Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum
 
register chat members links refer search home
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Unexplained Phenomena & Conspiracy > Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies > Did We Land On The Moon?
Search this Thread:
Pages (3):  [1] 23 »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   
esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

Did We Land On The Moon? post #1  quote:



I have seen a number of photographs and intriguiing collections of facts that support the ideas that either:

A) We never went to the moon, it was all a cold-war sham to intimidate the Russians in the Race for Space; or

B) We went to the moon, but some of the photographs have been altered and some information may be incorrect

There are a number of photographs that have CLEARLY and UNARGUABLY been doctored / altered from their original form. For what reason? Was it for improved composition, to appear more patriotic somehow? Or was it to cover up some horrifying facts that were discovered there? Or was it a completely staged event that never occurred?

Take this photo for example, linked directly from NASA's site. This is an OFFICIAL photograph from the Apollo 11 mission. Take it in and look it over carefully:



Original Source is Here - check out the higher resolution JPEG version too! And Here! - sorry, there are a couple of varying scan qualities.. I embeddeded the clearest lowres one above.

Now you skeptics consider this: where are the flag & flagpole's shadows? There are VERY long shadows in that image from the low position of the sun on the horizon - geometrically determined, the shadow should extend off the right side of the image, yet there's none to be seen at all. Don't make up some nonsense about a slight rise in the terrain that obscures it from view, that's just nonsense - that terrain is perfectly flat enough to have seen something.

And then look closer still: why isn't the ground at the base of the pole disturbed at all? If it was so difficult to get the pole even 6-8 inches into the soil, why is there no sign of packing or disturbance? There are merely a few footprints crossing by..? This is admittedly not as solid as the shadow, but the two add together to indicate the idea that the flag and pole were planted into the photo after the fact.

There are more questionable photos like this, I'll see what else I can find..


Old Post 02-27-2003 11:04 PM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Dreamzwalker
Agent

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 10:35 PM
Location: Out there Somewhere
Posts: 2428

post #2  quote:

That's very interesting.
I would have to argue the question though. My uncle used to work for N.A.S.A. and he programmed the shuttles with another group and even designed the piece that stops the ships from burning up during launch. (like one of the Apollos)
I think I'm going to beleave what he has told me about the moon Landing compared to the picture. (not speaking of the flag but of the picture all together) I do know that you can see the flag through a strong enough telescope.


Old Post 02-27-2003 11:12 PM
Click here to Send Dreamzwalker a Private Message View Dreamzwalker's Journal Find more posts by Dreamzwalker Add Dreamzwalker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Dreamzwalker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Marc Flemming
Renovator

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 3663

post #3  quote:

I was going to ask that - can't we see the the flag through a telescope? If we can - stands to reason that there should be a picture of it. It'd be interesting to see - if indeed it exists and can be found.

Old Post 02-27-2003 11:15 PM
Click here to Send Marc Flemming a Private Message View Marc Flemming's Journal Visit Marc Flemming's homepage! Find more posts by Marc Flemming Add Marc Flemming to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #4  quote:

I don't think you can see the flag thru an earth-based telescope. As I understand it, earth-based scoped cannot resolve details less than a few meters across.. much less half an inch by 36 inches across. Keep in mind that observing from Earth you would be looking straight down on top of the flag pole.. not a nice side-profile shot showing the starts and stripes.

However, I have heard of laser-based gear being left behind on the moon so that with a laser we can accurately measure the distanc and position of the moon (since the distance DOES vary, believe it or not: it's not a perfectly circular orbit, hence the moon's axial "wobble". So being able to reflect an earth-based laser off this surface would, indeed, seem to be evidence that supports that we did, in fact land on the moon.

Let me also clarify MY position on this: I think we DID land on the moon, but that some photographs, for whatever reason, may have been falsified. They may have been falsified for reasons of international politics, or perhaps for generating improved public & government support for funding purposes, etc - but regardless some photos have definitely been falsified. More will follow. The nature of the falsified images may range from completely staged studio shots to slightly altered images actually shot on the surface of the moon.

Why despite this evidence do I think we landed on the moon? Aside from what I mentioned above, it's simple: there's no reason not to have. It's too easy to reach the moon. The physics, math, resources, everything that went into it - they're all fundamental elements of what drives an increasingly high technology & highly scientific society that we enjoy today. Concepts and discoveries made along the way for those Apollo missions live on in every day society today. If you doubt the Apollo program, then you have to doubt the space shuttle program in the same light: they use all the same principles!

Many who doubt that we ever even made it to the moon tend to doubt it because they don't think we're capable. To me that just highlights their ignorance of exactly what capabilities are required to make it to the moon...


Old Post 02-27-2003 11:28 PM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #5  quote:

This image represents the typical mounting of a camera to the center of the chest on th astronaut's space suit:


Nasa Source

Now THIS image shows a shot that should be an impossible vantage point to achieve from the moon:

NASA Source

The shot was NOT taken from the ladder of the lander. In the reflection of the mask, you can see the photographer standing on the ground. The ground is FLAT - that's why they landed there: landers LIKE flat landing spots. So if the photographer was standing on flat ground with a camera mounted in the center of his chest, "how on Earth" is it possible to take a photo that appears to be angled down from above the head of the subject? Or could it be that, indeed, the photo was taken on Earth..?

The following caption accompanies the bottom image on NASA's website:
"Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., lunar module pilot, walks on the surface of the Moon near the leg of the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" during the Apollo 11 exravehicular activity (EVA). Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, commander, took this photograph with a 70mm lunar surface camera. While astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin descended in the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" to explore the Sea of Tranquility region of the Moon, astronaut Michael Collins, command module pilot, remained with the Command and Service Modules (CSM) "Columbia" in lunar orbit."


Old Post 02-27-2003 11:47 PM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Marc Flemming
Renovator

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 3663

post #6  quote:

The astronaut taking the picture seems pretty distant (roughly the same distance that the target astronaut's shadow travels).

From that distance, you could get that sort of perspective on the astronaut.

Is there anyway to find out if:

a) there was a zooming mechanism on the cameras they used
b) that image was cropped

?


Old Post 02-27-2003 11:53 PM
Click here to Send Marc Flemming a Private Message View Marc Flemming's Journal Visit Marc Flemming's homepage! Find more posts by Marc Flemming Add Marc Flemming to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #7  quote:

Perspective accounts for curvature distortions and for scale reduction - it does not account for altered point of view. Go snap a shot that looks down on someone's head, the camera has to physically be ABOVE their head. To think otherwise, then by that logic if you walk far enough away from the empire state building you should be able to see down on top of it: impossible.

I think was have to assume that the camera has zoom capability because of the hash marks in the image - they tend to be 5x5 and both the top and bottom images have them. If it were cropped, then some of the hash marks would be cropped out.

Another oddity to figure out is that reflection of the Aldrin's shadow in his visor. It doesn't seem right that the shadow seeming to cast 45 degrees to the side would reflect in his mask more like 15 degrees, regardless of the curvature.. the shadow only covers a smal portion of the curvature of the reflective surface, but doesn't seem to curve really so much as just magically change angles... (?)


Old Post 02-28-2003 12:02 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #8  quote:

Another point of contention:


NASA Source

This is the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander, lovingly christened the "Eagle". Note how placidly it sits in the cold-hearted grip of the moon's gravity. Funny - to look at the image, one might not guess that perhaps only minutes, certainly no more than hours ago, that lander was firing a powerful retro-rocket down at the surface of the moon in order to decelerate and perform a nice "gentle" landing. Sure, nice and gentle for the two passengers, but the moon itself would have been blasted all to hell by a liquid-fueled rocket - so why is there no indication of a blast area? In fact, there's no indication that the soild beneath the lander has been disturbed in the slightest. How is this possible? There are DOZENS of lunar lander photos that replicate this phenomenon..

