Mungo

No stars in the background of the photos? Are you living in StarTrekland? Have you ever taken a flash photo of a person at night, with a starry sky in the background? I assume your photo background was full of stars? Oh no, it wasn't? You mean the 1/125th of a second exposure wasn't long enough for the stars to make any impression on the film?
I've tried taking long exposure pictures of the night sky (5+ minutes) and all I got was streaks because of the earth's rotation... It's bloody difficult to take photos of stars, let alone with a flashlit subject in the foreground...

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

What about the blast crater? ie there isnt one, thats kinda strange isnt it, seeing as the landing module has a big massive feckoff rocket underneath it Also the astronauts commentry when they were landing is very suspect. The landing modules engine produces something like 140-160db on landing, ie fecking loud, theres noway you would be able to hear their voices so clearly over that noise when they were landing.

Staged in Area51 imo But like some1 said who cares...

Grottbags

I *suspect* the engine noise of the landings was added to make it more "realsitic" to the veiwers back then who wouldn't have known that sound does not travel through space. The engines might have been so many decibels on earth, but the moon has a different atmosphere and sound travels differently.

Grottbags

Do you really believe the CIA could manage to get a train/car crash to happen precisely enough to kill the occupants?

Having seen the results of various crashes, it amazes me who manages to walk away and who doesn't.

astraboy

The Van allen belt thing is the most convincing arguement, however a lot of apollo jocks got cancer after their moon trips.....
astraboy.

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

grottbags eeeh? lol u missed my point completely. On the official NASA footage there is NO engine noise. Anyway you would hear it from inside the module! Thats where the commentary was recorded from.

philc

anybody remember the name of the movie that came out in the ?late seventies that had exactly this theme - the astronauts never made it to the moon and had to be disposed of before blowing the whistle - but one escaped .... (or something like that) - a very watchable movie if u like conspiracy stuff.

but I can't remember the name .....

TelBoy

Capricorn One was the film that did the hoax Mars trip....

Grottbags

There was no noise because space is a vacumn and noise doesn't travel in a vacumn. And that is why there was no noise. If you believe the starship Enterprise would make that wooshing sound as it flew past then you beleive too much of what you watch.

And the film was on last week, Capricorn one

H7

Capricorn One

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

grottbags what? the commentary was recorded from INSIDE the lunar module, not in outerspace! The engine would make considerable noise INSIDE the module! So youre saying because theyre in space theres no noise INSIDE the lunar module as well???? lol mmm I wonder how they talked to each other??

philc

thanx, H7

TelBoy

Oi, i was first!!!

Grottbags

Ever heard of sound proofing? Even cars have it so I would hope a space craft would. And the radiation sheilds would go some way to stop noise.

The real point is you've been sucked in by a programme on the channel that gave us a naked Keith Chegwin. If this had been shown on BBC then I'd agree it would be more plausible. But then the BBC make sure they show believable programmes beofre they show them.

TelBoy

Grottbags, let's be clear, that's JUST your opinion.

You don't know that the Moon landings took place, any more than i know they didn't. You've just chosen to believe that all the doubts have an explanation. They might do. But please don't insult our intelligence by stating that this programme had to be unbelievable, just because it was on Channel 5. Sensationalist maybe, but also plausible.

Terry

Mungo

In response to the "no blast crater" arguement (from http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html)

The Hoax believers claim the LM descent stage used its full thrust of 10,000 pounds at lunar landing and that it should excavate a large blast crater under the LM. At landing in the low lunar gravity (which is 1/6 of Earth's gravity), the LM only needed a throttled down to about 3,000 pounds of thrust. The blast of rocket exhaust is not nearly as large as the 10,000 pounds claimed and results in a scouring of the topmost layer of lunar soil along the ground path and under the LM. The LM had 6 foot long landing probes under 3 of the 4 footpads and when any of the probes contacted the surface, the crew shut down the engine so that the LM would fall the last few feet to the surface, so the engine was more than 6 feet above the surface at it's closest. You can even see effects of the blast in some of the lunar images including any taken under the LM and one set taken on Apollo 12 which shows a disturbance along the ground path of the LM before landing. The dust is clearly visible flying out at high speed away from the LM prior to touchdown in all of the lunar landing films taken from the LM cabin windows during approach and landing. Given that the descent stage engine bell is about 5 feet across at the bottom, and that thrust of the engine at touchdown was about 3,000 pounds, that blast pressure of the rocket exhaust was only about 1 pound per square inch.

Why would we expect to find a blast crater under the LM? Does a garden hose sprayed at high pressure into the dirt create a blast crater? It certainly blows away some of the surface dirt in a radial direction and will create a small depression or hole, but not a crater in the form that the haox proponents suggest. There is even an Earthly example of a rocket landing on dirt. The DC-X was a test flight program of a vertical takeoff and landing rocket. On one of it's last flights, it made an emergency landing outside of the pad area. Despite the hydrogen/oxygen engine producing a thrust of some 60,000 pounds, the engine produced a mark on the desert floor that was barely recognizable.

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

haha i havent been sucked in by anything The 'facts' on the show were backed up by ex NASA and scientist type individuals. Whether you decide to believe them or not, is your matter of opinion. I don't think which channel they are broadcast on has much to do with how plausible it might be

As for your sound proofing comment, lol 150db is very loud yknow Thats not the point though, there is absolutely no engine noise on the footage, and there should be

Grottbags

And I still maintain my opinion of anything Channel 5 shows. As you've said, I'm entitled to my opinion, just as you are.

I never watch Channel 5 because it is all drivel. If it hadn't have been for the fact I was around my brothers and he didn't switch the telly off, then I wouldn't have seen this programme.

