conspiracy theory -did we land on moon

[Klaynos]

They're not supposed to be fake, some people suggest they are fake, they are wrong. Their arguments never stand up against rigorous analysis.

 

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html

 

enjoy.

[hemantc007]

have you seen those images...........

[Klaynos]

Yes, yes I have, they are fantastic, a monument to a truly amazing feat of human achievement, something we should all be proud of.

[hemantc007]

did you notice errors in the image like the cross camera , clear images in dark shado ,survival in extream low and high tem. ,also two shadow in different directions. , no star in the sky , still stationary videos ,,, no blast crater ,,, no dust on the stand ,ship came back to earth with no fule and so small blast to left it ...,same area location ,,the crater similar to that on the area 51 ...,,

 

if all this is lie then tell NASA to clear them all in public one and for all with strong evidence.. and up load images and videos on net so that we can see all of them ...

we will continue this later . i have to go to sleep (it is nigth in india)..........can you give some info of your self now.plz

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

reply man............

[Klaynos]

Everything you have just mentioned has been covered in previous threads, have a search. Your problems with the images do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

 

I don't have to provide proof, you are the one making the claim, I have stated all the proof that there is that man went to the moon. It is your job to show that evidence is wrong.

 

Pick one of your claims, and I'll point you to where it has been completely shown to be utter rubbish.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Forums are not instantaneous, being impatient with comments like "reply man" do not serve any useful purpose.

[JohnB]

two shadow in different directions

How many light sources do you think there are on the moon?

 

But do a search and see what Klaynos means. We have discussed and debunked this story before.

[GutZ]

i never mentioned that i 100% belive in that "conspiracy theory" and neather do i have any motive to make people think like this .............i mentioned that you are free to take your own conclusion ................it is like if you see only one part of the thing then you can not analyz the reality ...........i just wanted to inform people about the second side the "moon landing"

you should never say that you think is 100% correct because probability is never 1or 0 . it is always between 1-0 that is to mean that you can not be 100% sure of any out come of the event ( until the function in valid )............................!!!!!!!!!

 

So if someone is pointing a gun at you and says that he less than 100% sure that it will fire when he pulls the trigger that you would entertain the idea that there is less than 1% chance of it not firing and stay in the path of the bullet?

 

What your saying is pointless, of course you can't be 100% certain, but the landing on the moon has a near 100% certainityof happening, and that small percent of doubt accounts for divine intervention.

 

It happened let it go. Everything has been explained. If you are doubting you don't understand the proof, there is no need to entertain other idea besides your own interest, but it doesn't change the facts.

 

There is no other side just manipulation of "facts" and misunderstanding.

[mooeypoo]

This site summarizes probably 99% of the claims made by the moonlandinghoax people, who are usually claiming THE SAME THINGS over and over again, despite the fact they're mostly all proben to be just plain wrong.

 

So, please, read: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

 

And read again. And again, if you need. Here, I'll post the link again: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

 

 

You're not the first one to claim this conspiracy theory. You're not the first to recommend e wathc this movie (I've seen it). You're not the first to post the *SAME* old claims.

 

Phil Plait is doing a GREAT job answering *EACH and EVERY ONE* of the claims made. Not missing a single one. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

 

After you read it, if you have any other comments or questions, please refer to them specifically, and we can go from there.

 

Claiming that these "hoax" claims were never answered is, quite simply, absolutely false. Here's the proof: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

 

~moo

 

 

p.s there's also these:

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

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm

 

And more.. so many more... so many ....

[Edtharan]

this is none sense . the light reflected by the moon is not enough to block the light of millions of stars , this only works when you are seeing object near each other like the sun ,moon, stars...and on other hand moon is not bright enough ............there are not just 10 or 20 there are many photos like this ............it is just that you don't want to accept it .............

The amount of light that reaches the moon as the same as that reaches the Earth. (actually the light that reaches the moon is a bit stronger as it has not atmosphere to pass through first ).

 

Tell me, can you see the screen of your mobile phone in direct sunlight? No. Well then. That might be why you can not see the stars in those pictures of the moon. The light that is reaching the surface of the moon at that time should be about as bright as daylight (a bit brighter actually). As Starlight is far more dim than the light from your mobile phone, then it is perfectly possible that the light from the sun is enough to blot out any starlight from the moon.

