Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Has man landed on the moon?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear All,

my debate is a simple on. Has man landed on the moon? (Unlike I usually do), right from the outset I'm giving my opinion on the matter (and don't tell me you can see the lander from the surface of the earth because the keck - most powerful telescope - can't)

1. Van Allen Belts - High and intense radiation, NASA says that the rocket was travelling so fast that the astronauts would have been unaffected by the short term exposure despite the fact that they had NO...repeat...NO PROTECTION AT ALL!.....yet not one person who went to the moon ever got cancer to my knowledge...hmmm

2. The Saturn V rocket (the one which took people to the moon), ALL plans and designs were "mysteriously" lost...please see following link

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...s_what_s_needed

now, forgive me for being slightly suspicious, but would not the equipment which made possible such a great technical achievement be copied and copied and studied etc?

3. Photographs - We've all seen the LUDICROUS photographs:
a) Shadows going off in different directions despite one light source
b) All photographs coming out picture perfect despite hugely
different light and dark tones on the surface
c) Pathetic jumps by the astronauts given their weight/gravity (it
was calculated that given their weight and the moons gravity,
they should have been moving much differently than they did
d) Perfect lander landing...despite the fact that in the earth
environment, there are movies showing that Armstrong/Aldrin
found it difficult to control in an EARTH environment
e) The most convincing for me was on a documentary, where it
showed 2 bits of film, one being shot 2 miles away from the other
(and facing a different way), however when superimposed, it
should them going up the same mound ROCK for ROCK
f) Chest height cameras impossible angles (all clear)
g) No blast crater (despite considerable downward force while landing)
h) I can go on...

3. The sun spitting out high levels of radiation at that time (again no protection for the astronauts

I can go on...but I ramble on....what do we all think?

*Gaffaw* You have an interesting argument, but what possible reason would they have to lie to us?

You have been playing too much Area 51, my friend.

Originally posted by dark1365
You have been playing too much Area 51, my friend.

Probably true.

In support

http://www.primeline-america.com/moon-ldg/

Where's their proof?

That page is nothing but a bunch of wild mis-placed conjectures, randomly slapped in an appearing orderly fasion.

Once someone actually gets some real PROOF or EVIDENCE (besides misplaced shodows) we can start looking at the idea objectively.

Originally posted by Chiram
*Gaffaw* You have an interesting argument, but what possible reason would they have to lie to us? To beat the commies..

Especially since "the commies" are no more? And we still go to the moon? *Gasp*

Originally posted by Chiram
Especially since "the commies" are no more? And we still go to the moon? *Gasp*

Originally posted by Chiram
*Gaffaw* You have an interesting argument, but what possible reason would they have to lie to us?

reason?
well they was in a cold war with russia at the time
both were trying to show who was better
it was a space race
staging a fake moon landing isnt too far fetched

NASA wouldn't of came up with excersizes to strengthen bone and muscles that are well known, if we hadn't been there...What about Mars?
I chose to think we've been there..Besides the "Space Mission" at Disney World was said to be a good representation of what a lift off would feel like by the astronauts....Not a good reason..I know.

I seriously doubt the US would have faked going to the moon and in any case we can certainly get there now.

Last but not least: Does anyone really give a damn?

I would certainly like to take a space shuttle ride...that would be awesome.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I would certainly like to take a space shuttle ride...that would be awesome.

I think may have possibly heard they are allowing passenger trip to the moon. Like for 300,000 or more. I may be wrong though.

Originally posted by Fire
I seriously doubt the US would have faked going to the moon and in any case we can certainly get there now.

Last but not least: Does anyone really give a damn?

well if they did lie to us
what other great lies have they told us

There are many already, lies that is.

Originally posted by Deano
well if they did lie to us
what other great lies have they told us

Well then now that we know our government is betrying us lt's start a coup, lynch the president, take out the senate, and start or own happy life, no care, popcicle licking society. What do ya' say?

its nothin to do with the president
he is just a frontman
a puppet

The government needs to be revamped..It's not working as is..We need more then the Dems. and Repubs. WE need a breaker party...A third stong Party. Divide the House and Senate into thirds...Not halfs.

Originally posted by Chiram
Especially since "the commies" are no more? Oh they're out there.. How many times have we been?

I'm taking about the U.S.S.R And stuff. Not like small Commie groups.

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa030899.htm

Moon info.

I'm not backing that evolution crap in there. I just found a quick source.

Originally posted by Deano
well if they did lie to us
what other great lies have they told us

All governments lie it's the way things go. If you can't deal with it, well they don't care.

The article is quite interesting... I already thought that we're not alone...just too many strange sitings...Wonder what they're waiting for..Maybe we are just too primitive and they're vegetarians...

lol it ain't because there is life on another planet that they travel this way

Well this topic has really been interesting, and fun to read and reply, but I don't think either side could possibly win a debate like this unless there was some impartial judge or something. It's mostly a matter of personal opinion for the most part and drawn up conjectures. Yeah.

True, but then again most debats around here are like that Chiram

Originally posted by Fire
All governments lie it's the way things go. If you can't deal with it, well they don't care.

they lie cos they are told to lie
everything that comes out there mouth is a lie

Originally posted by Fire
True, but then again most debats around here are like that Chiram

LOL. I bet.

So, what's the point? Is someone using the moon for spying? If it's not alien, then I don't get it...we all have satellites to do that.

Woah...! Where did aliens spying come from LOL.

why would you want to spy from the moon??? satellites are far more effective. Don't you think that allies who are probably technologically superior to us (since they would have made contact wiv us first) would find more effective ways to spy too?

D as much as I respect you I don't buy your conspiracy theory man

OK...well if not us spying on ourselves...then what is that stuff doing up there..those could just be fake pictures too...

you mean what is the moon doing up there?

Well I don't know the scientific explination but there's bound to be, atleast an attempt of, one

Hmmmmmm...wormholes...Now I see.

Originally posted by Fire
you mean what is the moon doing up there?

Well I don't know the scientific explination but there's bound to be, atleast an attempt of, one

No...the stuff on the moon. Didn't that thread show stuff on the moon, or should I have read it slower...

could be didn't read the damn article

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa030899.htm

Moon info.

Yup, I did read the article. There is stuff on the moon.

not everything one reads, let alone on a site with the url paranormal.about.com is true

I just grabed the first site I could find with people landing on the moon and posted it. I shoulda' been more careful I guess.

May comments were on the article posted by Chiram AS A CONVERSATIONAL TOPIC...

good.

We have been to the moon i think. Just the pictures we took there adn the video footage was faked

We already can go to the moon now, who cares if the first landing was faked? Whoopdy ... f---ing ... doo.

Originally posted by dark1365
We already can go to the moon now, who cares if the first landing was faked? Whoopdy ... f---ing ... doo.

Yes he did in the seventys or was it the sixtys I forget.JM

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
Yes he did in the seventys or was it the sixtys I forget.JM
blowup

then the people who died on the shuttle last year were fakes?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
blowup


Keep the faith

No one doubts the shuttle is a giant firework, and its crazy its still used thats two major disasters with it.

I find Reagans speech quoting the old airmans poem, "they reeched out to touch the face of god", still one of the most moving ever for the Discovery disaster, last year should never of happened.


Originally posted by RaeRox
then the people who died on the shuttle last year were fakes?

