Landing on the moon

[Guest]

Got to go with what Tamme said. I studied photography some years back and I always believed the photos ( or at least some ) were faked. So what? In the 'African Queen' a lot of the shots were faked but they did infact go to Africa to film. Sometimes you just can't get what you need on location.

Still the theory has provided a lot of amusemant. Was it 'Diamonds are forever' where Bond got chased through a fake moon set at one point?

They did a bit of studio work, but a large amount was shot in Africa. As a side note => everybody who worked on it got sick at some point except for Bogey and Director John Huston. Why? Because they drank only straight whiskey! Who said drinking was bad for you?

And yes, it was Diamonds Are Forever (my second favourite Bond after Goldfinger).

[Cephalid 0]

Not a lie:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

I like this page.  

[denoir 0]

Here's another one illustrating the flaws of the hoax theory:

http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm

And the most convincing one to me:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs....oon.htm

[m21man 0]

I love it when people poke holes in popular conspiracy theories .

[Konyak-2 0]

EDIT: They interviewed Donald Rumsfeld and he said the pictures were fake too. (IIRC that is. It was prolly early last year when I saw the documentary.)

Do you mean the French docum... err mock-umentary "Dark Side of the Moon"?

I remember it was french so that must've been it then. Are you telling me I've been watching a BS documentary? I hate it when that happens

You should watch CNN and CBS more.. perhaps 60 minutes as well. That should train you in spotting fake documentaries In time you'll even be able to see professional wrestling for what it is

But seriously, most conspiracy theories like this piss me off. I didn't see this program, the French one that is, but it had a lot of people I know shocked at how they´d been apparently fooled by the Americans, yet again. It was frustrating and saddening to witness because it just shows how powerful TV is in shaping the opinion of the masses. Take for instance Bowling for Columbine and similar mockumentaries.

As for the 80 year old astronaut decking the stupid and deeply disrespectful French reporter, I say, way to go! Nobody needs to make any excuses for that action

If you want to get into other conspiracy theories that have a whole bunch of "heavy" evidence supporting them, there's one about how the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated (they claim there is no hard evidence that there was an well oiled extermination system going on, only prison camps with bad health care) and then there´s the one about how Bush (of course, because he's so evil ) was behind the destruction of the WTC so that he could invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Then of course, there's also the truth, if you're willing to accept it.

Konyak

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]In time you'll even be able to see professional wrestling for what it is

That doesn't take much practice .

[denoir 0]

This is a nice argument from a professor in geology at the Univeristy of Winsconsin [source]

Quote[/b] ]

The Rocks

Below is a photo of a terrestrial rock called olivine gabbro. The bland, mostly featureless areas are made mostly of plagioclase feldspar, a calcium-aluminum silicate. The fractured grains that appear to stand out in relief are olivine, a magnesium-iron silicate. The greenish material along the cracks and the brownish material on the edges of the olivine are water-bearing minerals derived from the alteration of the olivine. The feldspar looks slightly dusty, peppered with tiny inclusions, also the result of alteration.

Below is a very similar lunar rock - at least that's what NASA claimed it was. I personally took both of these pictures. The clear areas are plagioclase feldspar and the very light yellow areas are olivine. The dark brown material is a titanium silicate mineral called titanite.

What leaps out in comparing the two pictures is the complete absence of water-bearing minerals, and the total absence of alteration in the lunar rock. Water is ubiquitous on earth - it's present in magma, rocks deep in the crust are changed by hot fluids, and rocks near the surface are altered by surface water. Olivine in particular is easily altered. In the second picture, the olivine is fractured but the fractures are absolutely clean. You simply do not see unaltered olivine on earth.

This could not have been faked. These rocks have grains easily visible to the unaided eye, which means they cooled slowly. To have made these materials synthetically would have required keeping the rocks at 1100 C for years, cooling them slowly at thousands of pounds per square inch pressure. It would have taken years to create the apparatus, years more to get the hang of making the materials, and then years more to create the final result. Starting from Sputnik I in 1957, there would not have been enough time to do it. And, you'd have to synthesize several different types of rock in hundred-pound lots.

