So the moon landing was faked!

It happened, 6 times, by 12 people.

The USA and Russia landed plenty on probes on the surface first, taking many photos and bringing rock samples back.
The Russians would have proved otherwise were it not true, or landed themselves instead for the HUGE political advantage it would have given.
They brought back 382 kilograms of moon rocks, which have been tested by various means and have the same composition as samples from a Russian probe.
Lunar missions were tracked by radar by several countries.
More recent lunar probes have photographed the landing sites.
There are mirrors placed on the surface used for distance measurement, which you can bounce lasers off yourself.
 
gillywibble said:
Who said it annoys me? I said it wasn't worth debating on here. It's okay for someone to infer I'm a nut job but I can't defend myself and say that people who can't see the holes are sheep?

Have it your way.
Click to expand...

When you make wild assertions with no argument to back it up (beyond vague inferences to "holes"), then yes, that makes you a nutjob.
 
gillywibble said:
Pointless debating any conspiracy theory on this forum. There are so many holes in the Apollo missions but very few people are willing to pay any attention to them.
Click to expand...

1) What exactly did my Grandad (who was a Ham Radio buff) follow all the way to the moon? I sat with him watching the flight, landing etc on the TV while he bought the actual voice transmission in on his Ham Radio. What clever technology was able to produce that?

2) If absolutely nothing else convinces you then why did America's biggest enemy Russia totally accept America landed on the moon? If America didn't land on the moon we would definitely have known about it from Russia.
 
Flukester said:
Tech simply was not there IMHO. This is my belief and of no less merit than anyone else's. No one here actually knows better either which is the lol factor.

Do you guys actually realise just how primitive computers were back then ?, and just how complex the mission would have been.

I also cannot for one second see why no one has visited since... Other than they needed the studio time for Star Wars :-)
Click to expand...

If you're being serious, do you acknowledge the existence of this system?

If so, how did they get there? If not, do you think the people who claim to have used these for measuring the distance between the earth and the moon are also in on the conspiracy?

In terms of computing power, what do you think they needed to do which required so much power? You can do a lot with minimal resources if you're careful with how you design the architecture/write the code. It's not as if they had to run some form of desktop GUI with loads of background services.
 
Have those disregarding conspiracy theorists on the subject as 'tinfoil hatters' actually done any research into the debate either way? Because to say there's absolutely no evidence to say the moon landing is faked, just screams to me that you haven't even looked at the opposing argument at all.

Personally I'm unsure either way, however there is rather compelling evidence to suggest it was faked such as: no disturbance of soil underneath the landing craft, no soil on the landing craft feet, lack of stars in certain photos, multiple light sources creating multiple directional shadows, the flag flying despite lack of atmosphere etc.

There's plenty of holes in the entire thing, but to these people, despite the fact that I've said I'm unsure either way, the very fact that I'm even open to these compelling facts means I am a tin foil hatter and should be mocked, despite them being unable to give reasonable arguments to counter these facts.
 
Dimple said:
2) If absolutely nothing else convinces you then why did America's biggest enemy Russia totally accept America landed on the moon? If America didn't land on the moon we would definitely have known about it from Russia.
Click to expand...

Hell, I think somebody on the inside would have already taken their pieces of silver to expose it all once the Cold War was over if it really was faked. I don't imagine NASA's 401k package is particularly brilliant given how tenuous their funding is.
 
SlyReaper said:
When you make wild assertions with no argument to back it up (beyond vague inferences to "holes"), then yes, that makes you a nutjob.
Click to expand...

Fine. I will put something together and report back. However, I doubt very much whether it will change your mind because as I said previously, the brain simply does not want to disbelieve something that was once believed.
 
Deific said:
Have those disregarding conspiracy theorists on the subject as 'tinfoil hatters' actually done any research into the debate either way? Because to say there's absolutely no evidence to say the moon landing is faked, just screams to me that you haven't even looked at the opposing argument at all.
Click to expand...

Over and over and over and over again.
Every crackpot theory can be easily explained away by the experts.
Here's a good start and please read it - http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
 
Deific said:
Have those disregarding conspiracy theorists on the subject as 'tinfoil hatters' actually done any research into the debate either way? Because to say there's absolutely no evidence to say the moon landing is faked, just screams to me that you haven't even looked at the opposing argument at all.

Personally I'm unsure either way, however there is rather compelling evidence to suggest it was faked such as: no disturbance of soil underneath the landing craft, no soil on the landing craft feet, lack of stars in certain photos, multiple light sources creating multiple directional shadows, the flag flying despite lack of atmosphere etc.

There's plenty of holes in the entire thing, but to these people, despite the fact that I've said I'm unsure either way, the very fact that I'm even open to these compelling facts means I am a tin foil hatter and should be mocked, despite them being unable to give reasonable arguments to counter these facts.
Click to expand...

Yes. See here for a list of reasons which should explain each point. Obviously none of us can verify these explanations first hand, but for the points I've read up on the evidence is still strongly in favour of a successful moon landing.
 
I think the main lesson here today is to doubt everything, even if it is/seems true.

You problem with most if not all conspiracy theories, is that they are innately vague.
 
Flukester said:
Tech simply was not there IMHO. This is my belief and of no less merit than anyone else's. No one here actually knows better either which is the lol factor.

Do you guys actually realise just how primitive computers were back then ?, and just how complex the mission would have been.

I also cannot for one second see why no one has visited since... Other than they needed the studio time for Star Wars :-)
Click to expand...

It takes relatively little computing power to equate formulae regarding mavity/masses/forces etc, It's all just maths and computations.
You're not running all the other background crud or advances graphical modelling which we do these days.

Were the 'primitive' computer systems not able to break the enigma code back in the 40s? How complex was that?
 
Deific said:
there is rather compelling evidence to suggest it was faked such as: no disturbance of soil underneath the landing craft, no soil on the landing craft feet, lack of stars in certain photos, multiple light sources creating multiple directional shadows, the flag flying despite lack of atmosphere etc.
Click to expand...

The soil underneath wasn't visibly disturbed because the engine to lift off and land was weak. 1/6th mavity and the fact that the LEM was very light meant it didn't need a lot of thrust to get off the ground. If you were expecting clouds of dust to billow up, you wouldn't see that because there's no atmosphere. Any dust kicked upwards would follow a perfectly parabolic arc back to the ground.

No soil on the landing feet? That's a new one on me, but why would you expect dust on the landing feet?

No stars: the photos had their exposure set for broad daylight because they were on the daylight side of the moon. The glare from the moon's high-albedo surface would have washed out the comparatively dim stars.

Multiple light sources: no. Just no. This one has been covered so many times (basically the lunar surface is uneven), but there was only one light source.

Flag: it was not "flying", it was unfurling after being contained in a cannister. The movement is precisely what you would expect to see.
 
Last edited:
Phil99 said:
Yes. See here for a list of reasons which should explain each point. Obviously none of us can verify these explanations first hand, but for the points I've read up on the evidence is still strongly in favour of a successful moon landing.
Click to expand...

Many of the answers to the arguments on that page are non-conclusive though, such as light sources being reflected from earth and refracted by lunar dust. These counter-arguments have also been debated by experts, so I still see it as an open discussion rather than conclusive either way.
 
Apart from anything else, the trajectory of the dust kicked up as astronauts move around on the moon is consistent with lunar mavity in a vacuum. This isn't something that can be replicated by simply "slowing down time" on filmed footage. Besides - think of the mechanics of trying to create a vacuum within a studio large enough to house a "lunar" set... Mind boggling.

So, unless NASA had some kind of giant "anti-mavity device", and a massive hermetically-sealed film studio with walls strong enough to overcome the pressure differential, the fake lunar landing theory is pretty much a no-go. This, of course, sits alongside the mountain of other evidence.

When analysing a theory (of any kind) one takes a balanced view of the evidence. Having one piece of evidence which, at first glance, appears not to quite fit is not reason to dismiss the mountain of evidence to the contrary. This is the basic scientific methodology, and has led to the technological advances we all enjoy today.
 
gillywibble said:
Fine. I will put something together and report back. However, I doubt very much whether it will change your mind because as I said previously, the brain simply does not want to disbelieve something that was once believed.
Click to expand...

Is it because the brain doesn't want to disbelieve, or because the conspiracy theorys are a joke? I'll await and read your post though.
 
If anyone actually watched the video it basically comes down to "we didn't have the video tech to fake it". Conspiracy theorists will find the holes in this as with everything else, even though he makes a good point.

If you think the moon landings were actually fake, there's nothing wrong with you, you aren't a nutjob, you're just being human. We love a story, we love to go against common sense, we enjoy the dramatic. The boring old science and politics behind it is just that, boring. Do not let the truth get in the way of having fun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom