[Ronnyboy]

In this world of skepticism and non-believers, we have to question everything. One of these things is the moon landings.

Many people just know the Moon landings as a giant, historic achievement for the U.S., and the world. But, some believe that this all bull sh*t, filmed in a NASA studio. A lot of people throw out the argument that you can not see the stars in the photos, or that when the "Eagle" module landed, the dust layer was not moved, or that when you speed up the moon walk, it seems like they are just running across the screen. Many people have support for these theories, while many people try to disprove them.

Personally, I think they did go to the moon. There is no way you can fake that kind of an event without some one letting the cat out of the bag.

What are your thoughts?

[Vercetti21]

The conspiracies surrounding the moon landing have always interested me; I mean, there are some really good points there. But in the end, I honestly just think there's too much skepticism and paranoia - such as the "flag waving", which wasn't actually waving, it was designed to stand flat out. I think so many people have lost faith in the government that they've gotten to the point where they don't trust anything they see or hear anymore. To each his own, but I'm comfortable in my belief that we actually did land on the moon in 69'.

[Digital Murders]

^^

I'm pretty much in the same boat as him.

The debate on the moon landing has always been interesting to me. Reading both sides of the arguement is great because they both manage to bring up some good points. It could go either way I suppose, but I would to, like to believe that man had actually landed on the moon.

[wesley545]

We've definatley been there. Besides '69 (which was the first time) we've been to the moon something like 13 times.

Anyway, I think there's pretty good evidence that they actually did land. The most conclusive evidence to me is that in the reflection of their helmets in the photos, you can always see the camera man standing on the lunar surface. AFAIK they didn't have Adobe back then.

[Craig]

This particular consiperacy is one of my favourites because it has valid arguments on both opposing sides. It makes for interesting reading and viewing. It should be noted that most cameras were kept in a "lock box" on the front of the suit, which is why sometimes no cameras were present in the reflections. The most common arguments I've heard are the seemingly "blowing" flag, the lack of moving dust, the lack of stars and the movement issue, which Mark said (speeding up actions, which replicates running).

[darthYENIK]

QUOTE (Masterkraft @ Oct 13 2008, 23:03)

This particular consiperacy is one of my favourites because it has valid arguments on both opposing sides. It makes for interesting reading and viewing. It should be noted that most cameras were kept in a "lock box" on the front of the suit, which is why sometimes no cameras were present in the reflections. The most common arguments I've heard are the seemingly "blowing" flag, the lack of moving dust, the lack of stars and the movement issue, which Mark said (speeding up actions, which replicates running).

Me and my friend always debate this.

The blowing flag: Just because they are on the moon, doesn't mean the flag is going to just hang stiffly. It swings back and forth due to the fact that there is no wind resistance, thanks to the lack of an atmosphere.

Moving dust: There is none, because once again, no atmosphere. There is no air to carry the dust.

Stars: The astronauts used film made for use on earth in daylight, we don't see the stars, due to the fact that A)cameras of the time would have to have the exposure and focus specifically set to see the stars, and B) supposedly you can't see the stars anyway on the dayside of the moon. Pick your poison they both make sense to me.

Movement: It's kind of an invalid point. Just because we can recreate what it looks like on earth using slow motion, doesn't necessarily mean it's fake. (I might regret bringing up another bad conspiracy topic, but...) I'm sure the 9/11 attacks could have been made in hollywood, to look identical to what really happened. But does that mean they are fake?

[Craig]

All the points that Yenik said were featured on a documentary I saw not long back on the moon landing, and they're all points I believe in. There's also some discrepancy over the crosshair markings on the lens to map out positioning. The controversy came when many crosshairs were slanted or even shown to be underneath foreground material, such as rocks.

[Otter]

...you can find the lunar lander on the moon with laser reflection.

I mean, really, this stuff is just idiotic.

[Mad Tony]

QUOTE (Otter @ Oct 14 2008, 00:23)

I mean, really, this stuff is just idiotic.

Welcome to the world of conspiracy theories.

[The Unvirginiser]

Personally, I believe that we did land on the moon, but the photographs f*cked up, so we had to fake the thing while they were on the way back.

[wesley545]

QUOTE (Otter @ Oct 14 2008, 02:23)

...you can find the lunar lander on the moon with laser reflection. I mean, really, this stuff is just idiotic.

Hear, hear!

[Otter]

QUOTE (The Unvirginiser @ Oct 14 2008, 09:36)

Personally, I believe that we did land on the moon, but the photographs f*cked up, so we had to fake the thing while they were on the way back.

...why? There's nothing wrong with the photos. Or are you being cheeky?

[BAPEDOWNLOADS]

I DONT THINK WE WENT

[wesley545]

QUOTE (BAPEDOWNLOADS @ Oct 14 2008, 19:35)

I DONT THINK WE WENT

CAPS MAKE YOU SOUND LIKE A DOUCHEBAG

[Mad Tony]

QUOTE (BAPEDOWNLOADS @ Oct 14 2008, 17:35)

I DONT THINK WE WENT

HOW ABOUT PROVIDING SOME EVIDENCE?

