Lunar Landing Hoax

[hbmp88]

Now I don't want to sound ignorant, and actually I don't exactly believe the theory that the lunar landing was a hoax, but I think it would be ignorant to ignore the facts.

Now I think we should show evidence to support both sides.

[Dan Dixon]

The reason you don't believe the lunar landing "theory" was a hoax is because the evidence that we actually landed on the moon is overwhelming.

And it's not really a "theory" (that we faked the moon landings) it's ignorance and conspiracy madness. (A theory is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world". There's nothing substantiated about the claim that the moon landings were a hoax.)

There's no doubt that we landed on the moon. We have photos, video, telemetry data, rocks from the moon, hundreds of personal accounts from scientists (those who went to the moon and those who helped (built the rockets; analyzed the science). No one with any credibility doubts this. Like the fact of evolution, the evidence is overwhelming.

What would be harder? Going to the moon or coordinating a mass conspiracy that's lasted for over 40 years?

If we hadn't actually gone to the moon the Russians would have been the first to point it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_conspiracy

And the most recent evidence, photos of the landing sites...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/

[hbmp88]

Ok once again I have not been convinced completely. But here are some fidings:

-the most convincing photo is of the equipment that measures lunar quakes; the top piece of the equipment overlapped one of the cross hairs..... post the original photo, (I can't find it), and I'll look to see. It's a famous photo, but I don't want to find an edited one.

-the lunar lander did not leave a blast crater, clear evidence from the video

-the lunar lander's stand, shaped like a U, had absolutely no dust on it, impossible due to how dusty the moon is

-one picture of the landing site and the lander, and another of just astronauts both had identical backgrounds, as well as one from the mission with the vehicle, and the same mission where they set up equipment (in an area NASA said was slightly over two miles away)

-a Russian satellite took pictures of area 51, showing a crater identical to that in a famous picture said to have been taken while the lander was approaching the moon (this could be why area 51 is so secret, it could be where the hoax was filmed)

-when shown in fast forward, the famous moon landing video looks like people walking ordinarily on Earth, not in an environment with less gravity

-shadows in many famous pictures taken by the astronauts point in different angles, suggesting a second light source, even though the cameras they had did not contain a flash devise

I would say more, but that would be too much for you to think about already.

[Dan Dixon]

-the most convincing photo is of the equipment that measures lunar quakes; the top piece of the equipment overlapped one of the cross hairs..... post the original photo, (I can't find it), and I'll look to see. It's a famous photo, but I don't want to find an edited one.

This is what happens in photos:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crosshairs

-the lunar lander did not leave a blast crater, clear evidence from the video

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

-the lunar lander's stand, shaped like a U, had absolutely no dust on it, impossible due to how dusty the moon is

Nope:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#dust

-one picture of the landing site and the lander, and another of just astronauts both had identical backgrounds, as well as one from the mission with the vehicle, and the same mission where they set up equipment (in an area NASA said was slightly over two miles away)

Debunked:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds

-a Russian satellite took pictures of area 51, showing a crater identical to that in a famous picture said to have been taken while the lander was approaching the moon (this could be why area 51 is so secret, it could be where the hoax was filmed)

Weak. There were 6 visits to the moon. Which crater are they talking about?

-when shown in fast forward, the famous moon landing video looks like people walking ordinarily on Earth, not in an environment with less gravity

Not true.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#doubletime

A television show called the Mythbusters also debunked this. Watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4w2MIYhC4

-shadows in many famous pictures taken by the astronauts point in different angles, suggesting a second light source, even though the cameras they had did not contain a flash devise

There's no second light source:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm

Debunked by the Mythbusters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y


Here's 5 more proofs for the moon landing:
http://www.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment/top-5-proofs-that-the-moon-landing-happened_5.html

5 - The Soviet Union Did Not Dispute It
4 - The Number of Photographs
3 - Rock Samples Are Universally Acknowledged As Being Non-Terrestrial
2 - No One on the Inside Disputed It
1 - It Happened Again…And Again…And Again


We really did it. Humanity can be awesome.

[Maccara]

To me, amongst the most compelling evidence is that we actually left something behind we can verify from here on earth even today: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm (a bit old link, but I happened to have that "on hand" just now - I bet google will flood you with much more data with "moon reflectors" keywords)

There simply are so many holes in the conspiracy theorists' "theories" that it's not even funny. To this date I haven't been able to fathom how anyone could even consider the possibility they might be "on to something".

