Did we land on the Moon or is it a big conspiracy?

[Moonolt 10]

I don't have Channel 5, but if that music is from Richard Strauss' music version of Also Sprach Zarathustra then I won't be surprised.

[Guest rosie]

I think no one ever went to the moon and it was all done in a studio.

My sons think i`m being a bit negative but if people have been there why with all our techniology have we not got people on there now

 

I was only little when the moon landing happened but tell people anything then and i`m sure they would have believed it.

[saxon51 10]

I'm with you there rosie.

 

No doubt there'll be a big discussion on here after the prog.

 

Should be an interesting few days.

[boyface 10]

the best bits are the flag fluttering in the wind...in zero gavity, hehe

 

Also, proffesional photographers reckon theres no way a spaceman with huge clumsy gloves on could have operated a camera well enough to take pics that are that well contructed

 

There's loads reasons why its fake

 

My fave space fact ever tho is that one about the americans spending millions of dollars on a pen that works in a zero gravity environment....the Russians used a pencil. I hope that's true.

[saxon51 10]

Sounds about right, boyface:thumbsup:

[kookie 10]

I think it was a studio set up too.

Shadows and wind and all that. I will watch with interest,

[saxon51 10]

It's amazing the effects you can get with people jumping around and dust falling by slowing down a piece of film to 1/6 normal speed.

[rickmiles85 10]

Originally posted by wibbles

Exactly what conspiracy is there about the Moon?? Is there not one????..unless you mean Moon Landings conspiracy

 

Yea well. I couldnt think of the programme name off the top of my head. Ive watched something similar to this on the Discovery Channel several years ago. Might be the same stuff again but we'll see.

 

I think Rosies comments are very true. With all the advances in technology from 1969 to 2004 why havnt we returned to the moon?! Why has the attention shifted from the moon to mars when its far cheaper and easier ( I presume to get to the moon )

Why dont we give the Armstrong guy a lie detector test and ask him several questions and see how he does

[SusieP 10]

Of course man landed on the moon.

 

To clear up some specific points raised here:

 

Keep an eye open for the bit about the cross hairs on the camera lenses being BEHIND the images photographed.

 

Bad: Crosshairs were etched in the astronauts' cameras to better help measure objects in the pictures. However, in several images, it looks like the objects are actually in front of the crosshairs, which is impossible if the crosshairs were inside the camera! Therefore, the images were faked.

 

Good: This argument is pretty silly. Do the HBs think that NASA had painted crosshairs on the set behind the astronauts? I heard one HB claim the crosshairs were added later on, and NASA had messed up some of the imaging. That's ridiculous! Why add in crosshairs later? Cameras equipped with crosshairs have been used for a long time, and it would have been easy to simply use some to take pictures on the faked set. Clearly, the HBs are wrong here, but the images do look funny. What happened?

 

What happened becomes clearer when you look more closely at the images. The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair (because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too. That's all that happened here; the white object in the image ``fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography.

 

[Note (added February 18, 2001): I have been informed by David Percy, a photographer quoted in the Fox show, that he does indeed believe that man went to the Moon, but he believes there are anomalies in the imagery taken which ``put into question many aspects of the missions'', which is a different matter. While I disagree that there are anomalies, I have edited out what is essentially a personal attack on Mr. Percy that I had here originally. It is an easy matter to let one's emotions get carried away when writing these essays, and I apologize to him and my readers for letting that get in. I make it a policy to correct Bad Astronomy based on facts, not personalities.]

 

the best bits are the flag fluttering in the wind...in zero gavity, hehe

 

Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.

 

Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

 

New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?

 

The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

 

This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!

 

Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.

 

Also, proffesional photographers reckon theres no way a spaceman with huge clumsy gloves on could have operated a camera well enough to take pics that are that well contructed

 

Bad: The program makes a big deal out of how well the pictures taken from the Moon were exposed and set. Every picture we see is just right, with the scene always centered perfectly. However, the cameras were mounted on the front of the astronauts' spacesuit, and there was no finder. They couldn't have taken perfect pictures every time!

 

Good ... and of course, no one claims they did. Thousands of pictures were taken on the Moon, and the ones you see will tend to be the good ones. If Buzz Aldrin accidentally cut off Neil Armstrong's head, you probably won't see that image in a magazine. Also, everything done on the Moon was practiced endlessly by the astronauts. The people working on the mission knew that these pictures would be some of the most important images ever taken, so they would have taken particular care in making sure the astronauts could do it cold. When fabled astronaut Story Musgrave replaced a camera on board the Hubble Space Telescope in 1993, someone commented that he made it look easy. "Sure," he replied, "I had practiced it thousands of times!"

 

The program goes farther than this, though: they actually contacted the man who designed the cameras for the astronauts. When they asked him why the pictures were always perfect, he hemmed and hawed, and finally admitted he had no answer for that. This is hardly evidence that NASA must have faked the missions. All it means is that he couldn't think of anything while sitting on camera! I think this is pretty evil of the program producers to do this; a bit of editing on their part makes it looks like they completely baffled an expert.

 

 

All quotes taken from the excellent Bad Astronomy website, which debunks EVERY claim made in the program.

 

 

Susie

[alchresearch 214]

Capricorn One is one excellent film revolving around faked landings, with a fantastic cameo role by Telly Savalas. And at £4.99 delivered you can't go wrong.

[evildrneil 14]

So do you think the Appollo missions actually landed on the moon or not?

[SusieP 10]

Of course they happened.

 

 

Susie