[vicenzo312]

The question of whether the landing was faked or not is older than most of us in this thread, and the reason it still exists is because there is no irrefutable evidence for it being faked or real.

Considering NASA knew what the moon should have been like, and that they are in control of what information they release, it's unlikely that they would release evidence that would have proved it was faked.
Nonetheless, there are some commonly reoccurring arguments, so here is a list of some, with there current status;
_________________________________
|
| >No crater (or other evidence of landing)
| -Inconclusive
|------------------------------------------
| >Shadows (non-parallel, and objects in shadows)
| -Inconclusive
|------------------------------------------
| >No flame (seen from the rocket upon takeoff)
| -Inconclusive
|------------------------------------------
| >Flag waving
| -Inconclusive
|------------------------------------------
| >Alterations have been noticed in many photos of the
| landing
| -When confronted with this, NASA said they did it so
| the photos would look better in the papers/on TV.
| Unaltered pictures weren't given for comparison
|------------------------------------------
| >Jump distance (in 1/6th earth gravity, their
| movement should have been greater than expected
| on earth)
| -Debatable
|------------------------------------------
| >The Van Allen belt (had too much radiation for people
| to pass through and survive)
| -Debatable, (as people can't seem to agree just how
| strong the field is)
|_________________________________

There are also other interesting questions, such as;
- Why hasn't NASA tried to prove it was real if they know people believe it was faked?
- Why do they release pictures from the moon over the course of years, rather than all when they returned from the moon?
- Why didn't the Russians get to the moon?
- Why is returning to the moon taking longer than it did originally, even though technology is 30+ years more advanced?

[Otter]

Irrefutable evidence? THERE'S A LANDER ON THE MOON. All your other examples that you list as "inconclusive" are conclusively wrong, as proven by better men than I, over and over and over.

Now, to answer you silly questions:

- Why hasn't NASA tried to prove it was real if they know people believe it was faked?
They have, with a wealth of photography, film, flight data, and astronomers.

- Why do they release pictures from the moon over the course of years, rather than all when they returned from the moon?
Because they wanted to keep precious secrets from the Ruskies. Think about it. They just went to the bloody moon.

- Why didn't the Russians get to the moon?
Because there's no real benefit to going to the moon, aside from scientific discovery, and the big one - getting there first. Think about that for a while. Then think about the astronomical (literally! ) costs involved.

- Why is returning to the moon taking longer than it did originally, even though technology is 30+ years more advanced?
See the answer to question 3. It's not financially, culturally, or even scientifically, viable at this point in time. What, you figure we should be going to pleasure trips? You know there are still places on Earth that man has not yet set foot, but we just dont have the reason to go there. It's that simple.

[Eddie280]

Of course we went to the moon. I agree with everything Otter said in the Post above me. However, in regards to there being no reason to go to the Moon at the moment, NASA may be sending another manned expedition to the moon in the near future (next few years possbly) in response to the First Chinese space walk wich took place last month.

Like Otter said, there would be no real reason for doing this except for international prestige; America will not want to appear to be falling behind Chinese technical advancements and so may engage in another Space race merely to save face, which was one of the main reasons for the Space race during the Cold War.

[wesley545]

QUOTE (vicenzo312 @ Oct 16 2008, 13:30)

The question of whether the landing was faked or not is older than most of us in this thread, and the reason it still exists is because there is no irrefutable evidence for it being faked or real. Considering NASA knew what the moon should have been like, and that they are in control of what information they release, it's unlikely that they would release evidence that would have proved it was faked. Nonetheless, there are some commonly reoccurring arguments, so here is a list of some, with there current status; _________________________________ | | >No crater (or other evidence of landing) | -Inconclusive |------------------------------------------ | >Shadows (non-parallel, and objects in shadows) | -Inconclusive |------------------------------------------ | >No flame (seen from the rocket upon takeoff) | -Inconclusive |------------------------------------------ | >Flag waving | -Inconclusive |------------------------------------------ | >Alterations have been noticed in many photos of the | landing | -When confronted with this, NASA said they did it so | the photos would look better in the papers/on TV. | Unaltered pictures weren't given for comparison |------------------------------------------ | >Jump distance (in 1/6th earth gravity, their | movement should have been greater than expected | on earth) | -Debatable |------------------------------------------ | >The Van Allen belt (had too much radiation for people | to pass through and survive) | -Debatable, (as people can't seem to agree just how | strong the field is) |_________________________________ There are also other interesting questions, such as; - Why hasn't NASA tried to prove it was real if they know people believe it was faked? - Why do they release pictures from the moon over the course of years, rather than all when they returned from the moon? - Why didn't the Russians get to the moon? - Why is returning to the moon taking longer than it did originally, even though technology is 30+ years more advanced?

I have a feeling you didn't write this.

[Craig Kostelecky]

CODE

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mythbusters+moon+hoax&search_type=&aq=0&oq=mythbusters+moon

Check out some of the videos from that Mythbusters episode. I'm not sure if the full episode is online somewhere.

We went to the moon. Nearly every theory has been shot down many times. Mythbusters did it most recently, and they did one of the best jobs of it.