LOL.... the Moon has gravity.

The Moon has gravity.

Problem with these kinds of conspiracies is that a person looks at two sites producing compelling "evidence" of the lunar landing hoax and people just CLOSE THEIR MINDS to the rational explaination.




While the evidence makes sense to a certain point (still gets disproved), I mean come on mein Freunden. You can't say that we launched a huge rocket, produced miles of paperwork showing the exact details of how this entire mission operated, and have rock samples clearly showing characteristics of being on the moon just to fake a landing on the moon. As someone said earlier, "It would have been much harder to MAKE a moon rock look convincing then actually go and get it!"


And when we get a replacement for the Hubble, we could possibly see our leftovers on the moon. Of course, conspiracy supporters will claim that it was "planted" there, to make it look like we've gone to the moon. They'll still stand by their claims even if it doesn't make sense. But what this conspiracy is, it's merely droppings from a male cow.

yea, they'll probably say the 'LOST' mars probes actually planted the 'faked' Moon evidence....

Please check this site out.


Moon Fakers

"When the famous Eagle has Landed quote was uttered, the spacecraft was producing 10,000 pounds of thrust. It would have been drowned out."



Yeah...except they'res no sound in a vacuum. Space=Vacuum.

that still doesnt explain why the shadows are different. If the sun is at a certain point, the angle of the shadows should logically be in the same direction, like SW or something like that. If you look at some shadows, it is clearly visible that many are askew

LOL.... so, if I direct you to the NASA site, will you change your mind?

Please check this site out.
The Apollo Program

^^^

both are nifty sites!

Basically it's a prespective effect. If viewed from above the shadows would br parallel.

Check out this link. It explains the appearance of the shadows more elequantly than I could. It also has a nice photograph showing the same effect on earth.

The shadows argument shows that the conspiracy theorists have never even had the sense to look for themselves. You can check the fact that shadows don't look parallel on any sunny day.

Hey roflcopter, you do know that you can animate your avatar don't you

I'm not saying US Astronauts didn't land on the moon but surely, the evidence shown by NASA to public is clearly bull. There are just too many anomalies in the videos, pictures and a whole lot of stuff that suggest that the evidence presented is not "from" the moon.

The reasons why I believe NASA would have faked it.

1) They might have failed but didn't want to accept it. What with the tech race with Russia at that time. They just didn't want to lose face probably.

2) They might have found something that they didn't want to share but yet had to show proof to people to convince them that they actually went to the moon; that accounts for all the bull that was shown.

I do not believe it was impossible at that time for people to land on moon, nor do I say that US didn't actually go there. All I say is, the evidence given by NASA is a big load of crap.

you would have never questioned it unless someone out there started the questioning, and that person who started it all was no scientist or even an expert at anything. if they were then there would be no question. its funny how everyone out there who is obviously no expert directs everyone else to these hoax sites, when they are no expert, those hoax sites are such garbage. like a bunch of kids got together and tried to debunk the landings. absolutly crap.

we landed on the moon every time. its just too bad there are a bunch of idiots out there. makes me want to puke.

Firstly, have you even looked at the anomalies or are you one of those who believe anything shown on TV? No offence but you sound like a typical, patriotic, blind believing, I love my country type.

Dude, as much as some people from US might want to feel great thinking that it was the first and the only country to set foot on moon, let me tell you that the rest of the world doesn't actually care a damn. It doesn't mean anything to me if US went to the moon or not, nor do I care to convince people for I am no conspiracy buff nor am I a person who follows the band wagon.

Go look for yourself and common sense will tell you that the NASA evidence is fake; if you realize that it's fine, if you don't it's still fine.

People who believe America went to the moon:

The Russians,
The Planetary Scientists and geologists who have analysed the rocks returned,
Radio Astronomers (who had the equipment to track the missions)
The thousands of engineers and scientists that worked on the SaturnV rocket and Apollo spacecraft,
The tens of thousands of engineers and scientists that worked on the Saturn V rocket and Apollo spacecraft,
The hundreds of thousands of members of the general public that went to Florida and watched an Apollo.
The vast majority of proffessional photographers who are actually qualified to recognise a fake.