[Thot]

Well, what I should say more than: Yes, we really did it.
Just think about what it would mean if this is a fake. Who would get positive benefit from this today? The cold war and the "Space Race" are things of the past, long time ago.
If this would have been a hoax it just would cause serious damage to the science of today. Just think about all of the scienceproject that are basing on the data of the Apollo-Missions!
I just can say it again. Mankind is and was able to do this and today we are about to send people to mars, to install a station on moon and even to find other intelligent species in the universe (just think about the many projects for finding extrasolar planets [Spitzer, Herschel, Planck and not at least Webb]) !

[hbmp88]

Thanks for clearing it up. I'll still try to find both photos of the area 51 crater.

[hbmp88]

This is the crater in area 51, unbelievably similar. [top]

and I could only get a shared picture of the moon one [bottom]

Image sources:
http://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/images/moon_0046.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/moon%20fake%20crater/snipersage/hauntedsix/area51moon.jpg

[hbmp88]

Of course now I don't believe it was fake at all.

[Chaotic Cow]

The dust thing makes sense. There is no Air in space or on the moon how could dust be in motion if no air is moving it.

I love this site. I learn things.

[Dan Dixon]

This is the crater in area 51, unbelievably similar. [top]

and I could only get a shared picture of the moon one [bottom]

Does anyone find this compelling? The only similarity that I see is that they are both craters. There's nothing to suggest that they are of similar scale or depth. How is this evidence that the moon landing was faked?

[hbmp88]

It was just an addition to the fake evidence to make it more believable after the person was partially brainwashed from the show I saw on tv.

[Bla]

The dust thing makes sense. There is no Air in space or on the moon how could dust be in motion if no air is moving it.

I love this site. I learn things.

But other things could move it than air. Like if you throw a rock, it could both be thrown on Earth and space, then it's not the air that moves it. Imagine the dust as small rocks. The small rocks can easily be moved by air, but on the Moon they will just fly in a ballistic... Something...
But it's possible.

[Chaotic Cow]

There is no Air movement in space. So If the Exhaust is shooting out..it won't effect anything but what it touches as it can't be pushing air..since there is none.

[monmarfori]

But if there is air the Exhaust is shooting. and there is an effect.

[atomic7732]

But if there is air the Exhaust is shooting. and there is an effect.

That's what Chaotic cow said.

[hbmp88]

The exhaust is at the top isn't it?

[Dan Dixon]

The exhaust is at the top isn't it?

Is the exhaust at top of the spaceship?

No. We're talking about the exhaust from the decent engine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_Module_diagram.jpg


Thinking outloud: I should make a sim of exhaust coming out of the lunar module in Universe Sandbox.


And has everyone checked out Google Moon?
http://www.google.com/moon/

[hbmp88]

Heard of it some place today.

[HallowedError]

I remember watching a whole thing about this on Discovery Channel or something similar. It debunked nearly everything that hdmp88 said. It's cool to see that the proof is elsewhere too!

EDIT: Cool, I can see the man in the moon face on google too, lol

[hbmp88]

Don't those photographic landmarks look like watermarks? To think its a deformation in a radio signal is amazing. Do radio waves look like ocean waves and drops of water?

[HallowedError]

What do you mean by what radio waves look like? I'm not sure if they can by accurately be visualized. Aren't radio waves like light waves in that they aren't quite particles and aren't quite waves?

[monmarfori]

The radio waves will be possible if it is a light wave or not.

[hbmp88]

I meant if we had another sense to analyze radio waves what would it be like? I mean the radio waves not the sense.

[Bla]

Here is a link to a picture taken of the place where Apollo 11 landed:
Link
The remaining things from the program are visible.

[monmarfori]

What is the date?

[Baleur]

I meant if we had another sense to analyze radio waves what would it be like? I mean the radio waves not the sense.

All waves, radio waves, gamma waves/rays, ultra-violet, visible light, they are all the same thing, so if you had a sense to "see" or feel radio waves, it might very well appear the same way normal light does in our minds. Just that we'd see more things than just visible light waves =)
Think of it like pictures taken with radiotelescopes.

[FGFG]

The radio waves (and all the other kind of waves) are composed exactly of the same particles as visible light (the photons) and they works exaclty like light, as they are light. Simply we can only see visible light as it is the most frequent kind of light on the Earth surface (in the day). The images taken with radiotelescopes are just like normal photos, but the frequency of the waves is made much higher in order to make the colours visible to us.

[Naru523]

And has everyone checked out Google Moon?
http://www.google.com/moon/

Nice find. It is just like Google Earth right?

[atomic7732]

I saw some of those on youtube. You can also type google cheese in and hit, I'm Felling Lucky.