... was it faked?

ALLI · 17 Mar 2006 at 21:45

Raikiri said:
Hmmm, Plonka is actually a US surname. Theres a site dedicated to it

Delboy calls Rodders a "plonka" (maybe plonker)... Can't exactly call him a [rude word for] penis on prime time can he?

cheets64 · 17 Mar 2006 at 21:45

C on a rock, haha, a hair on the negative

MiGSY · 17 Mar 2006 at 21:58

Yes, it was faked.

The moon is also made of cheese.

Glaucus · 17 Mar 2006 at 22:05

Eliot said:
all i can say is since when is there wind on the moon armstrong?

well, thats simple, there is no wind. However the flag was made with stiffy starchy fabric. Held with an aluminuim bar at the top. The "flutter" was simply the aluminium tube vibrating from when they stuck it in the ground. With no air to dampen the vibration it lasted a while. The flag also does not move when they walk past it, also proving there was no air.

RandomTom said:
and I think it was faked, or mediated for an audience to add belief.

How was it faked? they put equipment up there which is still used to day. They brought moon rocks back that can be cerified as lunar rock. Also all knowen conspiracy theories can easly be discounted.

Phantom · 17 Mar 2006 at 22:12

i had live tv paused so am a bit behind...its only just finished! looking at all the evidence theyve presented and the experiments they carried out on earth to recreate it its pretty hard to still say "it was faked"

- case closed me thinks

/awaits 9/11 conspiracy theory documentary

real · 17 Mar 2006 at 22:21

Remember watching a program like this a while back.
It convinced me at the time although I havent properly researched into it I must admit.

Some other points raised that I can remember were: No blast crater under the rockets in the photos. No dust on the feet of the craft (Rockets should have loosened/moved dust which should have settled on the feet). The landscape in the photos supposedly from different areas on the moon look very similar. Official release photos were doctored (Some cross-hairs on the lens of camera behind some rocks).

Anyone know any explanations for these?

Werewolf · 17 Mar 2006 at 22:32

real yup, but you'll have to google them yourself

Hint, the crosshairs thing is a known phenomon that occurs in certain conditions with photographic film (if anything, from memory once you understand why it's happening it reinforces the "moon landings DID happen" camp).

Dust not settling on the feet of the lander, possibly because it wasn't disturbed that much during landing, and a lot of it would have been thrown quuite a distance in the lower gravity.

No crater under the lander - didn't they largely coast in to land (no real use of the ain engines etc)

MiGSY · 17 Mar 2006 at 22:33

Wallace and Gromit landed on the moon, and it was clearly made of cheese.

EXPLAIN THAT...

Andelusion · 17 Mar 2006 at 22:35

I saw a documentary on 5 ages ago about this and that definately let me to believe the landing was fake.

Who the hell really knows? We'll surely never know for sure (unfortunately

).

Inquisitor · 17 Mar 2006 at 22:36

Read these 3 pages from start to finish then tell me it was a hoax.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

The moon landing was real. End of story.

Glaucus · 17 Mar 2006 at 22:37

real said:
Some other points raised that I can remember were: No blast crater under the rockets in the photos. No dust on the feet of the craft (Rockets should have loosened/moved dust which should have settled on the feet). The landscape in the photos supposedly from different areas on the moon look very similar. Official release photos were doctored (Some cross-hairs on the lens of camera behind some rocks).

They where only using 25% thrust when landing. But more important;ly they where gliding sideways accros the moon. This vastly limits whats blowen away.

I suggest anyone who think it's a fake read this page..

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=were_the_moon_landings_faked.php

Theres also records from a radio telescope in manchester that tracked the apolo and listened into there comunications... (it's called the Jodrell Bank Telescope)

The lunar module did not create a blast crater when landing.

1. The lunar module did not hover for long over the landing site. There was no need for an enormous amount of thrust to be used due to the reduced gravity on the Moon, and the exhaust gasses were quickly dispersed into the vacuum; they could not cause disturbance of air molecules around them as they would on Earth.

2. "Moon dust" is not the same as dust or sand on Earth. There is no weathering on the Moon and the particles are jagged in nature; when compressed they stick together. Any particles that were ejected from the lunar surface, by direct contact with exhaust gasses, would have simply have dropped back to the surface. Large clouds of dust cannot form on the Moon as there is no atmosphere in which to suspend the particles.

3. There is evidence that where the module landed, most of the lunar dust was blown away by direct contact with exhaust gasses, revealing the rock below:

The American flag was waving in the breeze, yet the Moon is airless.

This is one of the less serious theories. The only time the flag is seen waving is when it is being planted in the ground. As the astronaut is planting the flag he is twisting the pole back and forth. This induces quite a pronounced waving of the flag. This is because of the lack of an atmosphere. There is nothing to dampen the flag's motion.

It is interesting to note that in other footage astronauts quickly move past the flag, something which could induce motion from disturbed air, yet the flag remains completely still.

real · 17 Mar 2006 at 22:54

Werewolf, if only you had typed the info out and made it easy for me

After doing some reading on the websites given and some others I can say my opinion of the landings being fake has now changed. Or at least I found out that my reasons for thinking it was fake had no substance anyway.

p4radox · 17 Mar 2006 at 23:01

The landings are real. I've read some of the articles from the sites posted in thies thread on previous occasions. every argument the skeptics come up with has been countered.

singist · 17 Mar 2006 at 23:06

Of course it was faked; the aircraft would never have left the treadmill ....

Is that post count mine? .....

JRS · 17 Mar 2006 at 23:11

I didn't watch the show - every time I do sit down and watch the half-baked conspiracy theories get trotted out I get far, far too livid. And I'm going to stop typing here before I get annoyed thinking about it

Rojon · 17 Mar 2006 at 23:19

A while back George Bush said that the next date for going to the moon was set at the year 2018. My question is, why wait that long if technology is so advanced compared to the technology used for the first moon landing?

Sorry, I'm a non-believer!!

Inquisitor · 17 Mar 2006 at 23:20

Rojon said:
A while back George Bush said that the next date for going to the moon was set at the year 2018. My question is, why wait that long if technology is so advanced compared to the technology used for the first moon landing?

Sorry, I'm a non-believer!!

Because there's no need to?

Anyway, what does that have to do with hoaxes? :confused:

Memphis · 17 Mar 2006 at 23:22

Rojon said:
A while back George Bush said that the next date for going to the moon was set at the year 2018. My question is, why wait that long if technology is so advanced compared to the technology used for the first moon landing?

Sorry, I'm a non-believer!!

Oh dear.

Rojon · 17 Mar 2006 at 23:23

Inquisitor said:
Because there's no need to?

Anyway, what does that have to do with hoaxes?

The way I read it was, 2018 would be the first landing cos they have never been there before.

Inquisitor · 17 Mar 2006 at 23:26

Rojon said:
The way I read it was, 2018 would be the first landing cos they have never been there before.

Well that's not very substantial evidence against the moon landing is it?

All the normal ones are far more convincing and they've all been debunked anyway.