People who believe America didn't go to the moon:

A few people that have made a lot of money writing books about the subject,
The gullible people that bought the books.

I know which faction I am going to believe.

Your post shows a large amount of arrogance and a huge amount of igorance about how the world was in the late '60's.

Just because you don't give a damn it doesn't mean the rest of the world didn't. That is arrogance. I care and I'm not American

The one thing that I and the conspiracy theorist can agree on was that it WAS important who got to the moon first. There were 2 competeing political doctrines each trying to influence the rest of the world. One of their chosen battle grounds was the space race.

Common sense tells me you have never checked out the evidence because every single claim of the pro-fake lobby can be shown to be false.

Incidently India is planning to send a spacecraft to the moon. If the moon landings were not possible the scientist involved in this project will know this. Are they part of the conspiracy too.

Why is it that common sense is rare?

So... now the question that everyone seems to avoid... if the evidence is fake, why didnt the USSR say something about it?

Because stellar they were in on it you see. The 2 greatest powers and the 2 greatest enemies were staging it all!! ALL I SAY!!!!

~Thanato

For the love of God.

If you're saying we didn't land on the moon, provide evidence.

In other words, go to the moon, take pictures, come back.

When you get up there, make sure you don't knock the flag over.

that is the biggest load of BS i have ever read. The two countries wre bitter enemies, or do you knwo nothing about history? they would stop at nothing to destroy each other economically, if these moon landings were faked then the USSR would have a field day embarrassing our Gov't

I have often wondered this also.

Ok we come back to common sense or rather the lack of it.
Those that believe in the conspiracy theory claim that it was easy to cover up because only a few hundred people knew. They also claim that the USA faked the landings so that they wouldn't lose face to the USSR. In the highly unlikely event that you are correct there would have to have been a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people. Two enemies would have had to colluded to make the USA look good even though it involved a huge loss of face for the Soviet Union. With the split up of the Soviet Union many people who had a huge amount to gain by rubbishing the former Soviet Union, or the USA, or both have chosen to keep the conspiracy quiet. Why? This is so unbelievable that it is funny.

Apart from anything else I don't beleive the governments of the world are competent enough to keep something that big quiet for nearly 37 years.

If you go to the Sea Of Tranquility then you will be too late. As the Eagle lifted off Buzz Aldrin saw the flag fall over.

I really must remember that this site has a spell checker!!

My postz wood bee so much betta if i uzed de spel cheka.

Waspie_Dwarf, go look at my first post carefully where I just stated my opinion. My earlier post was a reply to pbarosso in particular so, I'm wondering why YOU were offended.

You know what, you show a good bit of arrogance and ignorance yourself, going by your post.


Similarly, if YOU care, it doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

Just for your information: as many as 20% of Americans believe that the moon landings were faked, let alone the rest of the world. 20% is a big number considering that it is a matter of a country's pride and the fact that most people would blindly want to beieve what their governments tell them.


LOL, just lol.


Please read people's posts properly before jumping to conclusions at the drop of a hat. I clearly said in my earlier post that I do not think...I repeat...do not think, that it was impossible for people to land on the moon. I believe we HAVE the technical know-how to acheive it. Americans MIGHT have landed on the moon; what I merely said was that the evidence shown is fake. Understand?


I wasn't quite sure that common sense was rare, but hey, that was until I read your post. Common sense is rare indeed.

They have enough proof- enough said. America DID land on the moon...How could you think otherwise?

Ok, for the people who cant read sarcasm WE WENT TO THE MOON I SAY!!! ALL OF IT IS TRUE!!! ALL TRUE!!!!

WAIT NO WE DIDNT WE LANDED IN THE MOJAVE!!!

NO WAIT WE DID BECAUSE THOUSANDS OF THOUSANDS of trained people, the best in the feild say we did.

~Thanato

Bone_collector,

I take your point on some of what you say, I had missed your earlier post however you still seem to think that you speak for the entire non-American world:



To believe that you know what close to 5 billion people think is, in my opinion, fairly arrogant. I made no such claim, I just stated thus showing that you DID NOT speak for all non-Americans on this planet.