 

This of course does not prove that they landed on the moon, only that the claims that the pictures were fake because you can't see stars is not a vaild argument.

then what will you say about the two source of light that casted shadows in different direction

If there were more than 1 source of light from similar directions, then you would ahve had more than 1 shadow (try it with two torches). As there is only one shadow, then we can only conclude that either the light sources were pointing in opposite directions (which would not have left a shadow in the direction in the photo), or that there was a single light source.

 

This too, does not prove they landed on the moon, only that this particular argument that we didn't is also not a valid one.

 

you can not be sure that man reaturned to the earth safely with that deadly radiation in space , it was not only from sun but also from outer space radiation , x ray , cosmic ray . etc.....................

They had specially designed suits (they are called space suits) that protected them . These suits didn't just stop air from them getting out into space, but also had shielding to prevent radiation from harming them too much. And yes, I say "too much" because they were harmed and there is long term medical problems due to radiation that all astronauts face on return to Earth, including those that went to the moon. There are higher rates of cancers in astronauts.

 

In fact, this damage can be easily enough detected, and the technologies that they developed to do so are now available to your doctors to use to help detect damage done to you from the radiation that reaches the surface of the Earth.

did you notice errors in the image like the cross camera ' date=' clear images in dark shado

[/quote']

I want you to go out and go look at the moon at night. Can you see it? Well the reason you can is because light is reflected off of it.

 

Next, I want you to go outside during the day and look up at something that is in shadow. Can you see it? Well the reason for this is because light is reflected off of the surface of the Earth.

 

The amount of light that reaches the surface of the Moon is about strength the same as that which reaches the surface of the Earth (the moon is a bit stronger). These photos were taken during the "Day" on the moon, so the sunlight is about the same strength as a bright (not overcast) day here on Earth.

 

So, if you can see something in shadow here on the Earth during a bright day, why can you not see it there on the Moon?

 

However, you can also see into shadows here on the Earth. Why? Well you ahve an atmosphere that scatters the light a bit, and then you have all this stuff that is reflecting light (like house roof eves). On the Moon, most of the light is reflected upwards and they have no atmosphere to scatter the light (and there is very little in the way of house roof eves too). SO I would not be surprised that you could not see the surface of the Moon in the shadows, but you could see the Astronauts and Lander (you know, things that stick above the surface and would reflect back the light that was reflected from the surface of the moon).

 

This does not, of course, prove that we landed on the moon, but it does mean that this argument is not a valid reason to believe that we didn't.

 

well first talk about the reflector on the moon ' date='you would be knowing the area of that reflector it is apprx. ( 15-16)inch . tell me how are we able to hit our lasers at that small area with that accuracy ..

[/quote']

Go get a torch and, at night, shine it across the room. Now, measure both the size of the front of the torch and the size of the spot of light on the other side of the room.

 

Is the spot on the other side of the room bigger or smaller than the size of the front of the torch?

 

The reason for this is that the rays of the light beam are not perfectly parallel. Even in a laser this is the case (however, in a laser they are much closer to being parallel than in a torch).

 

Light has a 800,000km round trip to the moon, even if they were 0.1% off being parallel, they would have diverged massively by the time they reach the moon, thus even if there is only a small target, because the beam will have diverged enough to cover a huge area, thus making the chances of hitting that target much easier.

 

Also, the fact is they know where to aim the lasers to within less than a metre, and the target being around 1/3 of a metre in diameter, I think they stand a really good chance of hitting it.

 

BTW: Would anyone know how much an average laser beam will have diverged by the time it reached the Moon? (just for my own collection of trivia )

 

you can see the image of astronaut clear behind the space ship although it is not possible because the source of light is behind the ship

There was. The surface of the Moon...

 

You can tell this because it is bright, and bright objects are giving off (or reflecting) light. reflected light is sufficient to light up that astronaut. The brightness of the light reaching the surface of the Moon is about the same as a bright day on Earth, we are of course about the same distance form the sun and all .

 

This is what all the people who claim the photos were fake keep forgetting, the photos were taken during the DAY. They think that because the Moon is visible here on Earth mostly during the night, then the astronauts must have landed on the Moon during the night.

 

No. The photos were clearly taken during the day (the hint is that you can see anything at all in the photos as they didn't have low light cameras on these moon trips). As the photos were taken in the day, then it is expected that the reflected light from the surface of the Moon would light up the astronauts and Lander. To think otherwise clearly shows a complete lack of knowledge of basic photography (like take photos in light, not darkness) and reflection (seen your self in a mirror lately).

