moon landing hoax, recent media buzz about moon landing

[ballzac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare

[ballzac]

In case anyone was unsure what I was getting at...

The spacesuits used in the moon landings had an antenna (for obvious reasons): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EV-A7L.png

It appears that light reflecting off the antenna (or something else in that region of the suit) caused a lens flare (see wiki article above). It is quite plausible, indeed likely, that this would cause artifacts in other (geometrically related) regions of the image in the small, low resolution cameras used in the Apollo missions.

I don't think the footage is proof of a moon landing in and of itself, but I certainly see nothing in the footage that is evidence to the contrary.

[Rabelais]

ThunderIdeal

ahh from about 1:30 to 3:00 you see a few moments where they are being suspended by some invisible force. very easy to see and they do replays. there is also a possible bit of wire in view, during the second minute. a little flash appears at the top of the space suit and also at the very top of the screen. the wires are not visible but their influence is.

I seen that one in the vid. But I really think that can be put down to the antennae on the astronauts backpack. You can see it in this pic from Apollo 17...pretty obvious it is not a wire given that it is in every shot....funny that guy in the vid did not mention there were antennas on the astronauts backpacks.

http://www.spacemartgifts.com/Last_Moon_Wa...o17_640x480.jpg

Edited July 22, 2009 by Dale Cooper

[mauve]

pfff so they did a fake take off, a fake landing and all the people, staff and famillies involved in the project were all hypnotised ? And all the other missions, yes even the Appolo 13 catastrophe, were fake too ?

I guess that the human brain produces endorphins when "discovering" paranoiak conspiracies...

[ThunderIdeal]

zac, dale, mauve, and anybody else, i will go through this once more. FORGET ABOUT SEEING ANY WIRES. the youtube video contains footage of astronauts suspended by an invisible force. if you can't see it this time around i'm honestly dumbfounded. witness the astronauts being suspended by some invisible mechanism then come back here, if you can't see it then i think you don't want to see it, it's plain as day. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THERE WERE NO GENUINE MOONWALKS, it means there was some fake footage.

TURN ON YOUR SOUND AND LISTEN TO THE NARRATOR

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

1:42 the foreground guy is being puppeted around, his body is hanging limp. exactly 1:47 to 1:50 look at this feet.

2:09 as the crouching astronaut stands up, he's momentarily being lifted by an invisible force (i wonder if it was some kind of wire?) exactly at 2:07

[ballzac]

1:42 the foreground guy is being puppeted around, his body is hanging limp. exactly 1:47 to 1:50 look at this feet.

It is bound to look kind of odd. They are in 1.5 N/kg gravity, plus they are wearing a suit that has legs like a stovepipe. There's not much flexibility there. They have to kind of bounce from one foot to the other to turn around.

Of course it looks very similar to the apparatus they used on Earth to simulate the low g environment. That was the whole point of simulating it on earth, so that they would know how to manuveur around in that environment.

2:09 as the crouching astronaut stands up, he's momentarily being lifted by an invisible force (i wonder if it was some kind of wire?) exactly at 2:07

Look closer. He is pulling himself up. Look at where his left hand is. It is on the other astronaut's arm or hand.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to see evidence that some of the footage was faked, I just don't see it here.

[ThunderIdeal]

Of course it looks very similar to the apparatus they used on Earth to simulate the low g environment. That was the whole point of simulating it on earth, so that they would know how to manuveur around in that environment.

what are you saying here? sorry it's not clear to me.

you seem to be right about the crouching astronaut, i wasn't able to figure out what all of the arms were doing but if they are holding each others hand it probably accounts for the suspended appearance. the legs remain suspended by his slowly falling body in a way that looks like he's suspended, but he is suspended by one hand. it looks wrong but it's probably not.

with the first one example, i'll try to see it as a believer. he comes towards the camera with his feet plowing through a small mound of dust then turns, the viewer gets the impression his feet are supposed to sink into the dust a little. he turns around (two jumps) flat footed but on the next two jumps he bounces from his right toes to his left toes. his heels stop short of the ground, giving the impression he is held in the air, but in fact the very tip of his toe, without digging into the dust, is enough to cushion the fall and launch his weight back up.

i don't really believe that at the moment, but you've planted serious doubt in my mind. perhaps the (conspiracy) film makers singled out these two short clips because without context they have an illusory nature (first the boots seem to smash through the dust and then suddenly he's a ballerina, and the crouching astronaut is helped up but the handhold is obscured)....... looking at the other clips it's hard for me to decide if one set of toes is enough to launch upwards without any sinking in the dust.

both these clips looked very fake to me at first but after about 50 views i will retract my opinion that the footage is clearly fake. cleverly presented and with our natural tendency to reconcile the narration with what is being seen, the video may well be very deceptive.

[C_T]

Have you seen the footage when an astronought falls over?

And don't they all have cancer now?

Edited July 22, 2009 by C_T

[ThunderIdeal]

no. what, it's pretty zero G like?

the apollo crews all have cancer? not a big surprise. their bodies must have been exposed to lots of not-so-typical environments during their training and mission, and it's probably fair to say they all copped a bit of cosmic radiation. are the shuttle crews protected to a degree by earth's magnetism? their craft is heftier anyway. the apollo guys flew little tin cans around the moon, far beyond earth's protection from the many radiations and super accelerated particles that are flung around the universe.

anyone know why there is interest in going back (or actually going for real, whichever the case may be)? in this world of competing nations in which practically every resource is already claimed, it makes sense to scout entirely new regions even if they happen to be a hostile and rather distant ball or orbiting rock. pricey venture especially in a recession but the potential pay off could be supplying the globe with precious metals (or hoarding them), untouchable military outposts, and if the moon is colonised by a single nation they will more than likely be the first to colonise other parts of the solar system. keeps the citizens happy, might boost certain research. the dark side is probably the only planetary (well it orbits the planet) surface hidden from spy satellites.

maybe a bit cynical to think everything is just an attempt to gain more control of the planet but any other explanation is harder to believe.

