So the moon landing was faked!

[AndyT]

It won't be the first time or the last time that the so called "scientific community" or best explained by the notion of the "scientific consensus" has been completely wrong or worse, has been fooled in to believing a lie.

Classic. "so called scientists".

If qualified, intelligent people who have studied and gained experience in their chosen fields, form a group; each independently working to corroborate or refute each other's claims for the advancement of humanity cannot refer to themselves as a scientific community then we are truly doomed.

"So called scientists"

Jesus wept. These really are the ramblings of a mad man.

 

[csmager]

There's a fair bit of plain old guff in this one.

Round about 3:35, starts talking about the background to the display segments being the wrong colour and LCD's being invented. Total rubbish, They look like BCD (or similar) coded segments (the whole world used them a few decades back, prior to LCD's becoming popular) They look light in colour because the are simply missing semi-opaque covers that they shine through when assembled

It's probably worse than that - the ONE piece of evidence he has is that photo. If you look at the rest of the photo, it's very overexposed. Some other guy on youtube has dug out a better version of the same photo, and the 'white' backgrounds come out a dark grey.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Don't do it gillywibble, they'll jump on it like a pack of hounds and find a morsel of incorrect information which somehow proves the entire reference wrong.
[..]

The entire reference will be incorrect information, so they'll be no need to go hunting for morsels.

That's assuming that gillywibble has anything at all, which is unlikely. None of the silly conspiracy believers ever come up with anything new. They just repeat the same old untruths that have been repeatedly shown false, on the basis that repeated lies will eventually stick to some extent. They've had considerable success in that approach - millions of people who haven't spent any time looking at any evidence have at least partially fallen for their con and think the moon landing (singular - most people don't even know there were more than one) might be fake.

EDIT: OK, he did come up with it in the end and there are some things I haven't seen before (e.g. the claim that it wasn't Yuri Gagarin in the first manned spaceflight). He's defeated me with volume - I'm not going to watch hours of rubbish video in order to counter it minute by minute.

 

[PhillyDee]

The lies that premeditate are not always scientific discoveries, but they are events that occur one way or another, as a result of the event it might bring in to question truths that are attempted to be verified using scientific means. These scientific means may very well be verifiable and true. That does not mean however that the event occurred.

If these events turn out to be incorrect then people that held certain scientific ideas as fact and that worked in fields where that was relevant, they would/should lose credibility in their respective fields, but i find that unlikely to ever happen.

Examples then. Which 'lies'?

 

[Angilion]

Conversely there's weaker mavity on the moon so you might expect the dust to be launched higher?

I would expect it to be launched higher than it would be on Earth in a vacuum. Most of the movement of dust on Earth is very strongly affected by air.

Probably more to do with the scattering of sunlight by the Earth's atmosphere...I'm sure that with the naked eye you could see stars from the lunar surface in "daytime". Maybe I'm wrong. Like you go on to say though camera exposure far more plausible as explanation for 'missing stars' I would've thought?

Edit:- Having read up on it, it would seem that scattering of sunlight from the lunar surface would be sufficient.

Stars can't be seen from the ISS during daytime either, so the scattering isn't necessary. Is anyone claiming that the ISS (and Mir, etc) are all fake too?

It might be theoretically possible to see stars during daytime, but not with human eyes or human technology detecting visible light. Human eyes are very good generalist eyes, but they have their limits.

 

[Angilion]

It wouldn’t surprise me to find out some of the photos or videos are edited or fake but that does not mean the entire thing is. It could be they just wanted to some fake shots that look really good for PR reasons. [..]

The editing for PR reasons was cropping and selection because the astronauts weren't perfect with their photography. It was a very awkward way to take photos, so despite a lot of practice they were off on many photos. NASA has loads of crap photos from the Apollo missions. They just selected the best photos for the media and, where necessary, cropped otherwise good photos where the subject wasn't centred. Photo film is compact and light, so they could send loads of it up. Video is a different kettle of fish - there's no evidence of any alteration in that. Video editing and manipulation may be easy today, but it certainly wasn't 40 years ago.