Your reply to pbarosso is in places very anti-American. Is it possible that rather than pbarosso's patriotism clouding his judgemnent it is your dislike of his nation that is clouding yours?

I said that all of the conspiracy theorists claims can be shown to be false and I stand by that statement. Try badastronomy.com. This site has links to several debunking sites with give well thought out, rational arguments explain how every single claim of the conspiracy theorists is false. If I am to judge you by your post then your idea of a rational argument to back up you claims would seem to be: Like so many others in this thread you state that the moon landings were all a lie and then offer not one single piece of evidence to back the claim.

Not as big as the 80% that do believe.

The flag was knocked over! By the exhaust gases from the spacecraft that returned the 2 astronauts to lunar orbit. But that doesn't matter. The flag is still there, along with the rovers left by subsequent lunar flights. It is ridiculous to claim that the Apollo program never existed or never succeeded.

It is also ridiculous to claim that there is any reason to resume the space race for human astronauts. They didn't accomplish anything then, and won't accomplish anything now. All the interesting results come from unmanned probes (like the 2 Voyagers) or unmanned instruments in earth orbit, solar orbit or in the orbit of some other body of the Solar system. What wonderful pictures we have received from the Hubble space telescope! Manned programs cannot make such claims.

There is also the enormous problem of cosmic rays. We should be grateful for the miles of atmosphere above us, which protect us from UV and cosmic rays, which are actually the nuclei of atoms accelerated to very high energies by unknown cosmic circumstances. Astronauts only had to close their eyes to register cosmic rays. Bright flashes appeared in the darkened atmosphere of closed eyes.

Humans could not survive the 3 year trip to Mars. The cosmic rays would kill them. There is no way to build a 10 mile high shroud of atmosphere around a space ship to Mars. Besides, they would go crazy when they got there. There is no more desolate desert than Mars, with its periodic sand storms that engulf the whole planet. Why would anyone want to go there?

