Thread: Did Amerca land on the moon?

Don't know if this is the right place to post this. Did America really land on the moon? Here are some intresting questions to ask yourself.

”How can the flag be fluttering when there's no wind on the moon's atmosphere?

The cameras had no white meters or view finders. So the astronauts achieved this feat without being able to see what they were doing.

Their film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless.

They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to bend their fingers.

The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.

Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.


Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

This is my favorite one.
A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the Moon that could be seen from Earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

Text from pictures in the article show only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering?

How can the flag be brightly lit when its not facing any light ?

And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust.

The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.“

I'm not really saying America did'nt land on the moon, but these are some intresting questions.

In answer to your overall question, in a word: YES!

The Space Shuttle, so far, has killed fourteen people, merely trying to attain an orbit about two hundred fifty miles above the Earth. How is it then, that a third of a century ago, with less computing power in the entire rocket than in a present day twenty dollar Wal-Mart watch, NASA claims to have gone 100,000% farther, six different times between 1969 and 1972, landing on another celestial body and then returning, without ever killing anyone?

Originally Posted by Thamnophis

Don't know if this is the right place to post this. Did America really land on the moon? Here are some intresting questions to ask yourself. :?

Your questions have been thoroughly debunked repeatedly. You will perhaps excuse me (though I shall quite understand if you dont) if some of the contempt I hold for those who adhere to this infantile position should show through my reply. I do understand you are not saying they did not land, but while some of the questions are interestin, some are truly dumb.

Originally Posted by Thamnophis

”How can the flag be fluttering when there's no wind on the moon's atmosphere?

The flag pole and the wire holding the flag out horizontally are both made of springy metal. The act of placing the flag left vibrational energy in the system that led to some brief 'flapping'.

Originally Posted by Thamnophis

The cameras had no white meters or view finders. So the astronauts achieved this feat without being able to see what they were doing.
.

Please give me the source for no viewfinders. However that is irrelevant. With a minimal amount of training (and the astronauts had oodles of training in photography) you can take excellent shots 'from the hip'. It just needs some practice.

Originally Posted by Thamnophis

Their film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless.

The radiation is not especially strong. The film was shielded within the LM except for the brief period it was in the cameras, out on the surface. Here it experienced less radiation than you get passing your camera through the security X-ray at the airport.

Originally Posted by Thamnophis

They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to bend their fingers.

Not if you spend a fortune on designing the spacesuit, adapt the camera, and spend hours practicing.

Originally Posted by Thamnophis

The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.
.

Says who? The light and shadow are all wholly consistent with illumination by the sun.

Originally Posted by Thamnophis

The American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. .

You think they are going to place the flag in a shadow? Get real.

Originally Posted by Thamnophis

Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.
The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.

Still picture never match the film, unless they are video/film captures. What would have been suspicious would have been if they had matched.
The second point is taken care of by extensive practice and then publishing the best shots.

Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

Apparently some people don't understand humour.

A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

This is absolutely the dumbest one so far. The camera was on the lunar rover and was operated remotely from the Mission Control. Do you really think if it was faked that they would make such an elementary mistake?

I'll leave it to someone else to answer the rest. This really becomes quite boring very quickly. The questions are at best simplistic, at worst mind blowlingly ignorant. There are three points that should confirm the reality for all but the most foolish sceptic.
a) By now someone would have blabbed.
b) The geology of the lunar samples was wholly unpredictable and unpredicted. If you were inventing a geology for the moon you would not invent what was actually found.
c) The Russians would happily have denied the landing had they had the faintest suspicion it was faked.

Your later points ignore the fact that the dangerous points in a space flight are take off and landing. That's where the accidents happen.

Thamnophis if you can offer justification I shall leave this where you posted it, but I am strongly inclined to move it to pseudoscience.

It will have to be someone other than me. I have more on my plate than spend such a waste of time on a lengthy rebuttal.