More nice, fluffy moon-dirt, also Apollo 11:

NASA Source

Captioned, "First EVA picture. Neil's first frame in a pan taken west of the ladder. Jettison bag under the Descent Stage, south footpad, bent probe, strut supports. The view is more or less up-Sun, so we are seeing the shadowed faces of boulders. There is a fair-sized crater ESE of the footpad which is probably East Crater which Neil will visit at the end of the EVA. 20 July 1969."

Even better:

Same source as above

Captioned, "Shows the area under the Descent Stage, including the jettison bag. Neil turned to his right to take this photo while waiting for Buzz to get farther out of the cabin."

How kind of Neil to so clearly demonstrate the point here for us.


Old Post 02-28-2003 12:07 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Marc Flemming
Renovator

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 3663

post #9  quote:

the astronaut is standing in a crater (?) The other one may be standing on the higher end of a very minor incline... (?)

Old Post 02-28-2003 12:10 AM
Click here to Send Marc Flemming a Private Message View Marc Flemming's Journal Visit Marc Flemming's homepage! Find more posts by Marc Flemming Add Marc Flemming to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #10  quote:

There's that flag again.. only mysteriously the shadow is readily apparent from this view - note that nice, flat terrain..


NASA Source

"This post-EVA photo out Buzz's window shows the U.S. flag, the TV camera, and the cluster of boulders beyond which were probably ejected from West Crater. Note the raised rim on the fresh, young crater in the middle distance beyond and to the right of the TV camera."

So.. does this mean that the famous shot of Aldrin by the flag was snapped by a "TV camera"? Sure looks that way...

Here's that shadow again:


Old Post 02-28-2003 12:19 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #11  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Sean Kelly
Now THIS image shows a shot that should be an impossible vantage point to achieve from the moon:


I found another image:



Captioned, "In order to take the bootprint photos, Buzz removed the camera from his RCU bracket and, in this frame, got a picture of his own boot."

So apparently the cameras COULD be removed from the RCU bracket and operated, as demonstrated in the above photo, so it is possible that the more highly elevated than should be possible posted above was snapped similarly: by removing the camera from the bracket and holding it overhead for the shot.


Old Post 02-28-2003 12:45 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #12  quote:

Could this be a response to the mystery of the missing rocket blast?


NASA Source
Captioned, "Buzz took this photo of the area under the Descent Stage to document the effects of the engine plume. A radial pattern of scouring is readily visible. Note the gouge made by the probe hanging down from the minus-Y (south) strut at contact. The fact that the spacecraft landed directly over this gouge mark is a clear indication that, as is discussed after 102:45:32, the LM was drifting left (south) during the final moments of the landing."

Somehow it just doesn't appear as I'd have expected it to.. am I blowing holes in my own case here? Fine by me, I've been trying to debunk this conspiracy theory for two years now..


Old Post 02-28-2003 01:01 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Dreamzwalker
Agent

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 10:35 PM
Location: Out there Somewhere
Posts: 2428

post #13  quote:

My parents have a friend that works in a rather large observatory.
she sometimes sends cool information about Metor showers about 2 months in advance. I'll see if I can get her e-mail and ask her about the resolution and visual options.


Old Post 02-28-2003 03:58 AM
Click here to Send Dreamzwalker a Private Message View Dreamzwalker's Journal Find more posts by Dreamzwalker Add Dreamzwalker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Dreamzwalker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Rebel
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: Mar 2003
Local time: 11:35 PM
Location: Jax Florida
Posts: 53

post #14  quote:

The people who claim we didnt land on the moon make very good points, and i may even agree that the first landing didnt happen, but i have one question. Why wouldnt the soviets have noticed these things? I mean they would have been the first to try and discredit the moon landing. Im not yet ready to agree that any of the landings were fake. I also have a problem with the Apllo thirteen. Was that misson to a fake? did they fake the ever Famous " Houston we have a problem"? Wow what measures the US went through to make us believe that not only did we land on the moon, but one misson went terribly wrong , with a dramatic rescue and re entry. I guess NASA was pretty good at drama. I will give some credit to the fact that flag does look fake, and i may even be convienced the first misson was a fraud, but not all of them. I simply would have to refer to the above questions of apollo 13 and the soviets not trying to show the world that evil captalist pigs in america had faked the whole thing. But i would stop listening so much to Art Bell. Conspiracy theories are usally all theory with little evidence to back it, as you said some photos controdict your claim. But who knows . Thanks

Old Post 03-06-2003 06:06 AM
Click here to Send Rebel a Private Message Find more posts by Rebel Add Rebel to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Rebel REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #15  quote:

The more I post about this, the less I believe any of the ideas of fakery. The only photo I cannot explain now is the one where the flag's shadow is missing. I've analyzed several photos from different angles and plotted where the flag's shadow -should- have landed in the image in question, but it simply isn't there.

As for why wouldn't the Russians have noticed.. perhaps they had no reason to doubt. Perhaps it was so convincing that they couldn't disprove it. Perhaps astronauts on the moon was all so new, in such a new environment, and having no experience to draw upon, they had no basis for an argument.

If it was ALL faked, indeed NASA it seems should be in the movie-making business..


Old Post 03-06-2003 08:16 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Dreamzwalker
Agent

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 10:35 PM
Location: Out there Somewhere
Posts: 2428

post #16  quote:

Okay - I'm emailing my Uncle tomorrow because of a report I'm doing about the 1969 moon landing. When I receive the information, I'll post some of it since he worked for NASA during the moon landing.

Old Post 03-06-2003 02:50 PM
Click here to Send Dreamzwalker a Private Message View Dreamzwalker's Journal Find more posts by Dreamzwalker Add Dreamzwalker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Dreamzwalker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

1young11
Veteran

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 04:35 AM
Location: Illinois
Posts: 326

post #17  quote:

Another question I have about this, is why does the flag in the pictures appear to be waving? Correct me if I'm wrong, but without an atmosphere shouldn't the flag be still, and not waving?

Old Post 05-20-2003 06:56 PM
Click here to Send 1young11 a Private Message Find more posts by 1young11 Add 1young11 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore 1young11 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

sones
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 10:35 PM
Location: MN
Posts: 48

post #18  quote:

has anyone mentioned that there is no wind on the moon, and in all of thses pix the flag is blowing?

Old Post 05-26-2003 10:39 PM
Click here to Send sones a Private Message Find more posts by sones Add sones to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore sones REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
lodgebo
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 04:35 AM
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4383

post #19  quote:

I don't think we landed on the moon you pointed out the flaws such as why is the flag waving when there is no wind in space.
I once heard a story about the whole thing was done in a set in Nevada.


Old Post 05-27-2003 12:50 AM
Click here to Send lodgebo a Private Message Find more posts by lodgebo Add lodgebo to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore lodgebo REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

sones
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 10:35 PM
Location: MN
Posts: 48

Unhappy denial post #20  quote:

but this is just one of those things that is too painful to believe... we didn't land on the moon ?!?! i'd rather live in denial thinking that only the pictures were a crock, and everything else was fine.

are there actually any pictures that seem credible?


Old Post 05-27-2003 03:44 AM
Click here to Send sones a Private Message Find more posts by sones Add sones to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore sones REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #21  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by lodgebo
I don't think we landed on the moon you pointed out the flaws such as why is the flag waving when there is no wind in space.


I don't think there is any indication that the flag is "waving" in the Moon's microatmosphere. The irregular pattern seen in the surface of the various flags is likely due to the canvass material bieng wrinkled and uncooperative with the person trying to straighten it out. You can clearly see across several photos that the flags have a horizontal batton designed to hold the flag in an out-stretched position. A lower batton would have made the flags nice & flat looking, but for whatever reason one was not supplied and so the canvas material is free to crumble into whatever position it relaxes. Also supporting this observation is that the photos of various flags from various angles indicate that once placed and left undisturbed, the shape of exach flag is unchanged from image to image, thus the flags are not experiencing any unseen force or 'wind' which would move them around from photo to photo.


Old Post 05-27-2003 06:28 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

ebots_mind
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 10:35 PM
Location: Marshall MN
Posts: 72

post #22  quote:

May I add that the flag in the picture without a shadow also seems to be caught in a Moon-wind. I know very little where the climate of the moon is concerned, so I am wondering about weather on the moon.

