So the moon landing was faked!

SlyReaper said:
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.
Click to expand...

Regardless of atmosphere, some experts retain that there should still be some indication of dust disturbance from the thrusters.

SlyReaper said:
No soil on the landing feet? That's a new one on me, but why would you expect dust on the landing feet?
Click to expand...

This dust would be kicked out onto the landing feet.

SlyReaper said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that this could be the case, but some photographers debate this.

SlyReaper said:
Multiple light sources: no. Just no. This one has been covered so many times, but there was only one light source.
Click to expand...

Well, actually yes.


I think to say conclusively either way, is foolish. That's my opinion.
 
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...

Erm it's really not that difficult to work out a lot of the maths for it (relatively speaking). I suppose in your world the explanation for why aircraft fly is the combination of a superfast computer and witchcraft :p
 
Dimple said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your second point really sums it up tbh...
 
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...

ironic really - you are talking about yourself and don't realise.

If you put something together and we come back with solid scientific reasons why you are wrong are you prepared to change your mind? somehow i doubt it.
 
Deific said:
Regardless of atmosphere, some experts retain that there should still be some indication of dust disturbance from the thrusters.



This dust would be kicked out onto the landing feet.



I don't disagree that this could be the case, but some photographers debate this.



Well, actually yes.


I think to say conclusively either way, is foolish. That's my opinion.
Click to expand...

1 - nope, any dust was blown away during landing.
2 - nope, physics in low mavity doesn't work like that. you are making an assumption based on earth observations and they are not relevant here.
3 - clearly some photographers are morons - why on earth would you believe anything a photographer says.
4 - actually no. multiple lights would give multiple shadows - show me any photo with multiple shadows. you can't because there aren't any. the multiple shadow theory comes from the the shadows pointing in different directions - easily explained as shadows will change based on the elevation/slope of the ground they are projected onto - really simple stuff even a child should be able to figure out.
 
Deific said:
Regardless of atmosphere, some experts retain that there should still be some indication of dust disturbance from the thrusters.



This dust would be kicked out onto the landing feet.



I don't disagree that this could be the case, but some photographers debate this.



Well, actually yes.


I think to say conclusively either way, is foolish. That's my opinion.
Click to expand...

So your argument boils down to a small minority of so-called experts still refusing to listen to the evidence?

The dust thing: if you actually sit down and work out the pressure that those thrusts would have exerted on the lunar soil, it works out as a very small number. Also, the dust itself is not like dust on Earth. It's made of very small very sharp shards that lock together. It's how Neil Armstrong's footprint came out so clearly without instantly collapsing in on itself. It would have taken quite a lot of thrust to visibly dislodge any of that dust.

The light sources thing is explained by the fact that the moon's surface is uneven. A shadow on a sloped surface would appear to be going in a different direction to a shadow on an even surface. That's just how geometry works.
 
aardvark said:
1 - nope, any dust was blown away during landing.
2 - nope, physics in low mavity doesn't work like that. you are making an assumption based on earth observations and they are not relevant here.
3 - clearly some photographers are morons - why on earth would you believe anything a photographer says.
4 - actually no. multiple lights would give multiple shadows - show me any photo with multiple shadows. you can't because there aren't any. the multiple shadow theory comes from the the shadows pointing in different directions - easily explained as shadows will change based on the elevation/slope of the ground they are projected onto - really simple stuff even a child should be able to figure out.
Click to expand...

You are being aggressive, this is why people tend to ignore rational thought when it is put across so invasively.
 
lets not forget that a probe recently sent back photo's of the landing site, showing the tire tracks and the equipment left behind - but then a suppose they faked them too???
 
aardvark said:
lets not forget that a probe recently sent back photo's of the landing site, showing the tire tracks and the equipment left behind - but then a suppose they faked them too???
Click to expand...

That means nothing to no one but the people who made them, thus is largely irrelevant...NASA is known for photoshoping images (Red Mars) to make them look better, so that just compounds the reasoning behind it.

It really doesn't matter honestly, this will continue to til the day we get a moonbase and someone does a carbon dating on the module.

Yes it is very much a waste of effort, but it is also a waste of effort refuting without first hand information anyway (well in a perfectly sure sense).
 
aardvark said:
lets not forget that a probe recently sent back photo's of the landing site, showing the tire tracks and the equipment left behind - but then a suppose they faked them too???
Click to expand...

There's landing sites and tracks on Mars, doesn't mean there's actually been anyone there though...

And radio transmissions can easily be faked, I once convinced a guy in the next town I was Russian Tank Commander on a CB once.

I actually watched that YouTube clip in the OP and that could easily have been done by broadcasting a 'Live' feed of a Filmed event by pointing a TV camera at the projection screen, the broadcast quality was so bad back then, no one would ever notice and you could have long periods of nothing happening by simply freeze-framing the film and broadcasting the still frame 'Live' which definitely would not need the thousands of feet of 35mm the guy claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom