Did we really land on the Moon?

Post Reply New Topic

World New Daily Report is a satire site. Other articles there include "Woman arrested for training squirrels to attack her ex-boyfriend", "Woman expelled from McDonald’s for breastfeeding her dog in public", and "Denmark: Zoo employee sues government over right to marry giraffe" Or you can just look here http://realorsatire.com/worldnewsdailyreport-com/ If China was really calling out America you'd see it everywhere. As for the satellite images, my best guess is the satellites around Earth are just giant cameras and nothing else, plus having ground footage from cars to sharpen it up. LRO has six different instruments, the camera is the least important because we already have so much good imagery of the moon and can't learn much more from pictures on the visible spectrum.

A hoax claiming a hoax? Can two hoaxes occupy the same space and time without there being some kind of quantum disruption?

However neither from the rover or the orbiting camera, are there any actually sharp detailed images of anything left on the moon from lunar missions.

Why not? I wonder.

Last edited by EzraS on 03 Aug 2017, 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I've been to Kennedy Space Center to view the Saturn V rocket.

No, I did NOT make this claim! Actually read what people write, rather than attack strawmen. You wrote, and I quote:



Craft capable of going into space "nonexistent"? Are you serious? This is simply NOT true. Have you ever even heard of the Soyuz MANNED programme? It has been ongoing since 1967. It is what the astronauts and cosmonauts use to get to the I.S.S.

Geez, these moon-landing conspiracy stories just keep getting dafter. I just recently was watching this nonsense on YouTube, and one of these "intellectuals" actually stated that, "rockets can't work in space because they have no atmosphere to push against".

What the... ? These people don't even understand basic rocket science.

You should tell your uncle that the Apollo missions flew directly through the belts, not within them for any extended period of time, so the duration of exposure to it was minuscule and therefore not harmful. The Van Allen belts are not such an obstacle that most conspiracy fantasists seem to believe it is.

Okay, well I have to admit that that, in and of itself, doesn't really prove anything. Don't get me wrong, I am not dopey enough to believe that it was all faked in a studio at Area 51, but it doesn't even require evidence as huge as a Saturn V to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that people actually did go to the Moon. When the evidence is presented though, the conspiracy loons just dismiss either the evidence as being fake, or you as a corporate/government shill intent on covering it all up. You can't reason with the totally unreasonable; they are beyond all hope and redemption. Perhaps we should just leave them all to their paranoid, tin-foil nonsense.

P.S. It is certainly NO co-incidence that many of these people are also flat-Earthers. Gee, why am I not surprised?

What I was stating is that no manned craft outside of the Apollo missions has ever gone outside of orbiting the Earth and past the Van Allen belts into deep space.

Now, did the Soyuz manned programs venture out into deep space beyond the Van Allen belts? Yes or No?

You have a quite vivid imagination there. Yes, I agree, your theory is indeed hair-brained.

Thanks!

Now, did the Soyuz manned programs venture out into deep space beyond the Van Allen belts? Yes or No?

Except, that isn't what you originally stated, and I responded to that. In response to this (very different) claim, yes, no manned craft have left Earth orbit, although many unmanned probes have. So... what does this prove? It certainly does not prove that the Apollo programme was faked in a studio, that's for sure. Many, if not most, of the "inconsistencies" that conspiracy theorists like to tout as being "proof" that we didn't go, I can easily explain myself. For example, the fact that there are no stars in the photos. Well as any photographer will be able to tell you, and as anyone at all who has ever used any kind of camera will also be able tell you, if one attempts to take a picture where there is in the foreground a very bright, overwhelming light - like the reflected sunlight from the surface of the moon - other sources of light (like stars, which are far too dim) will be drowned out, and will simply not appear. You may have noticed that photos taken in orbit from the I.S.S. are like this as well. Does that "prove" the I.S.S. is fake as well?

I can't possibly see how the U.S. government could pull off a fake moon landing with the technology at the time. If they wanted to pull off a fake moon landing then the satellite radar camera footage would have been in the same broadcast quality as the rest of the news footage coming out at the time. Added, they wouldn't even shoot it on video to fake it, they would have to film it on 35mm film to fake something like that. Blue screen and green screen technology was not that advance for computers until the late 1990's, and it wasn't until 2010 that blue screen and green screens were good. I can also tell that the astronauts had to have the lens on the camera at F/0.95 for it to be good, because the footage is blurry from the video cameras they used. F/0.95 at a soft focus is not a common photography lens measurement. The footage was also noisy due to the high exposure rate that the video camera could handle. If I wanted to fake it I would have at least have had at it clear enough at F/4 or F/5.6. If I used it in a studio I would make a lot freaking easy for me to expose the footage at something like 100 ASA, because at the time that is how exposure worked. Believe me 100 ASA is something you can't even film indoors at night. You would have to be filming it outside in the day time to get it good at 100 ASA, or even have the F/stop bumped up to a shallow F/stop. The lighting doesn't even look like it could be faked, because the lighting doesn't look harsh. Do you know how harsh the edges of studio lights are? To even replicate the lighting on the photos by Nasa would require an impossible amount of lighting that only can be done by the sun, or unless you own an A7s Mk II sony camera, which was not out until 2016. Added, where the Hell am I going to get a good photo of Earth that even the artist of the sistine chapel can't even draw. I bet that if I wanted to fake the moon landing I would not be able to see the atmospheric clouds moving rapidly.

