Author Topic: Moon landing faked? Lets take a look... (Read 3759 times)

SunKing · « **Reply #30 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:06:44 AM »

"2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming? "

I'm sold.

Who did it?

Hortlund · « **Reply #31 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:35:26 AM »

*sigh* against my better judgement...

Explain that lightsource. (and no, it's too big to be the sun)

AKIron · « **Reply #32 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:41:07 AM »

Hortlund, without doing any research, how about the Earth or maybe the lander?

Perhaps this will end any doubt in any reasonable person's mind in a couple of years:

http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/enterp/missions/selene/cont.html

Hortlund · « **Reply #33 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:43:58 AM »

Nope and nope. The earth is a horribly bad lightsource when you are on the moon. I dont have the lux-numbers in front of me right now, but for some reason (I'm guessing atmosphere) the earth doesnt really reflect light that well. The moon on the other hand is exceptional, apparently there is alot of glass (or glass-like stuff) in the lunar dust.

It is not the lander either. It is a too bright lightsource for that.

muckmaw · « **Reply #34 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:49:21 AM »

Hotland-

WHat you are seeing there IS the lander reflecting sunlight.

Remember, the bulk of the LEM was coated in highly refelctive foil.

Even the shape is the same as that of the lander.

Hortlund · « **Reply #35 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:56:02 AM »

No muckmaw, you are wrong. First, the light source is above the astronaut. Second, if the lander was that reflective, any image where the lander is present and in sunlight would result in a similar lightsource.

In a picture such as this

you would not be able to look at the lander because it would be like looking at someone holding a mirror reflecting the sun.

Dowding · « **Reply #36 on:** May 01, 2003, 11:00:34 AM »

How can the lander be reflecting sunlight? The lander has to be in front and to the right of the 'naut given the shadow. If that is the case the orignal light source must also be in the hemisphere where the 'naut is for the light to hit the the lander and reflect off the helmet. If that is the case, then there should be a second shadow cast by the original source. I don't see that second shadow.

It looks like there is a single light source directly hitting the helmet, with nothing in between to 'bounce' off- i.e. lighting, which they didn't have with them.

Interesting photo either way.

ra · « **Reply #37 on:** May 01, 2003, 11:04:11 AM »

It's probably the sun combined with poor image quality.

Get out the tinfoil hats.

ra

muckmaw · « **Reply #38 on:** May 01, 2003, 11:10:55 AM »

I don't know guys.

It really looks like the lander reflecting sunlight to me.

It is much taller than the astronaut, so it wouls appear above the astronaut.

I'm looking at the angles, and it looks like it could be the lander.

If we sat down in person, and could point at the photos, I think we would be able to understand each other. This is tough to do via text.

Hortlund · « **Reply #39 on:** May 01, 2003, 11:17:35 AM »

The light source is still too close/big to be the sun. How is the image quality ra?

This one is from Apollo 14 btw, the previous one was 16.

Samiam · « **Reply #40 on:** May 01, 2003, 11:24:36 AM »

In 1960 set two projects into motion:

Project 1: Develop a program to land a man on the moon and do it by the end of the decade.

Project 2: Develop a program to convince the world, for at least 40 years after the fact, that we had a successfull lunar landing program *without actually landing anybody on the moon*.

Result:

Project 1: Pure engineering and science from smart germans - success.

Project 2: Add subterfuge, social engineering, coverups, multiple complex hollywood-style productions, coming up with convincing fictional science - then maintaining the subterfuge for 40 years.

Bound to be a collosal failure that goes massively over budget and blows up in everyones face.

Remember, we couldn't even pull off the Bay of Pigs in that era. Or maybe the argument is that the Bay of Pigs was a disaster because in 1961 all of our best covert strategists and ops folks were being sucked up by the fake moon landing project. That's it: the Bay of Pigs is yet more proof that the moon landing was faked...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #41 on:** May 01, 2003, 11:24:45 AM »

Wow hortlund is really having a special week!

First he doubts milosevic was capable of genocide in kosovo..

And now he questions the moon landings...

Whats next Hortlund, is this round earth nonsense starting to bug ya too?

Hortlund · « **Reply #42 on:** May 01, 2003, 11:28:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Wow hortlund is really having a special week!

First he doubts milosevic was capable of genocide in kosovo..

And now he questions the moon landings...

Whats next Hortlund, is this round earth nonsense starting to bug ya too?

And amazingly, in both threads you felt the need to say something without knowing what you talked about.

Can you explain the lightsource in the picture?
Can you see into the future, or do you have the ability to know what would have happened if history was changed?

Imp · « **Reply #43 on:** May 01, 2003, 11:29:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Octavius

Um, who made these comments?

Basic physics tells us that weight is relative. 17 tons... on earth they say?

Mass is constant. What weighs 17 tons on earth will weigh less on earth's moon. If their argument is based on "it weighed 17 tons" then the argument is bunk to begin with.

Based on that alone, this author is retarded. [/B]

Weight and mass are not the same.

Hortlund · « **Reply #44 on:** May 01, 2003, 11:30:57 AM »