Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Tell my why you think moon landings were fake


grimsituation6

Recommended Posts

Go ahead, give me the "proof" and i will answer the toughest out of them. Please remember the moon is a celestial object, with half the gravity of earth, with a low atmosphere, not a zero atmosphere, and not zero gravity. Also remember that the moon is exposed to effects by the earth, just as the earth has tides, the earth facing side of the moon is exposed to forces by the earth, also note the difference in magnetic fields. Also note how the earth works, the sun has to focus on a certain part of the earth for a long time in order to "heat" it up to degrees that we consider "hot";50 degrees celsius or more. Also note time, the moon is much younger than earth in terms of formation, although much of its material that isn't from earth may be much older. Also for all those out there that may not have known, which is a lot of people, the Moon has a molten core much like our own, which has a magnetic field of its own, which also helps protect it from solar activity all on its own...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One theory out of the way, "there are no stars in apollo surface images"

There are many reasons for this, but anyone who knows about photography knows that a camera has a range of gamma in which it can catch within a photo. If there is a significant amount of ambient light in the foreground, than the background will lose exposure. Stars are tricky as is, because they are billions of light years away, so far away that we have to use time to describe the distance, in order to get a good "photo" of the sky it actually requires one to expose over an extended period, the longer the exposure the more stars will appear. Now, in the apollo photos, the surface of the moon is a relatively light shade and reflected light, the suits the astronauts were wearing were white which also reflects a lot of light. The overbearing foreground made it impossible for the camera to pick up any stars, not to the cameras fault. I believe that the astronauts would have had an equally hard time seeing any stars due to the intense glare generated by the lunar surface, this in part to a lack of atmosphere. To a lay eye our own atmosphere here on earth actually acts like a natural telescope, so we may even see more stars in our night sky than on the lunar surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, i do not believe the landings were fake, but what has you descriptions on the moon got to do with that? you are describing it as if the question is "do you think there is life on the moon"

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in 1999, Gallup found that only about 6% of Americans still believe in this silly CT and that is the crowd that believes just about anything so not really a problem any longer, which is a very good thing in my book.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/3712/Landing-Man-Moon-Publics-View.aspx

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously it was faked... They claimed to not find any cheese!...

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Taun said:

Obviously it was faked... They claimed to not find any cheese!...

Thats because it was already patented and packaged by someone else:

91YLixKsyzL._SY355_.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this has recently be exposed as fake

tumblr_inline_nrtbx6s0Ji1t9jzle_540.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Redefining Success said:

I think this has recently be exposed as fake

tumblr_inline_nrtbx6s0Ji1t9jzle_540.jpg

Perfect evidence, after examining that picture i can see the flaw - the flag is not waving..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, freetoroam said:

Perfect evidence, after examining that picture i can see the flaw - the flag is not waving..

It is creased though, possible out line of a fan to the left.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Redefining Success said:

It is creased though, possible out line of a fan to the left.

Hmm, yes. So maybe its not a fake pic, how did they get that fan on the moon...so clever!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, grimsituation6 said:

One theory out of the way, "there are no stars in apollo surface images"

There are many reasons for this, but anyone who knows about photography knows that a camera has a range of gamma in which it can catch within a photo. If there is a significant amount of ambient light in the foreground, than the background will lose exposure. Stars are tricky as is, because they are billions of light years away, so far away that we have to use time to describe the distance, in order to get a good "photo" of the sky it actually requires one to expose over an extended period, the longer the exposure the more stars will appear. Now, in the apollo photos, the surface of the moon is a relatively light shade and reflected light, the suits the astronauts were wearing were white which also reflects a lot of light. The overbearing foreground made it impossible for the camera to pick up any stars, not to the cameras fault. I believe that the astronauts would have had an equally hard time seeing any stars due to the intense glare generated by the lunar surface, this in part to a lack of atmosphere. To a lay eye our own atmosphere here on earth actually acts like a natural telescope, so we may even see more stars in our night sky than on the lunar surface.

But as it turns out, there was a star visible in one or two of the images. I forget which mission / image number(s) but when people were looking over them there appeared to be what people first thought was a speck in the image. Noting the date / time and location, the numbers were crunched back and it was discovered that the 'speck' was actually a planet (Mars or Venus - I forget).

 

I'll see if I can get the details (if someone else doesn't beat me to it).

Edited by Obviousman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, grimsituation6 said:

Go ahead, give me the "proof" and i will answer the toughest out of them. Please remember the moon is a celestial object, with half the gravity of earth, with a low atmosphere, not a zero atmosphere, and not zero gravity. Also remember that the moon is exposed to effects by the earth, just as the earth has tides, the earth facing side of the moon is exposed to forces by the earth, also note the difference in magnetic fields. Also note how the earth works, the sun has to focus on a certain part of the earth for a long time in order to "heat" it up to degrees that we consider "hot";50 degrees celsius or more. Also note time, the moon is much younger than earth in terms of formation, although much of its material that isn't from earth may be much older. Also for all those out there that may not have known, which is a lot of people, the Moon has a molten core much like our own, which has a magnetic field of its own, which also helps protect it from solar activity all on its own...

Just as an FYI - The Moon's gravity is 1/6 that of the Earth's, not 1/2. You've made this point a few times in different posts...

 

 

 


Cz

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Redefining Success said:

I think this has recently be exposed as fake

tumblr_inline_nrtbx6s0Ji1t9jzle_540.jpg

What are those little yellow things in cloaks? Jedi Knights? 

Edited by Otto von Pickelhaube
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fake moon landing story needs to be jazzed up. I posit that the moon itself is actually fake, and was painted on to the vault of the sky by a balloonist.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Obviousman said:

But as it turns out, there was a star visible in one or two of the images. I forget which mission / image number(s) but when people were looking over them there appeared to be what people first thought was a speck in the image. Noting the date / time and location, the numbers were crunched back and it was discovered that the 'speck' was actually a planet (Mars or Venus - I forget).

 

I'll see if I can get the details (if someone else doesn't beat me to it).

The story is even better.  A remarkably numerate hoax believer actually worked out that Venus should have been visible in an Apollo 14 lunar surface picture and claimed it wasn't.  A researcher on the Apollo Hoax forum then checked out a high-res version of the picture, and Venus was right where it should have been.  It was also present in a number of other pictures from the same mission.

 

Here's the thread, the second post by Data Cable is the significant one:

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/995/missing-planetoid

Edited by flyingswan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah! Many thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2016 at 11:37 AM, grimsituation6 said:

Go ahead, give me the "proof" and i will answer the toughest out of them. Please remember the moon is a celestial object, with half the gravity of earth, with a low atmosphere, not a zero atmosphere, and not zero gravity. Also remember that the moon is exposed to effects by the earth, just as the earth has tides, the earth facing side of the moon is exposed to forces by the earth, also note the difference in magnetic fields. Also note how the earth works, the sun has to focus on a certain part of the earth for a long time in order to "heat" it up to degrees that we consider "hot";50 degrees celsius or more. Also note time, the moon is much younger than earth in terms of formation, although much of its material that isn't from earth may be much older. Also for all those out there that may not have known, which is a lot of people, the Moon has a molten core much like our own, which has a magnetic field of its own, which also helps protect it from solar activity all on its own...

 
 
 

Alright, let's get it! People claim there is a video of the astronauts on the mood planting the American flag only to have it start "waving" in the wind. How is that possible when the moon has no atmosphere, no air there to "blow" anything. The flag moves as if wind is really there,...interesting. Watch the video.  Next...

Was Nasa able to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts which surround Earth at about 100,000 miles or so out? If so how? Why has no other country decided to goto the moon after the United States, if it's possible?

On 7/8/2016 at 11:46 AM, grimsituation6 said:

One theory out of the way, "there are no stars in apollo surface images"

There are many reasons for this, but anyone who knows about photography knows that a camera has a range of gamma in which it can catch within a photo. If there is a significant amount of ambient light in the foreground, than the background will lose exposure. Stars are tricky as is, because they are billions of light years away, so far away that we have to use time to describe the distance, in order to get a good "photo" of the sky it actually requires one to expose over an extended period, the longer the exposure the more stars will appear. Now, in the apollo photos, the surface of the moon is a relatively light shade and reflected light, the suits the astronauts were wearing were white which also reflects a lot of light. The overbearing foreground made it impossible for the camera to pick up any stars, not to the cameras fault. I believe that the astronauts would have had an equally hard time seeing any stars due to the intense glare generated by the lunar surface, this in part to a lack of atmosphere. To a lay eye our own atmosphere here on earth actually acts like a natural telescope, so we may even see more stars in our night sky than on the lunar surface.

 
 
 

Something interesting to note, despite what may or may not be in the photos, the astronauts actually said in an interview that while on the moon they do not remember seeing "no stars at all". Seriously? We sure didn't see any in the pictures. We almost always see stars at night on Earth though, so how is it possible for men to be on the Moon and report openly that they did not see one single star while up there? Why would they not see any stars yet we on Earth can, ..even through the clouds? The Moon has no clouds,...its clear up there completely void of any of that, yet no starts were seen. Possible or impossible? What are your thoughts? Im not saying the Moon Landings didnt happen, Im merely asking conspiratorial questions which give reason to disbelieve. We actually have many high-quality photos of us on the Moon, but despite the crystal clear clarity of each of those photos, we do not see a single star in the background. Its just interesting.

9-semi-valid-conspiracy-theory-questions-about-the-moon-landing-debunked-425313.jpg

Edited by An Urban Leg3nd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I am tired of reapting myself hundreds of times, I'll just answer the questions briefly. If you want detailed evidence to support what I say, ask and I'll post the links.

 

1. The flag "waves" because the astronauts twisted the pole into the surface. The movement is residual momentum.

2. They were able to pass through the Van llen Belts (VAB) by going through the thinnest region on a tradjectory which minimised exposure.

3. The landing programme cost billions of dollars. No other country - except China - wants to spend the money to go back.

4. They *rarely* saw stars because they were in daylight. With no appreciable atmosphere on the Moon, you don't get Raleigh scattering and so get a black sky, not blue. Astronauts DID see stars, but they had to be in shadow and let their eyes adjust.

5. There were stars photographed; see my previous post.

 

Cheers!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, An Urban Leg3nd said:
17 minutes ago, An Urban Leg3nd said:

 

Was Nasa able to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts which surround Earth at about 100,000 miles or so out? If so how? Why has no other country decided to goto the moon after the United States, if it's possible?

 

 

 

 

 

When you say "go to" the moon, do you mean manned missions or soft landings?

3 countries have made soft landings on the moon. USA, USSR, and China.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/12/china-becomes-third-country-ever-soft-land-moon/356151/

From the link:

Quote

Unfortunately, landing on the moon in the 21st century is still a pretty big deal. Only three countries have ever soft-landed on the moon— the United States, the U.S.S.R. and now China. You'll notice one doesn't even exist anymore. But let's not be too hard on the U.S.S.R. because they were also the last country to carry out a similar mission, almost four decades ago — all the way back in 1976. 

 

Edited by ZZ430
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ZZ430 said:

When you say "go to" the moon, do you mean manned missions or soft landings?

3 countries have made soft landings on the moon. USA, Russia, and China.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/12/china-becomes-third-country-ever-soft-land-moon/356151/

 

 

Nah dude, I mean "manned" missions. Apparently, the United States is the only country on the entire planet to have sent humans to the Moon and back safely. I wonder why if reaching the Moon is accomplishable, especially after Nasa did it back then, has no other country decided to put men on the Moon again. Rovers have been sent there, but not actual people. I wonder why though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, An Urban Leg3nd said:

Alright, let's get it! People claim there is a video of the astronauts on the mood planting the American flag only to have it start "waving" in the wind. How is that possible when the moon has no atmosphere, no air there to "blow" anything. The flag moves as if wind is really there,...interesting. Watch the video.  Next...

Was Nasa able to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts which surround Earth at about 100,000 miles or so out? If so how? Why has no other country decided to goto the moon after the United States, if it's possible?

Something interesting to note, despite what may or may not be in the photos, the astronauts actually said in an interview that while on the moon they do not remember seeing "no stars at all". Seriously? We sure didn't see any in the pictures. We almost always see stars at night on Earth though, so how is it possible for men to be on the Moon and report openly that they did not see one single star while up there? Why would they not see any stars yet we on Earth can, ..even through the clouds? The Moon has no clouds,...its clear up there completely void of any of that, yet no starts were seen. Possible or impossible? What are your thoughts? Im not saying the Moon Landings didnt happen, Im merely asking conspiratorial questions which give reason to disbelieve. We actually have many high-quality photos of us on the Moon, but despite the crystal clear clarity of each of those photos, we do not see a single star in the background. Its just interesting.

9-semi-valid-conspiracy-theory-questions-about-the-moon-landing-debunked-425313.jpg

It's inconceivable to me that you couldn't find the answer to these very simple questions, which had all been answered years ago.   You should be embarrassed.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

People claim there is a video of the astronauts on the mood planting the American flag only to have it start "waving" in the wind.

Only very uninformed people...

Quote

How is that possible when the moon has no atmosphere, no air there to "blow" anything.

It's not just 'possible', it is inevitable.  You watch the video - the astronauts start the flag waving, and In a vacuum (you know, like on the Moon..) there is no air to damp the waving.  So it takes quite a while to stop.  From then onwards, the flag doesn't move even a millimetre..  Exactly as it should have, and exactly as demonstrated by the Mythbusters, here:

Quote

Was Nasa able to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts which surround Earth at about 100,000 miles or so out?

For heaven's sake, do some research.  The VA belts start at about 600 miles up, and extend to maybe 40,000 or so.  They are also shaped in such a way that spaceraft can avoid the worst sections of them.  Here's an image showing that trajectory.
AP100MeV.gif
The astronauts were not subject to much radiation at all - do you need me to quantify the amounts *exactly*? - I can - there's loads of information out there - but really, you should have researched this properly before publicly making such errors.  There are plenty of threads right here at UM covering this in excruciating detail.

 

Quote

Something interesting to note, despite what may or may not be in the photos, the astronauts actually said in an interview that while on the moon they do not remember seeing "no stars at all". Seriously?

CITE the interview, and let's look at what they said in context.  When your eyes are seeing daylight, there is no way you (or a camera) will see stars.  If you shade your eyes very carefully (on the Moon with a helmet on that is very difficult) it *is* possible, and at least one of the astronauts did that.

Quote

We sure didn't see any in the pictures. We almost always see stars at night on Earth though, so how is it possible for men to be on the Moon and report openly that they did not see one single star while up there?

Er, maybe because it was in broad sunny daylight, not night.. In space a black sky does not mean everything is dark.  They were working in daylight.  If they had set the cameras for a night exposure, eg exposures of a few seconds or more, stars would have appeared, but the images would have been ridiculously overexposed and blurred, as ANY photographer knows.  Thankfully, they also knew what they were doing, and set the cameras to high shutter speeds like 1/250 to record what they were doing in the daylight.


Then there was this:

Quote

Nah dude

'Nah Dude'?? Just curious - how old are you?  I'm just shy of 60, and that means I am old enough to remember the Cold War and understand The USA's added motivation to get to the Moon before the Russians managed it..  As it turned out, given the problems they had with their main rocket, the Russians were way behind in the race..

I was also old enough to be able to research and understand everything about the Apollo mission that I could get my hands on - I was a space fanatic.  So, when I saw things like the flag gyrating for much longer than it would normally, I understood that was because it was in a vacuum -see above...

 As my other big interest was photography, I immediately understood that despite the black sky (no atmospheric scattering), the imagery was all shot in daylight, so there was no way that stars would appear in the photographs.  And so on.

When Apollo deniers regurgitate claims of fakery on the basis of their lack of understanding of such stuff, they simply reveal they are not willing to do the research required to understand space travel and conditions on the Moon.

 

Quote

Apparently, the United States is the only country on the entire planet to have sent humans to the Moon and back safely.

Yes, it's also the country that at that time had the only research program and funding level to make it happen.  What is it about that you don't understand?

Quote

I wonder why if reaching the Moon is accomplishable, especially after Nasa did not back then, has no other country decided to put men on the Moon again.

Is that a serious question?  No sign of life was found.  No sign of valuable minerals.  No real reason togo back, and taxpayers, after being very excited about the first few missions, had rapidly lost interest.  Given the Cold war situation and American pride, there was also the simple significance of just getting off our planet for the first time, so in some ways it was just symbolism - our first baby step onto another world...  
Unfortunately, the next step, ie the next planet out is a LOT, LOT more difficult than the quick hop to the Moon.  So it was quite obvious to everyone that we would get to the Moon, and then there would be quite a delay in the next step out.  Well, everyone with a good basic knowledge of space, anyway.

Quote

Rovers have been sent there, but not actual people. I wonder why though...

People have been there.  I wonder why you haven't worked it all out yet..

 

If you wish to persist with this topic, please answer all of the above points BEFORE you gallop on to new wrongness..

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it weren't so bloody annoying, I'd find it cute how some random teenager / millennial comes here all indignant and sure of him/herself throwing around theories that have been debunked in all kinds ways since probably before said person was able to read or at least use a computer,,,,

 

 

 

 

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.