Its being used fairly accurately in this context - belief in these conspiracy theories requires ignorance tbh...
So the moon landing was faked!
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
Its being used fairly accurately in this context - belief in these conspiracy theories requires ignorance tbh...
I remember once seeing some footage in one of these hoax supporting films where Apollo 11 was supposedly about half way to the moon and one of the astronauts was filming the earth out the window. The earth appeared relatively small as would be expected.
In the excerpt I seem to remember they had some black circular cloth taped to the window and it momentarily falls away revealing that they were actually in low earth orbit and not half way to the moon as the the astronauts were claiming. The camera had been placed way back in the craft away from the window and cloth with the hole in the middle was to make the earth look small.
I seemed quite compelling for moon hoax at the time. Was this ever debunked?
In the excerpt I seem to remember they had some black circular cloth taped to the window and it momentarily falls away revealing that they were actually in low earth orbit and not half way to the moon as the the astronauts were claiming. The camera had been placed way back in the craft away from the window and cloth with the hole in the middle was to make the earth look small.
I seemed quite compelling for moon hoax at the time. Was this ever debunked?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
- Location
- Newbury
The Apollo 11 footage yes. You're aware that 14-17 had far better cameras?
You're just going to ignore all the other footage to make your point on just that one clip?
http://apollo-history-and-hoax.com/Apollo11/index.html
This site seems to cover it
Edit: This site covers debunking just about all the conspiracy theories http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
Last edited:
Does anyone even care if they were?
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever if Armstrong was first on the moon or if it was Ron Jeremy.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I do so please don't speak for me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 19,893
- Location
- Wales
Oh lord.
For anyone who wants to have their brain turned to mush by stupidity go on youtube and read the comments on 'Dr Brian Cox on Faking the Moon Landings'. Can't link because of swearing but the video is good
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I'm just watching the latest Ancient Aliens 505 and this one is so daft that even Giorgio hasn't had much to say so he's leaving the real nutters to it.
Oh yeah, Einstein & Tesla are Aliens or were picking up ESP transmissions from Aliens.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,303
I'm surprised there are adults that exist today who think we didn't go to the moon, the human mind is so awesome, yet in most people's heads its wasted!!
My response to those that think it was faked is much the same as Brian Cox's, seriously .... I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone of something, that they fail to reach upon observation of reality itself, if reality cannot convince them, how would another person?
My response to those that think it was faked is much the same as Brian Cox's, seriously .... I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone of something, that they fail to reach upon observation of reality itself, if reality cannot convince them, how would another person?
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 5,434
- Location
- Bristol
I think the conspiracy theorists are overestimating the capabilites of us humans. We're capable of getting to the moon but not capable of keeping something as big as a faked moon landing under wraps. It would have been exposed before apollo 11 took off.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 19,893
- Location
- Wales
wat
Lol ^
Lol ^
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
You know, might it's just a clever strategy to force NASA send more men (and women, let's not discriminate) to the moon again (yes! again!). Just to visit the original moon landings. Maybe even make a grand tour.
On second thoughts, maybe not. Would just attract more bellowings of fakery from the tinfoil hat brigade.
The only solution I can see that satisfies everyone, shoot them all to the moon with a huge cannon, so they can see it for themselves.
On second thoughts, maybe not. Would just attract more bellowings of fakery from the tinfoil hat brigade.
The only solution I can see that satisfies everyone, shoot them all to the moon with a huge cannon, so they can see it for themselves.
I paid a lot of attention to them. I spent quite some time poring over the arguments and evidence. I found out that the "holes" are nothing, just a mixture of ignorance and lies. The conspiracy "theory" isn't a theory in any sense of the word, let alone the accurate one (i.e. in a scientific context). It's just a collection of lies and ignorance. It's remarkable and quite saddening that more than a handful of otherwise sane people believe it. Most conspiracy believers are so ignorant of the subject that they think there was only 1 moon landing!
Feel free to say what you think those "holes" are. I'll cheerfully debunk anything you think you've got.
1) You'd have to put a satellite so close to the moon that it would be a lunar mission itself. The lander isn't very big and it doesn't emit anything, so it takes a relatively close pass to be able to photograph it. That would be expensive.
2) It would serve no purpose. The faithful believe that all evidence of any moon landing is fake. Why would yet another photo convince them? There are hundreds of photos already, as well as lots of video, and it's far, far easier to fake photos today than it was 40 years ago.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 9,511
Mythbusters proved it was real....end of thread...close it up guys!
Wrong. Your belief is of less merit because it is factually incorrect. For any testable hypothesis, it is obviously not true that all opinions are of equal merit.
It is possible for a person to do the necessary calculations with a pen and paper. They are not hugely complex. A person can't do them quickly enough, but it doesn't take much of a computer to do simple calculations a lot more quickly than a person can. With custom hardware and a practically unlimited budget, 1960s computing technology was adequate for the job. Most of the heavy computational work was done by mainframes on Earth - I'm talking about the calculations that had to be done on the fly in the spaceship.
