moon landing

[Trinitrotoluene]

Yes, I do actually. What's the difference between the sun hitting the earth and the sun hitting the moon? They get more or less the same amount of visible light. The astronauts visor is down in that picture, think of it like a huge pair of sunglasses.

Edited August 18, 2006 by Gavsto

[postbaguk]

I honestly don't think we have gone to the moon. I don't think it would be that hard to create an antigravity dome inside the desert with a picture of the earth at a distance painted on it. These Astronauts were inside bulky space suits and had big clunky helmets on it as well. So I don't think they even needed to be part of the ruse. It would be better for the program had they not been.

I think the launches were real in other cases but I think the moon landing was done to shut up the Russians.

The one thing that does it for me is the picture count. Forget all the science babble. It just doesn't add up for me.

I am not big on conspiracy theories but I have to say I believe that this is one.

Jack White's "time and motion study" is utter nonsense. I'll use Apollo 11 as an example.

Firstly, he subtracts an ARBITRARY amount of time for the astronauts to perform their tasks. (His use of the word arbitrary - he gives no reasoning for why he has come up with this figure).

Secondly, he fails to mention that photographs could be taken WHILST other duties were being performed, because... (drum roll please...) there were TWO ASTRONAUTS on the surface! Armstrong took PLENTY of photos of Aldrin setting up experiments during the Apollo 11 EVA.

Thirdly, he also "forgets" that many pictures were taken as panoramas... the astronaut would stand in the same spot, take a photo, turn slightly to the right, take another etc until (up to) a full 360 degree panorama shoot was taken in a relatively short timespan, without having to readjust focus (or aperture settings) between shots.

Fourthly, Jack White states that "any professional photographer will tell you that it can't be done", referring to the Astronauts ability to take a photo every fifteen seconds. You don't need me to tell you Jack is lying - if you think this is impossible (which it clearly isn't), ASK a professional photographer. THEN, remember that Jack has tried to manipulate you into thinking that the astronauts on Apollo 11 only had 30 minutes of time to take photos! Remember him arbitrarily deciding on how long other activities took? Neglecting to mention that one astronaut could set up experiments while the other took photographs? No mention of the number of panorama photos that were taken in quick succession?

Jack White either has very poor analysis skills, or is trying to pull the wool over some peoples eyes - in other words, he is lying.

Don't take my word for it... check this out. Scroll down to the bottom half, the section on Anomalous shadows.

Anomalous Shadows indeed!

Do you actually believe what Jack is telling you is THE LAW!!!! Again, don't take mine or Jack's word for it... grab a digital camera, get out in the sun, take photos of your own shadow. You will very easily be able to reproduce the phenomenon shown, which Jack states is impossible.

Oh look! 20 seconds of Googling gave me this completely un-Apollo related photo which shows this phenomonon that Jack states is impossible. I guess the joggers of this world have all been bought by NASA too!

Again - don't just take my word for it - prove it to yourself.

Then, ask yourself this very simple question:-

Is Jack White incompetent, or is he lying?

[straydog]

Thanks for posting what a Par light looks like and then the Par light which is featured in the nasa photo .... It is so clear in the larger image of this , that one can even see the back features of this stage light , including the bracket it is hanging from !

Please keep them coming gavsto ... This is too much fun !! ... You just saved me the trouble of posting a picture of a Par spotlight ( nasa's was much larger of course ) ... So thanks once again !

Hey maybe you should check the equipment list for this mission ... Who knows what you may find ? ... nasa may have added a ceiling fan and some stage lights to the list !!

Clicky again onto the larger version .... It's a spotlight !!

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385HR.jpg

[truethat]

Yes, I do actually. What's the difference between the sun hitting the earth and the sun hitting the moon? They get more or less the same amount of visible light. The astronauts visor is down in that picture, think of it like a huge pair of sunglasses.

There's no comparison. There's nothing to shade these people. There is a big difference between a sun exposure in the desert and sun exposure in a city.

I don't know about you but when I look directly at the sun I get dots in my eyes and its difficult to see for a few moments.

The picture count just doesn't seem plausible to me, that's why I said forget all the science babble. I'm not talking about shadow angles and whatnot. What I don't find plausible is that all the pictures came out great and that they took so many pictures in the time they did. If their uniforms had an automatic camera on it then I'd probably believe it. Or even a running video camera then they could take each shot out. But that these astronauts had to take the pictures in addition to their other chores and they did so perfectly just doesn't seem believable to me.

In addition, I am not suggesting that we never went to the moon. I am just suggesting that when all the hooplah went down that they were not really on the moon. They were doing it for publicity and politics and I doubt very much they'd leave that up to chance.

Imagine the world keyed in and watching and they can't launch back off the moon? I would imagine this would make us the laughingstocks of the world back then. So I think the pictures and the television cast were faked.

[AtomicDog]

First off there's no reason for snark. I am entitled to my opinion just as you are.

Second the "forget all the science babble" is intended for both sides of the argument. Not the Pro moon landing side alone.

The reason I wrote this is often the answer to debates is in the simple details.

Simple details in that every picture came out great.

So let's do a test shall we. I want you to walk around your apartment and hold a digital camera chest level and in a matter of 10 minutes see how many pictures you can take.

Then I want you to go to your kitchen cupboards and take all the dishes out of them in the same ten minutes and see how many pictures you can take.

I guarantee you that you will get a few blurry or flubbed pictures. And this is in an era where digital cameras are nearly blunder proof.

I find it highly suspect that every shot came out printworthy.

Second the anti gravity dome that I am talking about would be one that in some way simulates it. I know there is no such thing really but my main point was that the dome could have the earth painted on it and these men bundled in space suits that are highly cumbersome would be easily swayed.

Why would they think NASA would lie to them?

Show me where I tried to deny you your opinion. I am demanding that you support it.

"Every picture came out great"?

AS17-134-20485

AS16-109-17858

AS16-114-18424

You have a strange definition of "great".

One more thing. The astronauts trained with their cameras for months, not ten minutes. It is not at all suprising that most of their photos were "great". After all, photography is part of the reason they were sent to the moon in the first place.

[Trinitrotoluene]

What part of my previous post did you not understand? The calculations made for how often a picture was taken was based on every picture they took on the mission, including orbital pictures, pictures in the CM, pictures inside the LM. How is that accurate?!

[AtomicDog]

T

Imagine the world keyed in and watching and they can't launch back off the moon? I would imagine this would make us the laughingstocks of the world back then. So I think the pictures and the television cast were faked.

"Imagine" and "just suppose" cuts ice with no one.

Do you have evidence? Do you have facts?

[postbaguk]

The picture count just doesn't seem plausible to me, that's why I said forget all the science babble. I'm not talking about shadow angles and whatnot. What I don't find plausible is that all the pictures came out great and that they took so many pictures in the time they did. If their uniforms had an automatic camera on it then I'd probably believe it. Or even a running video camera then they could take each shot out. But that these astronauts had to take the pictures in addition to their other chores and they did so perfectly just doesn't seem believable to me.

Truethat

Check out my post above.

Re all the photos turning out great - nope.

Not perfect!

Not perfect either

If their uniforms had an automatic camera on it then I'd probably believe it.

Well, the Hasselblad was chest-mounted. It had an electrically operated shutter and winding mechanism. The astronauts controlled the focus, aperture and shutter speed, which they'd had months and months of practice doing on earth (yes, without a viewfinder!)

On Apollo 8, Hasselblad EL electric cameras were used for the first time. The electric motor in these Hasselblads largely automated the picture taking process. The astronauts needed only to set the distance, lens aperture, and shutter speed, but once the release button was pressed, the camera exposed and wound the film and tensioned the shutter.

Is that a good enough description for an automatic camera for you?

The above quote is taken from

Apollo Hasselblads

[truethat]

Gimme a break. What facts have been presented to you guys have been swatted away as "false" and you debate them as if you have the inside scoop at NASA and personally handled the mission.

What facts do you have regarding the photograhpic evidence? You deny things right in front of your face.

I don't KNOW how NASA faked it. It could be the astronauts were in on it. It could be that they were not. I guess in trying to give the astronauts a sense of credibility I suggest that they were not in on it.

But here's my opinion. The moon mission broadcast for the world to see was faked. Does this mean that we never went to the moon? No. Does this mean that all the missions were faked? No.

But I do believe that the moon mission broadcast to the world was fake.

I also personally believe that the astronauts knew that it was being faked but understood that it was an issue of national security.

Do I think people were killed to cover this up? NO. Do I think its a huge awful nasty conspiracy? NO.

I just think the US was taking no chances.

And as far as the three pictures posted as flubbs well three out of thousands? The astronauts were trained to take pictures? So they were able in an environment that they had never been in where gravity was completely different to, in general take clear, straight head on shots.

How about we do it differently. Why don't you stand on a waterbed for a few moments and take a few shots and see how clear they come out.

[Trinitrotoluene]

That's quite honestly even worse logic than that of hoax believers. You believe they actually landed but faked the photos and video!? Because that makes a lot of sense doesn't it

The three flubbs you mentioned, they are but a small selection of hundreds of bad photographs that are available.

Edited August 18, 2006 by Gavsto

[truethat]

Yes that's what I believe and if you think about it, it makes the most sense.

Why did they fake the pictures???????????? Remember Geraldo opening Al Capone's vault?

I think they faked the pictures and the broadcast in order to give the public what they wanted.

Take a video camera film of a wedding party? If you just walked around with the video camera you'd get footage that made people sea sick and stupid stuff like people eating.

But if you hire a professional photographer they put it together to suggest something fabulous.

In general reality of footage is going to be mundane and boring. Especially on a giant rock with nothing there. Have you ever gone to the pyramids? All the hooplah and you get there and its a bunch of rocks basically. Or take the flip side. Mount Sinai is breath taking but the photographs just make it seem blah.

I think NASA helped give the public what they wanted them to see. Hence the golfing and stuff.

I think this is why NASA is able to say that we did go to the moon. I think we did. But I think the footage was faked.

[AtomicDog]

Quote from truethat:

honestly don't think we have gone to the moon. I don't think it would be that hard to create an antigravity dome inside the desert with a picture of the earth at a distance painted on it.

Second the anti gravity dome that I am talking about would be one that in some way simulates it. I know there is no such thing really but my main point was that the dome could have the earth painted on it and these men bundled in space suits that are highly cumbersome would be easily swayed.

Why would they think NASA would lie to them?

Your first statement says that the Moon Photos were hoaxed based on technology that you in your second statement admit does not exist.

How are we supposed to take your argument seriously?

[truethat]

Well actually that was just a lame attempt on my part to let the astronauts off the hook. To suggest that they didn't know that it was faked.

In my honest opinion I think the astronauts were in on it.

Let me make clear because I realize my original statements seem like I don't think we ever went to the moon.

I do think we went to the moon. We have evidence to show that we have. But I think that the moon landing footage broadcast to the world was fake. I think the photos released to the public at that time were faked.

Edited August 18, 2006 by truethat

[Trinitrotoluene]

Right so let's get this straight, lol.

You believe we went to the moon. But faked the photographs because the originals were boring?! So do tell me, what exactly is in these faked photographs that wouldn't normally be on the moon!?

[AtomicDog]

truethat,

You come here and say, "the photos were faked". We ask you how you know they were faked.

You can give us no explanation, you just say, "I don't know, but they were faked".

We show you how your contentitions are wrong, and you come back with "I don't care, they were faked".

We explain how they were taken, and you just come back with, "I still don't care, they were faked".

If you believe they were faked, fine. If you want to convince us they were faked, you're going have to get into this discussion with evidence and proof.

[truethat]

Oh brother, why do people on here have to be sarcastic and rude? Does that help your argument? Are you really that angry over this that you have to speak to me in a mocking and condescending tone?

The difference in the photographs and footage would be more of the flubbed photos that were published.

Put it this way NASA wasn't taking any chances. The landing went down without a glitch. It served its purpose. The motive is really the point.

What would be the motive of NASA faking the footage? The motive would be total control. To be sure everything looked the way they wanted it to.

Anyway this is what I believe and I am sure you will come back with some big sarcastic statement. Knock yourself out. It doesn't make you right.

Atomic Dog please show me anywhere that I have said "I don't care...." I have never said that. If you don't understand what I am saying ask, please don't put your words in my posts. I never wrote that.

I agree with people who say that the photographs look staged. I also agree with the shots that show lighting fixtures and other things that shouldn't be there if they were really on the moon.

You guys are the ones who are saying "I don't care....." not me.

Edited August 18, 2006 by truethat

[postbaguk]

Gimme a break. What facts have been presented to you guys have been swatted away as "false" and you debate them as if you have the inside scoop at NASA and personally handled the mission.

Facts? What facts have any HBers presented on here? Plenty of opinion, not many facts.

What facts do you have regarding the photograhpic evidence? You deny things right in front of your face.

Simple - examining the so-called "anomalies" that HBers believe are present. Listening to their explanation, listening to the opinion of people who don't believe they were faked. Deciding who sounds the most credulous, by referring to 3rd party sources, my own knowledge, and my own recreations of scenarios which HBers say are impossible (e.g. shadow angles)

I don't KNOW how NASA faked it. It could be the astronauts were in on it. It could be that they were not. I guess in trying to give the astronauts a sense of credibility I suggest that they were not in on it.

You asked us to forget about the science and refer to the amount of photos taken. I've shown how I believe Jack White's time and motion study for Apollo 11 to be fundamentally flawed - do you have a counter-argument, or are you going on gut instinct?

But here's my opinion. The moon mission broadcast for the world to see was faked. Does this mean that we never went to the moon? No. Does this mean that all the missions were faked? No.

Opinions are like *******s. Everybody's got one.

I'm interested to hear on what you base your opinion, as I have not heard, seen or read anything to convince me that the six Apollo landings were faked in any way, shape or form. I am happy to retract this comment if any conclusive evidence is forthcoming. I've done plenty of research on all the missiona, using HB, NASA and 3rd party evidence to come to my conclusions.

But I do believe that the moon mission broadcast to the world was fake.

I also personally believe that the astronauts knew that it was being faked but understood that it was an issue of national security.

Is this belief based on anything concrete, or is it just a desire to think you're in on a plot that most people are ignorant of?

Do I think people were killed to cover this up? NO. Do I think its a huge awful nasty conspiracy? NO.

I just think the US was taking no chances.

Going to the moon was a risk - but a calculated one. That nearly didn't pay off on Apollo 13.

And as far as the three pictures posted as flubbs well three out of thousands? The astronauts were trained to take pictures? So they were able in an environment that they had never been in where gravity was completely different to, in general take clear, straight head on shots.

More than three... I posted two which took just a minute to find. And yes, I've tried this myself, rather than taking someone elses word for it. Try taking some photos without using the viewfinder, with the camera held at chest height. I soon got the hang of it, I'm sure you will too... if you actually bother trying to prove this one to yourself!

How about we do it differently. Why don't you stand on a waterbed for a few moments and take a few shots and see how clear they come out.

lol... don't think standing on the moon is going to be the same as on a waterbed, but next time I find a waterbed I'll give it a go!

[Trinitrotoluene]

The difference in the photographs and footage would be more of the flubbed photos that were published.

"Hey Mike, what pictures should we include in the Press kits?"

"Dave, just chuck some good ones in there and mix in some bad ones"

"Cheers Dave"

You see my point? They are not going to release bad photo's to print in a newspaper are they? All the photographs ARE available. Do a google search for Apollo Image Atlas or Apollo Lunar Surface Journal

[straydog]

What I can't believe is that you are all still having this discussion here .... nasa has been busted ! .... The Apollo photographs are studio fakes !! .. and thanks to Evan Burton , Redtail and gavsto , we can all now see the definitive evidence which proves that fact .

Look at the pictures again ... It's a spotlight reflection in the visor , complete with handles , and the mount bracket at the top of it .

Are you nasa fans really nasa dis-information agents maybe ? ... Cuz I can't think of any other reason why you would be so determined to have us all believe that Apollo really went to the moon , when they so obviously didn't .

The pictures were faked and the missions were faked .... Apollo was a hoax !! .. and nothing any of you post here is ever going to change that fact .

[Trinitrotoluene]

No they weren't busted, no it's not a spotlight - it's a smudge. You are seeing things that aren't there. I do find it interesting though that you hadn't done this research yourself, once again it was a simple copy/paste jacks work job. Then again I doubt you even know where to find the high def photo's.

Edited August 18, 2006 by Gavsto

[truethat]

Ok fine guys whatever, YOU KNOW! You worked for the mission, heck you flew the mission right?

I just love when people say Everyone has an opinion and only MINE is right.

I disagree with your OPINION on this matter. I have my own opinion based on facts that I have researched and also what I know of the government and the things they will do.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I am not a big CT fan. But I do believe that the footage broadcast to the world was faked based on the evidence that I have found on my own.

Seems like you want to "win" the argument. So OK YOU WIN! Better? Funny to me how people are so quick to think because they win an internet debate that they know "the truth"

Sometimes people just give up because they don't like being treated like sh** during a debate and that seems to be the tactic that a lot of supposed debaters use to win their arguments. Be rude and sarcastic and mocking and eventually you will tire the other person out and you can say you WON the argument.

Whatever, congratulations on winning this argument!

[AtomicDog]

Oh brother, why do people on here have to be sarcastic and rude? Does that help your argument? Are you really that angry over this that you have to speak to me in a mocking and condescending tone?

The difference in the photographs and footage would be more of the flubbed photos that were published.

Put it this way NASA wasn't taking any chances. The landing went down without a glitch. It served its purpose. The motive is really the point.

What would be the motive of NASA faking the footage? The motive would be total control. To be sure everything looked the way they wanted it to.

Anyway this is what I believe and I am sure you will come back with some big sarcastic statement. Knock yourself out. It doesn't make you right.

Atomic Dog please show me anywhere that I have said "I don't care...." I have never said that. If you don't understand what I am saying ask, please don't put your words in my posts. I never wrote that.

I agree with people who say that the photographs look staged. I also agree with the shots that show lighting fixtures and other things that shouldn't be there if they were really on the moon.

You guys are the ones who are saying "I don't care....." not me.

You're moving the goalposts. You previously said that the Apollo photos were all great.

Now you're backing away from that contention, saying that more of them should have been bad. Can I hold you to a certain percentage of bad photos before you admit they were real? Then why couldn't NASA flub that percentage just to fool us? Your argument then wins all around! Btw, all the Moon Photos were published. That's how I found these.

This is the way I have spoken to every HB in this thread since I have joined. I have not been personally insulting, but I have been blunt. Sarcasm is an accepted means of debate. It's been used on me, and I use it in return. I don't mind it. If you want to snark me, knock yourself out.

[postbaguk]

Put it this way NASA wasn't taking any chances. The landing went down without a glitch. It served its purpose. The motive is really the point.

What would be the motive of NASA faking the footage? The motive would be total control. To be sure everything looked the way they wanted it to.

OK... what's the most famous Apollo photograph? A moot point perhaps, but I think most people would vote for this shot of Buzz Aldrin.

Do you really think it looks perfect? From a professional point of view it's poorly framed, with the primary subject (Buzz) being much too close to the top edge of the frame - in fact, if it had been aimed slightly lower, it would rarely be seen, as Buzz's helmet would appear to be cut off. When seen on magazine covers and posters, it is usually placed with a black background above Buzz's head, as shown here:-

Question: if NASA did go to the moon, as you agree, but decided to fake the photography so it was beter than it would have been on the moon (!), why is arguably the most famous photo in the Apollo record not very well framed?

Maybe this famous photo should be added to the list of "fluffed shots" you seem to think is too short!

PS Not trying to sound condescending, and apologies if I come over that way, but it's difficult to take your argument seriously when all you have is conjecture and random scenarios, but no actual evidence.

[AtomicDog]

truethat,

What happened is that you came in here with a couple of pieces of Moon Hoax "evidence" that we have seen a hundred times before, and when we pounced on it like a pack of rabid wolves and tore it apart you were just shocked at the carnage, that's all.

You'll get over it.

[Shaftsbury]

I believe the landings were real, no not because of some slick photographs, but because of all the other evidence out there, and the fact that I am old enough to remember the moon missions as they happened.

For one thing I am not aware that there has ever been any comment or accusation made by a foreign government that the landings did not happen. I mean that would be a great political slap in the face wouldn't it? But not only did America's primary adversary not deny the landings happened, they even had a program of their own. And I might add it was not cancelled due to the impossibility of landing there, but because they had other projects under way at the same time.

By 1969, even though the U.S.S.R. was still moving forward with its lunar landing program, it had begun to shift its emphasis in human spaceflight to the development of Earth-orbiting stations in which cosmonaut crews could carry out extended observations and experiments on missions that lasted weeks or months rather than a few days.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-237059