All I simply did was find some of these questions on another website, yes some of them I think are dumb too, I did'nt make these questions up myself. I'm not an Astronomer or Cosmologist, I'm sorry to say. I just done more research on this, and found out that in fact most of these questions can be answered. I never said that Apollo did'nt land on the moon, I was just trying to see what others thought of this. Don't just assume that I whrote all these questions out, I think most of them are dumb too. Don't get all bent out of shape because of a few dumb questions. The other thing I posted was not mine either, I just wanted to add that on. :wink: 8)

Thamnophis, I am not jumping all over you; I am jumping all over the questions. These keep turning up on websites and science forums, often more than once on the same forum. I just want to make it abundantly clear to any casual reader how mindnumbingly idiotic and unthinking the underlying hypothesis is.
Peace.

Hi...


As a helpful site for Thamnopis & also as reference for future threads on the same matter, I suggest to visit this site:

Moon Base Clavius


It hosts debunkings to many of the most (in)famous "conspiracy questions" about the Moon landing.


@Thamnopis: Maybe the site I suggest you is a bit too technical, but I think that if you visit it & find yourself stuck against some hard stuff, it will be easy to just come here, paste the difficult part, and ask for some easier explanation of it.


Just some stuff for thought:



How may light sources are here...?



Look closely and you'll understand why the tree shadows in the background just don't align.

(And that's on Earth, where we are used to judge angles, distances & relative sizes. Go figure on the Moon when there not even is some air to blurr distant objects)

Once again proving that a single picture may be worth a thousand words.

Yeah, but I still love indulging in my "thousand word posts".....

Instead of delving into the ins and outs of the technical answers much beloved by many in the debunking community, I prefer to show how worthless the arguments made by hoaxers are on their own merits. The stupidest of the so-called "questions that need answers!" are those which deal with some technical aspect of going to the moon, like the camera film, or operating complicated machinery in a spacesuit. They seem to forget that problems of that nature were fully understood before we went, and were designed around. If we can go to the moon, surely we can design a glove that works in a vacuum? Well, we can't go to the moon, they say. But still, we can damn well design a glove that works in a vacuum!

There are also arguments which are constantly refuted on complicated technical grounds, but the refutations never address the fact that the so-called "anomaly" would apply whether we went to the Moon or not - so the argument has no force. There are plenty of things which apply whether we went to the moon or not (blown up into arguments that therefore we didn't go), but there is not one single thing the Hoax Believers cite which applies only on Earth and not on the Moon - which would prove that we were not on the moon.

Originally Posted by Thamnophis

Don't know if this is the right place to post this. Did America really land on the moon? Here are some intresting questions to ask yourself.

”How can the flag be fluttering when there's no wind on the moon's atmosphere?

It is never seen to flutter unless there's an astronaut either handling the flag, or having just let go of it. As to the way the flag moved, with no atmosphere the "cloth" of the flag acts exactly like a more heavy flexible substance does on Earth, such as chain mail. Think of it as chain mail, watch it again and you can see that it indeed behaves exactly in this fashion.

The cameras had no white meters or view finders. So the astronauts achieved this feat without being able to see what they were doing.

Practise. There seems to be some misconception, not just among the Moon Hoax community, that once the astronauts were selected, they pretty much just sat around and lived the life o' Reilly until the day came when they were strapped into their rockets. Of course this is not the case. The process of preparing for a mission (whether going to the moon or not) consists of participating in an almost endless run of simulations of every conceivable action of both the flight and the actual mission itself, whether walking on the Moon or repairing the Hubble. In From the Earth to the Moon, in the Apollo 12 segment, astronaut Alan Bean and his Commander, Pete Conrad, cooked up a plan to have photographs of both of them together on the moon, which consisted of them smuggling a camera timer onto the ship, and then putting it in their sample bags. When describing this in the show, Bean says that one thing he practised, over and over again, was retrieving the timer from the sample bag - even though it was not an official part of the mission.

Also there is the common claim that "all the photographs were excellent, how did the astronauts pull that feat off?" But even if the moon landing was fake, not all the photographs taken would have been of excellent quality, and some would have been discarded. And of course, this is the case for the real moonshot. All the excellent photographs we see, that is to say which are used time and time again by the various media outlets, books etc, are only a tiny fraction of all the photos that were actually taken, some of which were undoubtedly badly framed or over- or under-exposed.

Their film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless.

Design. See above. Conditions on the moon regarding radiation and temperature were reasonably well understood - that's why they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars getting Hasselblad to design moon cameras, rather than just take up a Nikon 35mm SLR.

They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to bend their fingers.

Prominent Hoax Believer, Ralph René, made a demonstration of the difficulty of working in a vacuum for the Discovery Channel's programme Did We Go To The Moon?, which consists of a vacuum chamber he built in his back yard with a gardening glove in it, in which you can flex your fingers. Here's a clue: the astronauts were not wearing gardening gloves! In fact, using a bellows arrangement in the joints, the gloves used both then and today for extra-vehicular work, perfectly well facilitate reasonably delicate work. It's not that easy to work with the fatness of the fingers, but bending them is far from impossible. Again, over ten years of research and design work were available for solving and testing solutions to this problem before we went.

The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

This is quite simply factually incorrect on two counts. First of all, as demonstrated above, shadows on the Moon are no more divergent than you would expect from any perspective photograph. Shadows are only parallel when seen directly from above and are on a flat surface, something the moon is somewhat lacking in. Totally flat and parallel shadows is what would have indicated fakery, not the other way round. The second reason why the shadows are self-evidently not caused by multiple light sources is because there is no way of getting one object lit by one source and another lit by a different source = both objects have to be lit by and cast shadows from both light sources - there would be multiple shadows for each object if there were multiple light sources - and each shadow would be "dimmer" because of the light of the other source, which is of course not what we see in the photographs.

If the moon landing was faked, they would have ensured that multiple shadows did not appear, primarily by having only a single light. Multiple shadows would have been a recognised problem.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.

In the released pictures that we see, yes. What of it? If there was a policy to ensure the flag was always well seen, then the photos which showed it up would have been the ones selected, or they may even have been "touched up" - not an uncommon practice in any media outlet. On the other hand, how or why would you specially light the US flag and "United States" when faking it, without risk of extra shadows, etc, exposing the fake. No, if the words are always well lit (which they well may not be, I don't know) then they are so because of something that would have happened whether it was faked or not.

Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

The moon mission wasn't a "press event" - the same person making the film wouldn't also be taking stills at the same time. How could the pictures exactly match the film? Nasa's "at the same time" statement clearly means within a reasonable timeframe.

The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.

I dealt with this above. Not every picture is "advertising agency ready", only the well known ones we see.

Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

They were JOKING. Jeezus!

This is my favorite one.
A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

A well publicised remote control operation managed from Mission Control.

One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

Is this the picture?



(Don't click to see the film, that's only on the site I got it from). That's Aldrin, taken by Armstrong.

The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

DESIGN. Amazingly enough, since we were clearly able to at the very least send rockets and satellites into space, it beggars belief that people can even remotely think that space suits are no better put together than huge balloons.

The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the Moon that could be seen from Earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

Well, the Cold War thing is moot, since the point is being made that the US would somehow have to "signal" that they had succeeded where the Russians had failed. As it happened, however, this was unnecessary since the Soviet Union sent their congratulations in along with the rest of the world.

As to just making a signal by using magnesium flares, well it just wasn't done. I suppose Nasa thought it was an irrelevance or maybe cost too much in terms of weight or time spent compared to what they had to get achieved - particularly for the first mission. However, this idea was certainly around at the time, because it was included in Arthur C. Clarke's novella Venture To The Moon (1957), in which he postulated a far more sensible means of conquering and exploring the moon, a joint operation of the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom (!), each sending a substantial team so that approximately 100 men are on the moon, and they stay for around six months or so. The idea about the "magnesium flare" was in fact a canister of sodium gas that would simply be unleashed from the moon's surface, and when the sodium reached past the moon's shadow, the resultant luminescence caused by the Sun's rays would create an enormous light show. The twist is that someone on the team figured out that in the absence of an atmosphere, the gas wouldn't intermix in the usual way - the molecules would simply fire out and keep their form (I'm not at all sure this is true, but lets pretend for the sake of the story). So they put a special stencil into the nozzle of the canister. And when the sun's rays hit that gas, it spelt out "the name of a product far too well known to get any more publicity from me. The C's and the L's had caused a bit of trouble, but the O's and the A's were perfect."

