Reasons why moon landing was fake? (i dont believe it was fake)

[pHi]

Ok so im talking to a friend fo mine whilst watching the discovery channel and an add came up about that show where they reckon tehy can prove that we never made it to the moon. Now ive seen another show that explains all teh conspiracy theories. my friend however said he heard or read somewhere (was skeptical of the source himself) that its impossible to get the the moon because of a sorta minature asteroid belt blocking teh way......

I've never heard of this.....
any1 here ever heard of it?

[Matty]

wow thats even better than the "why are there no stars in the moon pictures" one. Far more imaginative and just as bullshit.

If there were a mini asteroid belt, whatever the fuck one of those is, that close to the earth, do you not think that the earths gravity would suck them in occasionally treating us to a rather major meteor impact on a fairly regular basis.

but no. I hadnt come across that particular bit of tin hat reasoning before. its a good one too. Elements of Russels tea pot in it.

[just saw the light]

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

In addition to exposure to deadly radiation, the Apollo astronauts would have been pierced by thousands of micrometeoroids.

Shielding was provided to protect the Apollo astronauts from micrometeoroid bombardment. Due to their low mass, only a thin layer of material was necessary to stop these dust-sized particles. For example, the Lunar Module was protected by a thin aluminum outer shield a few thousandths of an inch thick. In addition, the astronauts' spacesuits included a micrometeoroid garment to protect them while performing activities on the lunar surface.

[Makeshift Universe]

I do believe we went to the moon, but I don't believe all of the footage and photos taken are real. The photos taken are simply too many and too professional looking to have been taken by astronauts on a busy schedule.

They spent a total of 4834 minutes on the moon and the total number of published photographs was 5771. That is 1.19 photos taken every minute, regardless of their other duties and activities. Left out are also the photographs that was unusable, overexposed or underexposed, which you can't find in NASA's database. All pictures appear flawless, despite the fact that the astronauts was wearing thick gloves which would make it very difficult to adjust camera setting and also the fact that the cameras used had no functional viewfinder.

I've heard of the van Allen radiation belt, not an asteroid belt, but I don't have sufficient knowledge about it to say whether or not it's possible for a human to travel unscathed through them without proper protection, and I don't know what kind of protection the astronauts themselves had from such radiation.

[premjan]

So there is no optical telescope (e.g. hubble) capable of resolving the moon surface to locate footprints?

[Makeshift Universe]

It still doesn't have the resolution to be able to do that, I believe.

[peanutaxis]

It still doesn't have the resolution to be able to do that, I believe.

They would!

[perfessor]

They would!
They would what?

The Hubble scope can resolve to 0.048 arc seconds. The math works out to just under 90 meters at the moon's distance. Not enough to spot a lander, much less footprints.

Regarding the photographs, They spent a total of 4834 minutes on the moon and the total number of published photographs was 5771. That is 1.19 photos taken every minute, regardless of their other duties and activities. Left out are also the photographs that was unusable, overexposed or underexposed, which you can't find in NASA's database. All pictures appear flawless, despite the fact that the astronauts was wearing thick gloves which would make it very difficult to adjust camera setting and also the fact that the cameras used had no functional viewfinder.
Well, they weren't exactly using a Brownie Starmite. I don't have the specs on hand, but would it really surprise you if the cameras had:
a) Autowind
b) Fixed focus
c) Auto exposure
d) Big honkin' handles, levers, buttons
e) Easy-to-read instruction manuals

That last is a joke. Naturally, the astronauts had practiced everything prior to liftoff, including how to point and shoot.

[JamesBannon]

My favourite one is that the shadows in the photographs are wrong.

[Matty]

Yeah that stupid studio tech angled teh spotlights the wrong way.
The "C" Rock is another beaut.

[Sarpedon]

And, gee, it was part of their JOB to take pictures while on the moon. Why should anyone be surprised at someone taking 1.1 pictures a minute. They've obviously never seen a japanese tourist in action.

[Makeshift Universe]

They would what?

The Hubble scope can resolve to 0.048 arc seconds. The math works out to just under 90 meters at the moon's distance. Not enough to spot a lander, much less footprints.

Regarding the photographs,
Well, they weren't exactly using a Brownie Starmite. I don't have the specs on hand, but would it really surprise you if the cameras had:
a) Autowind
b) Fixed focus
c) Auto exposure
d) Big honkin' handles, levers, buttons
e) Easy-to-read instruction manuals

That last is a joke. Naturally, the astronauts had practiced everything prior to liftoff, including how to point and shoot.

No, they were using very good equipment, a modified version of the Hasselblad 500EL. Still, as any photographer knows, taking descent shots under poor lighting conditions such as on the moon with such pristine results is a real pain in the ass. I assume they took double of those present in the NASA directory, meaning even more photos per minute and thus an even more impressive accomplishment. They had other tasks as well, dozens of them and all of them time consuming.

I don't find it difficult to believe at all. You come back from the moon and it turns out some pictures are damaged due to radiation heat, some are overexposed, others are underexposed, others are out of focus and some are just unusable. So they rigged a set and took some PR photos. This was man's greatest accomplishment ever. Anything less than perfect photographic documentation would have been unacceptable. It was also the biggest PR stunt in the history of man. Capitalism defeated communism in the biggest race since putting a man in space, a race the U.S. lost. The U.S. proved to the world that whatever you can do, we can do helluva lot better. Of course they would polish it. I mean, who wouldn't? Just to make reality look a tiny bit better.

[Flynn McKerrow]

taking descent shots under poor lighting conditions such as on the moon with such pristine results is a real pain in the ass.

How are the lighting conditions on the moon 'poor'?

You do realize that it would be like taking pictures outside on a completely cloudless day, right?

[JamesABrown]

I do believe we went to the moon, but I don't believe all of the footage and photos taken are real. The photos taken are simply too many and too professional looking to have been taken by astronauts on a busy schedule.

They spent a total of 4834 minutes on the moon and the total number of published photographs was 5771. That is 1.19 photos taken every minute, regardless of their other duties and activities. Left out are also the photographs that was unusable, overexposed or underexposed, which you can't find in NASA's database. All pictures appear flawless, despite the fact that the astronauts was wearing thick gloves which would make it very difficult to adjust camera setting and also the fact that the cameras used had no functional viewfinder.


A couple of problems here.

First off, each Apollo mission had two astronauts on the moon to take photos and do other duties. So 4834 minutes x 2 = 9668 man-minutes. Plus, the missions were tightly scheduled and rehearsed numerous times, to maximize mission objectives and minimize time wasted.

Second, many photos were panoramic, which can be taken quickly one after the other--just shoot, twist, shoot, twist, shoot, etc.

Third, you said that "all" published pictures appear flawless (I'm curious if you yourself actually viewed all 5771 pictures, or if you are just repeating Jack White's figures unchecked.) Here is the Apollo Image Atlas (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/) which houses the Apollo photos. Apollo 11 alone contains 1407 images, and I randomly clicked on some and found many to be blurry or containing little to no information (along with some real beauts.)

Finally, your fence-sitting position makes little sense to me. Lunar Hoaxers argue that NASA never went to the moon at all, the the entire mission AND every single photograph is somehow faked. But your position is that they really did go to the moon, they really did take some photographs, but when they got back NASA engineers then proceeded to fake all the rest of the photographs? Why on earth would they do that? Did they really take, say, 2000 pictures, but someone said that wasn't good enough, so they set up an elaborate and surreal sound stage in order to fake 3,771 more pictures? Is there something magical about the number 5771? If the astronauts came back with 5701 pictures, would they have gone to all that trouble with the sound stage to snap those last 70 photos?

I'm afraid you'll have to come up with a bit more evidence to back up your position. Incredulity is not proof. When a creationist doesn't know how a creature evolved, he says God did it. When a Lunar Hoaxer doesn't know how a mission objective was accomplished, he says, NASA faked it. See the difference?

[Loren Pechtel]

So there is no optical telescope (e.g. hubble) capable of resolving the moon surface to locate footprints?

We worked it out in one of the earlier moon conspiracy threads. The Hubble has nowhere near the power to resolve even the landers. (The lower half of the lunar lander is left behind, it serves as the launch pad for the upper half.) Those are the biggest objects we left behind.


As for the micrometeorite threat, that's easy to refute:

We have landed things up there with cornercube reflectors. These are used to range the moon with great precision. It takes special equipment beyond amateur astronomy to do it but it doesn't take the great scopes, either--there are plenty of astronomers who could do it without a lot of difficulty. If nobody could do it wouldn't someone raise the alarm? All all the world's professional astronomers in on the conspiracy???

Since a conspiracy of this size is unreasonable we are left with the conclusion that the reflectors are up there. That means *SOMETHING* made it to the moon--and if something could make it, why not men?


In reality the micrometeorite threat is easy to address: Aluminum foil will stop them. It's not that it's strong enough, it's that when the micrometeorite hits it's going fast enough to be vaporized. Instead of a tiny bullet you have a puff of hot gas. You set the aluminum foil a bit away from whatever you are trying to protect so the energy has time to spread--when it hits the real thing behind it's too spread out to do any harm.

[Makeshift Universe]

How are the lighting conditions on the moon 'poor'?

You do realize that it would be like taking pictures outside on a completely cloudless day, right?

I haven't been there of course, so I can't really tell. I assumed (shouldn't really do that of course) judging from the photographs themselves and the fact that the earth's albedo is 0.37 compared to the moon's average albedo of 0.12 that it is a relatively dark place.

[barbos]

I haven't been there of course, so I can't really tell. I assumed (shouldn't really do that of course) judging from the photographs themselves and the fact that the earth's albedo is 0.37 compared to the moon's average albedo of 0.12 that it is a relatively dark place.

Surface is relatively darker, and it does look darker on the pictures, but amount of light coming from sun is greater, and what is more important is that it is constant - one can take pictures on the same settings all day long.

[Gwen]

Because the moon doesn't exist (http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm), duh!

[JamesBannon]

Apparently neither does Winnipeg!

[Loren Pechtel]

Surface is relatively darker, and it does look darker on the pictures, but amount of light coming from sun is greater, and what is more important is that it is constant - one can take pictures on the same settings all day long.

I think you just nailed it here--they can set the exposure in the LEM and don't need to mess with it out on the moon.

Also the shots are fairly wide angle and I can't recall seeing anything shot all that close up. Set the lens for the hyperfocal distance and don't worry about focusing, either.

While they didn't have modern auto-everything cameras they didn't need them, either.

[Underseer]

So there is no optical telescope (e.g. hubble) capable of resolving the moon surface to locate footprints?

No, but they did leave mirrors on the moon's surface. You can now bounce a laser beam off of those mirrors to measure the distance between the Earth and the moon very accurately. That couldn't possibly be faked.

[Generic Name]

We worked it out in one of the earlier moon conspiracy threads. The Hubble has nowhere near the power to resolve even the landers. (The lower half of the lunar lander is left behind, it serves as the launch pad for the upper half.) Those are the biggest objects we left behind.


Didn't we smack a few Saturn V stages into the moon? Those are certainly bigger than the LM descent stage. On the other hand, I'm not sure what would be left of them after smacking into the moon at a few kilometers per second.

[Boro Nut]

No, but they did leave mirrors on the moon's surface. You can now bounce a laser beam off of those mirrors to measure the distance between the Earth and the moon very accurately. That couldn't possibly be faked.No, but you could lie about how far it was. Don't give up so easily.

Boro Nut

[DanBZ]

Because the moon doesn't exist (http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm), duh!

That site IS a parody, right? I can't possibly imagine anyone seriously believing it, but there are certainly a lot of crazy people in this world.

[theyeti]

Didn't we smack a few Saturn V stages into the moon? Those are certainly bigger than the LM descent stage.

The first two stages of the Saturn V are discarded before obtaining Earth orbit. The third is used to get into orbit and then to leave obit, at which point it too is discarded. Only the service module, command module, and lunar module make the trip to the moon, and they all come back. The only thing left on the moon is the base of the LM.

theyeti

[Loren Pechtel]

The first two stages of the Saturn V are discarded before obtaining Earth orbit. The third is used to get into orbit and then to leave obit, at which point it too is discarded. Only the service module, command module, and lunar module make the trip to the moon, and they all come back. The only thing left on the moon is the base of the LM.

theyeti

The Saturn V upper stage has the velocity to reach the moon. It could have been rammed into it without too much difficulty. It would only take a burn of a few MPH from the SM engine to do this. (Aim for the moon, discard the booster, then step aside with the SM engine.)

I could imagine them doing it for geological studies--once they have some seismographs up there the shockwaves from an impacting booster would tell them something about what the moon was like.

[Generic Name]

The first two stages of the Saturn V are discarded before obtaining Earth orbit. The third is used to get into orbit and then to leave obit, at which point it too is discarded. Only the service module, command module, and lunar module make the trip to the moon, and they all come back. The only thing left on the moon is the base of the LM.

theyeti

Actually, the only LM to come back was Apollo 13 (which never landed). Even the ascent stage was abandoned in lunar orbit and left to crash.

The third stage was discarded, but since it was on the same lunar-bound trajectory as the Apollo spacecraft, mission control decided to smack it into the moon for geological testing (also separating it from the spacecraft so there is no collision risk).

Here we are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon), a list of artificial objects on the moon - including the last five S-IVB stages.

[Gwen]

That site IS a parody, right? I can't possibly imagine anyone seriously believing it, but there are certainly a lot of crazy people in this world.

The Mad Revisionist has his offices on the moon that he doesn't believe exists.
...
Yes, it's a parody. The Flat Earth Society, unfortunately, not so much.

[proudliberal]

Yes we all know how fake it was,I have yet to see a so-called moon rock.Also JFK was murdered by vice president johnson for his presidentcy.

[Persidian]

Because the moon doesn't exist (http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm), duh!
Hasn’t the moon been mentioned in texts and literature throughout history? There is no mention of the moon in the English language prior to the year 1066. This is a proven fact, so rarely spoken of in these controlled academic institutions. Nonetheless, Lunarists have been known to refer to alleged mentions of the moon in literature as proof that its existence could not have been fabricated. Obviously they are desperate when they begin to refer to works of fiction to support their case.Lunarists, nice. In league with them Evolutionists, no doubt.

This is some pretty spot on satire on all sorts of conspiracy theorists; Looks like they've read some Velikovskian propaganda too. It reminds me of a book I was reading a while back that insisted the planet Venus didn't exist in ancient cultures' astronomical records, thus proving the planet was no more than a couple of millenia old. One hell of a claim that would've actually been a good argument had it been true, but of course it wasn't.

[langseax]

If I recall correctly, harsh light on a cloudless day is actually very bad light for photography. Causes everything to look really flat and to lose texture and contrast. What you actually want is a sky with a light haze that creates soft lighting.

Anyway, if the moon landing was a lie the russians would have called us out a long time ago.

[lenrek]

Sometime, I find it astonishing that, for one of our great achievement, there will be those who think it is all fake or a conspiracy to lie.

Hey, since we prefer to believe in crazy ideas, why not start believing Pyramids (http://www.outerworlds.com/likeness/aliens/aliens.html) were built by aliens. :eek:

[Frikki]

If I recall correctly, harsh light on a cloudless day is actually very bad light for photography. Causes everything to look really flat and to lose texture and contrast. What you actually want is a sky with a light haze that creates soft lighting.

Anyway, if the moon landing was a lie the russians would have called us out a long time ago.

It is the the oposite harsh light gives you more contrast, deeper shadows and more apparent details than a cloudy day. the rule is that the smaller a light source is in relation to the subject the more contrast you get.

[MattR]

I know the Apollo 13 third stage was crashed into the moon to test the seismometers placed on the surface.