Just a thought.


Old Post 06-05-2003 07:17 AM
Click here to Send ebots_mind a Private Message Find more posts by ebots_mind Add ebots_mind to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore ebots_mind REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
lodgebo
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 04:35 AM
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4383

post #23  quote:

there aint no weather in space

Old Post 06-05-2003 11:52 AM
Click here to Send lodgebo a Private Message Find more posts by lodgebo Add lodgebo to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore lodgebo REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Quossum
Rookie

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 10:35 PM
Location: Houston
Posts: 1

Websites of interest on this topic post #24  quote:

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jsc..._faked/FOX.html

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html (a fun site with lots of links to other "bad science" instances)

http://www.bestofcolumbus.com/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm (this one is really detailed)

Enjoy!

--Q


Old Post 06-10-2003 02:09 PM
Click here to Send Quossum a Private Message Find more posts by Quossum Add Quossum to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Quossum REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #25  quote:

I like that bestofcolumbus link - thanks for posting it

Old Post 06-11-2003 07:48 PM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

[7]
Veteran

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location: Inside the Matrix
Posts: 475

post #26  quote:

I think theres another error in all of these pictures that everyone has overlooked... where are the stars? From the moon the stars would shine brighter than if seen from the earth.

Also, on the second or third picture where there is a shot of an astrounat where you can see the reflection of the shadow in his visor - the reflection is out of angle. i understand that the reflection is concaved from the space suits helmet, but the shadow should be stretched out further to the right.

Fox actually had a special on this topic before. it made me a beleiver that we did not in fact actually land on the moon. The window of success was so, so miniscule that this could actually have been accomplished - there are layers of toxicicity (sp?) that surround the earth at a constant rate. to think we could have accomplished this with 1969 technology but but we have never sent another individual back to the moon in 44 years is really hard to swallow.


Old Post 06-15-2003 10:16 AM
Click here to Send [7] a Private Message Find more posts by [7] Add [7] to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore [7] REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

[7]
Veteran

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location: Inside the Matrix
Posts: 475

post #27  quote:

I googled this topic up and ran across some interesting sites. This is a list of problems documented from the website http://www.santabanta.com/newsmaker...Read&select=772

1. Temperature: When Neil Armstrong took his small step for man, it would have been around 130 degrees celsuis in the sunlit places and -40 degree in the shadows. Would the photo film which captured his giant leap have survived without snapping or melting? And wouldn?t the visor have cracked if they had been partly in the sun and partly in the shadows?

2. Landscape: The Moon landscape, as seen in the pictures, darkens towards infinity. This would happen on Earth. But how can it happen on the Moon which doesn?t boast of an atmosphere?

3. Flag: Most pictures and other filmed footage, which NASA has released, seem to show the American flag fluttering. How was this possible when there`s no atmosphere or wind on the Moon?

4. Shadows: Although the only source of light was supposed to be the Sun, many Moon photos show shadows which are not parallel. This suggests a much closer light source. Some photos show two light sources. In fact, all the photos look very much as though they were taken in the dark using very bright spotlights.

5. Stars: No stars are visible in the NASA pictures. Stars are not visible on Earth during daytime because sunlight is scattered by particles in the atmosphere. There is no atmosphere on the Moon, so why don?t we see the stars?

6. Sun Angle: The angle at which the Sun is seen vis-a-vis the horizon has come in for question. For instance, in this example from Apollo 11, the Sun was shown to be at 10 degrees above the horizon but the shadows depict 30 degrees or so.

7. Rocks: Does the Moon boast of no other kind of rock than those that are already available on Earth, or that which can be generated here? If it does, why hasn?t NASA produced them ?

8. Footprints: The Lunar dust is totally dry. Yet the footprints look much like footprints on Earth. The moisture in the soil holds it together. On the Moon, however, the dust would not cling together, and any footprints would surely be much less well-defined?

9. Dust: There is no dust on the rocks in the Moon pictures. Since there is no air on the Moon, shouldn?t there be just as much dust on the rocks as on the rest of the surface, since there is nothing to blow it away?

