Welcome to Gaia! ::

haha
I didn't even realize that.
XP

rofl

I guess no one reads polls these days....unless...they did..o.o


lol

Such as.....

I have yet to see a single one that hasn't been debunked repeatedly.

I will attempt to debunk each arguement of the "NASA faked the moon landings" crowd point by point.

Arguement 1: The flag ripples in a "wind"

The flag swings when the pole is being positioned by the astronauts, like a pendulum. The flag is still flexible, and will respond to movements of the pole and support rod with a wave-like motion, and much more rapidly than in an atmosphere environment. In the video footage I have seen, the flag moves precisely the way one would expect it to in an ariless environment.

Arguement 2: The astronauts are see-through

Have you seen the size of the video camera mounted to the swing-out pole on the moon lander? Have you seen the size of studio TV cameras used in the late sixties? Obviously the video footage is rather crappy - they couldn't exactly mount a half-tonne TV camera dolly to the side of the lander. Also, transmitting a TV picture that distance using sixties era analogue transmitters was an increadible feat, and we should be thankful that any image at all was received. In fact, compare the actual footage to Kubric'ks lovely images in 2001: A Space Oddessy. If NASA did fake the landing, would they really deliberately muddy-up their images and make it look less real?

Arguement 3: There are no stars in the sky.

Take a camera, either film or digital, to your local mall at night time, and stand in the brightly-lit carpark, aim your camera at the horizon such that it captures sky and brightly lit features (replicating the bright moon surface) and study the resulting picture. See any stars? No? Not surprising considering how dim stars are relative to the lights in the carpark and how small the camera's aperture was. Now do the same experiment with a modern handicam. Any better? Not likely. And finally, if it were possible, use an incredibly miniturised 1969 camera and transmit the image across a huge gulf of vacuum. See any stars?

Arguement 4: The dust from the rover's wheels is wrong

First of all, the first moon landing did not use a rover at all, so if you use this argument you must be refuting ALL moon landings, not just the first. From the footage I have seen, the dust appears to describe just the motion you would expect from any particle moving through an airless environment and being accelerated towards the surface at 1.6 metres per second (the figure is from memory - correct me if I am wrong please).

Arguement 5: The scene is "closed" like in a studio

The close horizon is exactly what you would expect on such a small planet, with a much more noticeable surface curve.

If anyone has any more arguements for this mouldy old conspiracy theory, please allow me to shoot them down for you, if I can. This theory has been around for quite some time - see the movie Capricorn One, where a Mars landing was faked. In this film the "astronauts" were hunted down after the faked "landing" so they could never reveal the deception. How many NASA astronauts died mysteriously after missions to the moon? Would NASA really have so many people walking around how could blow the whole deception if they really did fake it all?

Also, Occam's Razor dictates that a manned moon landing was much more likely that a covered-up unmanned mission (something placed the mirrors and retrieved the lunar samples) and almost four decades of lies upon lies upon lies. It seems to me that it would be easier, using sixties technology, to construct a spacecraft capable of maintaining life support for three men than it would be to build a robot to do the same thing. Computers in the sixties were totally s**t! The Apollo 13 crew turned theirs off because it just wasn't helping!

Well if your at a mall your not going to see any stars, anywhere in the city you most likely won't see any stars because of all the light pollution. You need to go out to the middle of nowhere...out in the country or desert...where there there are no city lights..or lights of anykind...maybe your camera can cause enough light pollution to hide all the stars in the sky....I don't know much about camera's so...I just know using the "mall" is irrelevent...

I used the mall as a model because it is usually a brightly lit area at night. The point I am making is that because the surface of the moon was brightly lit by the sun, and the moon's surface material iis quite reflective, there was a lot of light pouring into the cameras lens from the surface. This requires the camera to have a small aperture to correctly resolve an image. The light from the stars is just too faint for enough of it to get through the small aperture and generate an image.
In fact, it is very difficult to take a picture of the stars here on Earth, even away from light sources. With a still camera you need a tripod to hold the camera still for a long exposure, with a wide open aperture. I haven't tried this myself but I doubt if your average handicam would resolve much of an image pointing it up into the night sky, even without a bright foreground like in the moon landing footage.

I mention Stanley Kubrick in my earlier post (arguement 2) as more evidence for the reality of the landing. His movie sequences are perfect, whereas the actual moon footage is much lower resolution. Would NASA (or the White House) really have deliberately made a poor quality film that seemed to show faults and errors when they had the ability to fake a perfect movie?

Also, I quite agree with you about NASA and the White House. I just think it would have been actually more difficult to fake the original landing than to actually do it. And if you accept that the later missions in the early seventies did happen, how likely is it that the movie fakers got it so right? Footage from later mission matches exactly with the so-called faked footage.

Another point I could make that I forgot to make in my earlier post: Until recent times, with the advent of computer generated images, no movie (including 2001) could accurately portray low-gravity walking. They either had people suspended on strings or (as was the case in 2001) they just kind of walked slowly. The moon base sequences in Kubricks film make no attempt whatsoever to portray low gravity movement, but surely if Kubrick perfected this special effect for the "faked" moon footage, why wouldn't he use the same technology for his masterpiece movie?

Come to think of it, I am just assuming that the landings were done in the lunar daytime because at lunar night-time you wouldn't be able to see anything at all. Because the Moon lacks an atmosphere, the lunar daytime sky would look no different to the lunar night sky, with the obvious exception of the sun being in it of course.

As you can probably tell I get a bit cranky when I hear about this whole moon landing hoax thing, which is not entirely fair on my part. It is, I suppose, possible that the first landing was hoaxed - I just don't think it was, partly because as a child I was totally enamoured of the whole rockets/spaceships/astronauts thing. I had models of the Saturn V and lunar lander, and absolutely devoured any book or TV show on the subject. Telling me it was all faked is like telling a sports fan that every football game played for the last thirty years was fixed.

i believe that man has landed on the moon. That would be a horrible thing for NASA to fake! lol

catz is turning into me playing devils advocate and all xd