[t st tantra]

i read they now use shumann resonance generators on the space station etc .

anyone know if this is true?

t s t .

[ThunderIdeal]

for electricity? this year i think it was, they extended the solar panels to something like 100M across, it's now the brightest nightsky object second only to the moon.

[t st tantra]

to replicate the effect of the shumann resonance on human health?

t s t ,

[FancyPants]

1. I think it's entirely possible that the US government - or at least a particular agency - had the resources to have faked a moon landing.

2. I think it's probably that we could never trust that govt not to instigate a massive conspiracy.

3. I think the moon landing is real.

With the astronaut getting up weirdly; well he doesn't have to use much force from the hand on the ground to push himself upwards giving the illusion of being pulled back from behind via strings or whatever.

[ballzac]

what are you saying here? sorry it's not clear to me.

In the film they said that the way the astronauts walked in the footage looked exactly like the way they walked using the training apparatus on Earth, meaning that a similar apparatus was used to stage this footage in a studio on Earth. My point is, that if the scientists and engineers who made the apparatus are at all competent, the way a person walks using it should be indistinguishible from the way a person walks if they are actually on the moon. This doesn't mean that they didn't use such an apparatus to stage the footage, but it completely nullifies the argument as being any evidence for it.

[nabraxas]

The magnetasphere is bigger than the atmoshpere.

OK, but aren't the Van Allen belts the outer edge ov the magnetosphere, the moon being beyond them?

[ThunderIdeal]

With the astronaut getting up weirdly; well he doesn't have to use much force from the hand on the ground to push himself upwards giving the illusion of being pulled back from behind via strings or whatever.

that was my first attempt to rationalise it fancy but i don't think it works. zac is correct, his other hand is grasping the standing astronauts hand and he is lifted up tho it's hard to see this.

[Fenris]

I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next nut job but I have 4 words to debunk this "Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment

The astronauts left behind scientific equipment that is still being used today.

Step 1: Buy a big telescope.

Step 2: Buy a big Laser, the type you might find attached to the forehead of an evil genius' killer shark.

Step 3: Shine laser at moon with aid of telescope on to reflector and take some measurements.

Step 4: Drink 6 pack of beer and eat some pizza.

[C_T]

OK, but aren't the Van Allen belts the outer edge ov the magnetosphere, the moon being beyond them?

Just like the GPS tracking satelites, you can guide your way through the belt without going in its path.

edit: belts*

Edited July 23, 2009 by C_T

[tardistestpilot]

Just like the GPS tracking satellites, you can guide your way through the belt without going in its path.

edit: belts*

my entry level terrestrial navigation device has 3ghz of storage memory not sure of the cpu....ghz power ...however that has trouble navigating

inner-city travels because of no clear view of sky ...point is gps only works off satellites orbiting earth and fails in performance epic some times

..yet i heard that the computers on board the moon-landing craft = the computational power of a commodore64 ....=64kb total memory/cpu it was only a comparison anyway

totally amazing if it is true that they landed and returned to earth safely

i just cant help but want to believe because its such a fantastic story

and a fantastic story is all it is for me anyway

[nabraxas]

Just like the GPS tracking satelites, you can guide your way through the belt without going in its path.

But once you are through them & are on your way to the moon aren't you vulnerable to the full force ov solar radiation?

[AndyAmine.]

I think this one is very telling...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM...feature=related

[ThunderIdeal]

hmmmm, i dunno. i would like to see a post or website attempting to debunk this video but if everything in the video is legit it seems pretty damning.

edit: never really cared if men walked on the moon or not but in the speech by armstrong, he seems to hint that there is something to find, as in discovering the hoax could lead to a further discovery. (hmmmm like the government is full of shit? pretty obvious if you look at it that way but most of us already know they're full of shit).

Edited July 24, 2009 by ThunderIdeal

[ballzac]

There's not much in that video that really gives evidence for anything. I didn't see any actual evidence that what we were looking at was a window being misrepresented as the entire Earth. Much of what the astronauts were saying was unintelligible, so we really only have the narrator's word to go by.

Just a word on the opening comments of the video...just because they had a high resolution colour camera on board the rocket, does not mean that they were able to get this into the lunar module and take it to the surface of the moon. Just because we do not know the reasons behind why NASA did things the way they did, doesn't mean there aren't logical explanations.

I certainly don't think any video can be evidence of anything much at all, for either side of this issue. However, the sheer impracticality of pulling off a hoax of this scale IS solid evidence that these landings, and the footage, were real. Particularly the first landing, as that is when there was the most attention on it all.

EDIT: By the way, if what we are looking at is the inside of the window at the top and the outside at the bottom, there is no explanation for why the top should be a fuzzier boundary than the bottom. If, however, the top line is the terminator (which is my interpretation) it should be fuzzy due to dispersion through our atmosphere.

Edited July 24, 2009 by ballzac

[ThunderIdeal]

the footage is sposed to be apollo 11 (the first moonwalk) and i missed it the first time too, but towards the end of the video they let the cabin fill with light, and the earth-circle transforms into a port hole.

impracticality of hoax, impracticality of moon landing.... i keep hearing confident arguments about the van allen belt.

[ballzac]

You may have missed the fact that they were two separate shots. There was no evidence (not to my satisfaction anyway) that they were ever claiming that said circle was the Earth. It said that the camera had been zoomed out, but all I saw was a cut to a completely different shot. Yes there was a circular light against a dark background, but there was no evidence that this was being presented as the Earth. The devil is in the details.