Text from pictures in the article show only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

The cameras were left in the chest position, and would easily be lost against the suit in the tiny distorted image in a visor reflection .

The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering?

I continue to be puzzled by claims that a flag is "fluttering" in a still photograph.

How can the flag be brightly lit when its not facing any light ?

The flags, being flimsy cloth, are semi-transparent. The light is coming through the flag.[/quote]

And where, in all of these shots, are the stars? [/quote]On Earth, go out and take a photograph of a well lit area at night including lots of reflection from the ground (concrete, say), print the picture and look to see if any stars in the sky can be seen. Even eyes have difficulty picking up the different light of stars, cameras are woefully inadequate. You know, I saw the HB's promoting a Nasa artist's impression of a moonwalk - a painting, in other words - as "evidence" that the stars would be seen!

The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust.

The lander feet are very wide around, precisely to minimise the amount it sank into the dirt. And once again, how would this be different in a faked situation? The Lander still weighs a hundred times an astronaut whether it's on the moon or the Earth. If a deeper impression was what should have been expected, it would have happened that way in the hangar as much as on the surface of the moon.

The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.“

I've never ever seen a photograph that definitively shows the dust all blasted away, or the dust being present. The supposition is that there's supposed to be a crater, but there really shouldn't be - you don't go down an enormous amount of dust before reaching rock.

Typical woo-woo reasoning. From The Apollo Hoax.

Hasselblad were the manufacturer of the camera that took all of the photos on the Apollo missions. Jan Lundberg was the Manager Of Space Projects at Hasselblad from 1966 to 1975 and responsible for the production and building of the Hasselblad 500 EL/70 cameras that were used on the Apollo Missions. He says 'Originally NASA made all the alterations themselves, then they presented what they had done to us and asked if we could do the same, to which we replied yes we can, and we can do it better. We proceeded to make the alterations that were accepted by NASA.' Protective plates were added to the case and film magazine.




An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots. Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?

Why is it that the person asking the question cannot quite see that he's already answered it himself? Maybe the fact that the film emulsion survived a trip to the moon (and there are important technical reasons why the full temperature range quoted does not actually apply, apart from anything else, the film was protected by the vacuum of space, like coffee in a Thermos) had something to do with the fact that Nasa made alterations to the camera, and asked Hasselblad to do the same, which they then did, in fact did a "better" job than Nasa had. Then, having spuriously mentioned the extraordinary temperature range of the Moon's surface - fully 380 degrees fahrenheit or over 200 degrees celsius - they ask the rhetorical question "why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?" To which one sadly pats them on the shoulder and say, "When we're all taking holidays on the Moon, perhaps they will."

Here's a weird section, though.....

One For The Sceptics
Over the past few years I have been in constant debate with several members of the 'Bad Astronomy' website and Apollo believers who visit this site. Bad Astronomy is a website that is a general meeting place for people who think that they can explain the hoax theories concerning the Apollo program and the site goes into detail on other anomalies that appear on space footage. During my time debating on the site, I was issued several challenges by sceptics who said that if I could show 'official NASA footage' showing certain anomalies, then that evidence MAY make them think that something is definitely amiss with the NASA Apollo footage. Needless to say, as at the time of writing, none of them have come forward and changed their stance.
The three main challenges were

1. Produce pictures showing stars that are taken on the Moons surface. They say because of the very bright conditions on the Moon, stars would not be visible from its surface!

2. Show an example of Movie footage that was taken aboard the Lunar Rover whilst it is in motion. (I asked the site how could the satellite dish at the front of the rover relay the video signal to a satellite or Houston if it was moving all over the place?). I was even told that this footage does not exist?... see below

3. If I could provide film footage of the LEM producing a flame on the Moons surface (This would prove that the movie was not taken on the Moon because the Moons atmosphere and vacuum would prevent such a flame).

That was the challenge... and here is the evidence... Enjoy ;o)


One of the biggest debates between hoax theorists and sceptics concerns the non appearance of stars from the surface of the Moon. If the objects in the sky that appear in the film to the left from the Apollo 15 Mission are not stars what are they? We can rule out marks on the lens of the camera or in the film because these objects appear on various parts of each shot and not just in one place.

[pictures and video]

Click on these pictures of Hill 305 and the Hadley Delta to see a larger view of 'stars' in the sky above the Moon. They all show a similar formation from different angles. These pictures are from a set (AS15-9012249 to AS15-90-12269) Most of this set shows 'stars' in the sky!

Bad Astronomy writers tell me that a flame would not be visible on the surface of the Moon because it is a vacuum and has no atmosphere. We'll BA writers, watch the movie to the right. It shows the Apollo 16 LEM leaving the Lunar surface and what do we see... a flame Therefore this piece of footage alone proves that the Apollo program was hoaxed!

Isn't that bizarre? The BadAstronomy questions (which have clearly been misquoted in any case, but I'll get to that later) are in response to so-called anomalies in moon footage.

The reason BadAstronomy states that stars can't be seen is because the Hoax Believers ask "Why are there no stars in the pictures?" Told that you wouldn't expect to find stars because of light levels and film sensitivity, they then say, "Oh yeah? Well how do you explain these stars then?" Uh, wha-?

The obvious misquote comes in the second question, because his question to BA was asking how it was possible to transmit pictures from a moving rover, so the challenge to him would not in fact have been "Show an example of Movie footage", it would have been "Show an example of TV footage" - which he has failed to do. (In fact I think he forgot about that because I can't see where he's supposedly showing this rover footage).

Then the exact same thing as with the first question arises with the third question. BadAstronomy was answering the HB question "Why is there no flame under the Ascent Stage in the Apollo 17 takeoff?" Their reply: "You can't see visible flame without an atmosphere." This guy: "But there's a visible flame!" What BadAstronomy meant was why the space under the ascent stage has no flame like the Saturn V on Earth takeoff. And in the illustrative film, indeed there is no flame. So what is he talking about, claiming there is a flame? The initial explosion? That's the actual chemicals themselves. There's a brief view of radiation, certainly unlike any flame I've ever seen. The only reason they brought the flame up is because HBs didn't understand why there was no flame!

good description mate ,I am new to this group so please send me what ever good u have
thank u

Whom are you addressing? And what do you mean by "send me whatever good you have"?

Well, debunk this if you think you're so smart.

Why were the images of Earth from the Moon so small? The Earth diameter is 4 times that of the moon so the Earth should be very big when seen from the moon. But when you look at the pictures taken from the moon, the Earth is very small.

Originally Posted by funzone36

Well, debunk this if you think you're so smart.

Why were the images of Earth from the Moon so small? The Earth diameter is 4 times that of the moon so the Earth should be very big when seen from the moon. But when you look at the pictures taken from the moon, the Earth is very small.

The apparent size of an object in a picture depends upon the field of view (FOV) of the lenses. A zoom "enlarges" objects by narrowing the FOV and so the object fills a wider part of the picture & so looks bigger. Conversely, a wider FOV will make objects look smaller, but it will "fit more stuff" within the picture.

It's like taking a picture of a single peak with the zoom or the whole mountains ladnscape with a macro. The size of the frame is always the sam, but the angular (apparent) size of the objects in it may vary widly.

In addition, it's impossible to know the size of an object as seen in a picture unless we got a frame of reference. A toy car 1 meter away is the same apparent size as a real car 30 meters away -how would you tell its size if you never had seen a car before?

So saying that the Earth "looks too small" from the Moon is as silly as saying that Mt. Everest in a picture taken with a 28 mm looks smaller than a hill's picture taken with a 300 mm. Of course it will!

BTW, if you take a picture of the Moon from Earth, it also will look very small unless you use a zoom...

Originally Posted by Lucifer

How may light sources are here...?



Look closely and you'll understand why the tree shadows in the background just don't align.

(And that's on Earth, where we are used to judge angles, distances & relative sizes. Go figure on the Moon when there not even is some air to blurr distant objects)

Hey Lucifer,
If you take a closer look at the picture you can easily figure out that the ground is not flat. Thus the shadows did not align themselves.

Originally Posted by anandsatya

Originally Posted by Lucifer

How may light sources are here...?



Look closely and you'll understand why the tree shadows in the background just don't align.

(And that's on Earth, where we are used to judge angles, distances & relative sizes. Go figure on the Moon when there not even is some air to blurr distant objects)

Hey Lucifer,
If you take a closer look at the picture you can easily figure out that the ground is not flat. Thus the shadows did not align themselves.

...and the same on the moon, just there it's ahrder to judge what ground is slpped and what not, or wether if the photographer is ON a sloped ground. :wink:

Actually the "shadows are not parallel" argument is a damn weak one as two light sources ALWAYS cause two shadows and a interference zone between them.

Geesh, the landers have been subsequently imaged from orbiters and telescopes.

See Apollo 15 here, for example:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...os_010427.html

In addition, Apollo 11, 14 and 15 astronauts placed laser reflector arrays on the moon's surface. Anyone with a bright laser and a telescope can find them now by pointing the laser at the landing site on the lunar surface and catching the reflection back.

Time to take the tin hats off.

Geesh.

I think most conspiracy theorists who come up with these ideas can be divided up into perhaps three categories. First, there's probably a few people who honestly and really do believe that the Apollo landings never took place. Then there are those who know perfectly well that there is no hoax, but they love getting attention, or they love to fool people just because they can. A third group is perhaps those who see conspiracies everywhere, because the government is simply that evil.

The first group is probably mostly ignorant. That's not a crime; most of us are, of course, about many things. We don't know everything.

The second group is likely somewhat ignorant too, but they have decided that there is a hoax anyway, even after they have received information and answers to questions about fluttering flags and disobedient shadows. They want to intentionally fool people.

The third group sees conspiracies everywhere and will not stop doing so. Presenting evidence to them is therefore likely futile.

Oh, and speaking of shadows. If shadows going in different directions is evidence of multiple sources of light, then why are there not multiple shadows, all equally dark? Actually, there were multiple sources of light. The Sun, Earth, the Lunar surface, and even the lunar lander and the astronauts themselves, reflecting the sunlight.

Originally Posted by Stargazer

Oh, and speaking of shadows. If shadows going in different directions is evidence of multiple sources of light, then why are there not multiple shadows, all equally dark? Actually, there were multiple sources of light. The Sun, Earth, the Lunar surface, and even the lunar lander and the astronauts themselves, reflecting the sunlight.

All the light sources you mention are sources for scattered light; they reflect light beams in every direction, and so the amount of photons coming from each one on a certain object are too few to be noticed, and thus their absence (shadow) is not seen neither.

I think the simplest answer to this question is this: the Soviets had the technology to track the Americans in space. If the Americans said they went to the moon but had not in fact done so, the Soviets would have known.

The flag is not fluttering. NASA did something to it to make it stiff so it would stick out.

Weren't all of these postulates disproved in a documentary on the Discovery channel?

we can put a man on the moon, but will we ever stop crazy conspiracy theories? maybe if we step-up our efforts to teach science in the classroom better.

until then, this is one of the better websites to address the issue. actually addresses a lot of the photo stuff with great pics (I admire this guy for actually taking the time to go through this nonsense):

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

for god sake this kind of debate is so silly
There is one evidence that is so freaking convincing that it simply blow away any counter arguments. So stop this debate and accept there were there.

