33 replies to this topic

[southampton enigma]

Hi all this is my first topic, so go easy on me please lol, As you have seen over the past few years or so people have started to question whether or not that the americans landing on the moon was faked. 1. Due to no gravity which means no wind why was the flag blowing about? 2. With the astronauts wearing those bulky spacesuits how did they handle a camera and take such clear and precise photos? and 3. The light around them was casting shadows in the wrong places. I would be pleased for your input and comments about what you think really happened in 1969 were they on the moon or on a set lets say at area 51?

[BurnSide]

4) on the pictures there are little '+' marks which are on the camera itself. they should be above everything, because they are on the camera, so how is it that in close inspection one or two of them appear to be BEHIND objects? thats impossible unless the photos were tampered with.

5) all the pictures seem to be taken in exactly the same area of land, even though in some of them the moonlander is there and in some of them it is not. what did they do, pick the damn thing up and carry it around with them?

[tkr9]

Of course they were touched up, but not because we didn't land on the moon;
a) NASA would only want to release photographs that showed them in the best light and would therefore adjust them to make sure the US mission looked good, which also explains why the photos were such good quality - the bad ones were chucked out as useless.
if they were faked no amateur photographer with the skills of an undereducated ferrett would make such a dumb mistakes as to get the crosshairs wrong.
c)The Flag was not flapping, it was being waggled as they drove it into the ground.
d) You can see bits in shadow clearly because the moon's surface is one of the brightest objects in the sky other than the sun.
e)The 'United States' on the lander has been touched up to show off to the world it was then. Kind of like airbrushing spots of model's faces.
f) The images were so good because the astranauts were trained for months to use them and wottis more photography aint exactly rocket science, which these guys could do!
g) The lunar surface always looks the same because the astranauts were not exactly in a position to go gallivanting about the lunar surface on a whim.
h) The Russians nearly got there, the Chinese are on their way and the US landed again and again. If they faked it before they ain't faking it now.

Edited by tkr9, 18 May 2004 - 12:32 AM.

[southampton enigma]

It's amazing how simple it is to make something appear bigger than it actually is, i think that this so called

[tkr9]

I didn't put a smiley in my previous post yet one appears. Now that's wierd!

[southampton enigma]

Very weird tkr9 lol

[Stellar]

[BurnSide]

damn. you blew that one away tk.

[southampton enigma]

But Stellar does anyone know exactly how many photo's were taken in the same place? maybe they gave the crappy ones to the press?

[tkr9]

Why would they give crappy ones to the press if the whole point of the moon landings, real or faked, was to show off American power to the world. You'd want the good ones surely?

[Chauncy]

I don't believe it was faked what so ever, and if there was any manipulation it was done to cover-up what they found there!

Here's a link that totally debunks any idea that there was not a landing.
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

[tkr9]

But I just spent half an hour typing to prove it was an actual landing! :
*drops head dejectedly on keyboard*

[Universal Absurdity]

my argument for the landing as a hoax is simple

The film in the cameras.
the film would first have been exposed to radiation from the van allen belt, then taken off the lander into the very cold emptyness of the moon. who knows if the film side of the camera got some sun on it, the temperature of objects exposed on the moon can get very hot when exposed to the sun. then the film was out through the same treatment in reverse for the trip back.

so; take some film, expose it to radiation, freeze it, heat it up, freeze it again, then more radiation,(not to mention the increased temp on the return trip through the atmosphere, or the increased amounts of x-rays in space) and you think the film will develop? let alone have the quality of the pics that nasa put out. highly unlikely

Chauncy,
the site you posted does not go into detail about the 'backdrops' other than to say that mountains are bigger on the moon and there is an illusion of their distance. not once do they mention that the same mountains can be seen in different pics of different locations. i wonder why that is?

[Chauncy]

What about the 800 pounds of moon rock that was brought back to Earth, geologists worldwide have been examining these samples for 30 years, and the conclusion is inescapable. The rocks could not have been collected or manufactured on Earth.

I require pictures of the common backdrops to know what your speaking, if it is what I think it is NASA readily admits clerical mis-titling of two frmes taken 3 minutes apart if this is what you are referring to.  

[Cercea]

Here is an excellent site on the misconception that we didn't go to the moon:
Bad astronomy