... was it faked?

Jotun · 18 Mar 2006 at 18:09

I remember my ex was telling me once about how she'd analised the moon landing video in her film studies class, and the arguments were so weak, the best one was that there are no stars in the sky, i explained that was because they're millions of miles away and the optics on the camera wouldn't be focused on them, of course she didn't know a thing about how cameras worked and just reverted back to other flawed arguments. The only reason she believed it was because her teacher had told her, I don't think she'd even though about it before. Then again she was about as thick as two short planks in a short plank shortening factory.

Many things could be elaborate hoaxes though, that we can't say for sure unless we've been there and seen it for ourselves. Except that even then it could be a hoax, like that channel 4 program space cadets. I could come up with conspiracy theories for a huge amount of things.

For example, the iraq war, only a small amount of people have actualy been there to fight compared to the general population. What's to say it's not a huge hoax with some hidden political agenda? Unless you've been there first hand then you have to just believe what's in the media. It'd make more sense to have a hoax about that than going to the moon surely, certainly would cost less, and would require less people to be in on it.

<sarcasm> Of course, this whole debate is pointless as the hoax is this world is real, and we actualy live in the matrix, so nothing we percieve has actualy happened. </sarcasm>

Heliospherez · 18 Mar 2006 at 18:38

Sorry, but after reading all that - I still think it was faked.

Simply because I know a fair bit about photography and mechanics......and i just dont believe it was possible at that stage of human space exploration. There is no way we had the technology to send humans to the moon (238,857 miles) and get them back alive (after 8 days I recall - with video and photographic evidence)

MrMatteh · 18 Mar 2006 at 18:49

divosuk said:
Sorry, but after reading all that - I still think it was faked.

Simply because I know a fair bit about photography and mechanics......and i just dont believe it was possible at that stage of human space exploration. There is no way we had the technology to send humans to the moon (238,857 miles) and get them back alive (after 8 days I recall - with video and photographic evidence)

but i would say i know a fair amount of mechanics and my housemate (woodsy2k) knows a fair bit about photography. and we are both doing a physics degree.

Inquisitor · 18 Mar 2006 at 18:51

divosuk said:
Sorry, but after reading all that - I still think it was faked.

Simply because I know a fair bit about photography and mechanics......and i just dont believe it was possible at that stage of human space exploration. There is no way we had the technology to send humans to the moon (238,857 miles) and get them back alive (after 8 days I recall - with video and photographic evidence)

You've read those 3 pages I posted a while back?

If not, you should read them

Beansprout · 18 Mar 2006 at 18:54

divosuk said:
Sorry, but after reading all that - I still think it was faked.

Simply because I know a fair bit about photography and mechanics......and i just dont believe it was possible at that stage of human space exploration. There is no way we had the technology to send humans to the moon (238,857 miles) and get them back alive (after 8 days I recall - with video and photographic evidence)

Huh?

Er, do you remember the tech we had in the 40s? Now put that next to the tech we had in the 80s and 90s.

Now connect the fact that between those times, other things happened, too.

SexyGreyFox · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:04

divosuk said:
Simply because I know a fair bit about photography and mechanics...

Well thats convinced me then since you know a 'fair bit'.
You'd better tell the Russians because they were conned also.

Heliospherez · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:05

I know the tech. we have now.....as I fix 27 very complex machines with a few other guys. These machines are about the same size as these so called lunar modules - and are worth about 14million pounds each. Needless to say, not one works for longer than 2 days without giving a serious problem that stops it working completely.

Luckily - no one is inside them.

I still think all the moon landings were faked.....and I will not believe it until i see a real batch of video clips or photos that look in perspective and show true pics of space.

benjo plz. · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:05

dmpoole said:
Well thats convinced me then since you know a 'fair bit'.
You'd better tell the Russians because they were conned also.

heh lol

.

Glaucus · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:10

divosuk said:
Sorry, but after reading all that - I still think it was faked.

Simply because I know a fair bit about photography and mechanics......and i just dont believe it was possible at that stage of human space exploration. There is no way we had the technology to send humans to the moon (238,857 miles) and get them back alive (after 8 days I recall - with video and photographic evidence)

So you've read all those websites? and still don't belive? BS!, you can't possibly of read them.

1) the appolo rocket was tracked and communications were recorded from several telescope sites around the world including the Jodrell Bank's in manchester. These results can't be faked. A rocket had to fly to the moon to give these readings.
2) sensitive lazer reflecting experiment was set up. This could not be done by robots, as it had to mm perfect. It is still in use today
3) 400,00 worked for nasa, USSR spys where knowen to be included. If there was anything fishy about it. USSR would have screamed there heads off, Especially seing as USSR own moon landing missions where possibly only a few years off.
4) couple all that with *** photographic evidance that has debunked all the conspiracy theroists close examinations..

And you'r conclusions that it was faked?

ALso someone brought up computing power. well yes it was very low, but unlike todays heavy graphical and undless applications. The computers used where designed for one job and one job only with very simple graphics, hence why a slow cpu could easily do the work..

Glaucus · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:12

divosuk said:
I still think all the moon landings were faked.....and I will not believe it until i see a real batch of video clips or photos that look in perspective and show try pics of space.

they are in perspective., and look exactly how they should look. Post you'r reasons why you think the photos are faked. and well awnser why you'r wrong.

SexyGreyFox · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:16

AcidHell2 said:
So you've read all those websites? and still don't belive? BS!, you can't possibly of read them.

Don't know why you're bothering with him.
He probably thinks 9/11 was done by the USA even though Al Queeda said they did it.

benjo plz. · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:19

AcidHell2 said:
Especially seing as USSR own moon landing missions where possibly only a few years off.

Only part of you post I don't agree with. The USSR probably wouldn't have been able to get a man to the moon and back until atleast a decade, or maybe more after the US did.

Glaucus · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:22

Phnom_Penh said:
Only part of you post I don't agree with. The USSR probably wouldn't have been able to get a man to the moon and back until atleast a decade, or maybe more after the US did.

there rockets, they where testing back then are more advanced than what america has now. Yes they went for big and power, but oh my they had some awesome engines. Can't rember exactly but they use some sort of flow back system taking exhaust gases and putting it back into the chamber. This resulted in a small, lighter, more fuel effecient engine. Which size for size was 150% more powerfull than any american rocket. The americans bought these rockets of russia about a decade ago to reverse engineer them. As far as I know they still aren't any space craft using them though. (might be wrong on taht last bit? any one now?)

benjo plz. · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:26

Yep I'll agree that their designs were good, but they never actually got an N1 off the ground.

Glaucus · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:28

Phnom_Penh said:
Yep I'll agree that their designs were good, but they never actually got an N1 off the ground.

Nope

, But there was somethjing like 150 ready to be fitted. all which worked fine.

unfortuantly America beat them and USSR cut the fundings and put them in a warehouse. But anyway, 5 years or a decade they would off got there..

Can you rember what the engine was called?. Because they blew several N class rockets up perfecting the engine. Unlike the americans they did a trial and error development..

Fusion · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:29

divosuk said:
Simply because I know a fair bit about photography and mechanics......and i just dont believe it was possible at that stage of human space exploration. There is no way we had the technology to send humans to the moon (238,857 miles) and get them back alive (after 8 days I recall - with video and photographic evidence)

Throw enough money at something and you can build almost anything

Read up on the Manhattan Project. The pace of technological development during the Cold War was outstanding. I suppose you believe that the first hydrogen bomb test in 1952 was too far ahead of it's time too?

benjo plz. · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:35

AcidHell2 said:
Nope , But there was somethjing like 150 ready to be fitted. all which worked fine. unfortuantly America beat them and USSR cut the fundings and put them in a warehouse. But anyway, 5 years or a decade they would off got there..

Can you rember what the engine was called?. Because they blew several N class rockets up perfecting the engine. Unlike the americans they did a trial and error development..

The main problem was that the engines (they were NK33s) were only tested individually, and never ground tested together, so they weren't able to find out that the rockets would rip themselves apart (well sort of) during the lift off. Although yeh, it is a shame that Krushev cancelled the project.

I think if he'd taken up the offer of a joint space project with JFK things would have been different. (although he was worried that the USA was after the better technoology).

Werewolf · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:46

divosuk said:
I know the tech. we have now.....as I fix 27 very complex machines with a few other guys. These machines are about the same size as these so called lunar modules - and are worth about 14million pounds each. Needless to say, not one works for longer than 2 days without giving a serious problem that stops it working completely.

Luckily - no one is inside them.

I still think all the moon landings were faked.....and I will not believe it until i see a real batch of video clips or photos that look in perspective and show true pics of space.

Wasn't part of the beauty of the Luna modules that they were made to be as simple as possible? (and a fair bit of it was adapted from existing equipment used for a long time in other applications)

IIRC they aimed to have them as simple as possible whilst still doing the job, simply because a basic/low tech device tends to have less things to go wrong.

ScarySquirrel · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:56

ALLI said:
who REALLY cares? makes no diff to my life whether it was fake or not. there's jack diddly there.

we need to sort this planet out before sodding off to ruin another one.

Well if it was fake, how do we KNOW nothing is there?

Oh, and the moon isn't a planet.

FiremanSam · 18 Mar 2006 at 19:59

divosuk said:
I still think all the moon landings were faked.....and I will not believe it until i see a real batch of video clips or photos that look in perspective and show true pics of space.

I think this is the site you are looking for to back up you opinion

http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm