Moon Landing is a Fake

[Astroboy]

One more free lesson: You have seen objects fall in our environment the same way for your entire life. If an object fell differently all of a sudden, chances are you would notice it. That is what I'm referring to when I reference an 'intuitive' knowledge of physics.

I'm assuming to are referring to this video:

It show objects falling at what may "intuitively" seem odd speeds toward the ground. This is exactly what I'm talking about where intuition fails. Analyze the sequences carefully and you can see that each case the fall of the object is preceded by an acceleration motion initiated by the Astronauts own movements either by the hopping or by falling. His pack is swaying or bobbing up and down which provides the initial velocity to essentially throw the objects toward the ground. Some of the shots have the initial move hidden behind the Astronaut so it is more difficult to see this action.

You can accept my analysis or not. But my own determination after see that is that it shows nothing irregular.

The above example also relates to the fact that I freely acknowledge that the photos may be real.

You can't have it both ways. Either they were on the Moon or they weren't.

If some of the photos or videos are fake and some are real doesn't this already prove that they were there?

The only way that proves that they weren't there is to prove that all the material shot on the Moon was fake.

But those same photos on earth would be considered photos taken in a studio under spotlights.

I assume you are referring to this photo:
<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2228/2281660495_71a0f4760d.jpg" >

Another great example of where intuition fails. So in other words you are saying like all the other believers that "if it looks like a spotlight, then it is a spotlight." Sadly to say, this is not analysis. It is faulty intuition.

Allow me to give you a free lesson on lighting and geometry.

Here is how to replicate the conditions using a basic 3D program that will demonstration how a infinite directional light source can, given the proper lighting angles and terrain features, look just like a spot light:

Build a shallow crater with the rim high enough above the Astronaut's head so the inside of the crater is above the camera's top viewing range. Make the material of the crater with normal specular and very dark almost black ambient settings. No textures required in this demonstration. Now make the inside floor of the crater irregularly sloped with the location of where the Astronaut is standing slightly bulged upward. Now create a light source (directional, infinite, shadows on) so it is low on the horizon similar to the photo. Make sure the right side of the crater relative to the camera is far enough away that it does not cast a shadow onto the camera view frame. Create a simple primitive in the place of the Astronaut. This should take no more than 10 minutes to create. Ask a friend who does 3d if you can't do it.

I could do this but I think you need to prove it to yourself. And since you don't trust anything I say any images from me may be considered biased. If you do trust that I'm speaking from the position of trying to find the truth then I will gladly demonstrate this proof.

Again, what am I trying to prove? That the photo is not a spot light and can occur exactly as shown depending on the conditions of the terrain and lighting and that it is an authentic photo.

 

[mike]

it also makes sense to me that the subject would move into any source of natural light, if you have a choice of being photographed in the shadow or the light most ppl would move out of the shadow and into the light so's to get a better picture

 

[BrandonD]

I'm assuming to are referring to this video:

I'm not referring to any video. It was meant to illustrate what I'm referring to when I say "intuitive understanding of physics". I'm only talking about the photos.

You can't have it both ways. Either they were on the Moon or they weren't.

If some of the photos or videos are fake and some are real doesn't this already prove that they were there?

The only way that proves that they weren't there is to prove that all the material shot on the Moon was fake.

It seems you haven't read my previous postings. I've stated this before but I guess I need to again:

1) I'm NOT saying that we didn't go to the moon. In fact, I've never stated that I believe that.
2) Please re-read point number 1
3) All I've been saying is that it appears to me that certain apollo photos were faked, for an unknown reason.
4) So yes, I can have it both ways because I don't 'believe' anything regarding this subject. There are conceivable reasons why we could have legitimately gone to the moon and still faked photographs.

Hypothetical reason #1: Make the photos more flashy and "hollywood" to generate greater public support.

Just one possibility of many.

I assume you are referring to this photo:
<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2228/2281660495_71a0f4760d.jpg" >

Another great example of where intuition fails. So in other words you are saying like all the other believers that "if it looks like a spotlight, then it is a spotlight." Sadly to say, this is not analysis. It is faulty intuition.

Allow me to give you a free lesson on lighting and geometry.

