"you americans and your consipiracy theories. do you not think the russians would have been tracking it on radar and would have been the first to tell the world that they didnt actually leave orbit? what about australia being used to pick up the radio from the spacecraft, which was where they were told it was... not in some wierd orbit."
don't think the ruskies had that advanced radar, and if they did it would more likely be pointing at the earth. Dunno about the aussies. And I am english thanks!

Any more ideas would be welcomed though!

Really when you look at it, there is so much evidence to say we didn't go, and none of it can be seriously refuted. However if anyone would like to furnish me with a quality website which attempts to do so I would enjoy trying to tear it apart! I did see a NASA guy trying to say that of course we went, but he had no arguments to refute the conspiracy ones.
Lol the first time I saw something on the net claiming the moon landings were a hoax I just laughed and thought "yeah good one, muppit freaks...". Badly blinkered as I was, and most people are.

laters!

[WalkerInTheWoods]

Could someone please point us in the direction of these so called pictures. I have never seen an official picture or footage from NASA showing the flag whipping in the wind. With todays technology it would be easy to fake any such pictures. I could have you a picture of Robert Bruce sitting on the green Cricket couch (for those not in America it has to do with a cell phone company) with Brittney Spears on the moon in about 10 minutes, give me about an hour or two if you want it to look believable.

Inguma, anyone can pick anything apart if they wish to do so. I do not see anything contructive about that. On the other hand looking at something with an unbias opinion to find the truth is much more helpful.

[Rob]

"Inguma, anyone can pick anything apart if they wish to do so. I do not see anything contructive about that. On the other hand looking at something with an unbias opinion to find the truth is much more helpful."

I prefer tearing into both sides of an argument. Then weighing up, and the strongest wins. I cannot pick holes in the theories which say that the moon landing is faked, and I have seen the evidence in documentrys etc. Although to be fair it is easier to say why we didn't do something than saying we did, if you catch my drift. As for faked photos and evidence etc, well this evidence has been around since before techy computers.
I'll admit that I err to the side of conspiracies naturally, but I always try and objectively look for the truth and enjoy slapping myself when my preconceptions are destroyed. Besides, I wasn't being entirely serious. Mostly it amuses me that we didn't go there, the biggest hoax ever. lol.

[Cylentpanthur]

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm This is a website I found that, if nothing else sounds well reasearched and thought out. It actually answers several of the questions/problems looked at here. It doesn't, however mention the "speed up the film thing" but if you've studied reduced gravity at all this one is easily explained. The moon has roughly 1/6th the Earth's gravity, which means, if you wanted to, you could leap six times higher there than here using the same amount of push. But I know I wouldn't want to. This is where the difference in weight and mass comes in to play. Though you WEIGH less on the moon, your MASS stays the same. Go outside and jump as high as you can and have someone measure it for you. Now find something that is six times higher than that and jump off of it. It hurts. You wouldn't hit as hard on the moon, but it's still not pleasant. Now, step out of the pain part and just go to the fact that you can now jump six times what you're used to. I know it would freak me out. You're on a different planet, with rapidly deteriorating bone mass, the distance between you and help is now measured in the hundred THOUSAND miles, and you know that it's now that much easier to break a bone. Let's think about this. Jump high, break a bone, get screwed, or, take little bunny hops and spend the rest of your moon trip functioning. Not a hard decicion I think.


MEOW http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_sleepy.gif" border=0>

[WalkerInTheWoods]

Cylentpanthur,
I clicked on the link here at work and it said it is blocked because of being Sexually Expliit, Drugs/Alcohol, and Gambling. Where did you send me??? LOL Our firewall is screwy.

[Cylentpanthur]

I believe that is just your firewall being screwy. I know there are some blocking programs out there that search for certain words, things like that, and while we had one on my computer I couldn't get to the Sesame Street website. :oP I clicked on the link I posted to see if it took me somewhere funky, but it took me to the website I wanted. It's actually written by some conspiracy theorists who believe that we did land on the moon, and the cover up is what they found there, not that they never went. This website and the link at the bottom of the page refute just about all of the reasons people have to think that they never went, and presents a few reasons as to why they think NASA is covering up what they found there. Personally, I think conspiracy theorists just have too much time on their hands in general, but this website at least sounds well researched. But then again, you never know.

MEOW http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_sleepy.gif" border=0>

[Tom]

Going back to the title of this thread, who is the "we" who might or might not have gone to the moon and landed there? Isn't it robbing "them" of their accomplishment to say that "we" did it? "We", who are not even sure if "we" landed on the moon?