And, the results would have to be convincing. All I did to get the moon rock specimens (on loan) was write in and sign an agreement to keep the materials secure when not in use. NASA had no control over any non-destructive tests I might do when I had the specimens. I could have, for example,  zapped the rock with X-rays to get its chemical composition. So the faked specimens would have to stand up to any kind of scrutiny that researchers might give them. Whoever came up with the faked specimens would have to have devised a story of lunar evolution to fit the samples. The story would have to have checked out in every detail, for example rare-earth element abundances and evidence of meteor impact. Why create absolutely water-free rocks? Nobody was expecting that - it would have been much easier to fake rocks with water in them (for one thing, you could use terrestrial rocks) and nobody would have been suspicious. And you'd have to put in exactly the right amounts of radioactive elements and daughter products to get the rocks to date radiometrically at 4 billion years old - older than any terrestrial rocks. And you'd have to anticipate the development of new dating methods not in use in 1969 and make sure those elements are present in the correct abundance. And it's not like adding carrots to a stew, either. To mimic the results of potassium-argon dating, you'd have to add inert argon gas and trap it just in the potassium-bearing minerals, and in exact proportion to the amount of potassium.

Then the story has to stand up to scrutiny for decades, even in the face of new research methods not in existence in 1969. For example, when lunar meteorites are discovered in Antarctica, they have to match the Apollo samples.

If you believe NASA has the technical ability to pull all this off, going to the Moon is a piece of cake in comparison.

[drewb99 0]

If it was a lie, then why Soviet Union didn't complain about it ? (besides the possible propaganda). I mean they would have certainly said that it's a fake, but no they admitted that this time US won.

*edit* Oops Cephalid said this already, but lets repeat it.

The moon project wasn't probably high in regard of the Soviet politicians of the time, and when the US won it was just another failed project.

Ruskie Moon Rocket

Lander prototype

[Major Gripe 0]

You have to consider the sheer logistics of the project if the Apollo programme was faked. Think how many people worked on it, surely if the whole thing was a lie one of those thousands of people would have let slip by now? It is absolutely impossible to get that many people, especially considering the financial incentives available if they spoke out to the media, to keep silent for almost 40 years!!

[ralphwiggum 6]

LOL, thats horrible.

Anybody see the video of the guy harassing one of the astronauts?  Remember this is a very old astronaut.  He's up in the poor guys face calling him a liar and all this nasty stuff while his friend tapes it.  So the old guy clocks him in the face and decks him.  Don't get me wrong, I don't support clocking people in the face for no reason, but this guy got what he deserved.  It's especially funny seeing some 40 year old guy get whooped by an 80+ year old astronaut.

i think it was either aldrin or armstrong that punched the moron. the moron took him to the court, and the court dismissed the case stating that the astronaut's situation waranteed his action.(he was repeatedly harassed and cornered)

on top of that the judge told the moron to stay away certain distance or face jail.

[blackdog~ 0]

Here:

http://www.csicop.org/article....deo.mpg

That'll teach that bastage!

[bmgarcangel 0]

Look guys

Does anybody have a 900x telescope

You can see then one of the reflections from the lander on the moon, probably more than one........

[Gollum1 0]

Here:

http://www.csicop.org/article....deo.mpg

That'll teach that bastage!

Haha! Got what he deserved!

[John C Flett 0]

It was frustrating and saddening to witness because it just shows how powerful TV is in shaping the opinion of the masses. Take for instance Bowling for Columbine and similar mockumentaries.QUOTE]

I think your making a jump to include 'Bowling for Columbine'. Michael Moore has an agenda most certainly but there are many good questions raised in his work. Your point though about the power of TV is sadly very true though. Style and presentation have become more important than substance and people no longer debate the ideas.

Speaking from the UK experience its depressing how channels like the BBC which used to pride themselves on the quality of their news and documetary have sacrificed their shows to ratings and entertainment value and how readily theory is accepted as fact. Even good theories should be questioned but its just not the done thing any more.

Equally, I get tired of seeing so called journalists asking politicians questions and totally failing to pick up on the fact that their questions are not answered or that they contridict previous statements. Anybody who had the pleasure of seeing Jeremy Paxman interviewing Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq will know what a rare treat it was.

Personally I've nothing against these Moon hoax stories or UFO conspiracy people as long as somebody is prepared to really debate and research the topic. Cephalid, good for you for asking for arguments not just statements and well done to those of you who provided them.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Here:

http://www.csicop.org/article....deo.mpg

That'll teach that bastage!

I could watch that video again and again and again .

[Konyak-2 0]

It was frustrating and saddening to witness because it just shows how powerful TV is in shaping the opinion of the masses. Take for instance Bowling for Columbine and similar mockumentaries.QUOTE]

I think your making a jump to include 'Bowling for Columbine'. Michael Moore has an agenda most certainly but there are many good questions raised in his work.

I didn't say he doesn't raise good or valid questions, I said it was a mockumentary, which it is, simply because he completely raises questions to further his agenda, as you point out. A documentary will cover all aspects, all sides and do so impartially. (a rare thing these days)

Anyway, that video of the punch is great! Is that a left hook or a left cross? Jab? Whatever it was, nice execution, style and timing

What amazed me though was that the recipient moron didn't even pause to think that he'd deserved it, no, he immidiately askes if they got that on camera for his lawsuit! It's almost as if he wanted that to happen and expected it.

Suggestion to look at the moon through a telescope is a nice one Not only is it simple, but also immensly powerful. See a photo, or read credible evidence or arguments is one thing, but getting uninterrupted proof from seeing it first hand like that.. That's gotta make you go: We did that Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside

Hope we go back there soon.

Konyak

[John C Flett 0]

Quote[/b] ]A documentary will cover all aspects, all sides and do so impartially.

From Youdictionary.com

Quote[/b] ]doc·u·men·ta·ry

Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.

Quote[/b] ]doc·u·men·ta·ries

A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

A documentary may well have a bias or agenda. The word simply refers to the factual basis and in that sense Michael Moore's work doesn't earn the mockumentary title. But I get your point.

[Cephalid 0]

Nice to see, that there are people taking time to proof that the so-called evidence is nonsense. If you are not a physician with knowledge of manly optics in this case, it is hard to know that these so called facts are just physical effects.

I usually like Spiegel, the magazine they often have good reports. First time I watched Spiegel TV. I guess they broadcasted it because at the moment it is popular in Europe to be against America. So when there is a conspiracy against the landing of the moon, that prestige object in American achievements, they were sending it without any doubts. Just to heat up the public dislike even more.

I guess once Bush is gone and more trustworthily president is in charge, the public opinion will change again here and with this the broadcasts in TV.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Nice to see, that there are people taking time to proof that the so-called evidence is nonsense. If you are not a physician with knowledge of manly optics in this case, it is hard to know that these so called facts are just physical effects.

I usually like Spiegel, the magazine they often have good reports. First time I watched Spiegel TV. I guess they broadcasted it because at the moment it is popular in Europe to be against America. So when there is a conspiracy against the landing of the moon, that prestige object in American achievements, they were sending it without any doubts. Just to heat up the public dislike even more.

I guess once Bush is gone and more trustworthily president is in charge, the public opinion will change again here and with this the broadcasts in TV.

I used to like Spiegel until the whole row over Iraq started around this time last year. Their journalistic qualities then suddenly decreased and a lot of anti-US bias started entering their reporting, it almost became as bad as CNN on the other side for a while.

Their TV show is ridiculous though, the very fact that it is on VOX proves that it is not very serious.

I must say that I am disappointed and it just serves to prove my point that as long as you are not reading news from at least 3 different countries, then you have no real clue what is actually going on.

[HOBOMAN 0]

Im sorry but I think the rest of the world is mad we got their first and is making up a load of bull.

[Acecombat 0]

Im sorry but I think the rest of the world is mad we got their first and is making up a load of bull.

Whats sad is that some of that 'world' lives in america and is american

[Badgerboy 0]

Im sorry but I think the rest of the world is mad we got their first and is making up a load of bull.

Not sure if you were aware, but the Soviets nearly made it back with lunar samples before the US. They had a probe in orbit the same time as the landing, which was supposed to collect samples, and arrive back on earth a day before the Apollo mission did. (Try to steal the limelight)

They would have got away with it, had the probe not crashed! Just as well really, as the US Government thought it was some sort of Soviet weapon/device to upset the Apollo landing.

[Supah 0]

They would have got away with it, had the probe not crashed! Just as well really, as the US Government thought it was some sort of Soviet weapon/device to upset the Apollo landing.

Yes how unfortunate an accident

[Mister 5 0]

Im sorry but I think the rest of the world is mad we got their first and is making up a load of bull.

Whats sad is that some of that 'world' lives in america and is american    

Yeah, damn those Americans, what with their newfangled moon machines and affinity for tiny flags.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Whats sad is that some of that 'world' lives in america and is american

That comment is so stupid, I don't even know how to start to respond .