Here is how to replicate the conditions using a basic 3D program that will demonstration how a infinite directional light source can, given the proper lighting angles and terrain features, look just like a spot light:

Build a shallow crater with the rim high enough above the Astronaut's head so the inside of the crater is above the camera's top viewing range. Now make the inside floor of the crater irregularly sloped with the location of where the Astronaut is standing slightly bulged upward. Now create a light source (directional, infinite, shadows on) so it is low on the horizon similar to the photo. Make sure the right side of the crater relative to the camera is far enough away that it does not cast a shadow onto the camera view frame. Create a simple primitive in the place of the Astronaut. This should take no more than 10 minutes to create. Ask a friend who does 3d if you can't do it.

I could do this but I think you need to prove it to yourself. And since you don't trust anything I say any images from me may be considered biased. If you do trust that I'm speaking from the position of trying to find the truth then I will gladly demonstrate this proof.

Again, what am I trying to prove? That the photo is not a spot light and can occur exactly as shown depending on the conditions of the terrain and lighting and that it is an authentic photo.

As I said before, I'm not a "believer" and I never claimed to be one. You're in fact the first person to give me a genuine scenario to test out and not just a reference to an obscure website with some mathematical jargon.

Fortunately I happen to have skills in 3D modeling, I recently bought Carrara Pro which will be able to re-create the scene you're describing. I'll build it, and when I'm done I'll post the results. Thanks for the help.

 

[Astroboy]

Fortunately I happen to have skills in 3D modeling, I recently bought Carrara Pro which will be able to re-create the scene you're describing. I'll build it, and when I'm done I'll post the results. Thanks for the help.

Out of curiosity, why did you choose Carrara vs Maya or 3D Studio or other standard packages?

Are you working on a game that needs natural landscapes? Man I thought Bryce, the precursor to this program, was long dead. Metacreations the original authors made lots of cool but ultimately useless programs that generated beautiful images.

 

[BrandonD]

Out of curiosity, why did you choose Carrara vs Maya or 3D Studio or other standard packages?

Are you working on a game that needs natural landscapes? Man I thought Bryce, the precursor to this program, was long dead. Metacreations the original authors made lots of cool but ultimately useless programs that generated beautiful images.

Yea the game I'm working on involves lots of natural landscapes. It's a Myst-type game so the images are basically very pretty and detailed stills, with a few gifs and quicktime animations added in to spice it up.

 

[mike]

this documentary looks good

At the Movies: In The Shadow Of The Moon

the link to the trailer is in there as well as some extracts from the movie

 

[Gil Bavel]

There's a new post on The Bad Astronomer about the show Mythbusters doing a moon-hoax show, with a lively debate as well:

Bad Astronomy

He was tapped as an "expert" for the episode, although he doesn't appear in it.

I think y'all will find the article interesting. I find it interesting that there's enough interest about the (alleged) moon-hoax that they're doing a mainstream TV episode on it...

And what if they determine that the myth is busted?

 

[Gil Bavel]

this documentary looks good

At the Movies: In The Shadow Of The Moon

the link to the trailer is in there as well as some extracts from the movie

Nice trailer with additional footage! The whole thing is 10:48 long.

Now, is this being released in response to "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon", or will there be yet another (alleged) moon-hoax documentary kicked up in the aftermath of this film's release? It says that it's going to have lots of new heretofore unseen footage, so presumably conspiracy theorists will be clamoring to take pot shots at the new footage.

I saw on TV last night a show I'd seen before, in which flight controller Eugene F. Kranz mentioned that the outer skin of the LEM was about as thick as two sheets of aluminum foil, and Buzz Aldrin went on to say that you had to be careful not to poke your finger or a pencil at it, because it would puncture it.

I bring this up because this film, In the Shadow of the Moon, is directed by Ron Howard, who also directed Apollo 13 (great film!). In this mission, the astronauts had to use the LEM as a spacecraft for 3 days because of damage to the main spacecraft. It seems nearly impossible that they could survive on the surface of the moon in such a contraption, much less flying through space with solar and cosmic radiation beaming through their bodies the whole while. Did God shut off the sun toward them during the mission?

As you're all aware, my main problem with the whole going to the moon thing is the radiation problem. I don't remember who it was, but one of the radiation engineers, before the mission went into full-tilt production, said that to protect the crew, the crew compartment would need four feet of lead around it. I understand that they came up with some polyurethane (cellophane wrap) that they were able to weave into many layers instead... and this engineer made a statement revising down his pre-mission comment and then shut his trap.

Things like this bother me. Little inconsistencies along the way that don't get properly answered are what fuels the little 5% of me that questions the validity of the Apollo missions (and particularly their ultimate result).

