well i for one don't think

negativenick


Joined: 10/11/2008
Posts: 6023

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 09:09

we landed on the moon 40 years ago - reccon it was all done in a studio.....



Garry Monger agrees too.....

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 09:21

Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick?

It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories.

The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. Their film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 09:27

Some questions.



A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 09:28

The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

Stewart


Joined: 19/07/2008
Posts: 1107

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 09:33

Funny how the DIGITAL film has been "accidently taped over" as announced last week



With a powerful telescope, I suppose you could see the flag and footprints..if so..end of conspiracy?

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 09:34

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this.

Someone commented that he was probably suffering from trying to live out a very big lie and that Aldrin may also fear for his life.



Perhaps one day we'll all know!

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 09:44

What about the proposed 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics. Special effects technology was in its infancy in the 1960’s. This time round using the technology we have now we will have no way of determining the truth.



I bet ET was even a made up character. )

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 09:47

'Dead men naked they shall be one with the man in the wind and the west moon!'



Richard

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 09:55

I think this video kills all haters and proves that its just that people always have to question something great that happened.

The way the flag "moves" is explained in this video. If it is shot on earth, please explain how the flag does not move AT ALL, even as the astronauts move past it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrI3iQqTdns

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 09:59

Richard, I didn't have you down as a Poet!

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:00

Richard....that's either profound ,cryptic , or both.



I prefer...



"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams ... glitter in the dark near Tanhauser Gate. All those ... moments will be lost ... in time, like tears ... in rain. Time ... to die."

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:03

Cronos, it's not cryptic. This transcendental/pantheistic approach is consistent with Thomas’s trademark neo-romantic leanings and is perhaps hinted at by deliberately jumbling Shelly's 'west wind' with the fairytale 'man in the moon' early on. There is a foreboding sense in that line that he will be mocking all myths that attempt to explain metaphysics in trite, easily grasped stories and images, putting them on the same level as the fairytales (man in moon) we tell children.

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:09

There are no stars in any of the photos. The Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a press conference after the event to have not remembered seeing any of the stars.



The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure, and could not detect the faint points of light.Even the brightest stars are dim and difficult to see in the daytime on the Moon. Harrison Schmitt saw no stars from the Moon. The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the brightly sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars. Camera settings can turn a well-lit background into ink-black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed in order not to have the foreground light completely wash out the image...



The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.



Shadows on the Moon are complicated by uneven ground, wide angle lens distortion, light reflected from the Earth, and lunar dust.[51], pp. 167–172 Shadows also displa

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:11

Doyen.....how could I forget that from my O-Level English Lit ?

I do apologise....I feel such a fool now !

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:11

1. No blast crater or any sign of dust scatter as was seen in the 16 mm movies of each landing.



No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, diminished by the 1/6 g lunar gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI)., p. 164 Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads and the pressure drops very rapidly. (In comparison the Saturn V F-1 first stage engines produced 3.2 MPa (459 PSI) at the mouth of the nozzle.) Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere.

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:16

Mrcyprus......you lost me after "System"

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:28

Yes, but In this type of evaluation, any hypothesis that is contradicted by the observable facts may be rejected. The lack of narrative consistency in the hoax hypothesis occurs because hoax accounts vary from proponent to proponent. The 'real landing' hypothesis is a single story, since it comes from a single source, but there are many hoax hypotheses, each of which addresses a specific aspect of the Moon landing.

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:33

Each of the aspects of the moon landing that people have created conspiracy theories about, have been proven otherwise by more than one source.



Astronauts

Mythbusters - They did a documentry, proving the authenticity of the landings



USA have been to the moon 9 times. Why would they fake it 9 times!?

Thats a stupid waste of resources and money, so they wouldn't have considered doing it.

jimmyG


Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 900

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:37

NN I think the only thing we agree on here is the title of your latest piece!!

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:38

Msg 18



I have encountered many an occasion where its been faked, more than 9 times, that's for sure!



Richard

keithcaley



Joined: 13/06/2008
Posts: 2521

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:39

Richard,

Then you're not doing it right

Keith.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:41

Yes but your engine thrust theory above can be deviated by the rationale devised for addition and subtraction, it is tempting to define the product xy (2) as xy (3) . It turns out, however, that this is not a good definition, and I ask you to explain why, then, should products be defined? Again, if we equate xy(2) with xy(4) and assume, for the moment, that xy(2) makes sense. Thus, it appears we are forced into the following definition as It turns out that our algebraic definitions give complex numbers all the properties we normally ascribe to the real number system. Taken together, they describe what algebraists call a field. In formal terms, a field is a set (in this case, the complex numbers) together with two binary operations (in this case, addition and multiplication) having the following properties.

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:42

Conspiracy theorists take a little thing that looks out of place and they automatically assume it was faked without finding out the facts.



The most common used "fact" they use is the flag waving. But as you can see from many videos, and the one i posted above, that it only moves when the astronauts are pushing it into the lunar soil.

After that, during the whole 40-minute video of them prancing around the flag, it does not even flutter. If this was on earth, it would have move a little bit when the astronauts moved past it.

There was no air drift present, they were in a vacuum, therefore the flag doesnt move.



The one about 'No shadows parallel' - This was shot to pieces during mythbusters, proving that when u have differerent sections of height, it disrupts the placing of the shadows. The moon has alot of hills and craters, therefore obscuring the shadows.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:43

Richard, use the thrust theory xy (2) followed by propulsion xy (3). Works every time ))

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:47

Surely, if we use (1; 0)(c; d) = (1 . c �� 0 . d; 1 . d + 0 . c) = (c; d) and (0; 1)(0; 1) = (0 . 0 �� 1 . 1; 0 . 1 + 1 . 0) = (��1; 0) then the sum and the sum (��1; 0) + (1; 0) = (0; 0) so (0; 1) _ is the representation of i = p��1, that is i2 + 1 = 0. (0; 1)2 + (1; 0) = (0; 0).

Likewise, If z = x + iy and the unknown is w = u + iv (u and v real) then x + iy = u2 �� v2 + 2iuv; so x = u2 �� v2 and y = 2uv.

Putting it into words, you multiply the magnitudes and add the angles in polar form. From this you can immediately deduce some of the common trigonometric identities. Use Euler's formula, it does work and Richard you should try it sometime.

_

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:49

message 22



I wont pretend i understood what you said, it was complete jibberish to be honest.



The fact is that the DPS was throttled low during the decent, so as it came to touchdown it wasnt rapidly decelerating anymore, and coupled with the vacuum of the moon, it creates a small scouring of dust, but not the craters everyone keeps talking about.

The Lunar module only had to support its own weight, and together with the 1/6 lunar gravity, and the fact that the descent propellants were almost shut off, there is nothing to create this huge crater that everybody seems to think should be presnt.

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 10:59

message 3 ive just noticed. i wanted to answer your queries



"A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?"



A camera was left on the moon, with alot of other objects left, like the laser sights, the lunar rovers and the flag.





"One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot? "



Its a simple answer, the lunar module has cameras positioned inside a casing.. We see this confirmed from the 40-minute clips of the astronauts erecting the flag.

Did you really think NASA would send an astronaut to be the first to land on the moon, without making sure there were cameras on the LM to film it?

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 11:05

Everything you have said i can prove otherwise, for example with message 4.

"The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow?"



Simple, the rocks and the craters on the moon obscure the way in which the light shines on an object. This was proven in mythbusters documentary, watch it and reconsider your negativities. The astronaut was standing behind the LM which in turn would block out his shadow, but it would also light him up, which is why in some photos he seems to be illuminated.



Flag only flutters when astronauts move it - find me a video when it moves alone.



"How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light?" - The resolution of the camera exaggerates the white part for one reason, and the second is again with the obscurities of the light and shadow combined.

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 11:10

CONTINUED--



"And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?" - The camera to light doesnt capture the stars because it is a dim light compared to the sun light on the moon. Cameras set for daylight exposure, so cannot detect thin lighting.



There was infact a small crater created. When NASA studied how far the landing pads went into the ground, and studied how much deep it was, it actually created a 6 inch dust crater. But, as the moons surface dust is compacted, it doesnt blow away like sand.

Lunar surface is described as wet sand like. So when you have stood on wet sand, does it not stay fairly well compacted.

Adding to above, when you stand in wet sand, does it not leave a fairly detailed footprint? This is the same as on the lunar surface. And the footprints will remain on the moon, as there is no air drift to obscure it. The vacuum ensures it stays the same.

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 11:16

"Their film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless."



The film stock was brought back to earth using metal containers, keeping the film emulsion from fading and blurring. Adding to that, people said the Van Allen radiation belt would have made it impossible for the astronauts to pass and getting to the moon.. Well, to dicapitate that theory, it took 30 minutes to pass through it, and they needed to be above the line of highest radiation as the moon is higher than the belt.



Every single astronaut that went to the moon got cateracts for their trouble, as a result of minimal radiation, this on its own proves the moon landings were real.

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 11:21

Thanks for reading, if you have any more "theories" you wish to discuss i will be happy to elimate them all with a simple answer.



Though i do wish these haters would get there facts straight and make sure they know what they are talking about, before making your comments and before rejecting that it did actually happen.

thetruth


Joined: 11/01/2009
Posts: 268

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 11:24

i was told a cow jumped over the moon,so i think its possible a man made it there!

negativenick


Joined: 10/11/2008
Posts: 6023

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 11:26

in 1969 - the average motorist drove round in a mk 3 Cortina, which spent more of it's life in the workshop than actually on the road....



We didn't have the technology to get a man to the moon and get him home safely.....



Oh, and Garry Monger's missus has joined the debate - she reccons it's a hoax - and she knows EVERYTHING, just ask her long suffering Hubby........

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 11:26

Another example that appears to be faked is the footage of Earth taken from the Apollo 11 when it was 130,000 miles away. This is the very first view ever taken of Earth on the mission and it seems strange that Buzz Aldrin would film the Earth when he was stood far away from the window, why would he do that? Surely you would want to get close to the window to get the best picture and also to eliminate light reflections that are evident towards the end of this sequence? But no, we see the window frame come into view on the left of the shot. The camera isn't set to infinity either to get the closest shot. The window frame that comes into shot would have been out of focus if it was.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 11:28

An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots. Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 11:29

Question: How can an astronaut cast a shadow several feet taller than his colleague who is standing a few feet away from him?



Answer: He is standing farther away from the arc light that is illuminating them both. I truly believe that this footage is taken on a film set, you cannot reproduce this strange shadow phenomenon with natural light, and that includes taking into consideration two natural light sources (the Earth and Sun) as many sceptics would have you believe.

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 11:41

He stood back from the window actually to ensure he got a full view picture. If he was right up to the window, considering the LM materials used for the window, it would have created a big flash and completely missed the eath view as it would be overcast by flash lighting.



When considering the cameras..



There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices like cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism.



The part about being -180 ? Yes. This is during the lunar nights. Did you know the lunar days are 29 and a half days long? Which means that more than 15 days of that would be during the day, which would mean it would be hot, not cold.



So adding to there being atmosphere to couple the lunar surface to heat devices without direct sunlight, proves that the cameras would have been perfectly fine.



CONTINUED BELOW

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 11:42

Light is obscured on the moon, because of the hills and craters, he was standing next to him yes.. but he was still a few inches to his side, which, on the moon, would be enough to enhance a shadow.

Graham


Joined: 20/10/2007
Posts: 397

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 12:34

All six Moon landings happened during the Tricky Dicky administration. No other national leader has claimed to have landed astronauts on the Moon, despite 40 years of rapid technological development.

nurseawful



Joined: 06/02/2009
Posts: 5934

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 12:50

Whether you agree man landed on the moon or not.

And I don't believe he did Graham message 39 I totally agree with you.

Strange that we are led to believe he did, but man cannot cure the common cold, or tell us why some people get bitten by mosquito's while others do! And that is just 2 examples of what man cannot do in the year 2009! The list is endless.

parky


Joined: 13/06/2009
Posts: 182

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 13:45

The three astronauts very rarely make public appearances or speak about it, i have my doubts but if it was staged surely hundreds of people must have been involved in the building of the set, filming it etc and no one has come forward saying it was a hoax.

mrcyprus


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 270

Message Posted:
20/07/2009 14:44

Other national leaders havent mentioned it because, it happenend in the majority under one administration.

So once it had been done, there was no need to keep talking about it. We are going to the moon again, and when that happens, we can get proof from those astronauts, because they will be able to take pictures of the landing sites, the lunar rovers, the foot prints, the Apollo 11 plack and ladder bell.



As simple as it may seem, curing the common cold is more difficult than getting to the moon.

Humans are way more complicated than any technology whether it be from 1901 or 3001.

I admit we should have gone beyond the moon by now, as it was 40 years ago, but it doesnt take away the fact it did happen.



Do soldiers often talk about their time in a war? No, its personal to them, we get our information from the news.



Do astronauts always talk about the moon? No, it was personal to them, and it was also a long time ago, people are not interested anymore. So we r going again soon

negativenick


Joined: 10/11/2008
Posts: 6023

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 22:44

still not convinced...