 

[gillywibble]

EDIT: OK, he did come up with it in the end and there are some things I haven't seen before (e.g. the claim that it wasn't Yuri Gagarin in the first manned spaceflight). He's defeated me with volume - I'm not going to watch hours of rubbish video in order to counter it minute by minute.

That's one small step for gillywibble.

 

[Angilion]

I have read what Van Allen wrote.

No, you haven't.

You have read carefully selected parts of some sentences that he wrote, deliberately taken out of context.

That's not the same thing at all.

Hanging around in the van Allen belts would kill you. Zipping through the weakest points as fast as possible inside a shielded spaceship wouldn't. That's what van Allen wrote. Repeatedly. Without changing his mind because he was basing his opinion on evidence and the evidence hasn't changed.

I can do with my words what you do with van Allen's words. It's simple:

the van Allen belts would kill you

According to your line of argument, I'm saying that it's impossible for a person to move through the van Allen belts without dying. Which, obviously, is the opposite of what I'm actually saying.

 

[Angilion]

No the reason for NASA was what I said. When it comes specific to why they didn't just fly to the moon, if they said they were going to, why instead go through all the "hassle" of faking it. Well I can assure you that actually going to the moon is far more hassle than faking it.

And I can assure you that faking it in 1969 was not just far more hassle than doing it for real, but downright impossible.

We know that NASA had spent a mind-boggling fortune inventing, developing and building everything necessary for a manned lunar mission. Even if they were faking it, they'd still need all the kit and infrastructure to point at when people asked "How did you do it?". Obviously, they'd need to be able to reply "We did it with this."

We know that NASA spent a shipload more money doing lunar missions at the relevant times. We know this because thousands of people tracked the signals in real time (which required continuous physical movement of antenna, which proves that the source was moving) and because the reflector array appeared on the moon.

So the question isn't "Why would they fake it?" but "Why would they fake it when they could have done it for real?"

Even if faking it was possible in 1969 (which it wasn't), what would have been the point in faking it, which would have required spending another shipload of money and running the huge risk of exposure? It would have been cheaper and far safer to do it for real.

The only consistent explanation is that aliens contacted the Secret Rulers of the Earth (whoever you believe they are - maybe the aliens themselves), ordered them to abort the manned lunar missions program and used their advanced alien technology to fake all the evidence and control the minds of the people who knew too much to be fooled.

 

[JonSmith]

According to the maths astronauts receive a very small dose of radiation from passing through the belt. In fact, the belt itself is concentrated around the magnetic poles so there exists a trajectory where you can almost complete avoid the effects of the belt.

The main threat is from cosmic radiation after leaving the safety of the Earth's magnetic field. However, the dose for 3 days of travel to the moon and back is still well below the maximum safe limit for a human.

The capsule was also radiation hardened using a dense polymer weave, which is good for trapping the relatively large particles that the field contains as well as aluminium shielding to protect from high energy waves.

 

[413x]

hath not this dead horse been beaten enough??

no point really entertaining either idea.
most evidence pints to yes

proof enough for me (because the scientist in me thinks its not impossible it was fakes) would be pics from an independant body via some sort of satellite mounted telescope sent there
there would still be sceptics (usa bribed them)

its a great way to get people to waste their time..true or not

 

[Combat squirrel]

I started typing out a reply, but then I though, why bother. I mean seriously, whats the point. Even if we flew groen up there, and rubbed his nose in Neil Armstrongs boot print, he would still deny it.

LOL

This just tickled me this did, eeeeee byy gum I was in stitches with that comment, utter genius.

Thank you sir, have some internet cookiez

And groen is just immeasurably stupid, like - it cannot be real level of ignorance

 

[Combat squirrel]

Because they couldn't get through the Van Allen belt and still can't.

Ha !!

I think I have solved your riddle!

Your sig says, I drink therefore I spam, is that it ?

Is this the bit where you say, well spotted, im actually not a blithering idiot who cannot do science or believes what his eyes are telling him and it was all a joke until someone spotted my sig?

Well played sir, well played, Can I have my interweb cookie now?

 

[Flibster]

Just read the entire thread...

*whimper*

 

[timbob]

Gillywibble:

It's too late at night (with work in the morning) to look into debunking each and every single point one by one, but here's a start (in no particular order):

a) The Saturn 5 did not orbit the Earth. It separated to fall into the sea after only a couple of minutes. The second stage burned for five or six more minutes before doing the same. The Saturn IVb third stage did reach orbit, and made it's Trans Lunar Injection burn to set it on a course to the moon. These TLI burns were visible from the nightside of the earth, and many were witnessed and documented independently.

leading me nicely to...

b) Werner von Braun is talking about flying directly to the moon. We did not do this, as it would indeed a ship bigger than the QE2 blah blah blah. What NASA did do was to make clever use of orbital mechanics and low energy transfer orbits. Read up on the Trans Lunar Injection about, and the Lunar Orbit Insertion. If all else fails, go play Kerbal Space Program.

c) The waving Apollo 15 flag. Clearly waving in the video before the astronaut went past it.

d) Van Allen Belt - debunked a MILLION times already.

e) Core Rope Memory not possible... Pull the other one! This man spent 4 years poring over the NASA blueprints for the Apollo Guidance Computer and made his own fully functional replica. Even down to winding his own core rope memory. It works. It even spits out the correct results to the sums it had to do to get NASA's guys to the moon.

You've put a decent amount of effort into your post, which is to your credit - it's just a shame it's all barking up entirely the wrong tree, essentially trying to defend the indefensible...!

When a major point in your conspiracy theory revolves around my point b) above - latching onto an old quote about it being impossible to fly DIRECTLY to the moon, when that was never NASA's plan in the first place... And you deemed it a point worthy of inclusion in your arguments...?! You have to wonder just how many straws the other points are clutching at!

 

[Combat squirrel]

Gillywibble:

It's too late at night (with work in the morning) to look into debunking each and every single point one by one, but here's a start (in no particular order):

a) The Saturn 5 did not orbit the Earth. It separated to fall into the sea after only a couple of minutes. The second stage burned for five or six more minutes before doing the same. The Saturn IVb third stage did reach orbit, and made it's Trans Lunar Injection burn to set it on a course to the moon. These TLI burns were visible from the nightside of the earth, and many were witnessed and documented independently.

leading me nicely to...

b) Werner von Braun is talking about flying directly to the moon. We did not do this, as it would indeed a ship bigger than the QE2 blah blah blah. What NASA did do was to make clever use of orbital mechanics and low energy transfer orbits. Read up on the Trans Lunar Injection about, and the Lunar Orbit Insertion. If all else fails, go play Kerbal Space Program.

c) The waving Apollo 15 flag. Clearly waving in the video before the astronaut went past it.

d) Van Allen Belt - debunked a MILLION times already.

e) Core Rope Memory not possible... Pull the other one! This man spent 4 years poring over the NASA blueprints for the Apollo Guidance Computer and made his own fully functional replica. Even down to winding his own core rope memory. It works. It even spits out the correct results to the sums it had to do to get NASA's guys to the moon.

You've put a decent amount of effort into your post, which is to your credit - it's just a shame it's all barking up entirely the wrong tree, essentially trying to defend the indefensible...!

When a major point in your conspiracy theory revolves around my point b) above - latching onto an old quote about it being impossible to fly DIRECTLY to the moon, when that was never NASA's plan in the first place... And you deemed it a point worthy of inclusion in your arguments...?! You have to wonder just how many straws the other points are clutching at!

Thank you timbob for an interesting and thought provoking post

I did not know that a guy built an apollo computer in his basement, this is most awesome, I shall have a read

 

[Blue160]

proof enough for me would be pics from an independant body via some sort of satellite mounted telescope sent there

This has actually happened. The pics have been posted on this thread a few times.

Edit: can't find them after a quick scan through

There's a good list of independant evidence here though including the photos:-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

 

[gillywibble]

You've put a decent amount of effort into your post, which is to your credit - it's just a shame it's all barking up entirely the wrong tree, essentially trying to defend the indefensible...!

There are still numerous points waiting to be debunked, not least the impossible transmission delays that have been conveniently ignored so far.

Thank you timbob for an interesting and thought provoking post

I did not know that a guy built an apollo computer in his basement, this is most awesome, I shall have a read

Agreed on both counts.

 

[Spook187]

 

[alexthecheese]

That is immense. How cool is that? Seriously, seriously cool - that's how cool.