I think the only way to properly address this question is to have a debate, on one side, we must select someone that knows all the facts without a stake in the outcome--possibly Bart Sibrel--and a skeptic on the other, possibly Phil Plait (the Bad Astronomer) who seems to have taken it on as a personal mission to "debunk" the "moon hoax" (but please not Michael Shermer--he doesn't do his homework, and just goes into ridicule mode when he doesn't know the answer. "If you can't go after the evidence, go after the character of the person you're debating" seems to be his mantra).

So, with not only the constant interest about the subject here on the board, but now with another pro-Apollo film coming out and a Mythbusters episode about the alleged hoax--it seems like there is more interest than ever to break down and have a really good, vigorous debate about the whole thing. Richard Hoagland is a knowledgeable pro-moon guy who was actually there, covering the event as a science advisor to CBS news and Walter Cronkite, yet he has caught NASA lying on several occasions.

He noticed, for instance, that when NASA was preparing to do their first press conference from space, they were buying time for their pet host/journalist who had gotten stinking drunk the night before, had gotten up late, and was on his way to the studio. They were covering for him by saying that they were waiting for the spacecraft to come up over the mountains of Australia. After doing some quick calculations, he realized that these mountains would have to be 5,000 miles high.

He mentioned it to his producer, who didn't make a big deal out of it. But that was the first time when the 22-year-old Hoagland realized that NASA would lie when it suited them to do so. And they've been lying ever since.

Hoagland would certainly be an interesting guest in any case, his new "Dark Mission" book is a bestseller, and I'm interested in much of the things he's brought to light, especially with the help of (supposed) NASA insiders feeding him information.

 

[Gil Bavel]

CHINA FAKES MOON SHOT



The Shenzhou 7, manned spacecraft launches from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in China. (AP Photo)
More Pictures

<!-- google_ad_section_start --> BEIJING: China today successfully launched its spacecraft with three astronauts on the country's most challenging and 'sacred' mission involving first-ever space walk. Unfortunately, they lied about it first.

BEIJING: Oops.
An article describing China's long-awaited space mission was launched Thursday hours before astronauts even left the launch pad.
The country's official news agency Xinhua posted an article on its Web site Thursday written as if the three astronauts had already been launched into space.
The Shenzhou 7 mission, which will feature China's first-ever spacewalk, is set to launch Thursday from Jiuquan in northwestern China between 9:07 p.m. and 10:27 p.m. (1307 GMT and 1427 GMT).
The Xinhua article is dated Sept. 27 — two days from now — and comes complete with an entire dialogue between the astronauts.
The piece titled "Sleepless Night on the Pacific, Sidelights on the Observation and Control of the 30th Lap of Shenzhou 7 Spaceship," which was available most of the day, has now been removed from the Xinhua Web site.
A staffer from the Xinhuanet.com Web site who answered the phone Thursday said the posting of the article was a "technical error" by a technician. The staffer refused to give his name as is common among Chinese officials.
The piece vividly described the rocket in flight, complete with a sharply detailed dialogue between the three astronauts.
Excerpts are below:
"First-level measurement arrangement!"
After this order, signal lights all were switched on, various data show up on rows of screens, hundreds of technicians staring at the screens, without missing any slightest changes ...
"One minute to go!"
"Changjiang No.1 found the target!"...
The firm voice of the controller broke the silence of the whole ship. Now, the target is captured 12 seconds ahead of the predicted time ...
"The air pressure in the cabin is normal!"
"Ten minutes later, the ship disappears below the horizon. Warm clapping and excited cheering breaks the night sky, echoing across the silent Pacific Ocean."


So, just to re-iterate, it's been nearly forty years, and countries are still faking moon shots. Okay, they're not actually on the moon yet--but you get the idea.


And now, back to your regularly scheduled conspiracy theory discussion.

 

[Hoffmeister]

If i hear any more about moon landing hoax's I think i'm gonna gouge my eyes out with a blunt object.
The fact is we have a device up there on the moon which we bounce a laser of nearly every day to see how far the moon is away from the earth.

Its a pretty intricate piece of equipement and is not something we could have just blasted up there in a rocket and wheeled off onto the surface, so it basically proves we went there.
We also have lots of samples from the moon, and about 500-1000 people working at NASA at the time were involved in getting those guys up there... yet not one of them is saying anything about a hoax.

