Do you believe...

[Epidemik]

that man walked on the moon???








I saw a documentary a while back which was about the moon landing being one of the worlds biggets hoax'
and personally i no longer believe that man walked on the moon.
the documentary (i think) was called Moon Landing Hoax - Conspiracy Theory - Did We Land On The Moon
its really interesting and i suggest watching it to anyone who hasnt

thoughts on this topic???

[lil_bayly]

OMG are u even kidding me? Obviously man DID walk on the man. First of all tthere is video evidence of it and second of all who do u think planted the american flag into the ground of the moon? It can be seen from a telescope ( a higher end one anyways) What a douche!!! He must be "emo"

[liljon]

yes man/men walked on the moon lol thats why theres spaceships going up....but im going to watch that video u where talking about just to see what they say

[Epidemik]

OMG are u even kidding me? Obviously man DID walk on the man. First of all tthere is video evidence of it and second of all who do u think planted the american flag into the ground of the moon? It can be seen from a telescope ( a higher end one anyways) What a douche!!! He must be "emo"

thanks for making yourself sound like an ass..... it makes it more enjoyable to prove you wrong

first off the video's could have been easily filmed in a studio... and in the documentary the films are used as evidence as why it was all a hoax. there are so many flaws that they point out.
second.. there is no telescope on earth that can see the flag on the moon you moron and if u dont belive me check out this link here and just read the first paragraph.. http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm

Can you see the Flag on the Moon with a Telescope?

The answer is basically "not a chance". No Earthbound telescope can see the flag on the Moon. Why not? For openers, the Earth's atmosphere is never steady enough to allow resolution below about one arc second for most locations. Beyond that, the telescope required to "see" the flag would need to be absolutely huge!

oh and sorry the actual documentary i watched was called "Moon Landing Hoax - Conspiracy Theory - Did We Land On The Moon?"

[lil_bayly]

OMG are u even kidding me? Obviously man DID walk on the man. First of all tthere is video evidence of it and second of all who do u think planted the american flag into the ground of the moon? It can be seen from a telescope ( a higher end one anyways) What a douche!!! He must be "emo"

thanks for making yourself sound like an ass..... it makes it more enjoyable to prove you wrong

first off the video's could have been easily filmed in a studio... and in the documentary the films are used as evidence as why it was all a hoax. there are so many flaws that they point out.
second.. there is no telescope on earth that can see the flag on the moon you moron and if u dont belive me check out this link here and just read the first paragraph.. http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm

Can you see the Flag on the Moon with a Telescope?

The answer is basically "not a chance". No Earthbound telescope can see the flag on the Moon. Why not? For openers, the Earth's atmosphere is never steady enough to allow resolution below about one arc second for most locations. Beyond that, the telescope required to "see" the flag would need to be absolutely huge!

oh and sorry the actual documentary i watched was called "Moon Landing Hoax - Conspiracy Theory - Did We Land On The Moon?"

So this paragraph is telling me this: Humans havent made a telescope big enough to see the flag on the moon but humans have made bombs big enough to destroy the earth in just one push of a button? We are able to blast off into space for years at a time and land on mars but we cant see the flag from earth? We can launch a satilite into space and remote control it from earth, take satilit pics of the universe including the moon and the flag, but just not from earth? We have the technology to travel to the core of the earth to collect particles and we have scientific evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth 100 million years ago but we cant see the flag from earth? I dont and wont and will never believe that!!!!!

And doesnt that paragraph give u proof enough that there IS a flag? otherwise wouldnt it say "hey, stop asking questions, there is no flag"

[Rabbi]

Here is a rebuttal to the 'documentary' and some answers to the the conspiracy theorists' questions.

A brief treatment of some of the arguments and counter-arguments.

Issues of photographs

Believers in the hoax have alleged various issues with photographs apparently taken on the Moon.

Claims and rebuttals

1. Crosshairs on some photos appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be, as if the photos were altered.

* In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion. The film particles that ought to have been black were exposed by light from the adjacent brightly lit lm particles. [4]

2. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.

* NASA selected only the best photographs for release to the public, and some of the photos were cropped to improve their composition. There are many badly exposed, badly focused and poorly composed images amongst the thousands of photos that were taken by the Apollo Astronauts. Many can be seen at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Photos were taken on high-quality Hasselblad cameras with Zeiss lenses, using 70 mm medium format film.

3. There are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report seeing any stars from the capsule windows.

* There are also no stars seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station and Earth observation photos. The sun in the Earth/Moon area shines as brightly as on a clear noon day on earth, so cameras used for imaging these things are set for daylight exposure, with quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film. (This effect can be demonstrated on earth by taking a picture of the night sky with exposure settings for a bright sunny day. Science fiction movies and television shows do confuse this issue by depicting stars as visible in space under all lighting conditions.) Stars were easily seen by every Apollo mission crew except for the unfortunate Apollo 13 (they couldn't see the stars due to the fact that oxygen and water vapor created a haze around the spacecraft). Stars were used for navigation purposes and were occasionally also seen through cabin windows when the conditions allowed. To see stars, nothing lit by sunlight could be in the viewers field of view.(Plait 2002:158-60).

* Believers in the hoax theory contend that the stars were removed from the photographs because they would have looked identical to the stars as seen from the Earth, i.e. no parallax view. However, the distance from the Earth to the Moon is very small compared to the distance to the stars, so no parallax would have been visible anyway. (The nearest star is over 100,000,000 times farther away than the Moon, and most stars are much farther away than that.)

4. The color and angle of shadows and light.

* Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources; the Sun, Earth and the Moon itself. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple expectations of the hoax believers. More significantly, perspective comes into play. This effect leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found. (Plait 2002:167-72).

5. Identical backgrounds in photos that are listed as taken miles apart.

* Detailed comparison of the backgrounds claimed to be identical in fact show significant changes in the relative positions of the hills that are consistent with the claimed locations that the images were taken from. Parallax effects clearly demonstrate that the images were taken from widely different locations around the landing sites. Claims that the appearance of the background is identical while the foreground changes (for example, from a boulder strewn crater to the Lunar Module) are trivially explained when the images were taken from nearby locations, akin to seeing distant mountains appearing the same on Earth from locations that are hundreds of feet apart showing different foreground items. Furthermore, as there is no atmosphere on the Moon, very distant objects will appear clearer and closer to the human eye. What appears as nearby hills in some photographs, are actually mountains several kilometers high and some 10-20 kilometers away. Changes in such very distant backgrounds are quite subtle, and can be mistaken for no change at all. As the Moon is also much smaller than the Earth, the horizon is significantly nearer in photographs than Earthbound observers are used to seeing (an eye 1.7 m above completely flat ground will see the horizon 4.7 km away on Earth, but only 2.4 km away on the Moon). This can lead to confusing interpretations of the images. [5]

6. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. When the total number of official photographs taken during EVA of all Apollo missions is divided by the total amount of time of all EVAs, one arrives at 1.19 photos per minute. That is one photo per 50 seconds. Discounting time spent on other activities results in one photo per 15 seconds for Apollo 11. This is even more remarkable considering that many locations in the photographs are situated miles apart and would have taken considerable travel time, especially in bulky pressure suits. On top of this, the cameras were neither equipped with a viewfinder nor with automatic exposure, which means that taking good pictures would take considerably longer.

* The astronauts were well trained before the mission in the use of photographic equipment. Since there were no weather effects to contend with and the bright sunlight scenes permitted the use of small apertures with consequent large depth of field, the equipment was generally kept at a single setting for the duration of the mission. All that was required of the astronauts was to open the shutter and wind the film to take a picture. In these conditions it is possible to take two photographs a second. The camera was in a bracket mounted on the front of their spacesuit, so they looked straight ahead at what they wanted to photograph; no viewfinder was needed. Also, many of the photographs were stereoscopic pairs or sets of panoramic images, taken immediately after each other. The Apollo Image Atlas (external link below) shows that 70mm magazine S of Apollo 11 has 122 photos taken during the walk on the surface - less than one per minute. In addition, by looking at the photographs in sequence, one can see that very often several of them were taken in rapid succession.



Ionizing radiation and heat

Claims and rebuttals

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation.

* The Moon is ten times higher than the van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the metal hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, has rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray. [6]
* The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. 33 of 36 of the Apollo astronauts have early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip. (see Ms. Irene Schneider on The Space Show). (Plait 2002:160-162)

2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.

* The film was kept in metal containers that prevented radiation from fogging the film's emulsion. (Plait 2002:162-63)

3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

* There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was adequate to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; lunar module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave it its gold color. Also, while the Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their spacesuits as the sun continued to rise and the surface temperature increased, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems. (Plait 2002:165-67)



Transmission issues

Claims and rebuttals

1. The lack of a more than 2 second delay in two way communications at a distance of a 250,000 miles (400,000 km).

* The round trip light travel time of more than 2 seconds is apparent in all the real-time recordings of the lunar audio, but this does not always appear as expected. There may be some documentary films where the delay has been edited out. Principal motivations for editing the audio would likely come in response to time constraints or in the interest of clarity. [7]

2. Typical delays in communication were on the order of half a second.

* Claims that the delays were only on the order of half a second are unsubstantiated by an examination of the actual recordings.

3. Better signal was supposedly received at Parkes Observatory when the Moon was on the opposite side of the planet.

* This is not supported by the detailed evidence and logs from the missions. [8]

4. The Parkes Observatory in Australia was billed to the world for weeks as the site that would be relaying communications from the Moon, then five hours before transmission they were told to stand down.

* The timing of the first Moonwalk was moved up after landing. [9]

5. Parkes supposedly provided the clearest video feed from the Moon, but Australian media and all other known sources ran a live feed from the United States.

* While that was the original plan, and, according to some sources, the official policy, the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) did take the transmission direct from the Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek radio telescopes. These were converted to NTSC television at Paddington, in Sydney. This meant that Australian viewers saw the Moonwalk several seconds before the rest of the world. [10], See also The Parkes Observatory's Support of the Apollo 11 Mission, from "Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia"




Mechanical issues

Claims and rebuttals

1. No blast crater appeared from the landing.

* No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final stages of landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants, and the Moon's lower gravity. At the time of landing, the engine's thrust divided by the cross-sectional area of the engine bell is only about 1.5 PSI, and that is reduced by the fact that the engine was in a vacuum, causing the exhaust to spread out. (By contrast, the thrust of the first stage of the Saturn V was 459 PSI, over the area of the engine bell.) 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, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. Rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The lunar module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. Even if they hadn't, a simple calculation will show that the pressure at the end of the descent engine bell was much too low to carve out a crater. However, the descent engines did scatter a considerable amount of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and as Neil Armstrong said as the landing neared ("...kicking up some dust..."). This significantly impaired visibility in the final stages of landing, and many mission commanders commented on it. Photographs do show slightly disturbed dust beneath the descent engine. And finally, the landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically until right before landing, so the exhaust would not be focused on any one surface spot for very long, and the compactness of the lunar soil below a thin surface layer of dust also make it virtually impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater". (Plait 2002:163-65)

2. The launch rocket produced no visible flame.

* Hydrazine (a fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer) were the Lunar Module propellants, chosen for their reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without a spark. Hypergolic propellants happen to produce a nearly transparent exhaust. Hypergolic fuels are also used by several space launchers: the core of the American Titan, the Russian Proton, the European Ariane 1 through 4 and the Chinese Long March, and the transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very rapidly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further reducing their visibility. Finally, most rocket engines use a "rich" mixture to lengthen their lifetimes. While the excess fuel will burn when it contacts atmospheric oxygen, this cannot happen in a vacuum.

3. The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica.

* Chemical analysis of the rocks confirms a different oxygen isotopic composition and a surprising lack of volatile elements. There are only a few 'identical' rocks, and those few fell as meteorites after being ejected from the Moon during impact cratering events. The total quantity of these 'Lunar Meteorites' is small compared to the more than 840 lb (380 kg) of lunar samples returned by Apollo. Also the Apollo lunar soil samples chemically matched the Russian luna space probe’s lunar soil samples.

4. The presence of deep dust around the module; given the blast from the landing engine, this should not be present.

* The dust around the module is called regolith and is created by ejecta from asteroid and meteoroid impacts. This dust was several inches thick at the Apollo 11 landing site. The regolith was estimated to be several meters thick and is highly compacted with depth. In an atmosphere, we would expect a rocket engine to blast all the surface dust off the ground for tens of meters. However, dust was only removed from the area directly beneath the Apollo landing engine. The important observation here is "atmosphere". Powerful engines set up turbulence in air which lifts and carries dust readily, far beyond the engine itself. However, in a vacuum, there is no air to disturb. Only the actual engine exhaust's direct pressure on the dust can move it. (Plait 2002:163-65)

5. The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon.

* The astronauts were moving the flag into position, causing motion. Since there is no air on the Moon to provide friction, these movements caused a long-lasting undulating movement seen in the flag. There was a rod extending from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display. The fabric's rippled appearance was due to its having been folded during flight and gave it an appearance which could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph. The top supporting rod of the flag was telescopic and the crew of Apollo 11 found they could not fully extend it. Later crews did not fully extend this rod because they liked how it made the flag appear. A viewing of the videotape made during the moonwalk shows that shortly after the astronauts remove their hands from the flag/flagpole, it stops moving and remains motionless. At one point the flag is in view for well over thirty minutes and it remains completely motionless throughout that period (and all similar periods). (See inertia)



Moon rocks

The many rocks brought back from the Moon are substantial evidence that the landings took place. It has been suggested that the only explanation for Wernher von Braun's trip to Antarctica two years prior to Apollo missions was to collect lunar meteorite rocks to be used as fake moonrocks. Because von Braun was a former Nazi, it is suggested, he would have been susceptible to pressure to agree to the conspiracy in order to protect himself from recriminations over the past. A few meteorites found in Antarctica bear close resemblance to moonrocks.

However, the first Antarctic meteorite discovery was made in 1969 by a Japanese team. The first United States led team began searches in the mid to late 1970s and the first meteorite identified as a lunar meteorite was not found until 1981 and identified as such by its similarity with the lunar samples returned by Apollo which in turn are similar to the few grams of material returned from the Moon by Soviet sample return missions (see ANSMET). The total collection of identified Antarctic lunar meteorites presently in the collection at JSC amounts to only about 2.5 kilograms, less than 1% of the 381 kilograms of moonrocks and soil returned by Apollo.

It is not favourable in orbital dynamics for an object to leave the Moon and impact Earth, the most favourable outcomes are the complete escape of the object (thus entering solar orbit) directly, or a chaotic orbit around the Moon, Earth or both which eventually results in the object being ejected from the system or re-impacting the Moon. The Moon being the least massive object, it becomes a sort of "kink" in Earth's gravity well, and this makes it more likely than Earth to be struck by any incoming object.

The claim that the rocks are the same as ones found on Earth does carry some weight in the scientific community, but only in context of meteorites found on Earth. It is believed that rocks dislodged from the Moon by meteoric impacts occasionally land on Earth. The physics of this process is well understood. A handful of rocks believed to be from Mars have also been found in Antarctica. There are only a few of these objects in our collections and the rest of the rocks collected on Earth are entirely different in composition and in their detailed structures from those found and returned from the Moon. Furthermore, detailed analysis of the lunar rocks show no evidence of their having been on Earth prior to their return during Apollo. They are also entirely consistent with our understanding of the environment that they existed in on the Lunar surface since their formation many billions of years ago and with the detailed geological context that they were documented to have been sampled from. They are almost entirely composed of heavily shocked rocks consistent with the meteoroid environment on the Moon's surface. Many of them are older than any found on Earth.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277642/board/nest/1145299

[yoshi]

yeah, ive read about it like years ago in some magazine, called 'X files' or sumthin. dunno, it sorta made sense, but i'm really bored of all those conspiracy theories..

[BigBangBazinga]

Hahahaha! Omg you people are so american some times. =P Like "hey, have you seen the film from when he walks on the moon? of course he walked on the moon stupid motherfucker".

Now, don't get me the wrong way. I too belive he walked the moon first. But there is reasons to be suspicous. I mean, there is for sure no wind at all on the moon, still the flag is moving after it is set up. And it wouldn't be a big surprise if it was fake. The russains were on their way and like always america had to prove that they're the best.

[lil_bayly]

Hahahaha! Omg you people are so american some times. =P Like "hey, have you seen the film from when he walks on the moon? of course he walked on the moon stupid motherfucker".

Now, don't get me the wrong way. I too belive he walked the moon first. But there is reasons to be suspicous. I mean, there is for sure no wind at all on the moon, still the flag is moving after it is set up. And it wouldn't be a big surprise if it was fake. The russains were on their way and like always america had to prove that they're the best.

Actually it isnt "wind" thats making the flag move, its gravity. The gravity on the moon is 1/6th the gravity on earth which means that gravity is pulling the flag down and up at the same time. Its 2 fast for the eye to catch which gives it the waving effect. Just a little FYI

[Robbie G]

I don't buy it..

They landed on the moon, get over it.

[Epidemik]

lil bayly your officially the dumbest fucker on this forum
we cant land on mars!!

and if we did land on the moon.. why hasnt anyone even attempted to return??

[NinjA]

you gotta BELIEVE man! lol

[AspirinE]

Ohh yeahh... man didnt land on the moon and the competing technologically as superior nation (USSR) managed not to find about the fact..

"why didnt man try to return to the moon?" .... what the fuck is the point?
ill answer that... none. We have .... MOOONWAAAAAAAAALKERS that were developed to take data and pics after man landed on the moon.

[J Rmix]

or they just flimed the whole thing in a studio it never really did happen ....

[Xray]

whether humans walked on the moon or not what fucken difference does it make to your social life moron? first of all do you work with nasar or what ever the fuck they call it..so instead of talking about bullshit things that wouldnt do shit to you whether it existed or not you can just check this prequel out suckers!

http://www.forum.trshady.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=42808