Proof: Moon Landing Fake

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by URI, Nov 11, 2005.

  1. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Same "moon hoax" picture as just a few messages ago

    The shadows diverge because the leg of the LEM is slanted, but the astronaut looks way too small in relation to the LEM. Maybe it's all exactly right, but the thing to question is whether the legs of the LEM are about a foot wide as they seem to be, whether the pad under them is really about three to six feet in width, or whatever. I think there is exaggerated foreshortening in that picture.

    It is really hard for anyone, even experts, to reliably take something like this apart forensically and arrive at what really happened. If you very carefully draw your lines of perspective, you can see that the astronaut is enough further from the camera to look significantly smaller than he would if he were standing exactly the same distance away as the leg of the LEM.

    I'm going for the idea that we really did go and if it can be proven that anything was staged, we still went. Someone staged something to revise something, that's nothing new.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    apart from the fact that most (all?) of those questioning it weren't around to see it happening with their own eyes. It's much harder to fake moving images than it is stills. I saw em and they were pretty believable.

    NASA would have to have bought off thousands of people and if there were any real evidence (ergo the roswell crew) some of those people would have come forward at the lure of cash if not their own consciences. i don't see thousands of scientists up in arms over the 'fake' moon landings. Indeed if you listen closely - silence!

    Oh do i feel old now
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    I saw the live tv coverage. What an extremely interesting era to have experienced.

    Foreshortening in photographs is directly related to the lens focal length and the film format (film size). It is not possible to critique foreshortening properly without knowing these parameters.

    I think I remember that the moon pictures were claimed to have been snapped by Hasselblads on 2 1/4" film but do not remember the critical factor of the lens focal length.

    My old man memory seems to think it was shorter than "normal", meaning apparently wide angle. So, foreshortening would have been exaggerated. Objects in the foreground would have appeared larger than usual.

    But, it depends on how reliable the disinformation was, given to us by the hoaxers.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2006
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    And what was the motive for this 'hoax' again? If to score points on the Russsians wouldn't it be to their advantage to prove the landings a hoax and yet to my knowledge....silence again. How many photographers/camera specialists have come forwards with helpful info?
    Who actually cares? Jolly good wheeze if it was a hoax!
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    this right here is the number one reason that i believe it was not a hoax
     
  9. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,022
    BUT RUSSIA IS ALL ILLUMINATI AND STUFF! WITH NASA! COVERING UP THE UFOS!!

    Yes, that point is unshiftable, proving we went to the moon almost 40 years ago, yet it is inevitable that there will be more "zomg faek" claims when we return to the moon.
     
  10. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Russia, with all due respect, has not been driving the bus since long before the alledged landings.

    Sometimes the one holding the worst hand chooses to fold.
     
  11. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,217
    It seems everyone here supports the fact that the moon landings were real.

    Who doesn't? Name yourselves.
     
  12. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Pretty much what I said, I can't be sure what the foreshortening should be. Just mentally drawing perspective lines, I could see that the astronaut was further away from the camera and the leg of the ship was closer than you would think at first glance, so the difference in size is exaggerated.
     
  13. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Why would Van Allen say that the astronauts couldn't survive the trip through the Van Allen belts, anyway?
     
  14. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    The Russians are on record as saying that they were extremely doubtful that cosmonauts could be safely shielded against the charged particle radiation agents trapped magnetically in the Van Allen belts.

    I have never carefully studied the moon photos for apparent perspective so should'nt comment. If you are familiar with 35mm photography, a 28mm or 35mm focal length wide angle lens on a 35mm camera would give roughly the same apparent perspective as the Hasselblad cameras used on the moon photos, if my old man memory is roughly correct about the setup claimed to have been used. The perspective effect is noticeably different than what the human eye normally sees.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2006
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you are forgetting something.
    the russians have no doubt photographed the landing sites.
     
  16. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    leo:

    Your post has got to be some kind of an ultimate non sequiter.

    I have already stated that I have no ax to grind in the moon landing hoax issue. I have simply stated the historical fact that Russians feared the radiation in the Van Allen belts.

    The point of your post is????

    As if you had one.

    And as if you could remember it.
     
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    as you can see cangas i am not the only one who has trouble following your logic.

    the point of my original post is that the russians have the means to prove once and for all whether the moon landing happened.
    they have not provided one scrap of evidence that it did not.
     
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Cangas may not have seen that Leo. I am periodically rude to him when I think he is being an ass. He may well have put me on Ignore. [By the way, why can't we put ourselves on Ignore? It isn't right.]
     
  19. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    And my point is that, for many, many decades the Russians have not been in anything resembling a powerful position with respect to America. The powers that be (were) in Russia have not been idiots. If they rocked our boat, what would they expect their more powerful adversary to do in retribution? So, if a Russian astronomer saw no moon landing artifacts, he or she may have been easily persuaded to be quiet.

    Oph.:

    When a man walks through the jungle and the cute little mingkees jibber jabber and throw their own turds at him, like they do at any visitor they do not know or understand, why should the man not ignore them and give their stupid actions much attention? They are rude to everyone except the grooming partners they already daily lick and groom from head to toe.
     
  20. Sci-Phenomena Reality is in the Minds Eye Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    Since the moon landing cost so many American dollars I wouldn't doubt that it was faked, however, I don't really know if the U.S. Govt was a scammer all back then.... nowadays its a different story...

    (they are forcing us to sell our nation to the banks through the national debt, I imagine they will be calling the loan in once our debt reaches 10 trillion, on the upside, the constitution forbids the use of any fiat money system, such as the one we have to today, so technically the loan is null and void.)
     
  21. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    While I have never given much attention to the moon landing hoax, I keep on being gnawed with doubt about the gravity thing.

    There is an account of a moon naut having fallen to the ground and asking his fellow moon naut for help to get up. The moon team was in the very peak of physical fitness. On Earth, every one would have had no trouble doing a one hand push up. If the information is true that moon gravity is 1/6 Earth gravity, a 200 pound moon naut wearing a 1000 pound moon suit would weigh, on the moon, 200 pounds. So, a man in the peak of fitness, needing to push his total effective weight of 200 pounds up off the moon dust, needs to get help from his buddy?

    Lance Armstrong has fallen off his bike. And he can't get up unless Mark Maguire gives him a hand?
     
  22. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Sounds interesting. Who fell over? Forward or backward? Flat or rocky ground?
     
  23. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    I last read of it some while back and now don't remember. It is one of the popular issues raised by the pro hoax faction and can probably be fairly easily dug up on one of the hoax web sites.
     

Share This Page