Originally posted by whirlysplat
Has man landed on the moon?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear All,

my debate is a simple on. Has man landed on the moon? (Unlike I usually do), right from the outset I'm giving my opinion on the matter (and don't tell me you can see the lander from the surface of the earth because the keck - most powerful telescope - can't)

1. Van Allen Belts - High and intense radiation, NASA says that the rocket was travelling so fast that the astronauts would have been unaffected by the short term exposure despite the fact that they had NO...repeat...NO PROTECTION AT ALL!.....yet not one person who went to the moon ever got cancer to my knowledge...hmmm

2. The Saturn V rocket (the one which took people to the moon), ALL plans and designs were "mysteriously" lost...please see following link

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...s_what_s_needed

now, forgive me for being slightly suspicious, but would not the equipment which made possible such a great technical achievement be copied and copied and studied etc?

3. Photographs - We've all seen the LUDICROUS photographs:
a) Shadows going off in different directions despite one light source
b) All photographs coming out picture perfect despite hugely
different light and dark tones on the surface
c) Pathetic jumps by the astronauts given their weight/gravity (it
was calculated that given their weight and the moons gravity,
they should have been moving much differently than they did
d) Perfect lander landing...despite the fact that in the earth
environment, there are movies showing that Armstrong/Aldrin
found it difficult to control in an EARTH environment
e) The most convincing for me was on a documentary, where it
showed 2 bits of film, one being shot 2 miles away from the other
(and facing a different way), however when superimposed, it
should them going up the same mound ROCK for ROCK
f) Chest height cameras impossible angles (all clear)
g) No blast crater (despite considerable downward force while landing)
h) I can go on...

3. The sun spitting out high levels of radiation at that time (again no protection for the astronauts

I can go on...but I ramble on....what do we all think?
There's a thread about this about every other day at the paranormal/conspiracy board at GameFAQ. The most popular reply is this:

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

Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
There's a thread about this about every other day at the paranormal/conspiracy board at GameFAQ. The most popular reply is this:

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

Plausible denial


Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
There's a thread about this about every other day at the paranormal/conspiracy board at GameFAQ. The most popular reply is this:

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

Originally posted by Chiram
I think may have possibly heard they are allowing passenger trip to the moon. Like for 300,000 or more. I may be wrong though.

Yeah, your wrong, but your only off by $700,000. You take a trip into space for a cool million, No moon trip though.

If the moon landing were fake, that would mean that the Americans diddnt obtain the technology to land on the moon. If they diddnt have the technology to land on the moon in july of 69, or in November of 69, why did Nasa disclose their rocketry to Russia?

Originally posted by Fire
I seriously doubt the US would have faked going to the moon and in any case we can certainly get there now.

Last but not least: Does anyone really give a damn?

A) Well said.

B) Well said.

Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
There's a thread about this about every other day at the paranormal/conspiracy board at GameFAQ. The most popular reply is this:

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

Firstly Swanky I have read this thread and I see some flaws.

Secondly - the site does deal with the "kilometers apart - same hill" argument, which they put down to a simple error (how convenient - but I'll take their answer)

Thirdly - Van Allen belts...an hour of exposure to lethal radiation?, no the metal hulls DID NOT PROTECT the astronauts from the lethal radiation, but again, no astronaut had ANY symptoms of cancer after an hour or more of being exposed to lethal radiation...hmmm, it's also quite funny how the same NASA scientists are now quoting "space radiation" as a hazard for getting a man to mars, well going by the moon landing, there is NO space radiation besides the belts themselves...

Fourth - People inside of NASA have started talking about the programme etc...
http://www.aulis.com/nasa2.htm

Fifth - The earth reflecting light causing the different shadow directions/ moons surface reflecting light, the site then contradicts itself in that it says that if there were 2 or more light sources, there would be multiple shadows 9 WHICH THERE ISN'T (but according to it, there was in the earth/the surface itself and the sun)

that's all for now...I need to do some work before I get fired! - but alas if someone debunks every argument out there with GOOD evidence...then I can be swayed (I'm not one to ignore evidence, even if it goes against my own preconceived ideas!)

Well Pink Floyd has been to the dark side of the moon so...........

