pap Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Since watching Capricorn One, the notion that the moon landings might have been faked is my current favourite conspiracy theory. As a consequence, I've trawled loads of websites, watched a couple of documentaries, and know a little bit more about light sources and the Van Allen belt. Have to admit; not an expert on the science of photography or radiation, but a lot of people are. Moon landings. Humanity's greatest achievement or big propaganda whopper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 they were not faked......they really were not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 December, 2012 they were not faked......they really were not Arf. That's that then. Top input, TDD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 I have been there many times... Not seen one USA flag there.. Scam artists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 40 years ago today Apollo 17 landed on the moon. I was fascinated by the Apollo programme but, apparently, the US public got tired of it and the plug was pulled. I big opportunity missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Arf. That's that then. Top input, TDD! for no other reason that the soviet union monitored the whole thing and recorded all the conversations...who the USA were in a cold war with..who, with any teeny tiny bit of a chance...would blow the US conspiracy out of the water... they didnt and they stated it was all real..many times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 They left some sort of mirror there that we fire lasers at every day. We went there - end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Since watching Capricorn One, the notion that the moon landings might have been faked is my current favourite conspiracy theory. As a consequence, I've trawled loads of websites, watched a couple of documentaries, and know a little bit more about light sources and the Van Allen belt. Have to admit; not an expert on the science of photography or radiation, but a lot of people are. Moon landings. Humanity's greatest achievement or big propaganda whopper? You've done the research, you tell us. I can't help feeling that most conspiracy theories are just wishful thinking, a bit like the existence of God and UFO's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 This is someone else's dream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliegeorgesflymo Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 There is a clip on youtube of Buzz Aldrin ****ting somebody who asked him to his face -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliegeorgesflymo Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Also a good name for such people - conspiritards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 December, 2012 You've done the research, you tell us. I can't help feeling that most conspiracy theories are just wishful thinking, a bit like the existence of God and UFO's. That's fair enough, I suppose. The pro-conspiracy view's main points are:- Big problems with the photography from the lunar surface (ton of evidence that different light sources have been used). The debunkers usually point out individual shots that can sort of be explained on the fringes of photography, but what they address is a tiny fraction. Effect of Van Allen radiation belt on humans going to the moon and/or equipment passing through it. This is another big problem; is it technically feasible? I'm real patchy on this so will defer to superior scientific knowledge. No stars. Flapping flags on an airless moon. Technology has moved on 40 years. No one has managed it since. The central premise of the conspiracy theory is that the Apollo program was fake. You can't really include later missions. Blueprints for massively expensive space equipment "missing". It's odd. NASA has made repeated concerted efforts to establish the veracity of its claims, from the LRO to the reflectors, etc. The funny thing is that they're just providing more ammo to the pro-conspiracy crowd. Recently released stuff gets just as much analysis as the original shots; plenty of new discrepancies are emerging. The Yanks didn't think they could do it in the early 1960s, but Lyndon Johnson convinced Kennedy to go for it; that this was a way to establish world leadership in the height of the Cold War. I do find the subject matter interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 December, 2012 They left some sort of mirror there that we fire lasers at every day. We went there - end of. The counter-claim to this little fella is that you don't need a human to put something on the lunar surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 December, 2012 for no other reason that the soviet union monitored the whole thing and recorded all the conversations...who the USA were in a cold war with..who, with any teeny tiny bit of a chance...would blow the US conspiracy out of the water... they didnt and they stated it was all real..many times Give us a link, TDD. Genuinely interested in stuff on both sides of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 There is a clip on youtube of Buzz Aldrin ****ting somebody who asked him to his face - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 its a fake bearsy....like everything else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 The thing is; NASA have the technology to go there now if they wanted to. If they can land a robotic dog on Mars then getting to the moon and back is sheer piffle in comparison. That they don't tells me they've been there, done what they need to, and as it costs such an aboslute fortune to go (and with no tangible benefit) and there's nothing more to learn; what's the point? Perhaps in 20, 30 or 40 years time when a manned mission to Mars is looking more likely we'll see a return to the moon for training purposes?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 if we didn't go to moon where did velcro come from? Answer that pap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonManager Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 How could anyone have landed on the Moon - look how small it is ffs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 December, 2012 The thing is; NASA have the technology to go there now if they wanted to. If they can land a robotic dog on Mars then getting to the moon and back is sheer piffle in comparison. That they don't tells me they've been there, done what they need to, and as it costs such an aboslute fortune to go (and with no tangible benefit) and there's nothing more to learn; what's the point? Perhaps in 20, 30 or 40 years time when a manned mission to Mars is looking more likely we'll see a return to the moon for training purposes?? Deary me, The Kraken. We're going to have to send you back to super villain school. As a strategic location, the moon has massive benefits. Giant fricking laser beams? Hello? But seriously, is there a better first-strike location? Not too shabby for early warning and observation either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 December, 2012 if we didn't go to moon where did velcro come from? Answer that pap! Damn! Argued into a corner by the Bear again! From memory, velcro was an invention that fell out of the space program. For your query to be the "fox in the box" you want it to be, velcro kinda needs to be something that can only be found on the moon. Is that the case? I am not an expert on velcro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 (edited) Deary me, The Kraken. We're going to have to send you back to super villain school. As a strategic location, the moon has massive benefits. Giant fricking laser beams? Hello? But seriously, is there a better first-strike location? Not too shabby for early warning and observation either. Hence the importance of it during the cold war, but now? Just as much first strike damage can be achieved from Earth. If anything, the time you would have from lunar launch to impact would allow you to land a fair few blows in before they actually hit. (It took a rocket four days to get to the moon, from earth it's half an hour to anywhere.) And lunar lasers? The amount of power/precision that would require to form a destructive laser is beyond near technical possibility. Even an orbital weapons shield is highly improbably, so what damage would a laser realistically do from a distance many-many thousands of times further away? Edited 11 December, 2012 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Bart Sibrel is the name of the guy who has made the two 'debunking' films Pap is talking about and is the guy punched by Buzz Aldrin. Sibrel had lied to him to get Aldrin to a hotel to talk about a Japanese kids programme. Sibrel's expertise and qualifications to attack NASA presumably comes from his day job working as a Nashville taxi driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 (edited) Deary me, The Kraken. We're going to have to send you back to super villain school. As a strategic location, the moon has massive benefits. Giant fricking laser beams? Hello? But seriously, is there a better first-strike location? Not too shabby for early warning and observation either. I'd say an orbitting missile launcher would be a better first strike location than the moon (which is quite a long way away, really). And again for warning and observation, surely a number of orbitting satellites would be much more effective than a fixed base much further away. I do think some uber-villain should set up a base on the moon, though. Some evil, Richard Branson equivalent, with ideas of world domination and a mysterious yet relevant name, like Dr. Lunarbomb or something. Edited 11 December, 2012 by The Kraken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 That's fair enough, I suppose. The pro-conspiracy view's main points are:- Big problems with the photography from the lunar surface (ton of evidence that different light sources have been used). The debunkers usually point out individual shots that can sort of be explained on the fringes of photography, but what they address is a tiny fraction. Effect of Van Allen radiation belt on humans going to the moon and/or equipment passing through it. This is another big problem; is it technically feasible? I'm real patchy on this so will defer to superior scientific knowledge. No stars. Flapping flags on an airless moon. Technology has moved on 40 years. No one has managed it since. The central premise of the conspiracy theory is that the Apollo program was fake. You can't really include later missions. Blueprints for massively expensive space equipment "missing". It's odd. NASA has made repeated concerted efforts to establish the veracity of its claims, from the LRO to the reflectors, etc. The funny thing is that they're just providing more ammo to the pro-conspiracy crowd. Recently released stuff gets just as much analysis as the original shots; plenty of new discrepancies are emerging. The Yanks didn't think they could do it in the early 1960s, but Lyndon Johnson convinced Kennedy to go for it; that this was a way to establish world leadership in the height of the Cold War. I do find the subject matter interesting. Same old evidence that is brought up again and again, despite its being discredited scientifically. Just to mention one thing: go outside on a clear night when there is no moon. Do it out in the country where the stars are very visible. Now, take some photographs of the sky. It's guaranteed that there will be no stars appearing in any of those photographs. Now, think about why that is. It's not a conspiracy - science can easily explain it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Same old evidence that is brought up again and again, despite its being discredited scientifically. Just to mention one thing: go outside on a clear night when there is no moon. Do it out in the country where the stars are very visible. Now, take some photographs of the sky. It's guaranteed that there will be no stars appearing in any of those photographs. Now, think about why that is. It's not a conspiracy - science can easily explain it for you. As I understand it they are simply out of focus and as such fade into the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Damn! Argued into a corner by the Bear again! From memory, velcro was an invention that fell out of the space program. For your query to be the "fox in the box" you want it to be, velcro kinda needs to be something that can only be found on the moon. Is that the case? I am not an expert on velcro. And don't forget those non-stick frying pans. One of the great side-benefits of the space programme! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 As I understand it they are simply out of focus and as such fade into the background. No. The camera is not as sensitive as the human eye, and it is unable to register such a dim light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 I'd say an orbitting missile launcher would be a better first strike location than the moon (which is quite a long way away, really). All dumbasses! Best first strike location is like New York or Paris... somewhere people actually live! Watch out china unless you stop your dumb invasions we're gonna fire nuclear missle... at the moon! Dumbasses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 No. The camera is not as sensitive as the human eye, and it is unable to register such a dim light. Cheers for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 And why would they fake the moon landings six times? Wasn't once enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 velcro kinda needs to be something that can only be found on the moon. That is my understanding. I remember it distinctly from school. Also they found non-stick frying pans and tubes of chewable ice cream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Hence the importance of it during the cold war, but now? Just as much first strike damage can be achieved from Earth. If anything, the time you would have from lunar launch to impact would allow you to land a fair few blows in before they actually hit. And lunar lasers? The amount of power/precision that would require is beyond near technical possibility. Even more now. The weaponisation of space is a big deal. Bush's administration were keen on it, while China and India are avidly pursuing their own space programs. As far as the moon goes, I take your points to an extent - but not on the distance. Absolutely zilch to stop someone from letting a load of nukes fall into Earth's orbit, bit of correction on route, before re-entering at chosen destination, just falling from the sky. If the purpose of a first strike is to survive MAD, the moon is a pretty good base. Just not necessarily for a conventional missile launch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 That is my understanding. I remember it distinctly from school. Also they found non-stick frying pans and tubes of chewable ice cream. I tried these once. They were disgusting, all dried out - though tbf I guess thats not surprising after 43 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Personally I find that people who believe they didn't happen even weirder to those people who believe in God and those folk are fu.cking weird! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 December, 2012 And why would they fake the moon landings six times? Wasn't once enough? To refine their filmmaking skills? To enjoy the continued reverence accorded to the nation because of its achievement? To keep people distracted from the ongoing horror in Vietnam? Remember that the space race was all about propaganda ( Lyndon Johnson explicitly uses the word when making his case to Kennedy ). The US could command continuing respect during the Apollo missions for its technical achievements. If this was a hoax, they actually had every reason to reinforce it with additional data. It was certainly a propaganda coup too. Why wouldn't they repeat something that is worked in the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 If they can land a robotic dog on Mars then getting to the moon and back is sheer piffle in comparison. What I don't understand is that they've supposedly landed this rover on mars that they can send signals too and get singals back, yet when I take the train up to London there are parts of the trip with no phone signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Personally I find that people who believe they didn't happen even weirder to those people who believe in God and those folk are fu.cking weird! Yeah, but that's just a specific insult wrapped up in a vague generalisation - implicitly tied to the notion that you are the ph neutral of normality. Apart from that, it's a very good point and not at all weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 What I don't understand is that they've supposedly landed this rover on mars that they can send signals too and get singals back, yet when I take the train up to London there are parts of the trip with no phone signal. NASA put more money into the space program than Virgin put into your PAYG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_D Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Moon Laser Theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Same old evidence that is brought up again and again, despite its being discredited scientifically. Just to mention one thing: go outside on a clear night when there is no moon. Do it out in the country where the stars are very visible. Now, take some photographs of the sky. It's guaranteed that there will be no stars appearing in any of those photographs. Now, think about why that is. It's not a conspiracy - science can easily explain it for you. Yeah, and in isolation (photos) that might fly. The astronauts, when interviewed, said they couldn't see stars either ( or at least, explicitly stated that they couldn't recall ). What is your view on multiple light sources? They say they took none, yet the evidence of multiple light sources is all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 (edited) Edited 11 December, 2012 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvaughanwilliams Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 That's fair enough, I suppose. The pro-conspiracy view's main points are:- Big problems with the photography from the lunar surface (ton of evidence that different light sources have been used). The debunkers usually point out individual shots that can sort of be explained on the fringes of photography, but what they address is a tiny fraction. This has been debunked. It's not fringes of photography, it's the nature of the light coloured rock. Flapping flags on an airless moon. The flags had a metal rail at the top to keep it square. Gravity acted on the rail wobbling the flag. Also: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_D Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Yeah, and in isolation (photos) that might fly. The astronauts, when interviewed, said they couldn't see stars either ( or at least, explicitly stated that they couldn't recall ). What is your view on multiple light sources? They say they took none, yet the evidence of multiple light sources is all around. Yes, there is 'evidence.' Including here on Earth... Oh wait. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQvDW5qj3XI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Yeah, and in isolation (photos) that might fly. The astronauts, when interviewed, said they couldn't see stars either ( or at least, explicitly stated that they couldn't recall ). What is your view on multiple light sources? They say they took none, yet the evidence of multiple light sources is all around. First of all, our perception of light, shade and shadows would be very different when standing in an atmosphere-free environment. The astronauts had a hard time judging distances on the Moon, for example. I recall watching a TV programme a while back that specialises in testing empirically commonly-held beliefs. I think it's called Mythbusters. They did several investigations into the main points made by the "moon-landings-were-a-hoax" crowd. They specifically looked at the issue of light seeming to come from more than one direction. I forget the details, but they discovered that the effects noticed in photographs could be explained. The key point is that the light conditions on the Moon are very different to those on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 There is a clip on youtube of Buzz Aldrin ****ting somebody who asked him to his face -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU I just can't believe someone would name their child Buzz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 I recall watching a TV programme a while back that specialises in testing empirically commonly-held beliefs. I think it's called Mythbusters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 For an exhaustive debunking of the conspiracy theory check out Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" web site. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 December, 2012 Share Posted 11 December, 2012 Is there any reason why I've never seen any modern day photos of the moon landing sites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 December, 2012 This has been debunked. It's not fringes of photography, it's the nature of the light coloured rock. I'll take your "nature of light coloured rock" and raise this one. Nature of light coloured astronauts? [video=youtube_share;OEhHTgBsUOc]http://youtu.be/OEhHTgBsUOc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now