NASA is desperately struggling for a reason for existence. But there is no such reason. Cancel the damn thing.

~~~Cebrakon

Fer cryin' out loud! At least read some facts!

A majority of the world does not care if US did or didn't land on the moon. There...does that sound better?


You really are putting words into my mouth. My response to pbarosso was provoked by what he said in his post; he said all those who don't believe in what he does are idiots.
One more thing for the record: I. Do. Not. Hate. America.


Thus proving that common sense is rare. Just Kidding.

I looked into the site you gave me. It's aptly named badastronomy, for that's what's written in it actually is.

Note: the quote content is from the site.


Stars can't be registered on film? That's news, I learnt something new today.
Damn! All those millions of pictures of space are fake. This guy opened my eyes.
Take a look at the attached picture. Well...where are the stars? I can't see them.

For those who can't get the obvious: the above statements are sarcastic.

I really feel silly explaining things so utterly obvious but I'll do it for you...

The moon has negligible and almost nonexistent atmosphere, so, there's really no reason why you shouldn't see stars at night. For that matter, you should be able to see them in the morning too, and obviously you can see them very brightly lit across the skies at night, much brighter than what you get to see on earth. There is nothing on the moon to obstruct or blur your view of the skies. The evidence shown is not from the moon.

Notice how the author of this this dumb site does not even talk about the why the video footage doesn't have any stars in them -not that his camera explanation made any sense. Why, possibly he thinks that the readers would assume that it's obvious that stars can't be caught on video either.


I'm really amazed how the author conveniently ignores what he can't explain. A flag can wave in vaccum. Sure! But only when it's made to move by physical actions, like when the astronaut is try to fix it, not all by itself when it stands isolated. I remember seeing footage of the flag actually waving all by itself, without any astronaut nearby. It can only be breeze -an impossibility on moon.

Two different video footages were shown saying that they were recorded at two different locations at two different times and yet when they were superimposed they very clearly seen to be taken in the same background. When this was pointed out, NASA admitted it was footage of the same location; a mistake-a simple error they said. When you are found out then it's got to be a mistake. Sure.

Let alone any blast crater, surely the dust at least will be blown away creating a dust pattern. You should be nuts to believe that 10,000 pounds of thrust cannot even create a dust pattern. No pattern whatsoever was noticed on the footage.

And the photo anomalies are just too many to discuss, I can go on and on but I guess that's enough for now.

UGH, not again.
The astronauts could see the stars. But have you ever looked at the surface of the moon? It's bright, a lot brighter than the people who propose that we did not land there. The reason there are no stars in the photos is that if the camera were set to register them, the brightness of the moon would have washed out the film. I just can't take anymore of this. Go and buy Phil Plait's stupid video for $29.95 and enjoy it. The half-informed conspiracy theorists deserve one another.
I wash my hands of this thread.

Enough histrionics already. It's funny to see so many people getting worked up so easily. It's quite amusing actually.

And yet, everything else on moon is captured crystal clear on camera. The camera does not like stars, is that what you're saying?

Is that because you measure the success of your argument by how many people you annoy, rather than by the logic and validity of your reasoning?



Photography 101. The brighter the ambient light, the dimmer the background light. If you have a bright foreground, such as in a desert (or the moon) that is reflecting a great deal of light, you have to set your exposure for that light. That means that anything fainter than that, such as the stars in the background, will not be seen, because they are not brighter than the foreground.

It's simple to test. Go to your porch at night and take a picture (no flash). You will see stars in the sky (assuming a clear night, etc, etc), Now, turn on your porchlight so that your porch is lit up. Take the same picture. No stars in the sky, because the ambient light is washing out the weaker light from the stars. You can set the exposure for a longer time, so that the weaker light will register on the fill, but it won't matter, because the stronger light will register faster, and wash out the image. It's mostly a matter of quantity.

You will find the same effect in other moon pictured. For instance, the infamous cross-hair pictures are caused by the bright whites bleeding over on top of the crosshairs in the picture. You'll notice that these gaps do not occur in any of the lighter tones, because there isn't enough light to was out the line.

Bone Collector, pictures of stars have exposures varying from 10 minutes to hours. I love astrophotgraphy. A camera with a quick shutter speed will not register stars...

This photo required

Target Information
Eta Carinae Nebula, Key Hole Nebula, Eta Carina and Homonculous
Date
16th Feburary - 9th March 2006
Camera
SBIG 2000XM -20C
Filters
SBIG CFW8A, Ha, SII and OIII
Exposure
Total Time: 28 hours
OIII: 6 hours
Ha: 16 hours
SII: 6 hour
Telescope
RCOS 12.5" Ritchey-Chretien Cassegrain
Mount
Paramount ME
Aquired with
CCDAutoPilot3
Processing
CCDSoft, CCDStack, MaximDL, & Photoshop
Target Location
Right Ascension: 10h 44m 46.3s
Declination: -59° 37 42
Visual Brightness: 1.00

Source

28 hours of exposure time.....what kind of picture would you get if you did what Aquatus suggested?
Click Here

To demonstrate what aquatus1 says I've included a photo here I took myself of the Millenium Eye in London:

[attachmentid=24048]

You will see that the fore ground is perfectly clear. It was a clear night and I could see stars (not many due to the level 0f light pollution in London but there were stars). However there is not a single visible star in the picture. If I had set the exposure so that the stars were visible the foreground would have been over exposed.

