Moon Landing: Hoaxed?

[MrRING]

https://moondisaster.org/

https://www.space.com/apollo-11-disaster-deepfake-video-tech.html

 

[dannycheveaux1]

There does seem to be a feeling here (not Eburacum of course) that NASA did fake some pictures, for whatever reason
If it were to come out that some other science body in whatever field, faked "evidence" what a huge outcry there would be
Any research they had previously published would immediately be thrown into doubt

 

[Wolstan Dixie]

trevp666 - yes of course NASA had standby photos in case the video failed - you have obviously missed my previous posting giving a link to four of them www.xenophon.org/apollo11.html

 

[Trevp666]

Yes I have missed your previous link. Ta v much WD.

However this link you put here takes me to a site that doesn't appear to have those pics. Unless I missed something.

 

[Wolstan Dixie]

Whoops, missing UK - www.xenophon.org.uk/apollo11.html

 

[AlchoPwn]

There is telescopes powerful enough to see for left over debris but they are in Government Hands no Private body can get proper funding to build a Telescope to see if the moon landing was legitimate, so they focus on Radio waves in outer space

FFS, join an astronomy club and go book time at a major lensed telescope with them. You can see the Sea of Tranquility and where the landing sites are. I have found that astronomers are lonely people who generally love the company of someone who is even passingly interested in what they do. Or would you rather not put your money where your mouth is and actually go see the truth of the Moon Landing on the Lunar surface for yourself?

 

[eburacum]

I should point out that at no time has NASA used the 'dress rehearsal' images in a fashion that suggests they were taken on the Moon. They may have been used subsequently by various authors in this way; for instance some astronauts have used 'staged' photos in their autobiographical works- but NASA are not responsible for these works.

In most cases - and especially since the Apollo missions - NASA have been very strict about not using 'retouching' on their official photos. You may find blank areas on many NASA images where the original data was lost or not obtained - but you won't find any 'copy-and-paste' in their official images. I'd be interested to see any examples of this since - say- Gemini.

 

[cycleboy2]

Dara Ó Briain is not happy about a BBC podcast by Scarlet Moffatt espousing the bollocks that the moon landing was a hoax (that's me laying my cards on the table). That said, I do love the film Capricorn One, which is one reason I suspect many people doubt that we landed on the moon.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-moon-landing-conspiracy-theory-a9675971.html

 

[Mythopoeika]

Dara Ó Briain is not happy about a BBC podcast by Scarlet Moffatt espousing the bollocks that the moon landing was a hoax (that's me laying my cards on the table). That said, I do love the film Capricorn One, which is one reason I suspect many people doubt that we landed on the moon.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-moon-landing-conspiracy-theory-a9675971.html

Isn't Scarlett Moffatt an airhead? Case closed.

 

[gordonrutter]

Isn't Scarlett Moffatt an airhead? Case closed.

I watched Richard Ossman’s House of Games on BBC2 this week and was amazed at how she manages to walk and breathe at the same time. I was even more amazed when at the end of the week she had won the quiz...

 

[Trevp666]

Capricorn One was a good film.

 

[cycleboy2]

Capricorn One was a good film.

I saw it when it came out and I have a great fondness for films with helicopter chases – and Telly Savalas (or 'savages' as spellchecker would have it) and Elliott Gould are usually good value.

I thought a remake was on its way but, with a bit of googling, that was proposed back in 2007-2008 after which things have gone very quiet. It would probably be shite anyway.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Capricorn One was a good film.

It was a good premise, but they did it on a budget - which shows.

 

[Trevp666]

It was a good premise, but they did it on a budget - which shows.

Most films in 1977 were made on a shoestring budget though weren't they? Except for things like Star Wars.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I saw it when it came out and I have a great fondness for films with helicopter chases...

It was one of my favourite cinema experiences ever..!

 

[Peripart]

Most films in 1977 were made on a shoestring budget though weren't they? Except for things like Star Wars.

I don't think that Star Wars' budget would seem very big these days, even adjusted for inflation.

Anyway, yes: Capricorn One was, and is, an excellent film. The reason for the fakery was convincing, I don't think the film suffered too much from its budget, and of course it had OJ Simpson in it! What more could you ask for?

 

[Bad Bungle]

Stuck in the school library on a very wet afternoon in 1975 I searched in vain for anything interesting to read. I picked up the Economist for the first and only time, which had an article (with stills) on a new film called Star Wars being made on a budget of $10 million. That was an insane amount of money to spend on a Sci Fi film in 75, the producer would never ever get the money back - but it got me all excited. I told me mates - new film - Star Wars - ten million - but only got suspicious looks: 'nah, well I ain't seen it'
Easier to end discussion and silently wait 2 years for it to be finally released than admit to having read a journal.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Stuck in the school library on a very wet afternoon in 1975 I searched in vain for anything interesting to read. I picked up the Economist for the first and only time, which had an article (with stills) on a new film called Star Wars being made on a budget of $10 million. That was an insane amount of money to spend on a Sci Fi film in 75, the producer would never ever get the money back - but it got me all excited. I told me mates - new film - Star Wars - ten million - but only got suspicious looks: 'nah, well I ain't seen it'
Easier to end discussion and silently wait 2 years for it to be finally released than admit to having read a journal.

I've been in this position a few times myself, when I've told people about something I'd read. The reaction has usually been one of disbelief.
When I'm proved to be right, those people conveniently have a lapse of memory.

 

[AlchoPwn]

Dara Ó Briain is not happy about a BBC podcast by Scarlet Moffatt espousing the bollocks that the moon landing was a hoax (that's me laying my cards on the table). That said, I do love the film Capricorn One, which is one reason I suspect many people doubt that we landed on the moon.https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-moon-landing-conspiracy-theory-a9675971.html

I enjoyed Capricorn 1 as well. That being said, having seen the lunar landing zone with a large telescope and done the lazer reflector test with friends, I know for certain that the moon landings were real.

 

[Aurora Newman]

Quite an interesting case has been made for the notion that
the moon landing was really done in a Hollywood studio - or
at least a studio on Area 51.

It has been questioned whether the thin materials of the space-suits
were sufficient protection against the radioactivity that would have
been encountered.

Chiefly, however, sceptics have concentrated on the photographs
published by NASA. The arguments centre around the lack of any
crater beneath the landing craft, the flags that wave in a non-existant
lunar atmosphere and the way that features are visible in what should
be deep shadow.

Even more extraordinary is the match which has been made between two
shots, supposedly shot on different days, where the terrain is clearly
identical.

There is plenty of this material on the web. There has never been any
satisfactory explanation of these anomalies.

Cor!

The traditional pull on the moon by the earth and vice versa does create movement on the moon surface. Rocks and pebbles move across the moon quite significantly just as the tides do back on earth. Also the flag did have a wire in it because they wouldn't know if a normal flag would stand to attention in low gravity. Also the landing crater moon has very low atmosphere and very low gravity. The idea is to hit that landing as perfect as you can . If you don't your crushed in the ship and then your being riqouted back up out in to space. The Auto Pilot nearly did that. So Armstrong broke protocol and missed a rocky hill and landed manually. A lot people don't believe about these landings. You got to remember the times this was a pioneering era, people felt indestructible, they had survived two world wars, which in our modern day tablets and apps have forgotten what that era felt like. They dared to push the limits of the technology they had.

 

[Austin Popper]

The really amazing thing about the moon landings, and space travel in general, is that it was just barely doable. It really was not doable with existing technology, so whole industries were made up as they went along. Computers existed before NASA, of course, but the US government poured money into IBM and other companies in order to get the tools NASA needed. The machines we rely on daily are one direct result of that effort. Landing on the moon was an audacious undertaking, and the consequences of not getting it done were huge.

Apollo 13 was the whole thing in miniature. The explosion caused a situation that no one had even contemplated, presenting a task that was impossible on its face, but of course they had no choice but to try to save it. The results were a testament to the spirit and the competence of the people who made it work against all odds. I still feel privileged to have lived through that time, watching it on TV and anywhere else I could get information.

I have no choice but to regard the idiots who think it was all fake in the same way I regard the idiots who invaded the Capitol last month. Oxygen thieves, all.

 

[PeteS]

The really amazing thing about the moon landings, and space travel in general, is that it was just barely doable. It really was not doable with existing technology, so whole industries were made up as they went along. Computers existed before NASA, of course, but the US government poured money into IBM and other companies in order to get the tools NASA needed. The machines we rely on daily are one direct result of that effort. Landing on the moon was an audacious undertaking, and the consequences of not getting it done were huge.

Apollo 13 was the whole thing in miniature. The explosion caused a situation that no one had even contemplated, presenting a task that was impossible on its face, but of course they had no choice but to try to save it. The results were a testament to the spirit and the competence of the people who made it work against all odds. I still feel privileged to have lived through that time, watching it on TV and anywhere else I could get information.

I have no choice but to regard the idiots who think it was all fake in the same way I regard the idiots who invaded the Capitol last month. Oxygen thieves, all.

Very well said AP

 

[Mikefule]

I have no choice but to regard the idiots who think it was all fake in the same way I regard the idiots who invaded the Capitol last month. Oxygen thieves, all.

I wonder how many of them really think that the moon landings were faked, and how many just say they think it. So many conspiracy theories have no bearing on our every day lives. My day to day life would be no different if the moon landings were faked, or JFK had actually been shot from a grassy knoll, or the Earth was actually flat.

With one or two exceptions, I see conspiracy theory as no more than a recreational pastime. In this respect there are similarities to (as well as differences from) those Forteans who spend time and energy trying to establish the identity of Jack the Ripper: it was 130 odd years ago, everyone involved is long dead. It's interesting, granted, but it is irrelevant to daily life.

I suspect that most of the people who say the moon landings were faked, or the Earth is flat, and who present complex but specious arguments to "prove" it are just the naughty kids in playgroup shouting "bum" and "bottom" and "you can't make me" to annoy the playgroup leader because they know they're not meant to.