Added to that, the russians were listening in on the moon landing communications with their own listening devices (as were a few other institutions around the world if i remember correctly) which were pointed at the moon. If they had smelt a rat they would have been the first ones to shout about it.
Added to that, recently declassified letters written by Nixon show that he had a pre-written speech for when the astronauts got stuck up there and died. Why would he have written the letter if he knew it was faked

 

[Kieran]

If i hear any more about moon landing hoax's I think i'm gonna gouge my eyes out with a blunt object.
The fact is we have a device up there on the moon which we bounce a laser of nearly every day to see how far the moon is away from the earth.

Its a pretty intricate piece of equipement and is not something we could have just blasted up there in a rocket and wheeled off onto the surface, so it basically proves we went there.
We also have lots of samples from the moon, and about 500-1000 people working at NASA at the time were involved in getting those guys up there... yet not one of them is saying anything about a hoax.

Added to that, the russians were listening in on the moon landing communications with their own listening devices (as were a few other institutions around the world if i remember correctly) which were pointed at the moon. If they had smelt a rat they would have been the first ones to shout about it.
Added to that, recently declassified letters written by Nixon show that he had a pre-written speech for when the astronauts got stuck up there and died. Why would he have written the letter if he knew it was faked

Perfect analyse dude well done.The Moon landings are a fact! ' And any other thoughts are fun to play around with , but you are on a lonely road to nowhere if you believe the moon landings were a hoax.

What is really a mystery to me at least, is what happened to those guys on the first Apollo mission, that was so shocking to the system, that they wouldnt talk about it in a honest manner.

Buzz doesnt seem to me at least, to be honest in describeing what he saw. He is hideing something i just feel it in my bones when i watch him.Is he frightened to lose his reputation if he came clean.

Armstrong what is up with that guy, Nobody is that camera shy.Something happened to him also, i just know it. Doesnt mean he saw ufos or anything. But something must have happened.

 

[Gareth]

Im not a 'moon hoaxer' but I do have one question. Im sure its been answered somewhere but what is the deal with that fake film the astronauts made by blocking out light in the craft and making the Earth seem small? They shot the window that was full of Earth form the back of the craft making it seem small.

Im sure theres an explanation.

 

[maxszabo]

The final lift-off of the LEM seems a bit non-geometric...

 

[thetruthisoutthere]

I believe that the moon landing was real. What reason would the goverment have to cover something like that up. After all we have the technology so we are capable of doing it.

 

[PamiP]

I also believe we went to the moon. It's too bad we didn't find any oil or gold up there. There would have been more incentive to learn how to colonize the moon and maybe we would be further along in human exploration than we are at this point.

 

[rodeo97]

I believe the moon landing was real. However, it could have been faked. In fact, it would probably be cheaper and easier to fake it than it would be to do it. Why would the government fake a moon landing? Two words, cold war. One thing American civilization will leave as a legacy for the ages is the art of making the unreal seem real via the television screen.


"Space may be the final frontier, but its built in a Hollywood basement" -Red hot chili peppers.

 

[sandman]

I dont doubt that we have been to the moon many times over the years but i do think that the first landing was indeed a fake. The technology at the time was simply not quite advanced enough to reach the moon in a manned flight.
check out the book, Dark Moon:Apollo and the whistle-blowers, and Dark Mission:The secret history of NASA

 

[cottonzway]

I just wish this thread (idea) went away. We have a world in chaos and this is the kind of shit we debate? Unreal. The world is falling apart and people want to debate if we landed on the moon. No wonder why we are losing our own country.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

The Mad Revisionist

 

[qqqq]

Perfect analyse dude well done.The Moon landings are a fact! ' And any other thoughts are fun to play around with , but you are on a lonely road to nowhere if you believe the moon landings were a hoax.

What is really a mystery to me at least, is what happened to those guys on the first Apollo mission, that was so shocking to the system, that they wouldnt talk about it in a honest manner.

Buzz doesnt seem to me at least, to be honest in describeing what he saw. He is hideing something i just feel it in my bones when i watch him.Is he frightened to lose his reputation if he came clean.

Armstrong what is up with that guy, Nobody is that camera shy.Something happened to him also, i just know it. Doesnt mean he saw ufos or anything. But something must have happened.

It's fine to say a fact, but on the other hand you are saying there is a deeper mystery here. I can quite easily come along and say the moon landing was buttered up within a studio.