I realise some people will claim that I doctored the photo but this is easily reproducable, it is something you can do for yourselves if you have a camera with an adjustable exposure time. You don't even need to go outside at night to photograph stars. Stand someone in front of a brightly illuminated window and photograph them with out using the flash. If the exposure setting is correct for the window the person will be under exposed. If the window is bright enough the person will just be a silhouette. If on the, other hand, the exposure time is correct for the person then the view through the window will be over exposed. No details will be visible outside the window because they will be washed out by the light.

See the bottom corner of the picture? There, where there is about a square inch of black with two or three little dots? That's pretty much what the porch picture might look like, with a new moon , and no lights within five miles.

It's all about quantity. Not enough exposure means not enough light getting in.

I will take a picture and prove you can take pictures of stars!!!!!!!!

Its just that the cameras wernt trying to take picuters of the stars and the light from the moon and the darkness of space, and the light from earth, and the sun washed them away.

~Thanato

Exactly. I have taken photos of stars with the same camera. It's just that you can not photgraph bright and dim objects at the same time.

They cant do that because all the nations signed an aggrement that no 1 planet belongs to any given nation if they did they would be breaking the treaty and getting there ass blown of the moon

I really do feel sorry for people who are so easily misguided by a sensationalist heap of rubbish that is that conspiracy theory documentary shown on fox claiming the moon landing was a fake. Everyone of the arguments used by hoax believing people can be explained (see badastronomy.com) yet people still think that it was all a fake because "the flag was waving too much in my opinion". How the #$%^ do you know what a flag with a rod across the top will behave in an almost zero vacuum environment? You been in one before? Simple physics people and common sense....I honestly believe there are people that are so dumb they will never recognize this truely remarkable human feat, and there are the ones that love a good conspiracy theory and will push it along because they have no life and get their kicks out of it. WAKE UP PEOPLE, WE LANDED ON THE MOON IN 69!

End of discussion.

Bad Astronomy is one of my favorite websites, I think everyone could benefit by visiting it. It is very informative and based on real science.

Jay's Moon Base Clavius is a really good site as well.

yep i said it idiots, meaning no knowledge of anything other than what is fundamental for survival.

and thats what we have. idiots.

and the wisdom was there for the taking all the while, and they took not.

Sadly some don't even have that.

Thank you Lilly!

aquatus 1, if you look at my very first post in this thread, you will notice that I just stated my opinion. I didn't really target anybody, but the kind of response and the kind of terminology used by some posters in this thread hardly deserves a decent response from me, however, I try; it's not like I get kicks out of annoying people.

I do understand this is a touchy issue for most Americans and I clearly see patriotism clouding most people's insight in this matter, however, it is hardly an excuse for inappropriate behaviour.

For those who cannot read between the lines and for those who cannot even read the lines in the first place, I repeat: I do not think that US never went to the moon; I only think a good amount of evidence presented by NASA to people is doctored.

It could have been doctored for a variety of reasons, ranging from US not wanting to share their findings and other technological information with the rest of the world, right down to technical failure of the equipment, bad planning and plain stupidity. They might have faked a good amount of evidence to save themselves the embarrassment of not being able to get good enough footage and other evidence from the moon.






To all people down here who say, the camera wasn't good enough to capture, exposure needs to be longer, bright foreground, dark background and blah blah blah, I wish to ask you all one question: couldn't NASA anticipate this? I mean come on, it's a mission costing USD $25.4 billion -1969 Dollars ($135-billion in 2005 Dollars)! You are telling me they couldn't plan accordingly, to take proper pictures on the moon and its environment? Isn't one the major motives of going in space, to capture it's stunning beauty in all its glory? Did NASA plan to go to the moon and not capture how the skies would actually look from the moon? I mean...they planned to go the MOON, not a casual evening walk in a park.


Good pic. I will not claim that you doctored the pic. You took the pic in london on a cloudy night(notice some clouds in the pic itself), when you yourself could see very few stars with your naked eye. The pic was taken against a bright foreground like the london eye amidst(admittedly) a lot of light pollution; let alone the air pollution. Imagine taking a pic on the moon, just the sky...without the lunar surface at all, where there is total absence of atmosphere and any kind of pollution. Then is there a chance that your bright foreground, light pollution, air pollution, clouds etc, etc actually come into picture? Not likely. I know you will immediately say brightness of the moon but hey, if they wanted to take proper pictures, you could; just need a little common sense, and to say, the astronauts were there for like a couple of days.

One more question which most posters in this thread conveniently chose to ignore: why weren't there any stars in the video footage either?


You needn't be a rocket scientist to know that a flag doesn't wave in vaccum all by itself. You needn't be in such an environment either to know. You just need common sense.


I see a very good example of one right here in this thread. Wonder who that might be?


Yeah, sadly. I agree with you there.

Just one more thing people: the earth is very bright compared to the moon and it IS possible to capture the stars on camera from the moon.

Whether it's forgery or stupidity on NASA's part, is for you to decide.

What the hell has gotten into you? You rarely post this way.