I believe man has walked on the moon, just not Apollo 11, I believe that was just to make the Americans look like they had beaten the Russians to the moon, I believe since then that man has done it though

You people believe these conspiracy theories and all that crap far too much

Your poll was kinda off. Man has obviously landed on the moon at least once.

YES, MAN HAS LANDED ON THE MOON. I've heard so much arguments saying it's not true, but I disproved some of them my myself (the lack of stars - as a photographer I'm aware of that a camera is not able to redord it in most of situations - I'm not gonna explain why). How about all the rest? Sorry, but my English sucks. I won't tell you. There are some interesting books. Read it. Or watch Discovery Channel. I'm sure I've seen a documentary on TV.

Originally posted by pinsleepe
YES, MAN HAS LANDED ON THE MOON. I've heard so much arguments saying it's not true, but I disproved some of them my myself (the lack of stars - as a photographer I'm aware of that a camera is not able to redord it in most of situations - I'm not gonna explain why). How about all the rest? Sorry, but my English sucks. I won't tell you. There are some interesting books. Read it. Or watch Discovery Channel. I'm sure I've seen a documentary on TV.

What conspiracy? cry I'm talking about publications. Have you ever heard about a journalist or writer that conceals any information? It used to happen mostly in totalitarian countries, not is USA. Not today.

Don't you think the Russians would of outted us if we faked it?
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Firstly Swanky I have read this thread and I see some flaws.
Why the 3 replies?

There are a lot of errors to make when your perception is different.

How do you know that?

Could it be possible there are other belts around other planets? Like Mars? Or patches of the stuff?

Hurrah for talking.

Are you talking about the non-parellel shadows or the "perfect lighting"?

You and your conspiracist boys be crazy!

Read through this sote, and then try and come up with soem arguments against.

Originally posted by pinsleepe
What conspiracy? cry I'm talking about publications. Have you ever heard about a journalist or writer that conceals any information? It used to happen mostly in totalitarian countries, not is USA. Not today.

I tend to find it difficult to believe information given to me by websites that have the words "anomoly" or "paranormal" in the URLs.

have I been rumbled

Originally posted by Trickster
I tend to find it difficult to believe information given to me by websites that have the words "anomoly" or "paranormal" in the URLs.

Keep the faith

Has man landed on the moon?Yes1. Van Allen Belts - High and intense radiation, NASA says that the rocket was travelling so fast that the astronauts would have been unaffected by the short term exposure despite the fact that they had NO...repeat...NO PROTECTION AT ALL!.....yet not one person who went to the moon ever got cancer to my knowledge...hmmmNo one knows the cause for cancer. And cancer doesn't just magically appear when biomatter is first exposed to carcinogens, it takes a long time to develop. Admittedly, the astronauts are at a higher risk for cancer over their life-times. Intense radiation can cause radiation poisoning. But the Van Allen Belts (which is primarily an Earth bound phenomenon, the Sun does not support long-term radiation belts) are NOT high and intense. Even at peak exposure, astronauts can survive for months without it being lethal.

See this.2. The Saturn V rocket (the one which took people to the moon), ALL plans and designs were "mysteriously" lost...please see following link

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...s_what_s_needed

now, forgive me for being slightly suspicious, but would not the equipment which made possible such a great technical achievement be copied and copied and studied etc?That's neither here nor there. If they're lost, that's no evidence of a fake moon landing. And it's easier for you to believe that the US government faked the moon landings, but you can't believe that they really lost them, or are hiding the documents from the world for various security reasons? Please.a) Shadows going off in different directions despite one light sourceEasily explainable by distortion from the SPHERICAL helmet visor, and uneven moon surfaces. And there were two light sources: sun, earth.b) All photographs coming out picture perfect despite hugely different light and dark tones on the surfaceContrast doesn't necessarily cause poor imaging. There IS such a thing as exposure. Any half competent photographer can adjust aperture and exposure time to get at details in the shadows.c) Pathetic jumps by the astronauts given their weight/gravity (it was calculated that given their weight and the moons gravity, they should have been moving much differently than they didTheir trajectories would depend very much on how much force they used to jump. Were you there? Did you have some kind of device that measured exactly how much force they were exerting?d) Perfect lander landing...despite the fact that in the earthenvironment, there are movies showing that Armstrong/Aldrinfound it difficult to control in an EARTH environmentEarth's gravity is much stronger. It isn't surprising that lander maneuverability was easier in the moon's gravity.e) The most convincing for me was on a documentary, where it showed 2 bits of film, one being shot 2 miles away from the other (and facing a different way), however when superimposed, it should them going up the same mound ROCK for ROCKThat's evidence of nothing -- a simple filing error.f) Chest height cameras impossible angles (all clear)Are you saying that a photographer holding a camera at chest height can't take clear photos? This is just wrong on so many levels. 1. Ever hear of a box camera? 2. You don't know how many photos were taken, NASA probably only published the best ones. 3. You have no idea how the viewfinder was rigged inside the suit. 4. With a wide angle lens, the focal length can be kept perpetually on infinity and the pictures will come out clear every time.

Again, any half-wit photographer ...g) No blast crater (despite considerable downward force while landing)It's a common misconception to think that a rocket or jet's exhaust actually contains all the thrust. A rocket producing 3000 pounds of thrust with an engine exhaust bell 5 feet in diameter would only cause 1 pound of pressure per square inch. And don't do the math. It's not a simple division. Fluid dynamics work very differently from regular mechanics.h) I can go on...Please do.3. The sun spitting out high levels of radiation at that time (again no protection for the astronauts

I can go on...but I ramble on....what do we all think?The sun doesn't normally emit high levels or radiation. Only during solar flares. Radiation from solar flares can shoot right through our bodies, and cause damage to DNA, WITHIN THE CELLS THAT IT HITS, causing mutation. But very specific mutation is required to lead a cell to become cancerous. Mostly it just dies. If enough radiation damages enough cells, radiation poisoning sets in and the victim can die from breakdown of too much tissue, not because of cancer (at least, not right away). In fact, you are being bombarded by solar radiation as you sit and read this. The particles going through you and through the Earth are hitting your DNA RIGHT NOW. And more likely than not, many of those cells do become cancerous. But your immune system is capable of recognizing and dispatching these wayward cells before they get a chance to divide uncontrollably. It's when specific mutations cause a cell to become cancerous AND be unrecognizable by your immune system that trouble starts.

Astronauts are advised to take cover during solar flares, so yes radiation in space can be a problem. But AGAIN, it's only during flares. Risk is present but not insurmountable.

I never have done much research into this topic but it was more than likely faked to beat the russians in the cold war.The government has a history of lying to the public about everything,no reason to believe them on this.

Originally posted by Chiram
*Gaffaw* You have an interesting argument, but what possible reason would they have to lie to us?

didnt you read the poll? that answers the question right there.dont know how to tell you this but the government is not known for telling the truth about matters on subjects like this.

ask Neil Armstrong.

Well, most of the "proof" I've seen was countered very plausibly. Then again generally it seems like a possibility, since it did indeed strengthen the position of the US. But I doubt that the USSR would have been unable to find that out. And I know for fact (or as close as it gets) that is possible (by physics) to reach th moon and more, so why not?

is the moon really there?

is it really an artificial satellite?

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
is the moon really there?

is it really an artificial satellite?

My opinion opn those two:

Yes


No

the moon is just a big rock floating in space nothing special about it.

i should stop reading books who are sayin moon is a spaceship of aliens... shouldn't i?

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
i should stop reading books who are sayin moon is a spaceship of aliens... shouldn't i?
Nah, you should stop believing them.

Yes. I think they did.

Originally posted by Bardock42
My opinion opn those two:

Yes


No What do you mean your opinion? A fact/theory/assumption is NOT an opinion. When will KMC realise that?

