Moon landing 'hoax'

[Tom]

There are many morons in this world

Does anybody else here think that the moon landings were faked? I can't believe people can be so stupid and ignorant to think that they were. People talking about parallel shadows, crosses behind white objects, stars not being visible, are just plain thick.

 

[icemaiden]

Tbh i dunno which side is correct. I can see the theory behind saying that the moon landings were fake (flag flapping on planet with no atmosphere).
To say people that believe it are stupid is just a bit crappy.. just because they don't have same opinion as you doesn't make them stupid.

 

[old.tRoG]

I don't really know... the americans are strange enough to try it

Mind you, not strange enough to spend billions of dollars every year with NASA, for something that doesn't exist.

 

[Wij]

THEY WERE FAKE I HAEV TEH EVIDUNCE!!!!!!

http://brainsluice.tripod.com/moonlanding.html

(p.s. glenn)

 

[ECA]

Isn't it just possible that they developed the technology to send a rocket to the moon and bring it back, but not do that with humans on board? wouldn't it be so much simpler to do it without?

The CIA put itching powder into fidel castro's beard and tried a range of other loony assassination techniques.

Its not proveable either way.

Surely rather than launching a space station with all its needs such as navigational stability etc it would be so much easier to put a base on the moon?

I'm not a moron, my Iq is fairly high, yet I don't believe NASA put people on the moon there are too many inconsistencies.

Why havn't they dont it since? and about 50-200 small detail questions that are not answerable.

 

[mank!]

\o/

new sig!

 

[Summo]

They have done it since, you arse! Many, many times. God I hate these ridiculous conspiracy theories so very much.

Your 'Iq' may be fairly high but you're still a moron.

*mood*

 

[ECA]

Bah i have 3-4 paper IQ test results lying around stating between 120 and 154 :-]

Although first time in someones sig i think

 

[mank!]

I'd fluffle you Summo, but I think you'll hurt me.

 

[Summo]

I'm too busy shoving capital letters and punctuation up ECA's arse.

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by Summo
They have done it since, you arse! Many, many times. God I hate these ridiculous conspiracy theories so very much.

Your 'Iq' may be fairly high but you're still a moron.

*mood*

*stand firm with summo*
















*cop small feel*

 

[Summo]

*feel a small cop*









*get in the back of the van*

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by ECA
Bah i have 3-4 paper IQ test results lying around stating between 120 and 154 :-]

Although first time in someones sig i think

I have an IQ of around 90.

edit: I lie, it's around 110. I checked that IQ test thread.

 

[ECA]

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.

Could one of the forums budding camera blokes verify that?




I'm not particularly old and wasn't around during the cold war but all we hear is about a giant propaganda war noteably the space race, chess, etc.

It seems like such a half believable thing especially considering the fact it hasn't been done in the last decade or two IE during my lifetime.

 

[~Lazarus~]

Originally posted by mank!
I have an IQ of around 9.0

Typo matey - I saved you

 

[icemaiden]

Maybes they haven't landed on moon since coz they have no need to. Info can be obtained from shuttle or whatever.

http://www.nasm.edu/apollo/moonexplore.htm

BTW : ECA why did u change yer name from Gryff?

 

[Daffeh]

I wouldnt think twice about the moon landings if they happened under different circumstances, but the whole Cold War propaganda thing makes it a bit suspicious to me.

I dont doubt for a second we couldnt do it now, but 30 years ago when the aim was just to get one over on the Russians, instead of doing it as a human achievement is a bit fishy.

 

[ECA]

Originally posted by icemaiden
Maybes they haven't landed on moon since coz they have no need to. Info can be obtained from shuttle or whatever.

http://www.nasm.edu/apollo/moonexplore.htm

BTW : ECA why did u change yer name from Gryff?

I lost interest in online gaming for a bit whilst a-levels was on and women and drinking seemed more appealing. Came back and i'd forgotten my account password and changed email addy and had put false stuff in all meh other details.

 

[Ch3tan]

I agree with what summo said.

Oh and ECA, the camera thing does make sense.

If you've got a digi camera, or even just some film to waste go and try to photograph stars. You will need a very, very long exposure. We tried in Oz in the middle of the desert and even without background light illuminating the sky we needed a few minutes to get the stars to show.

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by Daffeh
I wouldnt think twice about the moon landings if they happened under different circumstances, but the whole Cold War propaganda thing makes it a bit suspicious to me.

I dont doubt for a second we couldnt do it now, but 30 years ago when the aim was just to get one over on the Russians, instead of doing it as a human achievement is a bit fishy.

It's NOT fishy. It happened !!!!!1

*hover finger over caps-lock key*

don't make me shout...

 

[xane]

Originally posted by ECA
Could one of the forums budding camera blokes verify that?

Confirmed.

My father is officially only an amateur photographer, but he's been doing it as a hobby for over 50 years, he has earned money doing wedding photos, he's done developing, and he's well known on the club lecture circuit and a respected judge for competitions.

He will tell you that even on earth it is difficult to get stars to appear in photos, you need long exposures that simply would not be possible under the lighting conditions on the moon.

The "propaganda thing" works against the conspiracy theorists anyway, how could the Americans keep the hoax from the Russians, who were easily their equal in spaceflight, surely if it was the hoax the Russians would cherish the opportunity to jump on them and expose it all ?

The moon is no longer an objective, it's all "been there done that", all space experimentation since has been towards Mars, the whole space station thing (Skylab and Mir) was to enable astronauts the survive the nearly year long journey it was expected to take.

There is a mirror on the moon that is used to measure the distance by bouncing a laser off it, explain how that got there ?

 

[Trancor]

Originally posted by Ch3tan
I agree with what summo said.

Oh and ECA, the camera thing does make sense.

If you've got a digi camera, or even just some film to waste go and try to photograph stars. You will need a very, very long exposure. We tried in Oz in the middle of the desert and even without background light illuminating the sky we needed a few minutes to get the stars to show.

The camera exposure is true. And if they had a longer exposure the stars would have appeared as small lines and everything else would be ultra bright with hardly any shadows.

 

[xane]

Oh yeah - http://www.apolloarchive.com/

 

[old.Fweddy]

Originally posted by xane
There is a mirror on the moon that is used to measure the distance by bouncing a laser off it, explain how that got there ?

ParcelForce.

 

[Testin da Cable]

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time

true. but then again, the hasselblads taken into space were undoubtedly very special cameras, with very special films.
still, to give a small example, here's a pic from my long weekend in Danmark. it's a picture of the town of Roskilde at night. the exposure time was 26 seconds

I've never tried to photograph stars before, but I've heard of it being done. the exposure times tend to be quite long, and a human in such a picture would be a blurred mass if they show up at all.

 

[Cdr]

Originally posted by old.Fweddy
ParcelForce.

Na, there'd just be a note under the door cos no one was there to collect it

 

[Maljonic]

The saddest part about all this is that younger people and kids hear these ridiculous rumours that it never happened, and start to believe it too...

The sky on the Moon is always black because there is no atomosphere to alter the light (I know ppl have already said this, but still); the lack of atmosphere and the unrestricted sunlight make the shadows look starkly bolder than they would on Earth; as someone already said, a normal camera would not pick up any stars.

The flag is not flapping ffs! It has a rod along the top to hold it out so you can see it, and it is all creased from being folded in storage till they got there...

There has been more than one mission to the Moon; the first mission didn't have the Lunar Rover to drive around in.

Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins are not actors... and I find it frankly disgusting that people can belittle the achievments of these three outstanding heros of the 20th century when they are still alive and available to speak to.

 

[Wij]

*stand proud by Mal's side*


















*decide not to cop feel*

 

[ECA]

Near any urban location it is very hard to see or photograph stars due to light pollution :-]

Anyway I think what a lot of this is down to is people that wernt born/old enough at the time and it hasn't been done since and with the whole cold war propaganda and CIA stupidity think its semi plausable.

The stars/the shadows etc all have common sense explanations due to conditions that are not identical to those on earth and when you look at the photos something feels wrong.

Anyway, thats my theory :-]

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Testin da Cable
true. but then again, the hasselblads taken into space were undoubtedly very special cameras, with very special films.

They were not that "special" actually, the only real modification was the special casing, because the normal casing tended to evaporate into a toxic gas when exposed to a vacuum, inside it was more or less a basic Hasselblad.

I've been to the Hasselblad factory in Sweden and seen them being made (by hand), I've seen one there that was used on a few moon missions.

This was back in the early 1980s, whilst we were being shown around someone ushered us into a cinema there and we got to see some slides of the recent first Space Shuttle flight, fresh back from the developers before they were released, pretty cool !