[liefmichael]

the thing is, if we asked anyone who was actually involved in the *alleged* (lol) moon landing if it actually occured and they said yes... of course they are lying because its one big conspiracy and if they said no... it proves everything.  how did scientists end up with the moon rocks?  they have been studied by thousands of people in hundreds of labs worldwide.  the makeup of the rocks is unlike anything found on earth, or are they fake too?  you can actually hire or loan them for research from whichever american institute has them.  I can't remember which one it was, which proves it doesn't exist
there is a difference between having blinkers on and not being a conspiracy theorist.  im open to argument but it has to be better than suppositions about physics on the moon when no one has actually been there anyway?  there is a instrument set up on the moon from which if you have a laser and the correct equipment you can bounce a laser off and measure the distance (so ive read on a astronomy website, they could be in on it too)

[Cylentpanthur]

quote:Originally posted by liefmichael:
the thing is, if we asked anyone who was actually involved in the *alleged* (lol) moon landing if it actually occured and they said yes... of course they are lying because its one big conspiracy and if they said no... it proves everything.  ...  I can't remember which one it was, which proves it doesn't exist

Somehow I don't follow the logic in either of these statements. What would be the point in asking if they had gone if you've already decided that they didn't. If you won't accept a "yes" answer, then you're no longer asking a question.
And the second statement! Does this mean everything you forget now no longer exists? My question is, if it works like that, does something not exist until you "remember" it, or does it just disappear after you forget?
If you could explain, that'd be nice. Thanks.

MEOW http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_sleepy.gif" border=0>

[Oliver]

Hey,

Heres a website that a friend sent me that a friend sent me that pretty much knocks down everything that the fox show said that supported the landing being a fake.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

I dont actually have an opinion on weather it was faked or not. I dont actually regard it as THAT important, but im sure if the first one was faked then they have been there since. But this site is very very convincing that it was real.

Oliver

[liefmichael]

"the thing is, if we asked anyone who was actually involved in the *alleged* (lol) moon landing if it actually occured and they said yes... of course they are lying because its one big conspiracy and if they said no... it proves everything"

simplified: Sarcasm.  if there is proof we went to the moon, conspiracy theorists would say it is faked, and if there is proof we didnt go to the moon, they were right.

"I can't remember which one it was, which proves it doesn't exist"

simplified: Sarcasm again.  in my experience, For people who believe in theories such as this, and even more extreme theories, the proof doesnt have to be reasonably good, it has to be absolutely watertight.  This is usually pretty hard as life doesnt take place in strictly controlled laboratory conditions.  

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, so I am slightly biased on the subject.  I believe the website mentioned a few posts earlier was the one I read, and it was also the first mention I had ever seen of the moon landing being faked.   I must say I laughed harder than I had for a long time.

[clandestino]

hello again... at the beginning of this post, I was 99.9% sure that "we" have landed on the moon.

after reading
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

I'm now 100% sure that we did ! that's a relief.....
(what worries me though about conspiracy theories is how easy it is to be taken in by them....as i read through another post on this site "the truth about 9/11", I'm ashamed to say I was actually taken in by bits of that too)

[WalkerInTheWoods]

Thank you for the link Oliver!

clandestino, science is one thing, politics is something else entirely. LOL

[BDHugh]

I may be a little late for this but I'll say it anyways. Astronaut David Scott demonstrated a lunar free-fall experiment. He dropped a hammer and a feather simultaneously from the same height. Both experienced the same acceleration due to lunar gravity and consequently hit the ground at the same time. Had this been a televison set etc., the feather's velocity would have slowed due to air resistance. At least that is what happened according to the physics textbook I have for college.

[amcturbo]

Hi everyone,
I've started reading the dowload "A Lawyer Presents the Case For the Afterlife" (see http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/file_library.asp ... Ebooks) and found the section on Apollo 14 astronaut, Ed Miller, to be intriguing ... enough that I searched for MORE INFORMATION regarding his "experience" on the Moon.  Here's a link with some more details about it ...
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/edmitch.html

Cheers!
Greg Taylor

"Whatever consciousness may be, it's not a small thing" - Ingo Swann
"Oh, I... ain't got no ... body" - David Lee Roth (Van Halen)

[Rob]

OK I eat my words and apologise if I seemed arrogant. Them sites had some fine arguments on them, time to rethink.

[clandestino]

Hi Folks. I watched a (very biased) program over the weekend on the moon landings. Basically, plenty of folks are convinced that they never happened, producing various tid-bits of evidence to back them up. NASA didn't get a word in edgeways !

I reckon :
we did land on the moon,
99.9% of conspiracy theories are very interesting, but untrue

But after watching the program, I'm only 96.5% convinced we landed :

a) the flag ...."its fluttering in the breeze, but there's no wind on the moon! ", the arguments that I have heard FOR th landing are : It was not fluttering, there was a piece of wire inserted into the top of the flag.....the movement in the flag was a result of the astronaut screwing the pole into the moons surface.

b) 2 x speed up the films of the landing (the astronauts bouding around, the moon buggies) ....and they just look like a bunch of guys wearing spacesuits out for a jog in the park !!! hmmmm.


What does everyone else think ? Am i right to be sceptical ? or is this conspiracy theory part of the 0.1% that are true ?

Mark