... was it faked?

Vertigo · 19 Mar 2006 at 09:19

aardvark said:
i can't believe people can even consider its fake - anybody that does is a moron, plain and simple.

If you can't add anything constructive to the debate I suggest you don't bother.

Irish_Tom · 19 Mar 2006 at 09:51

NeedleGunner said:
I wish I was so dumb to accept everything that was told to me by history.

I wish I was so arrogant that I couldn't admit I was wrong.

Panzer

benjo plz. · 19 Mar 2006 at 11:28

InwardSinging said:
(the russians did this, getting full access to the design of apollo and still couldnt make their N1 work).

They went for a design that was a lot more complicated than Apollo's, and didn't test the rockets until they were built, meaning that they mostly shook themselves apart on take-off due to the vibrations.

Psypher5 · 19 Mar 2006 at 11:35

It was fake. End of.

Fusion · 19 Mar 2006 at 11:37

Psypher5 said:
It was fake. End of.

You'll have to fabricate a somewhat more elaborate argument to gain the attention you crave, on these boards

Psypher5 · 19 Mar 2006 at 11:42

*finds that documentry on google video* aha! But it basically goes over MANY of the faults and errors given in links here, of lack of stars, shadow errors, blatent photo touch ups *you know those crosshairs on the photos, like 9 crosses to show its a real photo, some of the lines go behind the pictues, i mean..O.o*

Anyhoo, has the video been posted? It makes for a good watch.

Also, "fabricate". Interesting choice of words,

Glaucus · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:01

Psypher5 said:
*finds that documentry on google video* aha! But it basically goes over MANY of the faults and errors given in links here, of lack of stars, shadow errors, blatent photo touch ups *you know those crosshairs on the photos, like 9 crosses to show its a real photo, some of the lines go behind the pictues, i mean..O.o*

Anyhoo, has the video been posted? It makes for a good watch.

Also, "fabricate". Interesting choice of words,

well, the shadows aren't wrong, the stars should not be there, *** crosshairs is a natural phonaminuim you can recreat on earth..

1. Crosshairs on some photos appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be, as if the photos were altered.

* In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion. The film particles that ought to have been black were exposed by light from the adjacent brightly lit lm particles. [4]

There are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report seeing any stars from the capsule windows.

* There are also no stars seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station and Earth observation photos. The sun in the Earth/Moon area shines as brightly as on a clear noon day on earth, so cameras used for imaging these things are set for daylight exposure, with quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film. (This effect can be demonstrated on earth by taking a picture of the night sky with exposure settings for a bright sunny day. Science fiction movies and television shows do confuse this issue by depicting stars as visible in space under all lighting conditions.) Stars were easily seen by every Apollo mission crew except for the unfortunate Apollo 13 (they couldn't see the stars due to the fact that oxygen and water vapor created a haze around the spacecraft). Stars were used for navigation purposes and were occasionally also seen through cabin windows when the conditions allowed. To see stars, nothing lit by sunlight could be in the viewers field of view.(Plait 2002:158-60).

* Believers in the hoax theory contend that the stars were removed from the photographs because they would have looked identical to the stars as seen from the Earth, i.e. no parallax view. However, the distance from the Earth to the Moon is very small compared to the distance to the stars, so no parallax would have been visible anyway. (The nearest star is over 100,000,000 times farther away than the Moon, and most stars are much farther away than that.)

The color and angle of shadows and light.

* Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources; the Sun, Earth and the Moon itself. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple expectations of the hoax believers. More significantly, perspective comes into play. This effect leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found. (Plait 2002:167-72).

Pickers · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:02

Psypher5 said:
*finds that documentry on google video* aha! But it basically goes over MANY of the faults and errors given in links here, of lack of stars, shadow errors, blatent photo touch ups *you know those crosshairs on the photos, like 9 crosses to show its a real photo, some of the lines go behind the pictues, i mean..O.o*

Anyhoo, has the video been posted? It makes for a good watch.

Also, "fabricate". Interesting choice of words,

Didn't the documentary go about systematically refuting each of these things? I have to admit I missed it the other day, but I think its one I've seen a couple of times before.

SexyGreyFox · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:03

Psypher5 said:
It was fake. End of.

NeedleGunner said:
I wish I was so dumb to accept everything that was told to me by history.

You're going to look ever so silly when the Japs come back with their results.
However, with arrogance like that those results will also be faked.

Also don't forget that the Australians had their big telescope aimed at the mission. There was a very funny feature film made about it and they aimed it at the moon and not a studio in America somewhere.

Psypher5 · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:04

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484&q=moon+duration%3Along

Strange how it has been removed?

Glaucus · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:08

Psypher5 said:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484&q=moon+duration:long

Strange how it has been removed?

You read my post above? all these things youv'e said have been refuted and proved inacurate. You should read my post above or watch "the truth about the moon landings" which was on channel 5 the other night..

Pickers · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:10

Psypher5 said:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484&q=moon+duration%3Along

Strange how it has been removed?

Also tbh I don't care. I can't prove if it was real, or if it was fake. No one can.

They can and have been proved to be real to all intents and purposes, but people just are blind to the facts presented to them.
Honestly, it seems to be the case that whichever story someone hears first is the story they believe no matter what.

Psypher5 · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:10

Right, im not fighting a fight.

Tbh I don't care. I can't prove if it was real, or if it was fake. No one can. Untill someone else goes up there, with DECENT film-ography (sp,right word? lol) that is when I shall see the truth, untill then, yes I am slightly leaning towards the fake idea, but there is so much that "COULD" have been wrong, or right and just seems odd. Hell everything would seem odd, given that it is a journey to an alien environment.

A debate is one thing, forcing something down my neck is another.

Pickers · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:13

Psypher5 said:
A debate is one thing, forcing something down my neck is another.

Psypher5 said:
It was fake. End of.

I think it was your first post that earned you the response you received unfortunatly.

Psypher5 · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:24

! shhh. Haha, ok maybe that was a bit strong willed

Keep up the discussion, (OT) I'm off to see my neice!

Hamish · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:28

Psypher5 said:
Right, im not fighting a fight.

Tbh I don't care. I can't prove if it was real, or if it was fake. No one can. Untill someone else goes up there, with DECENT film-ography (sp,right word? lol) that is when I shall see the truth, untill then, yes I am slightly leaning towards the fake idea, but there is so much that "COULD" have been wrong, or right and just seems odd. Hell everything would seem odd, given that it is a journey to an alien environment.

A debate is one thing, forcing something down my neck is another.

Why would you believe it even then? Surly those films could have been faked too. TBH theres plenty of evidence already that we landed on the moon: Years of research, hours of video, samples of moon rock, thousands of people saw the Saturn V rocket take off and even soviet spies were involved with the space progam trying as hard as they could to find a conspiricy but they couldn't. However you, after reading a couple of websites and seeing a couple of biased TV shows seem to know better.

SexyGreyFox · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:44

Hamish said:
and even soviet spies were involved with the space progam trying as hard as they could to find a conspiricy but they couldn't.

Means nothing - they were paid off and were in on it.
I read a sentence about it on the net once.

Berserker · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:48

Hamish said:
Why would you believe it even then?

Exactly - with CG as advanced as it now is, it would be much easier to produce a near-perfect fake these days, and you have the benefits of all the conspiracy theories so you can avoid the pitfalls.

I'm also not convinced that the US actually has the staying power to go after further manned exploration. I expect they'll take one look at the $$$ and run away. It's not the 60s any more and they won't just throw money at the problem to make it go away. The fact that a 'cheap' programme like SETI@home is currently on the edge of the financial abyss proves that.

Berserker · 19 Mar 2006 at 12:57

Psypher5 said:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484&q=moon+duration%3Along

Strange how it has been removed?

One word: Copyright.

Google may want to take over the world, but even they are still subject to the law.

Pickers · 19 Mar 2006 at 13:01

Berserker said:
One word: Copyright.

Google may want to take over the world, but even they are still subject to the law.

So... its not a Governmental cover up? Google hasn't been roped into this big hoax too?
<this of course is a lighthearted statement>