Oh and we did go to the moon. There's NO evidence to say otherwise. Seriously.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What do you mean your opinion? A fact/theory/assumption is NOT an opinion. When will KMC realise that?

Oh and we did go to the moon. There's NO evidence to say otherwise. Seriously.

You, Sir, are very, very slow in the head.

Why? Because I disagree with you?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Why? Because I disagree with you?

No, because it is obviously an opinion.

1. CLAIM: The moon landing was faked on a movie set. Proof: there are clearly two sources of light in the movies and stills taken on the moon. Since there is only one source of light in the sky (the sun) how can we explain the fact that even in shadows there is obvious "fill" light that illuminates various objects that, back lit from the sun, should be in near total darkness. Much
of the show was spent on this point as they showed photo after photo, film after film, of "filled in" photos. Fill light is exactly what you would see on a studio set.


ANSWER: Even granting that NASA's rocket scientists were too dumb to have thought of this and thus tipped their conspiracy hand to the no-moonies who, apparently, are smarter than rocket scientists, there were actually three sources of light on the moon: the sun, the earth that reflects the sun's light, and the moon itself, also reflecting light. The albedo (reflectivity) of the earth is quite high because of the amount of clouds, so the sun acted as the light filler via the earth. And the moon was, to say the least, rather close, and also reflected light.

I hope this will help the "non believers" change their mind


2. CLAIM: The American flag was "waving" in the allegedly airless environment of the moon. How can this be? Proof: film footage showing the astronauts planting the flag, with the flag clearly waving.


ANSWER: Of course the flag was "waving" while the astronaut was fiddling with it back and forth as he jammed it into the hole. But the moment he let go of the flag, it mysteriously stopped waving. Umm, coincidence? I don't think so.


3. CLAIM: There was no blast crator beneath the LEM lander. Proof: photographs of the LEM with no blast crator and a NASA painting made before the first landing, showing what a NASA artist thought might happen when the LEM landed (big blast crator).


ANSWER: (1) The LEM engine was variable--the astronauts could control the thrust and, of course, as they eased their way down to the surface they throttled back on the engine. (2) There was only a couple of inches of moon dust on the surface, beneath which was a solid surface that would not be effected by the blast of the LEM engine. Before Apollo 11 landed, there was much debate among scientists about the amount of moon dust that would have accumulated over billions of years. Some speculated that there could be several feet of dust, into which the LEM and the astronauts would sink. Others said just a few inches. The latter were right.


4. After the blast crator from the LEM engine was created, all the lunar dust around the LEM should have been displaced, yet there's Armstrong's footprint clearly imprinted into the lunar dust just a foot away from the LEM's landing pad. What gives?


ANSWER: Again, the moon is airless, so the LEM engine blast did indeed send dust flying, after which it came back down because there is no wind to scatter it. The blast of dust happened mainly directly underneath the LEM engine.


5. If there was so much moon dust all over the place, being kicked up by the LEM engine, by the rover, by the astronauts, why is everything so clean?


ANSWER: It wasn't. Moon dust was a problem because, in fact, it got all over everything and the astronauts spents hours after their moon walks cleaning their suits so as not to get the dust all over the interior of the LEM.


6. CLAIM: When the top half of the LEM took off to return the astronauts to the command module, leaving the lower half sitting there on the moon's surface, there was no "blast" flame like we see on earth. The LEM just seems to leap off the base like it was yanked up by cables.


ANSWER: First of all, you can clearly see in the film footage of the launch, that there IS quite a blast as dust and other particles go flying, even one piece right toward the camera. Second, there is no air on the moon, so there can be no blast "flame" like there is on earth. This is why rocket engines in space have to carry their own oxygen (in liquid form). Unlike jet engines
that suck in air, rockets carry all the chemicals they need and mix them at the time the "burn" is required. And "burn" is not quite the right term, since it implies a "flame" should be present. In space there can be no flame because there is no oxygen to fuel a flame tail coming out of the rocket nozzle. All that is happening is that chemicals being stored in separate containers are being released together to cause a reaction, the energy from which flows out rapidly through a nozzle, after which Newton's law of "equal and opposite reaction" takes over.


7. On earth, the LEM lander simulator used by the astronauts for practice was obviously unstable. In fact, shortly before the Apollo 11 flight Neil Armstrong barely escaped with his life as his simulator crashed and he ejected just seconds before impact. Imagine how tricky it would have been to land the actual LEM, with two astronauts shifting around inside and all that
additional weight. Fox even managed to find a physicist named Ralph Rene who proclaimed that it would have been impossible to land the LEM because of its inherent instability.


ANSWER: Armstrong did indeed barely escape with his life in the simulator. But practice makes perfect, and these guys practiced, and practiced, and practiced until they got it down. A bicycle is also inherently unstable. The damn thing just falls over standing still, and even moving it topples over after a few meters of pedaling, UNTIL YOU LEARN HOW TO RIDE IT! Plus, and these no-moonies never seem to get this, what happens on earth is not the same as what happens on the moon. Air on earth, no air on the moon. Lots of gravity on the earth, a lot less gravity on the moon. Things big and heavy on earth will be big and light on the moon. And we can even calculate exactly how much different! These NASA scientists were so good they even calculated the effects of the gravitational pull from large and irregular moon masses as the LEM flew closely over them.


8. There are no stars in the moon sky, yet when you look up at night from earth you see lots of stars.
ANSWER: How many stars do you see in photographs taken at night, on earth, of terrestrial objects? That's right. None. Well, okay, MAYBE you'll see Venus, but that's not a star. If you want to shoot stars in the night sky you have to aim your camera and leave the shutter open for at least several seconds. The astronauts were not there to take pictures of the sky. Also, since it is very bright on the moon (no air to scatter the sunlight) and the astronauts were wearing white space suits, the camera F-stop would have been set way down, and the shutter speed quite fast. Stars are too faint to appear on the film emulsion.


9. If you run the moon film footage at double speed it looks like it was filmed on earth, ergo it WAS filmed on earth.


ANSWER: Balderdash! Double speed doesn't look at all like it was filmed on earth. I might have missed their explanation for this because I was laughing so hard, but that's what they said.


10. Why are the photographs so nicely framed and in focus, etc.


ANSWER: Because these are the few photographs that we get to see from the thousands of photographs taken. There is a beautiful book released last year with some of the very best moon photographs. It is magnificant. One glance through it makes it clear that these photographs were indeed taken on the moon which was aptly described by Buzz Aldrin as "magnificant desolation."


11. The Van Allen radiation belts surrounding the Earth would have fried the astronauts with a lethal dose of radiation.


ANSWER: Wrong. If you blast right through the Van Allen belts it is no problem, which is what the Apollo astronauts did. X-rays would be lethal too, if you sat there soaking in them long enough. A very real problem, however, are cosmic rays. They are not a problem on a short flight like to the moon, but in long flights that might last years, like to Mars, they could be a
serious problem.

If you believeeeeeeeee, they put a man on the moon, man on the moon

they put a man on the moon? AWESOME!!!

Originally posted by PVS
they put a man on the moon? AWESOME!!!

If you believed....

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
i should stop reading books who are sayin moon is a spaceship of aliens... shouldn't i?

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wlangy/moongate/spaceship-moon.htm

he mother of Buzz aldrin was MARION MOON. That's their secret humour.

if some anonymous guy wrote it on some website, it must be true.

if top officials and politicians say it happened then it must be true also

lloyd

we landed on the moon

Originally posted by smoker4
If you believeeeeeeeee, they put a man on the moon, man on the moon

R.E.M good song that

Originally posted by jaden101
lloyd

we landed on the moon

I was waiting for that.