Well-said Zelos. Why do people doubt the fact that we were on the moon - Are they simply anti-American?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Thamnophis, I am not jumping all over you; I am jumping all over the questions. These keep turning up on websites.

I agree. the same thing happened on 9/11. the stupidist conspiricy theory was "the planes had no windows" yet in multiple publications, photos of the hull, windows and all, were shown. why is everybody determined to degrade the US?

Originally Posted by Chucky

Well-said Zelos. Why do people doubt the fact that we were on the moon - Are they simply anti-American?

A substantial number of the doubters are American. Indeed, I have met only a handful of non-Americans who doubt the Americans landed there.

In contrast, I believe opinion polls show a substantial percentage of Americans (at least 10% and it may be higher) doubt the landings took place.

They aren't anti-American, they are anti-intellect.

They aren't anti-American, they are anti-intellect.

Absolutely. On that same note, they are precisely American.
Generating and spreading absurd conspiracy theories is Americas second most cherished past-time. Closely pursued by excessively worrying about what other citizens are doing in the privacy of their own homes. Baseball is somewhere in the top 25, I think.

Stepping all over the Constitution and happily substituting our liberty for a sense of false security comes in at a distinct and unmatched first place.

the same thing happened on 9/11. the stupidist conspiricy theory was "the planes had no windows" yet in multiple publications, photos of the hull, windows and all, were shown. why is everybody determined to degrade the US?

Don't even get me started here. The conspiracy theories surrounding this subject are so abhorrent and grotesque it literally churns my innards.

I'm not sure if any of you ever saw the video going around the Internet called “Loose Change,” but the sonofabitch who made it should be tarred and feathered. It's the sorriest excuse for rational thinking I've seen in a while, yet Americans soak it up by the tubful. Truly sickening.

i run into people of this sort during online gamming more often than i thought capable.

maybe theres a link.

Originally Posted by CaveatLector

They aren't anti-American, they are anti-intellect.

Absolutely. On that same note, they are precisely American.
Generating and spreading absurd conspiracy theories is Americas second most cherished past-time. Closely pursued by excessively worrying about what other citizens are doing in the privacy of their own homes. Baseball is somewhere in the top 25, I think.

Stepping all over the Constitution and happily substituting our liberty for a sense of false security comes in at a distinct and unmatched first place.

the same thing happened on 9/11. the stupidist conspiricy theory was "the planes had no windows" yet in multiple publications, photos of the hull, windows and all, were shown. why is everybody determined to degrade the US?

Don't even get me started here. The conspiracy theories surrounding this subject are so abhorrent and grotesque it literally churns my innards.

I'm not sure if any of you ever saw the video going around the Internet called “Loose Change,” but the sonofabitch who made it should be tarred and feathered. It's the sorriest excuse for rational thinking I've seen in a while, yet Americans soak it up by the tubful. Truly sickening.

Nice rant. Sure there are idiots that endorse brainless conspiracy theories but I'm not sure why you don't dismiss them as such like most people, instead of pretending that significant groups of Americans subscribe to them. People ARE determined to degrade the U.S., justified or not, and you are one of them. Lines like the first in your post identify you as biased from the get-go.

Nice rant. Sure there are idiots that endorse brainless conspiracy theories but I'm not sure why you don't dismiss them as such like most people, instead of pretending that significant groups of Americans subscribe to them. People ARE determined to degrade the U.S., justified or not, and you are one of them. Lines like the first in your post identify you as biased from the get-go.

Yes, as a critic of my own country, I am biased. It is in no way an understatment to say that we/I live in a country of glorified ignorace. Political, economic, and cultural ignorace.
Significant numbers of Americans DO suscribe to conspiracy theories. The fact that you dismiss my comments as "anti-American" (which I won't even dignify that absurd position by defending it), precisely shows that you either:
1. Don't live here, or...
2. Pay little to no attention to the political landscape currently unfolding in my (possibly our) country.

Now, Shoo fly.