It's not really a different claim, it's just more detailed, because I originally thought I didn't need to sate the obvious like space shuttle missions and the like. My bad.

Anyways it doesn't prove anything nor is it intended to. It's meant to lend doubt (on a hypothetical level), that in the (nearly) half a century since Apollo, no one else has ever gone into outer space. That just strikes me, in the position I'm taking, as potentially fishy.

The idea of massive light refraction from the lunar surface drowning out stars however, doesn't strike me as being fishy.

A moon-landing-denier a few years ago had gotten into the late Buzz Aldrin's face, trying to force an admission that the whole thing had been hoaxed. Though an old man, Aldrin knocked the guy on his a$$.

Oh come on now that was just another hoax with an actor playing Aldrin punching a stunt man. You guys will believe anything the fake news media sells you. But seriously I see that the myth busters took a crack at it and that's good enough for me. I'm not familiar with the moon-landing-deniers. I just had a thought come to me one day on its own and thought it would be interesting to hash it out.

Unless... The Mythbusters are actually in on the hoax!! !! !!

the physics of what we see transmitted from the missions is undeniably correct from any perspective of consideration.

my friend is an ardent conspiracy nut and he does not believe the moon landing happened, and has sent me videos a plenty to show me the "proof" (usually arm chair speculators opinions on some video shots).

_________
one he showed me was going on about the lighting in the external shot look back at the lander.
it asserts that there must have been strong side lighting to light up the side of the craft.
they said that the angle of the sun to the lander (determined by it's shadow) would not allow for direct illumination on the side of the craft that seems well lit.

but they fail to take into account that the reflectivity of the lunar dust (regolith) is very high since it is uncontaminated with the "brownness" of organic componentry and it is not occluded by atmospheric density.
___________
another that he posted was "who was left on the moon to film the departure of the lunar module".

good grief... timing is everything, and even though the external departure camera was not remote controlled (since that burden could not be achieved from earth due to the 4 second transmission lag, and would have been a trivial but resource wasting consideration for the astronauts).
the timing of the blast off was synchronised with the camera that was obviously on a tripod, and the fact that it tracked the module for a short amount of time is due to the pre-programmed knowledge of the lift off acceleration.

derrr..

____________

lunar dust is extremely destructive, and no one on earth had that idea before they landed there.
it is sharp and coarse and destructive in that due to static electricity, it tends to invade small spaces and abrade the mechanisms.
that claim alone was not necessary to sell the story to the public, but is shows me that it was all legit.

______________

the gait that the astronauts adopted was completely appropriate to 1/6th earths gravity without any atmospheric pressure resistance to their movement.
it is not possible to develop an efficient appropriate gait for low gravity environments using water tanks.
water certainly reduces weight (not mass), but is very dense and contributes heavily to the environment in which they are practicing.

another low level revelation that satisfies me.
____________

the fact that videos that show that dust kicked up by activity falls flat to the ground and makes no particulate haze around it's landing point is also i think almost impossible to attain on earth unless it is in a complete vacuum and the video slowed up by a factor of six.
____________

i understand ezra s that you are talking about manned missions now, and so my previous reply is rendered moot.

_______
as for near earth satellite's electronics being fried once they transgress the van allen boundaries, that is because they are not designed for that environment and is more a testimony to miscalculation than anything else.

___________
the samples of lunar material that have been brought back to earth have been sliced and diced and parcelled off to various universities to study.

surely someone would have noticed some sort of erosion activity in some of the dust grains that would indicate it came from earth.
there is no erosion on the moon, and all the dust is like sharp splintered objects that would quickly be "rounded off" if they were formed in a terrestrial environment.

_______________
the lunar missions were partially to show the russians that the USA had definite capacity for global deployment of the nuclear arsenal, but mainly it was to bolster the american spirit.

these days, we can build robots that can suffer harsh environments (and not be mourned if they perish), and perform all the tests that it took a human to do in 1969-72.

it stands to reason that it is better to deploy robots to gather data from unfriendly worlds than soft delicate "loved" humans.
___________

the next big morale booster will be a human setting foot on Mars and being returned, but there are many obstacles to overcome.

______
whatever