[Sisyphus]

Sunlight is more than just slightly stronger on the moon. The Earth's atmosphere absorbs about 25% of sunlight before it reaches the surface. The Apollo 11 was also pretty close to the Moon's equator, so the sunlight would have been quite a bit brighter than it ever is anywhere on Earth.

[Pangloss]

Tell me, can you see the screen of your mobile phone in direct sunlight? No. Well then. That might be why you can not see the stars in those pictures of the moon. The light that is reaching the surface of the moon at that time should be about as bright as daylight (a bit brighter actually). As Starlight is far more dim than the light from your mobile phone, then it is perfectly possible that the light from the sun is enough to blot out any starlight from the moon.

 

I don't think that's quite it, actually. I think it's a camera exposure problem, not a visibility problem. I've not researched this (astronaut statements might be useful here) but I would imagine that the stars are indeed visible on the moon during "daytime" because there is no atmospheric defraction taking place filling the sky with blue secondary light, like we get here on earth.

 

Cameras don't have as wide an exposure gamut as human eyes do. They operate on a narrower band, so they can typically only be set up to expose one part of the spectrum or another. You see the same thing when you have a video camera set up for indoor light and then you take it outside through a door and suddenly everything appears washed-out to the viewer, but then the camera adjusts to the new environment and things become visible. Similarly when the camera is taken back through the door everything is dark and invisible to the viewer, until the camera adjusts. The equivalent situation on the moon would mean that you could set up your exposure to either show the stars (in which case the Earth would be a washed-out white ball), or the Earth (in which case the stars would be lost in the black background).

 

But I could be wrong in applying this reasoning here -- there could be some secondary spreading effect caused by the surface or dust or even the moon's tiny atmosphere (it does have one) that causes stars to be invisible during daytime. Also the eyeball's gamut is not infinite -- it adjusts to bright and dim conditions too (by adjusting the iris around the pupil, I believe?). The astronauts who've been there would know one way or the other, and have probably recorded this information and it might come up with the right search parameters.

 

Either way, as you say, it doesn't debunk the moon landings.

[D H]

I think it's a camera exposure problem, not a visibility problem. I've not researched this (astronaut statements might be useful here) but I would imagine that the stars are indeed visible on the moon during "daytime" because there is no atmospheric defraction taking place filling the sky with blue secondary light, like we get here on earth.

 

The human eye has a limited dynamic range. The iris adjusts to let in enough light to see but not so much that it is blinding. (This doesn't work when you walk from bright sunlight to a dark room, or vice-versa.) The rods and cones also adapt, and rather slowly. When you step outside to look at the stars, your need twenty minutes or so to fully adapt to the darkness.

 

From the Apollo 17 post-landing debrief, http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.postland.html

Cernan - "When you were in the lunar module, looking out the window, you certainly couldn't see stars. Using the telescope was sort of like being in a deep well; it cut out all the reflected light and let you see the stars. It was also generally true that, when you were on the surface in the LM's shadow, there were too many bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible. But I remember that I wanted to see whether I could see stars, and there were times out on the surface when I found that, if you allowed yourself to just focus and maybe even just shielded your eyes to some degree, even outside the LM shadow you could see stars in the sky. And, quite frankly, under the right conditions here on Earth on a bright sunlit day, you can do the same thing. I could see stars through my helmet visor; not easily, but it can be done."

[bascule]

Okay, while Global Warming "Skeptics" piss me off, I have a zero tolerance policy towards moon landing deniers.

 

Yes, we landed on the f*cking moon. If you think otherwise, you're a f*cking tard. Good day.

[Pangloss]

That's a great find, D.H., thanks, I happily stand corrected! The bit about still having a lot of reflectivity from various surroundings even while in the LM's shadow was really interesting.

[Edtharan]

I don't think that's quite it, actually. I think it's a camera exposure problem, not a visibility problem. I've not researched this (astronaut statements might be useful here) but I would imagine that the stars are indeed visible on the moon during "daytime" because there is no atmospheric defraction taking place filling the sky with blue secondary light, like we get here on earth.

It is both. Reflection from the surface of the moon can dazzle the eye and cause it to adjust to the brighter light levels of the surface.

 

If you could shield your eyes from that dazzle then you would be able to see the stars. On Earth we can't do that, because of the scattering of light due to the atmosphere.

 

Cameras have this same problem. They can be adjusted to expose something in bright light by having a fast shutter speed, or they can be adjusted to expose something in dim light by having a slow shutter speed.

 

Cameras today (and video cameras too) can have an automatic system to adjust the exposure length, so in modern times we don't necessarily experience having to adjust shutter speeds. If you have ever worked with old film based cameras, you might have experienced having to adjust the shutter speed manually.

 

Often you will see, in film sets or in professional photographers, using a little device that they stick near the subject just before they take the picture. This is a light meter and is a much more accurate (and sophisticated) version of the automatic device in modern cameras that measures the strength of light on the subject (the more sophisticated ones can measure light in the different frequencies so as to also adjust the colour of the photo - but now days we can adjust it in a photo editing program like Photoshop).

 

So, both the eye and cameras have this problem of over/under exposure. The eye has several mechanisms to adjust to light levels, and modern cameras have similar systems as well. But even with these systems, if there is too much light, then dim lights will not be visible.

[StringJunky]

The contrast ratio that can be recorded by photographic film (especially the slide film used on the moon) is very limited compared to the actual scene's contrast ratio. Colour negative film. for example, can record a contrast of about 100:1 but a sunlit snow scene has a contrast ratio of up to a 1000:1. This means that the photographer has to make a decision, based on his readings, which parts of the scene before him are to be recorded because all of it will not fit in.

 

The contrast ratio ( the difference in light levels between two extremes) of the light coming off the lunar surface and the surrounding sky exceeds that which can be fully recorded by the film.

Edited August 6, 2009 by StringJunky
error in las line

[dichotomy]

The evidence for having landed on the moon far outweighs that against, nearly all the opposing evidence has been quite dramatically proven to be false.

 

Speaking of really solid evidence...

 

I am by far no expert on shooting men up to the moon for a walk and getting them back in one piece, as most of us realistically would be. I am still only about 90 percent convinced of nasa achieving this feat.

 

The only thing that I find a bit puzzling and that would make me 100 percent convinced of a moon landing, which can hopefully be rectified on this forum, is that I have tried, without result, to get a Russian and/or Chinese scientific reference that makes it clear that a moon walk was indeed achieved by NASA. I’m not even asking for all moon walks to be proven to be 100 percent convinced. I’d be exceedingly happy with just one.

 

Why do I require a Chinese or Russian scientific reference? Because they are the only two truly independent nations that are unlikely to collude, and or be pressured politically, economically, militarily.

 

Is this a reasonable request to make to be 100 percent convinced? I would hope providing this reference would make the majority of reasonable sceptics 100 percent convinced of a manned moon landing and walk.

[hemantc007]

good said dichotomy......

i fully agree with you.

IF they prove it then ,i will agree to it , that man landed on moon ( atleast once)........................!!!!!!!!!

[Klaynos]

What type of proof?

 

Neither had the capability to track the Apollo missions all the way to the moon, nor do I believe they currently have cameras in orbit around the moon to resolve the landers.

[insane_alien]

klay, all you needed to tell that there was a signal coming from the moon would be two directional antennaa seperated by a reasonably large distance(200 miles should do) and you'd be bale to detect that a signal truely is coming from the moon.

 

24-hour coverage is a bit more tricky but definitely not out ofthe question for a superpower. they do after all have a navy so can(and could) get global coverage.

 

even a network of HAM radio enthusiasts could do it.

[dichotomy]

klay, all you needed to tell that there was a signal coming from the moon would be two directional antennaa seperated by a reasonably large distance(200 miles should do) and you'd be bale to detect that a signal truely is coming from the moon.

 

 

The problem with using, "a signal coming from the moon", as solid proof is that it can be achieved using unmanned space craft (and satellites). The same goes for the mirrors that are on the moon. Or am I wrong here? But if the Russian scientists are happy with signals as solid evidence, then I would be as well. I just need to see the reference.

 

From what I can gather, the best available evidence of a moon walk is the 300 odd kgs of moon rocks that have been collected. But what I have read is that these rocks could have just as easily been collected from earth as fragments of meteorites, and of course the USSR managed to collect moon rocks with unmanned craft.

 

Also, a reasonably well supported scientific theory states that the moon is a fragment of earth which broke away after a collision and merging with another planet. This would lead me to assume that the minerals collected from the moon can also be collected from the parts of the earth that it broke off from (minus organic matters influences of course). This is not solid evidence either.

 

We may all have to wait for a manned Mars landing that will probably be even harder for independent superpowers to indisputably prove.

[D H]

What type of proof?

 

Neither had the capability to track the Apollo missions all the way to the moon, nor do I believe they currently have cameras in orbit around the moon to resolve the landers.

The latter statement is correct. The first is not. The Russians did have the capability to track the Apollo missions. They needed this capability for their own Lunik (Luna) program. The Russians were the first to place an object on the Moon (Lunik 2, 1959; crash landed); the first to photograph the far side of the Moon (Lunik 3, 1959; the Lunik program is why the craters on the far side of the Moon have Russian names); the first to achieve a soft landing on the Moon (Lunik 9, 1966).

 

Not only did the Russians have the requisite capability, they used it on the Apollo missions.

 

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/271/03.shtml

 

Babelfish translation: http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru%2Fcontent%2Fnumbers%2F271%2F03.shtml&lp=ru_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

Google translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru%2Fcontent%2Fnumbers%2F271%2F03.shtml&sl=ru&tl=en

 

 

The directions from on high to build an Apollo monitoring capability (Russian):

Советское руководство уделяло большое внимание состоянию дел с реализацией лунной программы как в Советском Союзе, так и в Америке. Для объективного контроля за выполнением американской программы секретарь ЦК КПСС Д.Ф.Устинов, курировавший оборонную промышленность страны, в конце 1967 г. дал поручение главному конструктору РНИИ КП (в то время НИИ-885) М.С.Рязанскому разработать специальный контрольный радиотехнический комплекс, с помощью которого можно было бы принимать сигналы с американских космических кораблей программы «Аполлон», совершавших облет Луны и посадку на ее поверхность.

 

Babelfish translation:

Soviet management paid considerable attention to the state of the matters concerning the implementation of lunar program both in the Soviet Union and in America. For the objective control of the execution of American program the secretary of the CC CPSU [D].[F].[ustinov], that treated the defense industry of the country, at the end 1967 g. gave commission to the chief designer of RNII (Scientific Research Institute of Jet Propulsion) KP (at that time NII-885) [M].

.[Ryazanskomu] to develop the special control radio-technical complex, with the aid of which it would be possible to assume signals from the American spacecraft of the program “of Apollo”, which accomplished flight around the moon and landing on its surface.

 

 

When they used this capability (Russian):

Слежение велось за космическими кораблями экспедиций «Аполлон-8», «Аполлон-10», «Аполлон-11» и «Аполлон-12» с декабря 1968 г. по ноябрь 1969 г.

Со всех этих кораблей принимались с хорошим качеством телефонные переговоры астронавтов с Землей и телеметрическая информация о состоянии бортовых систем. Принимаемый телевизионный сигнал имел низкое качество из-за недостаточного уровня энергетического потенциала радиолинии на базе 32-метровой антенны.

 

Babelfish translation:

Tracking was conducted after the spacecraft of expeditions “Apollo-8”, “Apollo-10”, “Apollo-11” and “Apollo-12” since December 1968. until November 1969.

From all these ships the telephone negotiations of astronauts with the Earth and telemetry data about the state of onboard systems started with a good quality. TV the signal adopted had low quality because of the insufficient level of the energy potential of radio link on the base of 32- meter antenna.

[John Cuthber]

I have an idea.

we set up a new rule.

Anyone can post a "we didn't go to the moon" type message provided that they supply evidence for it as proof.

If, however, they post a "proof" that has been discredited before they get permanantly banned from the site.

 

That would keep threads like this nice and short.

 

Any takers?

[Sisyphus]

I still haven't heard anyone give a coherent, plausible explanation for why it wouldn't be easier to actually go to the moon than fake it, let alone supply real evidence it was faked. Really, this widespread doubt about it is just baffling. Is it just because "walking on the moon" is so fantastic sounding?

[D H]

Or am I wrong here?

You are wrong. We went to the Moon. To quote Bascule,

Yes, we landed on the f*cking moon. If you think otherwise, you're a f*cking tard. Good day.

 

=============

 

I have an idea.

we set up a new rule.

Anyone can post a "we didn't go to the moon" type message provided that they supply evidence for it as proof.

If, however, they post a "proof" that has been discredited before they get permanantly banned from the site.

Count me in. Almost. I have a slightly more aggressive idea: Anyone who posts a "we didn't go to the moon" type message gets banned immediately.