There were 5 missions afterwards during which people visited the moon. Most conspiracy believers are so ignorant of the subject that they don't even know that.I also cannot for one second see why no one has visited since... Other than they needed the studio time for Star Wars
As for why nobody has visited since those 6 missions, the answer is extremely simple and obvious: cost/benefit analysis. A manned lunar mission is extremely expensive and has little benefit.
Doing it a few times in 1969 and the early 1970s had a huge political benefit for the USA in particular but also for other countries. The USSR was well ahead of them in space and was trumpeting that fact as proof that communism was superior to capitalism. Some people were listening. Since there was a global conflict between the two political systems and some countries might go either way (you're probably aware of communist revolutions and wars in various places), the USSR's superiority in space had political weight. Communism gives clear results, leading to technological superiority! Start the revolution in your country! So it was beneficial for the USA to pull out all the stops to rapidly catch up and unequivocally exceed them. USSR can put a person into space...the USA will put people on the moon! Up yours pal, our way is so superior that we can start from well behind in an area we didn't care about and still overtake you in a few years and vastly exceed you in 10 years. Then they did it again a few times to rub the USSR's face in it and show it wasn't a fluke - we can do it any time we like, you can't do it at all because your system is inferior to ours.
Once that point was firmly made, the benefit of manned moon missions disappeared. The reasons that were left did not warrant the huge expense of doing it.
EDIT: Damn it, I forgot the most obvious counter-argument. Faking 6 manned moon landings to such an extreme extent would require much more advanced technology than doing them for real, so your argument is silly.
Last edited:
Yes. Hours and hours of it.
The opposing argument has no evidence. I've looked at what they claim it evidence and it isn't - that's what I mean when I say there's absolutely no evidence.
It's a mixture of lies and ignorance. In particular, many people make the understandable mistake of subconsciously assuming something is fake because it doesn't match what they'd expect to see based on conditions on Earth. We're all used solely to conditions on Earth and it's not instinctive to take into account the fact that conditions on the moon are very different.
I'll do each of your ideas, one at a time.
There is no soil on the moon. You're illustrating the point I made just above - you're assuming Earth conditions on the moon. It's understandable. It's completely wrong.
The material of the lunar surface (which isn't soil) was disturbed underneath the landing craft. The disturbance is much less than you're expecting because you're assuming Earth conditions. I'm belabouring that point because it's an extremely easy assumption to make and a difficult one to stop making. On Earth, landing something directly downwards onto a dry, dusty surface using a rocket for braking would throw up loads of dust and displace the material for a sizeable distance around the lander. On the moon, it wouldn't. There are two reasons for that. The lesser reason is that you'd be using a much less powerful rocket due to the much lower mavity (the rocket on the lunar lander had a throttle). The greater reason is that there's no air on the moon. As a result, the only material that is disturbed is the material directly under the rocket. On Earth, the majority of the disturbed material would be disturbed by the air moved by the rocket. Which can't happen on the moon, as there's no air. Very different conditions, very different results.
No soil on the moon. It's not Earth. The conditions are not the same. I think I need to continue belabouring that point.
It was daytime. How many stars do you see in the daytime from the surface of the Earth? It's none, isn't it? Do you conclude that your presence on Earth is faked? Even if you could see stars from the moon during daytime (and you can't), no camera could photograph them. Any exposure that would pick up the relatively faint light from the stars would be completely whited out by the far more intense light from the sun.
An effect which happens on some surfaces on Earth in some conditions. Do you think that deserts and snowfields on Earth are fakes? The multiple light sources are the sun and sunlight reflected off the surface.
There is no evidence of the flag being moved by wind.
In photos, the flag is rippled. Some people interpret this as movement. That is not evidence - it's interpretation. The flag was of course held up by a crosspiece perpendicular to the pole. Otherwise it would have just collapsed down around the pole, which would have defeated the point. The crosspiece was not long enough, so the flag could not be fully extended. On the first trip, that was because the crosspiece, which was telescopic to save space, stuck and couldn't be fully extended. On later trips, it was done that way deliberately because the rippling looked better...and it looked better because that's what we expect on Earth. We're back to the point I'm belabouring again.
In video, it's the same point again. The flag is definitely moving in some video, without anyone touching it. That proves it's being moved by wind, right? Wrong. It would prove that if it was on Earth. Conditions are different on the moon. The pole, with the flag on it, was worked into the lunar surface by hand, with a degree of twisting. The flag therefore moved as the pole was being moved, since it was attached to the pole. On Earth, that movement would stop very soon after the movement of the pole stopped, damped out by air resistance and mavity. On the moon, there's no air resistance at all and the mavity is much less. If you go to the moon and twist a flagpole with a flag on it, the flag will keep moving for quite a while after you stop moving the pole - more than long enough for someone to video it.
The arguments countering those suppositions (not facts) are easily available to anyone who looks and very easily understood. You never bothered checking anything - you just believed what you were told without any questioning at all, despite the fact that the overall message you swallowed is wildly implausible and makes no sense anyway.
You may not be a tinfoil hatter, but you're holding a tinfoil hat and thinking that it might be a good idea to wear it.
Last edited: