First Moon Landing Is A Fake?

[detportal 0]

well it doesn't really matter whether or not it is a fake, because since then, we've done more significant things than land on the moon, say a few words, and walk around before jumping into a spacecraft and coming back. and besides, if you DO try to prove to everyone that the first landing was a fake, the US government will call press conferences with at least a dozen scientists to explain the suspicious stuff, and then dis you to the best of their ability.

[shigajet 0]

Never thought I'd notice this topic, but in one of the textbooks I use for my adult English class, there's a section about conspiracy theories - including the one about the first landing on the moon! I'll give the proof next post.

[communitykat 0]

Well, this is interesting. I never saw that footage before. It is compelling...makes me think that it could be fake. However, we obviously have made great strides in space. If we had not made it to the moon then we would not have had the successes that come after that fact. My grandfather actually worked on this mission. According to my aunts and uncles he was pretty aloof about it. He did not even tell them that he was working on the mission until it was complete. When my aunts and uncles asked why he did not tell them or take them to the launch, he replied, "I didn't think that you would be interested." Did he really think that? I don't know. He traveled around a lot, so I wouldn't be surprised if he had some other family where he was working. My vote: it was real, largely because of the progress we have made so far.

[Watermonkey 0]

It was faked! But it really happened! Wrap your minds around that for a minute while I explain. This is just a theory, mind you:When the Americans landed on the moon They encountered something there they didn't expect and when Niel and Co. radioed back to Houston something about Santa or Santa's sleigh or whatever, some of it got through before NASA pulled the live feed plug. There were "hostiles" up there and they were taking an aggressive posture toward the astronauts which wrecked the whole thing and contaminated the film they started to take. So with the film wrecked and the gov's insistence on non-disclosure regarding ETs, they were forced to supplement the original film with footage shot on a sound stage in NV. Not perfect, but it was easier to lie then to tell the truth, for them anyway. Plausible?Oh, one more thing: We know they were there because they left a mirror for us to hit with lasers as an instrument to use to measure the orbit to within mm accuracy.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Watermonkey (see edit history)

[saga 0]

I believe its fake. For obvious reason, during the cold war they dont want to get behind with the socialist Russia becuase if they do then a lot of countries might consider joining the socialist block. And US as an capitalist country that would be a tragedy. So they faked the moon landing to look good on the world and to send a message that they are much more advance because they follow the capitalist way. Ever wonder why Russia didnt dare to follow? One good reason is its hard back then. Hell its impossible back then with the limited technology.

 

Ive seen once in natinal geographic or was it discovry channel that they discussed this matter. Thier argument about the moon landing (all of the moon landing is pretty strong). If I remember it correctly here are some of it.

 

Lighting, There were many instances where in the pictures of moon landing or any picture which it shows that an astraunot (how do u spell it?) is on the moon there were many light references. Some NASA picture shows a rock on the ground on the moon casted two shadows when in fact there should be only one source of light the earth. THere is no street lamp in the moon.

 

the pictures - some pictures shows an astronot with its back on the earth (source of light) but its visor shows a perfect reflection of a fellow astronot. In photography that shouldnt be the case since you are againts the source of light. This picture in NASAs website tells it all. As you can see the astronot is climbing down the ladder and you may notice that the shadow casted is to the left which suggest that this astronot is should be very dim or almost black if taken a picture since he is in the shadow of the space craft. And the most unbeliavble thing about the picture is you can see the details of some hidden corners of the space craft when there should be no light. Even with a camera with a flash this should not be as clear as it is shown. Its a few feet away from whoever took the picture. But in this picture you can see the details of the suit of this guy.

 

It really is not surprising that US Government would lie. Remember Iraq?

[bhavesh 0]

Hmm it was faked!, but i think can be really happened! Well, i think the flag in the pics. was the mistake made by that person. This makes me think that it could be fake. However, in space wind may blow less then a less.And in that condition flag will not move in air as in space there is no air at all.So, it will lead to a very low density in the space and negligible air resistance,and things are got weightless. So, it is the fake one.

[keego 0]

i never really noticed.. and didn't really care up until recently so i went to search for this posti can't say its fake or real because how would someone like me ever know unless NASA admits it themselves that it was fake.But if you look it up on google or anywhere else there is a video of why it is proven fake..When you watch the video.. you see the astronauts pretend to make it seem like they were gettin further and further from the earth and closer to the moon.. the funny thing is you can actually see someones hand accidentally moving some sort of image.. and swapping it around to create an illusion infront of the camera so that it looks like they are really moving closer to the moon.There were articles and arguments saying that the astronauts couldn't accomplish it and so all they did was orbit the earth for awhile and the came back claiming they landed on the moon. And that everything was filmed in a studio. Apparently there is a certain ray that you cannot go through .. so how on earth would you reach the moon if you can't even get out of the ray that is surrounding earth.more importantly there was a video with a guy. ( forgot his name) visiting all the astronauts asking them to swear on the bible that they have landed on the moon.. if its true then how come only one person did it? and he only did it after being asked so many times. one of the astronaut also punched that guy in the face. If its true everyone would've been nice and straightforward.. if it was me i'd swear on the bible straight away cause what is there to be afraid of if i really did land on the moon TRUE?but then when you ask them all the questions they will have an explanation for everything. like the whole rod in the flag to make it stay up.. i seriously cannot tell anymore and don't believe in much anymore.. but myself personally is leaning towards NO, they did not land on the moon.not totally saying its fake. but im starting to believe it is , guess thats for everyone to decide .. believe whatever you want to believe.

[iGuest 3]

Fake or realFirst Moon Landing Is A Fake?

I watched the moon landing in 1969. I didn't believe it was real then and I don't believe it is real now, Just like I don't believe there had to be a 3rd world war because there were weapons of mass distruction and I don't believe Osam Ben Laden was the one who had anything to do with the explosion of the twin towers in New York. America is a very rich country and they want to keep it that way and I believe they will resort to a lot of things to make sure no one stops them from getting richer  or being the most powerful  on earth  by hiding things and espionage or insider trading on the stock markets and much more. They could do a lot to make a safer environment, cars that don't need gas, feeding the poor people of the world,  but, you only hear about how much money they give out or spend on the military, on weapons of war, on invading other countries and on bailing criminals out who cheated on the stock market and insider trading and raising prices for the oil and kicking poor people out of their homes because they lost all their income and can't pay their mortgages. A rich country like America could pay off the debt of all poor people rather than making war. The trillions of dollars spent on war alone could feed every man, woman and child in America. Who are the big wigs in washington trying to kid.

[networker 0]

I don't think it was faked.There might have been a few 'glitches' onthe live tape mostly because of editing,but I see no benefit in them having faked it.Don't forget,people come up with these conspiracy theoriesto sell books,magazines,dvd's etc.Theres money in controversy.

Edited January 2, 2009 by networker (see edit history)

[Echo_of_thunder 1]

I don't think it was faked.There might have been a few 'glitches' on
the live tape mostly because of editing,
but I see no benefit in them having faked it.
Don't forget,people come up with these conspiracy theories
to sell books,magazines,dvd's etc.
Theres money in controversy.

I have to agree. ever since that movie and I forget the name came out where the faked it on some hollywood back lot there has always been talk of this. Honestly it would be stupid to have faked it. also if they had, that was 40years ago. don't you think there would have been a leak of it by now? I mean with how the press goes after everything and the internet. Yes it was real. there will alwats be some conspiracy therories on this just like with JFK, The Hindenburg and Elvis.

[Baniboy 3]

Well, although I believe US goverment will do anything to not lose it's reputation, I don't think it's fake.

I found an explanation for the flag thing here: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/#
The video you linked is fake, I do a lot of video editing and that video has been taken by a modern camera, then by editing, made to look old.
Oh and I watched the original version of armstrong stepping on earth, he doesn't hit as hard as in this video so at least that should make enough to prove this is fake.

The reason the flag was standing up in right position is that there was a metal bar in top of it. It looks kinda like wind blows in there but it's really because one of the men shaked the flag while he was setting it up. In moon there's no air so the flag doesn't have to push air away to have space to move AND because of low gravity level the flag isn't being pulled down like in earth. So when it starts once it takes longer to stop than here in earth and it looks like they've got "wind out there.

[triplebtalk 0]

Obviously that was fake and the moon landing was very real. America could not of faked it, there was nothing to gain and the space race had already been won by the USSR with Yuri Gagarin being the first man in space...

[y4nzi 0]

I'd heard about all those conspiracy theories but Honestly I don't think it was faked. The US had nothing to gain by faking it and there are perfectly logical explanations for all those "theories" and "reasons" why the video looked fake.If it really was faked there must have been some leak of official documents or something related by now, in this age its really difficult to hide anything with the media the way it is.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

They did one test to see if the pictures were doctored on the show Mythbusters.They came up with the conclusion that they *could* be real, or may not be.As to what I personally believe....I really do not know. I just find it very...Weird, that they "can" get a huge rocket all the way to the moon, land it, and bring it all the way back. Think about how much gas that must use. How do they have enough to get all the way back?I'm not saying that it is not true...But really it's something I have a hard time believing.Then again, there are many other things I never thought were real until I saw them(like robots that can LEARN and stuff).

[IamAg 0]

On February 15, 2001 the FOX television network aired a program titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon? This program showed alleged evidence that NASA faked the moon landings. This hoax theory has been around for several years, but this is the first time it has been presented to such a wide audience. Since this Website, Rocket and Space Technology, is dedicated to the men and women who brought the moon landings to fruition, I feel the time is right for me to speak out on this topic.
This TV program capitalizes on America's fixation with government conspiracies by sensationalizing the notion that NASA perpetrated a multi-billion dollar hoax on the world. In my opinion, the FOX network acted irresponsibly by airing this program. What they produced is a TV show filled with sloppy research, scientific inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. To support such an absurd theory and to cast doubt in the minds of the American public is an insult to the courage of the astronauts and the brilliance of the engineers who worked to achieve mankind's greatest technological feat. FOX is apparently only concerned with ratings while exhibiting total disregard for the integrity of America's true heroes.

Some of the most prominent advocates of the hoax theory are Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went To The Moon, Ralph Rene, author of NASA Mooned America, David Percy and Mary Bennett, co-authors of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers and, more recently, Bart Sibrel, producer of A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon. These people, and other hoax advocates, usually point to alleged anomalies in the Apollo photo and video record as evidence of their claims. The FOX program featured many of these claims while providing very little refuting evidence or testimony. Below are my comments refuting both the evidence presented in the TV program and many other common hoax allegations. I invite you to draw your own conclusions, but I suspect you will find the facts speak for themselves.

The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.

Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017% (1 in 60,000). The source of this information appears to be a report prepared by the Rocketdyne company in the late 1950s. This assessment was, of course, based on understanding and technology existing at the time of the report. As tremendous resources were poured into the problem over the next decade, the reliability studies improved dramatically.

During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.

Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.

This is the claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. Although I am unfamiliar with the source of this information, Mr. Rene's assertion is clear; the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a "defect" and a "major technical problem". None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions with amazing success.

The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.

Television pictures of the Apollo 11 landing were sent directly to Earth from the surface of the Moon using the Lunar Module's antenna and power supply. This placed a restriction on the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted. Apollo 11 was thereby limited to using a black-and-white, slow-scan TV camera with a scan rate of 10 frames-per-second at 320 lines-per-frame. In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 30 frames-per-second at 525 lines-per-frame. The pictures transmitted from the Moon were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a vidicon camera was pointed at the screen and the pictures were scanned at the EIA standard. A number of peculiar image artifacts were seen on the images. One set of artifacts was produced by sunlight reflecting off the astronauts and the LM onto the TV camera's lens. These reflections produced the ghostly effects perceived by the public. Other prominent artifacts were the result of spots burnt into the monitor screens from which the optical conversions were produced.

Apollo 11 was only a first step in what was to be increasingly ambitious missions, thus it was lacking in some capabilities. Among these was the ability to transmit high-quality TV pictures. Later missions, starting with Apollo 12, had enough time in the schedule to permit the astronauts to erect large freestanding dish antennae. This increased the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted, thus allowing complex color TV pictures to be sent directly to Earth.

There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures.

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example [see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour.

The astronauts should have seen a beautiful star-filled sky above them, yet they never mention it.

Even though there was a black sky above them, the astronauts still had to contend with the glare of a brightly lit lunar surface. The bright landscape prevented the astronauts' eyes from becoming dark adapted, thus making it nearly impossible to see faint stars. It would be like trying to see stars at night on Earth while someone is shining a flashlight directly into your eyes. Some astronauts reported that, while inside the LM, they could see stars through the upper rendezvous window. Also, astronaut Gene Cernan said that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside.

There are several photographs of objects that are in shadows, yet they appear lighted and with surprising detail. Objects located in shadows should appear totally black.

The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. At the Earth-Sun distance, maximum solar illumination is about 10,000 lumens per square foot; however, if the Sun is not directly overhead its rays will strike the surface obliquely. This decreases the intensity of sunlight per unit area. A typical Sun elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, thus the illumination per square foot was about 3,400 lumens. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photographs.

In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts appear illuminated, while the shadow side of rocks appear totally black.

This Apollo 17 photograph [see photo] is a good example of the above hoax claim. The explanation is apparent from the photo itself. Look at the astronaut's feet and you will see that the shadow in this area is just as dark as that of the foreground rocks. The lunar surface acts as a reflector to illuminate the shadow side of the astronaut. At the elevation of the astronaut's feet, and the foreground rocks, this reflector surface is mostly covered by the adjacent shadows. However, at the elevation of the astronaut's head and torso, the shadows cover a much smaller percentage of the surface. For example, on a flat surface the angular distance from horizon to horizon is 180 degrees. At an elevation of five feet, a one-foot wide shadow subtends an angle of 11.4 degrees, or only 6% of the distance from horizon to horizon. At two inches above the ground, this shadow subtends an angle of 143 degrees, or nearly 80% of the surface. Furthermore, the rocks are darker and less reflective than the astronaut's white space suit.

Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source, thus the photos are fakes.

Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here.

This photograph [see photo], taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film. In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.

Apollo 11 footage shows the astronauts' shadows increasing and decreasing in length as they move about. This is because they are in close proximity to a large artificial light source that causes their shadows to change as they move toward or away from the light.

This claim comes from David Percy, who displays this image [see photo] on his Web site. A brief examination reveals that Percy's explanation cannot possibly account for the shadows. If the shadows were produced as described, then the closer an astronaut is to the light source, the shorter his shadow will be, which is just the opposite of what we see. Percy claims ground slope cannot explain the shadows because the terrain is essentially flat. On a large scale the Apollo 11 site was essentially flat, however there were local undulations in the ground surface. Since we are looking at a two-dimensional image we cannot see the slope of the ground, but we can infer it from the shadows. It appears the ground is sloping upward and away from left astronaut either to the top-left, the bottom-right, or a combination of both. Remember, shadows cast on a downward slope are lengthened, while those cast on an upward slope are shortened. It seems that a change in ground slope is the only feasible explanation for the shadows we see.

Many Apollo photographs show lighting "hot spots", as well as a darkening of the surface toward the horizon. Sunlight should not produce hot spots, nor should the surface fade in an airless environment.

The "hot spots" are the result of the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source. There are many reasons for this, but it is mostly due to countless tiny glass spheres found in the lunar soil, and formed by meteorite impacts. When you see a photo taken "down sun", away from the Sun, you see what looks like a spotlight around the shadow's head. This is because the light is strongly reflected back toward the Sun, so the soil around the head of the shadow looks very bright. This phenomenon also explains why the surface fades so drastically toward the horizon. It is brightest near the foreground due to sunlight being preferentially reflected back toward the camera. Farther away, the sunlight is preferentially reflected away from the camera, making the ground look dark. This phenomenon can also be observed in wet grass on Earth, as spherical water droplets act like the glass spheres. The technical term for this phenomenon is Heiligenschein, and is the result of light refraction, reflection, and diffraction on the surface of and inside the glass spheres and/or water droplets. This Apollo 11 photo is very good example [see photo] of Heiligenschein.

Some Apollo photographs show mysterious lights in the shadowy background that appear to be studio spotlights.

The hoax advocates usually reference this photograph [see photo] because the lights bare a vague resemblance to studio spotlights, however there are many photographs, such as this one [see photo], where the same lights seem to contradict this hoax claim. There is no mystery as to the origin of these lights; they are lens flares. A lens flare is an image of the Sun reflecting back and forth between the lens elements of the camera. If you examine the photographs in which lens flares are found you will notice they all have a couple things in common. First, they are all taken with the camera pointing in the general direction of the Sun and, secondly, if you were to draw a line from the center of the photograph through the flares (they usually occur in pairs), the line will point in the direction of the Sun, which lies just outside the frame.

Only two men walked on the Moon during each Apollo mission, yet there are photos in which the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

The Apollo astronauts carried cameras that were attached to the front of their spacesuits. In this Apollo 12 photograph of astronaut Alan Bean [see photo], taken by Pete Conrad, one can clearly see Bean's camera mounted to his chest. The astronauts aimed and operated the cameras while they remained in this mounting. If you look closely at Conrad's reflection in Bean's visor, you can see Conrad's camera, which he is operating with his right hand.

Dont you think NASA would have though of this if they DID fake it?

Notice from truefusion:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm