So the moon landing was faked!

Flukester · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:44

csmager said:
Can you think of any plausible reason that this would aid a cover up?!

It could be as simple as the TV broadcast signal du jour was incompatible with the video cameras used to make the footage, and that this was the simplest solution.

For the simple reason a 1960s tv camera filming me running around the garden, then being shown on a 1960s black and white tv, then being filmed on a 1960s camera and being shot across 1960s analog satellites and being shown on finally on a 1960s tv .....would have looked like I was on moon also

Sorry for the long sentence, but it's a fair point

"andy" · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:44

landing on the moon was and still is easier to actually do than to get the hundreds of thousands whom where directly and indirectly involved to cover it up...

do people think no one questioned it at the time or something ?

RDM · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:45

gillywibble said:
The counter argument to that is look how well it was covered up for so many years

It would be a poor counter because there have been allegations of Lance Armstrong taking drugs since 1999.

Unsurprisingly the allegations of fake moon landings started to really take off with the advent of the internet and the few before that were still decades after the original moon landings.

Sadly quite a few gullible people will believe almost anything if it is put up on a website with a youtube video or two.

dowie · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:45

gillywibble said:
I'll cover that point in my analysis.

Are you going to actually present anything new that hasn't already been presented/debunked?
Or is this just going to be a wall of text that only serves to waste peoples time and show yourself up to be a bit credulous?

Have a browse through the following as it might help you cut down on any sections of your 'analysis' that have already been put forth and debunked plenty of times before.

http://www.clavius.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

csmager · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:45

Flukester said:
Sorry for the long sentence, but it's a fair point

So the representatives of the TV companies that were there were in on it too? As presumably we're meant to believe that before the last conversion from TV to broadcast camera, it's possible to tell it was fake?

"andy" · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:46

Castiel said:
I always find it amusing when the same people who deny the moon landings happened also suggest that the Apollo Astronauts saw UFOs and encountered Aliens, both in transit and on the surface.

you see i believe 100% that we landed on the moon but i also find the UFO part very very interesting. some very dodgy quotes in the mission log's from astronauts

Flukester · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:47

csmager said:
So the representatives of the TV companies that were there were in on it too? As presumably we're meant to believe that before the last conversion from TV to broadcast camera, it's possible to tell it was fake?

Of course they were not in on it... NASA just forced that method it was viewed.

csmager · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:48

Flukester said:
Of course they were not in on it... NASA just forced that method it was viewed.

But they were there? It was their camera!

It just seems a little too ridiculous!

gillywibble · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:49

RDM said:
Unsurprisingly the allegations of fake moon landings started to really take off with the advent of the internet.

That makes sense. Access to information is now a fingertip away as well as the sharing of information. This was not available pre-internet.

dowie said:
Are you going to actually present anything new that hasn't already been presented/debunked?

Hopefully.

Kenai · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:49

Flukester said:
Of course they were not in on it... NASA just forced that method it was viewed.

Again, out of interest, where have you heard/read that this was the case?

I can't find anything about it and would like to read more.

[FnG]magnolia · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:49

This thread is a low watermark for GD and is painful to read.

Flukester · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:50

csmager said:
But they were there? It was their camera!

It just seems a little too ridiculous!

Yep, ask NASA to explain, I'd love to hear the technical reason. One further step down in quality and the transmission from the moon would have been crayon drawings by my 1 yr old

SlyReaper · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:52

Could it not simply be because the transmissions from the moon were formatted in a way that would have been hard for TV broadcasters to decode? They could either trust the broadcasters to apply this technical fix, or they could simplify it all by hosting the broadcasts themselves.

Flukester · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:53

Kenai said:
Again, out of interest, where have you heard/read that this was the case?

I can't find anything about it and would look to read more.

Was from some documentary.... But there was never live footage except what was filmed from directly in front of a tv with a camera.

The greatest moment in history was a cam copy lol

csmager · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:54

SlyReaper said:
Could it not simply be because the transmissions from the moon were formatted in a way that would have been hard for TV broadcasters to decode? They could either trust the broadcasters to apply this technical fix, or they could simplify it all by hosting the broadcasts themselves.

That was basically what I suggested earlier, but apparently it must be to cover up a conspiracy.

A quick google on the camera specs will show you the lunar camera is a 10fps low resolution camera (which would make sense due to bandwidth available at huge distance). This would not have been plug and play with the broadcast signals of the day.

deuse · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:55

Kenai said:
Again, out of interest, where have you heard/read that this was the case?

I can't find anything about it and would like to read more.

Nasa used Slow-scan television which was incompatible with normal tv..and Australia got the best pics..also the original video has long gone.

Dr Delphi · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:55

[FnG]magnolia;23598083 said:
This thread is a low watermark for GD and is painful to read.

I totally agree with this sentiment. Quite simply because you can get a laser pulse return from a reflector that was put on the moon during the Apollo missions should be enough proof. Not to mention the more recent images taken with the probe around the moon of the landing sites.

Kenai · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:55

If you could find something a bit more concrete than 'I saw it on TV once' that would be good, as you can imagine i'm having a bit of trouble finding much trying to Google 'NASA moon landing broadcast camera filming a tv'

Squark · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:55

Flukester said:
Erm... You were there on moon ? That is in fact the only way you could be 100% accurate in your assumption. Maybe you are likely to be correct, but would you stake your life on this assumption ?

I wouldn't for sure

The weight of evidence in favour leads me to believe that all 6 manned lunar landings took place, there is no significant evidence to cause me to doubt that belief either.

Also why have you put spaces before the question marks?

m4rk84 · 20 Jan 2013 at 19:57

So let's talk about this picture. It depicts a laser ranging retro-reflector, as can be seen it was manually placed this can be seen by the lack of any rover tracks and only footprints. It can still be used today to bounce lasers off and it's position is known with great accuracy.

What is the theory from conspiracists on how it got there. Was this picture created in a studio with great accuracy, including the exact distance from the landing pod and it's position on the moon?

Did an insanely advanced 2 legged rover go up and place it? because the rovers on the moon would obviously show tracks.