Believe what you want, I do.

mattstant

I heard from an undisputable expert source (well some bloke in the pub actually )
That princess Diana was MURDERED !!!!!!!!
and it wasnt a pissed security guard driving too fast into a tunnel at all

oh sorry thats a far to logical reasonable and boring explanation to merit any tv coverage

People still witter on about how bodies Spontaenously combust when a horizon programme set out to perfectly logically explain and demonstrate this "phenonmenon" but thats to boring to watch isnt it

take your time and read the Marko link on page one of this thread it is a sound reasoned response to an original programme broadcast on american television (then amateurishly rehashed by channel 5).

but again to logical and boring so dont bother

Grottbags

I wondered how long it would take for Princess whatsit to be mentioned

TelBoy

Matt.

I have.

But if you look at it from the other side, you can equally say "well they would say that, wouldn't they?". Everything seems to be explainable by the "weird" lunar atmosphere, reflective moon dust, over-exposed photographs, physics in a vacuum etc etc.

I'm not saying that the Moon landings were boring. I just think the extent to which the cospiracists have gone to show that it might not have been all that it appeared is fascinating, and i have an open mind as to whether they're right or not, that's all.

I reckon we'll know for sure one day. I just want to see an independent picture of lunar landing debris, then i'll believe 100%..

mattstant

Actually my point was that that the truth is nearly always more boring than fiction and the conspiracy theorists seem to be pointing at some fairly small anomalies and insteaded of asking if there is any logical or rational explanation are screaming conspiracy.
As an amateur photograper i have come across most of these photographic effects and know them to be true

and as far as the "well they would say that wouldnt they" argument goes is you may as well just stand in front of NASA headquarters blow Raspberries and run away.
the conspiracy theorists always sem to be the most blinkered people in the argument why arent they replying to the scientific arguments and dissproving them ?????

I believe my mind to be equally open but i prefer to trust to scientific fact and plausibility not rumour and conjecture

Matt

[edit to add]
perhaps as has already been stated the most compelling argument for the landings is why fake it 6 times if you got away with it the first time why risk it 5 more times

[Edited by mattstant - 8/13/2002 1:14:18 PM]

NotoriousREV

As for noise inside the lunar module:

Where is the noise being created? Outside at the engine nozzle.

How does sound travel? Shockwaves through the air

How does sound travel from outside to inside without any air to pass through?

A mate of mine used to work as a contractor on a NASA site. He claims that there is no way that NASA ever made it to the moon because they have difficulty tying their own shoelaces.

I think I read somewhere that some film director reckoned that to fake the films of the moon landing using 1969 film and special effects technology would have cost more than the actual moon landings themselves. I might have made that up, however.

TelBoy

Matt,

But let's be careful about the word "fact". You and i do not know for a "fact" that men landed on the Moon. The only reason you believe it to be a fact is because NASA have told you so.

At the end of the day, i just think there are enough strange events, phenomena and circumstantial evidence to suggest that there might, just might, be a case to answer. And we won't know for a "fact" whether the whole thing really happened until someone can independently verify it.

And i still wouldn't think it was boring, even if it was proved that it did happen...!

D Brown

There's one way of establishing if it was a hoax or not. Taste the moonrocks, if they don't taste of cheese, they come from Utah not the moon. If they do, they might come from Cheddar or Roquefort, but they might come from the moon.

TelBoy

On the why do it six times question.

Well, the conspiracy theory answer to this one is that not only was the Cold War going on at this time, but the Vietnam War. And the USA were, shall we say, not doing very well. So what better way to divert the public gaze from a costly, unsuccessful national embarrasment to a costly, successful, national "feel-good" expedition?
In fact, the theory goes further in that if Vietnam had dragged on any longer, there would have been more Apollo missions. As it was, the final pre-planned Apollos were conveniently cancelled shortly after the end of the Vietnam War...

LG John

I think man has been on the moon: I met Charles Duke (who's walked on the moon) giving a talk on how he became a born again Christian. Now his faith doesn't sway me into believing what he says is true but he was a very nice and sincere guy and there was no doubt in my mind I was speaking to someone that had walked (and fallen) on the moon.

Dave T-S

Whilst we are talking conspiracy theories, anybody got any news on the STi7 PPP?

mattstant

this is my last stab at this so here goes

I have just checked my postings and no where have i used the word
"FACT"
"Reasoning" "plausibilty" and "scientific" i have used and these are guiding me to a more logical conclusion than a few entirely logically explained photographic anomalies and and plain wrong assertions like the "sound" of a jet engine in a vacuum (nearly fell off my chair laughing at that one)
oh and the last time i took a ride in a jet i quite distinctly remember having a perfectly respectable conversation with the misses while the jet was at full bore on take off (dammned noisy outside i'll grant you)
But then i wasnt speaking to her through a directional microphone inside a large space helmet while the jet engine was in a vacuum

At the end of the day, i just think there are enough LOGICAL events, phenomena and circumstantial evidence to suggest that there might, just might, be NO case to answer. And we won't know for a "fact" whether the whole thing really happened until someone can independently verify it.

trust me i am not having a pop at anyone it just annoys me when scientific "fact" is blatantly ignored to suit a theory

edited to add

oh for ***** sake now were throwing in the vietnam war why not add kennedys assasination and roswell while were at it




[Edited by mattstant - 8/13/2002 2:01:54 PM]

cool-pt-fresh

Didn't president Kennedy or whoever it was make a promise to the American people that America would land on the moon by a certain date?

I personally don't believe the excuse for why they haven't been back since. Surely there must be so much to learn?

I liked the Simpsons episode when they realised that the US people were getting bored of see NASA launches on the telly, so they sent Homer into space.

Dunno if the Japs would grass on the yanks. Be interesting to see what the Chinese find.