... was it faked?

Hugogo · 19 Mar 2006 at 13:18

Has everyone forgotten about the scientific equipment left up there that we still use today? That cant be fake...hell i expect if you ask nicely at an observatory in the USA they will do the experiment to show you that it wasnt faked.

Pickers · 19 Mar 2006 at 13:26

Hugogo said:
Has everyone forgotten about the scientific equipment left up there that we still use today? That cant be fake...hell i expect if you ask nicely at an observatory in the USA they will do the experiment to show you that it wasnt faked.

No-one's forgotton it. Its been brought up in this thread a few times. Its one argument that I've seen many non-believers ignore though.
Or they say "it was set up automatically" which is even more ludicrous as one argument they maintain on the subject is that the technology wasn't good enough to get man to the moon. ...Soooo it wasn't good enough for that, but was good enough to set up mirror arrays to milimeter precision on the surface of the moon? Of course!

Sleepy · 19 Mar 2006 at 14:08

This is an image from the Clementine mission circa 1994 showing the Apollo 15 landing site:

And here's a related article on Space.com This site also has some Apollo CM images of earlier landing sites.

Freefaller · 19 Mar 2006 at 14:16

Man has landed on the moon. FACT.

Metalface Mark · 19 Mar 2006 at 14:32

Phnom_Penh said:
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.

Yes i know, the point wasnt that they copied the saturn V, the point was they were able to freely get the design for it. They did copy the shuttle though, almost directly.

benjo plz. · 19 Mar 2006 at 14:34

InwardSinging said:
They did copy the shuttle though, almost directly.

heh, I'd say slightly more than almost

.

The Buran is a direct copy on the outside, but was created completely by the russians (ie not the same on the inside

). They only used it once, and Yeltsin canceled the project. They're currently designing a new one though.

aardvark · 20 Mar 2006 at 19:27

Vertigo1 said:
If you can't add anything constructive to the debate I suggest you don't bother.

lol - debate?!?!

there is nothing to debate, the facts all point to one conclusion - the landings obviously happened.

its pointless debating with people who believe things like this because they are incapable of rational thought - it doesn't matter what you say or what evidense is presented because they don't believe it - this is why respected scientists and NASA have refused to enter into the argument, its pointless.

Zefan · 20 Mar 2006 at 19:29

Some people need to watch the "It wasn't faked" documentary. Jesus christ you people can be so so so stupid. Just go talk to RUSSIA. They'll tell you how they were beaten fair and square.

If anyone wants to disagree with me I think it'll be fair enough to ask you to explain why they didn't land on the moon (And still haven't) before stating your case.

Heliospherez · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:22

Sorry, yes I have read many reports on the events of all the moon landings....and I still think they were faked. Unless they can really prove otherwise...ie by doing it again, or by sending a rather cheap probe up there to do experiments with a decent camera - I will never believe it.

I still think the yanks cooked the whole thing up...and I just cant believe the Technology and the know-how we had in the 60s would allow us to land and then return from such a hostile environment. Even looking at some of the pics

heres one

, the feebleness of the lunar lander and the rover is laughable ( I could construct a tougher / better designed cart for moon landings myslef - for much less than the 30 or so million spent on it ) - not to mention the spacesuits and camera equipment (the cameras look as though they were shielded by less than 3mm of metal - & were supposed to take over 250 pictures in extreme temps/fields)

The pic above seems rather stange to a good few photographers - as the American flag and emblem on the lander are substantially illuminated - unlike the rest of the dark part of the craft - Considering its gold, it should be more brightly illuminated than the USA flag.

Getting into space would have been easy.......getting to the moon and back alive is a different story !

Beansprout · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:27

You're hilarious. Keep it coming. My buddies at NASA love this stuff

SexyGreyFox · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:31

divosuk said:
or by sending a rather cheap probe up there to do experiments with a decent camera - I will never believe it.

Unbelievable.

So you don't even think we have sent probes onto the moon let alone Mars?
This must also mean that you don't believe any shuttles have taken off and that they fixed the Hubble telescope a while back?
Of course Hubble doesn't exist.
What a world you must live in.

Blimey, my mobile has just stopped working and I can't get any porn off the Hotbird satellite..

Pickers · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:31

divosuk said:
...stuff...

me = head + brickwall

Inquisitor · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:32

divosuk said:
Sorry, yes I have read many reports on the events of all the moon landings....and I still think they were faked. Unless they can really prove otherwise...ie by doing it again, or by sending a rather cheap probe up there to do experiments with a decent camera - I will never believe it.

I still think the yanks cooked the whole thing up...and I just cant believe the Technology and the know-how we had in the 60s would allow us to land and then return from such a hostile environment. Even looking at some of the pics

heres one

, the feebleness of the lunar lander and the rover is laughable ( I could construct a tougher / better designed cart for moon landings myslef - for much less than the 30 or so million spent on it ) - not to mention the spacesuits and camera equipment (the cameras look as though they were shielded by less than 3mm of metal - & were supposed to take over 250 pictures in extreme temps/fields)

The pic above seems rather stange to a good few photographers - as the American flag and emblem on the lander are substantially illuminated - unlike the rest of the dark part of the craft - Considering its gold, it should be more brightly illuminated than the USA flag.

Well, for one, the array of mirrors left on the moon should be proof enough that they actually landed there.

Even so, that photo doesn't look at all strange to me. The flag is being illuminated from the other side, and because the fabric is not entirely opaque, it appears to be lit up.

As for the emblem on the lander, I would imagine that it is being illuminated by the light being reflected by the silver object beneath it, and the gold part is not so bright because the light is not being scattered on reflection (i.e., it is shiny, and hence only appears bright when viewed from certain angles).

Anyway, at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself why they would do all these things to the photos, if they are actually faked... why make the crosshair appear to be behind objects? Why by so careless as to leave out all the stars? You get my point. (Of course, if they actually knew what they were doing then they would do all that anyway, as they are known phenomena.)

Glaucus · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:33

divosuk said:
Sorry, yes I have read many reports on the events of all the moon landings....and I still think they were faked. Unless they can really prove otherwise...ie by doing it again, or by sending a rather cheap probe up there to do experiments with a decent camera - I will never believe it.

I still think the yanks cooked the whole thing up...and I just cant believe the Technology and the know-how we had in the 60s would allow us to land and then return from such a hostile environment. Even looking at some of the pics

heres one

, the feebleness of the lunar lander and the rover is laughable ( I could construct a tougher / better designed cart for moon landings myslef - for much less than the 30 or so million spent on it ) - not to mention the spacesuits and camera equipment (the cameras look as though they were shielded by less than 3mm of metal - & were supposed to take over 250 pictures in extreme temps/fields)

The pic above seems rather stange to a good few photographers - as the American flag and emblem on the lander are substantially illuminated - unlike the rest of the dark part of the craft - Considering its gold, it should be more brightly illuminated than the USA flag.

Getting into space would have been easy.......getting to the moon and back alive is a different story !

Lmao.. tahst great. the cameras where state of the art, even in modern terms they still take excellent photos.yes these camera\s where good. They had big buttons for the clumsyness of the gloves and theres a series of 110pics taken in less than 70seconds on the moon.
As for the shadows and light on photos, they have all been showen to be right. Read any of the numerous links in the thread and it tells you why each pic is why it is..

The flag is not a solid objuect, the light is shining though the fabric hence its "glow" effect.

well seing as the lander needs to resist between 0 and err 0 atmosphere it doesn't eactly need to be that strong. it needs to be light weight and be able to slow down..

SexyGreyFox · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:39

divosuk said:
Even looking at some of the pics

heres one

Here you have shot yourself in the foot.
The picture you have linked to is Apollo 15 and not Apollo 11.
Surely by the time they got to Apollo 15 they would have ironed out all those mistakes they made on Apollo 11 by making sure the light, shadows and stars were in the picture.
Instead they have decided to release the picture as is - I wonder why that is?

Inquisitor · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:40

dmpoole said:
The picture you have linked to is Apollo 15 and not Apollo 11.

Heh, well spotted!

Beansprout · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:41

dmpoole said:
The picture you have linked to is Apollo 15 and not Apollo 11.

LOL, but Do Not Question the Internet Experts!

Heliospherez · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:41

I know....I domt believe any of them are real...

Im sure they are....

But at least us non believers enter into arguments on why we dont believe it.

NASA refuse too.....for some weird reason (although they usually state that they think its just too laughable ?)

Glaucus · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:44

divosuk said:
But at least us non believers enter into arguments on why we dont believe it.

and we dont?

You wont say how the mirrors where planted on the moon.
You wont tell us how they faked the signals and trackings made by several radio telescopes around the world.
You haven't showen us any photos that are wrong or anything in them that is not easily explained.

SexyGreyFox · 20 Mar 2006 at 20:46

divosuk said:
NASA refuse too.....for some weird reason (although they usually state that they think its just too laughable ?)

They landed on the moon 6 times :
Apollo 11
Apollo 12
Apollo 13 (failed, made into a film)
Apollo 14
Apollo 15
Apollo 16
Apollo 17

By time they got to the last one they could have had a young Steven Spielberg directing so every picture would have been perfect to the conspiracy theorists.
However, the experts would know they were fake.