Moon Landing: Fake or Real?

[LostLocke]

How can we be sure that it wasn't a robot that put that there?

Because that would be more difficult than just sending people to do it? Why fake something by doing something more complicated?? It doesn't make any sense.

Not any kind of expert on 69 tech vs 14 tech, but I would imagine rovers back in those days would have been far less sophisticated than today's.
I could see a modern rover doing this quite easily. But back then I'd imagine the time and resources to design, build, code, and test something that also probably would have been the size of a small bus, would be far more time consuming, expensive, and difficult than just sending people there in the first place.

[Cyberman]

Er, Stimbo, you wouldn't need a decompression chamber. I believe the allegation is that it was shot at normal earth gravity. A little video editing makes for the lower-gravity-look authentic by slowing it down. Speed up the video and it looks like they're in an environment that mimics the earths gravity.

Er, except that it doesn't. Speed the footage up six times to Earth-normal G and all the movement looks hilariously jerky. Even if you allow the atronauts to be on wire rigs and then slow the footage, as the Mythbusters showed it doesn't replicate the Apollo footage even accidentally.

In any case, the decompression chamber angle addresses the lack of air, not the simulation of one-sixth gravity. The signature lack of air dampening on objects such as the flags necessitates a vacuum.

[BetaOrionis]

A little video editing makes for the lower-gravity-look authentic by slowing it down. Speed up the video and it looks like they're in an environment that mimics the earths gravity.

Starting at 25:00...tried to share from that point but didn't seem to work right. Pretty much debunks the "slowed down footage" allegation. Either way the whole video is worth a watch.

---

I'd imagine the time and resources to design, build, code, and test something that also probably would have been the size of a small bus, would be far more time consuming, expensive, and difficult than just sending people there in the first place.

Nail....head. Think about computers of the 1960's. A modern laptop has many many times the computing power of the most sophisticated supercomputers of the time. To send a rover to the moon then to perform a complex task on it's own would have been extremely difficult if not impossible.

[Anomalocaris]

..and yet here we are, still busy trying to reverse engineer them...nearly half a decade after we got them to work in the first place.

Kinda makes me think of the Egyptian pyramids of Giza. Seems they also forgot how to build them because the ones that came after weren't as good.

I'm not sure what to think of the moon landing myself. I do have a conspiracy theory background myself. But that was before becoming a sceptic. An interesting thing I'm noticing in this thread is the mentioning of evidence. Photograph this, photograph that. These are photos taken by NASA who claims to have been on the moon. Isn't this slightly circular since we have powerful tools like photo editing programs? There's a reason why even video evidence is not always admissible in court.

Now this is not to say the landing didn't happen. I'm undecided on that. I'd accept it if an independent third party like China were to confirm the claims of NASA backed up by snaps of their own.

This thread is particularly interesting in that it is a microcosm of what happens elsewhere in this site. X happened and we have our bible to prove that. Y happened and we have our photos to prove it. What I haven't seen is a demonstration of why we can place such confidence on pictures that couldn't possible be tampered with. I don't know, I'm just making an observation.

1. Powerful Photo editing software is a phenomenon of 1980s. Apollo photos were published in 1960s.

2. Apollo missions were telecast live. The direct tv transmissions from the CM and LEM could be picked up and its location in the sky independently verified by a large number of independent organizations, universities, labs, radio and television organizations.

3. The Chinese have AFAIK not published a independent photo of American landing site, but the photo and video of their own rover and lander on the moon they did release exactly confirms all the properties of lunar surface that can be inferred by Apollo images and foot ages. Did nasa simply get incredibly luck in their fraud 40 years ago?

---

Er, Stimbo, you wouldn't need a decompression chamber. I believe the allegation is that it was shot at normal earth gravity. A little video editing makes for the lower-gravity-look authentic by slowing it down. Speed up the video and it looks like they're in an environment that mimics the earths gravity.

Er, except that it doesn't. Speed the footage up six times to Earth-normal G and all the movement looks hilariously jerky. Even if you allow the atronauts to be on wire rigs and then slow the footage, as the Mythbusters showed it doesn't replicate the Apollo footage even accidentally.

In any case, the decompression chamber angle addresses the lack of air, not the simulation of one-sixth gravity. The signature lack of air dampening on objects such as the flags necessitates a vacuum.

Slowing earth shot footage 6 times, or shooting actors on the wire rig, can not explain the behavior of the lunar dust each steps kicks up, unless you put each particle of dust on a wire frame.

[Cyberman]

It's almost as though they filmed everything on the Moon, isn't it?

[Anomalocaris]

It's almost as though they filmed everything on the Moon, isn't it?

Gwad! they were good, before industrial light and magic too!

[Jacob(smooth)]

It's almost as though they filmed everything on the Moon, isn't it?

You mean the moon landing hoax... Was a hoax?! They actually didn't film it in a studio, it was the moon pretending to be a studio?

Is there no depth they won't sink to?

You're blowing my mind Stimbo!

[Cyberman]

That would make a great movie! If I write the screenplay, does anyone know any Hollywood producers?

[Creed of Heresy]

I don't respect their beliefs also, but that is no reason to treat others like shit, and when shit is thrown at me I throw it back, yes that's all I expect is respect, but that doesn't happen here very much. I have been on a few religious forums and they respect others far more than this so called atheist forum ever could.

I first came here because I don't have a belief in a god, and wanted to see what this atheist idea is all about, but after being here I really am thinking I want nothing to do with it. I certainly don't want to label myself as an atheist, in fact I don't want to label myself anything.

You don't believe in a god and waned to see what this atheist idea is all about...

Motherfucker, you were an atheist before you knew the term! You don't lack belief in god/s without being an atheist.

Really? The well-to-do, smarmy, condescending vast fucking majority is more pleasant? Yeah, see, think of it like this; they're the guys living up in the mansions. We're the guys stuck in the failing cities. Metaphorically speaking.

Do you really expect all atheists to be nice? No. A fuckton of us are bitter for a lot of different reasons. And you have to understand, this forum's community is rather active. Most of us are veterans of answering the same questions a hundred times each and disproving the same conspiracy theories about another hundred times each. I, for one, am tired of doing so nicely.

This forum isn't for the thin of skin if you openly admit to believing in stupid shit. We're not condescending shits like the people on those religious forums are; we're not giving you the bullshit, we're being openly honest. We get it slung back in our faces all the time, which interestingly enough makes it a good test for how far Christies' ability to turn the other cheek really goes. They all snap in the end, of course...

---

That would make a great movie! If I write the screenplay, does anyone know any Hollywood producers?

Tommy Wiseau



It'll be brilliant.

[Cyberman]

Of course, it has to star Keanu Reeves: