The "Faked NASA moon landings" thread

[Biggie]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>And I'm not going to argue with someone who cant spell arguing. have a great evening. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>...says the person who has yet to discover the quote function <p></p><i></i>

[Blutopia]

Why did the Russians not blow the whistle on Moon Hoax?<br><br>I dunno, why have they not blown the whistle on the 911 hoax?<br><br>Does that mean it's not a hoax?<br><br>Regarding the photos - Multiple light sources in the frames - ie shadows going in different directions - means simply and scientifically that there were multiple light sources used to light the shot.<br>(which means that they could not have been shooting on the moon)<br><br>Photographs of the stars could have been taken from the moon by a simply adjustment of the iris to f16 or f22.<br><br>Watch the astronauts 'moon walk'. It was shot slomo. Watch it at double or triple speed and you will see a couple of guys jumping around in a very familiar way - watch closely as they 'push' themselves up against earth gravity.<br><br>The shot of the eagle blasting off from the moon is terribly bad (from a physics point of view)- Looks like Joe 90 or Terrahawks. <br><br>So all this could lead us to think that (very credibly) a back up plan was made to make sure the USA did not have egg on it's face, or worse, the world could not marvel at the US achievements.<br><br>No great hoax there, no great conspiracy, just normal prudent management.<br><br><br>However, if you add to this the fact that every single manned space mission has operated within 500 miles of the earth, except for the apollo missions.<br><br>Why is this? well it could have something to do with the Van Allen Belt (google) - a field of deadly radiation which would require extremely think lead <br><br><br>If Bart Sibrel was so annoying to the astronauts, then why are they friendly to him up to the point that he mentions that they swear on the bible that they walked on the moon?<br><br>I originally watched AGW as a bit of conspiracy comedy relief, as a way of getting the 911 stuff out of my mind for a while. I had intended disecting AGW for it's faux conspiracy agenda.<br><br>What is persuesive about that film is the collective ease with which the astronauts talk to him UNTIL, he asks them to swear on the bible that they walked on the moon.<br><br>ALL of them seem to be under a great deal of pressure when this is raised. Sure, they could be annoyed at the suggestion if they did actually do it, but you would have to see this film yourself to really see what I mean.<br><br>They have the look of people who are under the pressure of holding secrets.<br><br>Why not put their arm around Sibrel's shoulder, smile and swear they walked on the moon. Over and out, job done. No problem. Everybody's happy.<br><br>Only Ed Mitchell swore on the bible. Sibrel asks him if he believes in God. Mitchell says no.<br><br>Mitchell is annoyed now, he knees sibrel in the ass(very funny) and angrily throws him out of the house.<br><br>On the audio we can hear Mitchells teenage son ask his dad if they should call the CIA and have sibrel 'waxed'<br><br>What convinces me that the moon landing was not what we have been told it is is this collective pressure and agitation that these guys are under.<br><br>I feel sorry for them myself actually, not a mission they would have chosen, to live a lie for the rest of your life.<br><br>Neil Armstrong famously never was photographed on the moon. That get's my respect for one thing. <br><br>On the question of how something so big could be kept secret for so long with it leaking out?<br><br>Manhattan Project<br>Stealh Bomber project<br>9/11<br><br>I think Capricorn One was made to keep the 'conspiracy theorists' muted. They could be tarred with the idea that they are taking the movies too seriously.<br><br>And, if the landings were real, why is it going to take so long to get back to the moon, (18 years) when they did it the first time in under 10 years.<br><br>Strongly recommended - Astronauts Gone Wild.<br><br>It totally changed my view of one of belief, to deep suspiscion.<br><br>My 0.2c<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>1. It certainly would be possible to photograph the stars from the moon - it's simply a matter of changing the exposure to suit the subject <p></p><i></i>

[Biggie]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>1. It certainly would be possible to photograph the stars from the moon - it's simply a matter of changing the exposure to suit the subject <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yes, it is possible, but the fact that they didn't photograph stars from the Moon doesn't tell us anything. <p></p><i></i>

[Blutopia]

<br>The astronauts gone WIld torrent can be downloaded here<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/index.html?search=astronauts">conspiracycentral.net:696...astronauts</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Blutopia]

>>>Yes, it is possible, but the fact that they didn't >>>photograph stars from the Moon doesn't tell us >>>anything.<br><br>It tells us that they did not photograph the stars from the moon. That's what it categorically tells us.<br><br>And so, a thinking person must wonder...why not?<br><br><br><br>Reminds me of the people who say that the wtc towers were designed to collapse on a footprint.<br><br>or that wtc 7 was built with demolition explosives in place<br><br>LOL<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[JD]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>1. I believe the heat was dissipated into the almost non-existant atmoshpere of the moon...pretty cool out there, even in the sun.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Thanks for the support, but this answer doesn't wash. Actually the "atmosphere" of the moon is a near perfect vacuum. As anyone with a thermos knows vacuum is a good insulator, as it isolates the subject from convection and conduction. The only mechanism to disipate heat from the LEM or an astronaut is via thermal radiation. In the sun temperatures are VERY hot; <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The average temperature on the surface of the Moon during the day is 107°C. That is hot enough to boil water on the Earth. During the night, the average temperature drops to -153°C.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>So the LEM bakes at temperatures above boiling for days on end in the sunlight, and then drops to -153C if it is in night-time conditions.<br><br>Wow, that's an engineering problem. In my mind, to fix it you need some type of heat/refridge source and shade. Maybe the LEM and space suits had refridge plants attached to them, anyone know?<br><br>Camera. Yes maybe they had cameras with massive knobs and dials that could be operated through a space suit. I'd thought of that believe it or not <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :\ --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> It doesn't really help with the volume and quality questions though. <br> <p></p><i></i>

[Pirx]

The LMs were cooled with water. nearly all the moonwalkers complained about the noisy pumps that turned off and on kept them awake.<br><br>Nobody spent the night on the moon...at least a lunar night.<br><br>And here a link to some real lunar optical oddities-<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/03jan_moonshadows.htm?list141995">science.nasa.gov/headline...list141995</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Col Quisp]

I can't remember which one (I'm not really familiar with their names), but the first astronaut interviewed touched his nose before answering a question -- a telltale sign of lying. Just like the David Ferrie character did in the movie JFK when he told his incredible tale of goose-hunting in Texas! <br><br>Also, another one is sweating profusely in the interview (the one who agreed to swear on the bible). <br><br>JFK on the Moon? Incredible!<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Blutopia]

<br><br>Just wondering if those above who support the moon landings as real, also believe the 9/11 myth? <p></p><i></i>

[scollon]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The LMs were cooled with water. nearly all the moonwalkers complained about the noisy pumps that turned off and on kept them awake.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>A pump only works if you have a cool place to pump the water to. Everywhere on that part of the moon would have been hotter than 100c ,the boiling point of water for the duration of the astronaut's stay A lunar day is approx 27 earth days.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_day">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_day</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Why didn't they take a long exposure picture of the sky (not the moon), or from the spacecraft before they got there ?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Why <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>would</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> they?<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>the astronauts wrt the sky could not have been calculated easily and to map all the stars onto the background would have been ludicrously difficult (impossible) and any mistake spotted immediately by even amateur astronomers.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Step back and read what you just wrote, that makes SO little sense!<br><br>Your saying that the top minds of NASA couldn't calculate the position of the stars from the moon, yet amateur astronomers <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>could</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> do so and would spot the mistakes!!!? What!?<br><br>And how come "amateur astronomers" are so qualified to understand the stars, yet anyone sceptical about the hoax claims is forbidden by you to use their admittedly amateur knowledge of other areas of science? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :b --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Watch it at double or triple speed and you will see a couple of guys jumping around in a very familiar way - watch closely as they 'push' themselves up against earth gravity.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Wrong.<br><br>(for one thing the dust doesn't act like it would in slowmo in our gravity and atmosphere)<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The shot of the eagle blasting off from the moon is terribly bad (from a physics point of view)- Looks like Joe 90 or Terrahawks.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Don't you mean from a Hollywood point of view!? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> Explosions in real life rarely look as spectacular as you think they would.<br><br>As for the old 'multiple shadows' arguement... that might just hold some water if there were... oh, i dunno,... maybe some multiple shadows visible in any of the photos?!?!?<br><br>Ahh i should probably stop posting, this is futile, but I've never come across real live moon hoax fans before! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> it's uh... interesting... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=orz@rigorousintuition>orz</A> at: 1/5/06 6:34 am<br></i>

[scollon]

I'm saying to calculate the position of each star / galaxy from the angle of the moon as it moved through the sky would be so complex as to be impossible. The only way to disguise it would be to paste a photograph of an earth sky.<br><br>Imagine trying to create a picture of New York from the sea when you had never been to sea, you couldn't. Using a picture from land wouldn't work. Anyone would notice it was a fake immediately because they could <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>roughly</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> imagine what it should look like from the sea. Even a single shot of a moon sky could easily be shown to be a fake by mapping one object (especially a planet). <br><br>The thing is, the moon is moving, so are all the other objects in the solar system, you would have to calculate the position of all the objects every second which with 1960s computers would have been impossible. Even of you could calculate it, how would you create a photograph with Mars in a position it has never been in from earth (think New York again) .<br><br>I studied astronomy at university, take my word for it. Take my word that is the reason it is often mentioned in conspiracy theories of the moon landing.<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/5/06 6:57 am<br></i>

[scollon]

Actually I think the stars would have been impossible to map also because calculating the position of stars on earth at any moment in time in the sky is pretty complex and very much dependant on parameters that are earth related. The moon would have been very different. <br><br>I hated studying this particular aspect of astronomy, it's pretty mind boggling.<br><br><br>The Celestial Sphere<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/STROBEL/nakedeye/nakedeya.htm">www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/S...kedeya.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>take my word for it.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->I'd rather not, if it's all the same with you! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>