10. Visor: One of the Apollo 11 pictures shows the reflection of two astronauts in the visor of a third astronaut. Was there ever supposed to be more than two people on the Moon at the same time?

11. Under The Module: There is no crater or sign of disturbance under the Lunar Module. Wouldn?t the rockets have blown the dust and rocks away and produced a crater?

12. Gravity: There is six times less gravity on the Moon than on Earth. Amstrong & Co would have had to stamp six times harder while walking. Yet, no photo supports this.


Old Post 06-15-2003 10:27 AM
Click here to Send [7] a Private Message Find more posts by [7] Add [7] to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore [7] REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

[7]
Veteran

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location: Inside the Matrix
Posts: 475

post #28  quote:

and the official nasa responses:

1. The space suits were water-cooled and were made using aerosol spray techniques.
2. The exposures were set to work with the brightly-lit surface and astronauts only.
3. Firstly the flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top. Astronauts twisted the pole back and forth in order to stick it into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag to flutter.
4. If there was more than one light source because spotlights were used, then why do we not see more than one shadow on everything?
5. Sunlight was so strong it overpowered the light from the stars.
6. On flat ground the shadow`s length and direction depends on the position of the sun alone. But once there is a slope on the ground the shadow gets longer. Also, if the slope was at an angle towards us, the shadow would extend that way too.
7. Of course they are diffrent than Earth rocks. They do not have any moisture in them.
8. Dust particles are smaller and much more irregular and don`t have any weathering to smooth them off. When compressed, say by a boot, the dust particles will grip with each other very readily, and retain the shape.
9. Due to lack of air, dust falls down quicker on the moon than on Earth in spite of less gravity.
10. The Hasselblad cameras were mounted on the chest pack on the space suit. You can easily see the camera reflection in the visor.
11. The lander`s rocket was not at full thrust when it landed, Armstrong throttled it back all the way down as the lander approached the surface. Secondly they did not land vertically, the module skidded for some distance gently.
12. Space suits were extremely heavy, didn?t allow them to jump in spite of less gravity.


Old Post 06-15-2003 10:27 AM
Click here to Send [7] a Private Message Find more posts by [7] Add [7] to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore [7] REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:35 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #29  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by [7]
and the official nasa responses...


your "official" responses look read pretty unofficial. Check out that bestofcolumbus link posted above for a much more authoratative response. I didn't even read all your material, I just picked out the "no stars in photos" bits and no: the sun did not overpower them. The photos did not have enough exposure time to get the stars. It takes many seconds to get an exposure of stars from Earth. The moon is no different. In taking photos at 1/500th second exposure in bright daylight on the surface of the moon, those stars didn't have the least chance at showing up in the prints.


Old Post 06-19-2003 04:43 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Jonny_Rico
Veteran

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 04:35 AM
Location:
Posts: 313

post #30  quote:

I havent read all replies or looked at every photo in detail but i believe there is a photo that hasnt been shown.
There is a photo of the astronauts taking off/landing on the moon and the shot was taken from below. You see, thats impossible because:

1) It would mean they left the camera man on the moon or that the camera man is already there waiting for landing
2) The Picture was taken on Earth on a set just like a movie set

anyway, im in a rush and best go. Interesting stuff.


Old Post 06-28-2003 06:28 PM
Click here to Send Jonny_Rico a Private Message Visit Jonny_Rico's homepage! Find more posts by Jonny_Rico Add Jonny_Rico to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Jonny_Rico REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote
Time: 04:35 AM Post New Thread   
Pages (3):  [1] 23 »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Unexplained Phenomena & Conspiracy > Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies > Did We Land On The Moon?
Search this Thread:
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
Forum Policies Explained
 
Rate This Thread:

< >

Copyright ?2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.08657789 seconds (91.01% PHP - 8.99% MySQL) with 48 queries.

ADS

© 2018, INReview.com.   Popular Forums  All Forums   Web Hosting by Psyphire.
INReview.com: Back to Home