NASA lost moonlanding movies

[The fizu]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/one-giant-blunder-for-mankind-how-nasa-lost-moon-pictures/2006/08/04/1154198328978.html

By my sceptic (Italian) opinion this fit to the NASA like the Parmigiano on the Maccheroni…:giggler:
I was recently seeing a Discovery’s movie where several pictures of the “1st man on the moon” were analysed and judged like impossibles.
I may repeat some old and well knew theories of conspiracy but I believe that not all of you know this.
1st evidence : shadows
http://www.astrocentral.co.uk/hoaxshadow.jpg
in this picture the shadows has 2 different sources , look at the rocks and the module.


2nd evidence : a clean burst
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/graphics/blast_crater1.jpg
in several pictures we can see a totally clean reactor, no craters on the moon, no evidences of the combustion, nowhere. And is strange evaluating the power of the motor.


3rd evidence : the little cross on the pictures
http://www.def-logic.com/articles/crosshair2.gif
as we can see the cross on the left is UNDER the module...
is pretty impossible evaluating that the crosses are on the lens of the camera... photoshop is older than you can think!

Last and without pictures: a lot of scientists stated that is impossible to reach the moon without being killed by the radiations, 180 cm of screen are ALSO NOW necessary to protect the guys in the space...(where are this 180 cm screen on the shuttle?)

there is also a few other theories but really not so hard,
no stars on the pictures, nowhere...
and the fact that the cameras were mounted on the chest of the astronauts and the pictures are all focused and perfectly ranged.

There is full of pictures and websites where you can find more explainations, and it was not in my intention to post many evidences as possible.

We really landed on the moon?
What do you think about the pictures and the conspiracy theory?
Is it possible to loose the original movie of the moon landing...or...?
Anyway we cannot have an answer from the NASA movie... :clap:

[Benjamin]

First picture, they could have easyly air brushed the lander into the back ground... that doesn't prove anything. Two seperate pictures taken when they landed on the moon put together to make it more interesting.

Same could go for the 3rd. It may be an image dressed to look more interesting by combineing a couple together, that could explain for the sloppyness, but doesn't acturly hold water for "evidence" that the moonlanding was fake.

I think there are a few things that are a bit "dodgy" though I must admit. I put it down to polishing up what they had to make it look more spectacular.

When all the arrows are pointing towards the "yes we did land on the moon" and when a few pictures could rather loosly say otherwise, I don't think thats enough for me to go up to Buzz Aldrain, call him a lier and get punched in the face.

Yes I think we landed on the moon.

[Alliance]

I still dont understand why people cant belive we straped a few people on a huge rocket aimed for the moon. expecialy now, when we can bombs that can take out a specific room, planes so smart they dont even need a pilot, and enough proof and whatnot to shoot every unbeliver out the closest ion canon into oblivion.

[The fizu]

I can believe that we joined the moon, not with Armstrong and Co. ...
Like Gagarin were not the first man in the space...

why?
The big rockets with the stars and stripes flag, or the red one, were giants sponsors during the cold war.
1 week before the moon mission, the module (rover) was still not ready and the scientists didn't give the ok for the mission... then a rocket left the Earth, maybe with men, maybe empty...
If it was full of men, so they probably died in the mission and the "public american heroes" are a nice cover (like Gagarin) , if it was empty...np...

i am not a conspiracy supporter, but i can accept the theory without too much problems...
my opinion is: "it can be", and for the rest i believe in what i see.
The conspiracy theory is acceptable withouit too many efforts, and this is another evidence of the fact that there is something wrong in the official history.

[Moe]

Uh... dude, this has been debunked so many times it's not funny. The moon landings were real. This whole "the moon landings were fake look at the shadows!!111" thing is a hoax. All the claims that it was fake are based on errors and ignorance.

For example:


in this picture the shadows has 2 different sources , look at the rocks and the module.

Yeah, uhm... there are two major sources of light in the sky over the moon. One of them is the sun, the other one is a largish blue planet which happens to be the one you're currently sitting on.


3rd evidence : the little cross on the pictures

The cross hairs come from a glass plate inside the camera, between lense and film, which has those crosshairs painted on in black. If you take a picture of a really bright, white object, the light is going to shine through that due to over-exposure of the film, rendering them invisible, thus making it appear as if they were "behind" the object.



Last and without pictures: a lot of scientists stated that is impossible to reach the moon without being killed by the radiations,

Those "scientists" are wrong, and I'd like to see a link actually backing that up.




In fact, I'm too lazy to debunk this stuff myself, so just go read this (http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/).

[LynX]

First pic: another planet could be reflecting light, hence the two light sources. Venus?

Second pic: lower gravity, lower thrust required for vertical touchdown. The thruster wouldn't be on a constant burn on descent, unlike space shuttles.

Third pic: easily accomplished with a image editing program.


The other claims like this
a lot of scientists stated that is impossible to reach the moon without being killed by the radiations, 180 cm of screen are ALSO NOW necessary to protect the guys in the space : please provide links to credible sources.

And if it was a conspiracy, who even gives a damn now anyway? :p


Edit: GAH, your post wasn't there when i was typing, Moe. :(

[Moe]

Actually, Lynx, check my post for an explanation of the third pic.

[deathwings]

Last and without pictures: a lot of scientists stated that is impossible to reach the moon without being killed by the radiations,
You're talking about the Van Allen Belt, but even Van Allen himself has said multiple times that these claims are rediculous. the whole "fake moon landing" theory doesnt hold any ground.


Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. Van Allen himself, now deceased (August 9, 2006), dismissed these ideas. In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.

[Ammon Ra]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4791883.stm

considering what is being said in there, and that it all makes sense, i.e. it IS 35 years ago, all the people who took care of all the media Have retired and/or passed away.

[Riess]

I think you all should watch this (http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/dark_side_of_the_moon.htm). (>50 minutes of documentary, and I must say it opened my eyes about the moon landing issue as well as many other things.)

[aerziel]

well I for one think there will be more harm than good trying to say that moon landings never existed

[The fizu]

Hi Moe!


Yeah, uhm... there are two major sources of light in the sky over the moon. One of them is the sun, the other one is a largish blue planet which happens to be the one you're currently sitting on.

shall we open a physic book to explain that what you are stating is just wrong?
in the same manner we should have 2 shadows when we have sun and moon in the sky?
and all the explaination on the module reflections of the lights are just wrong.

Is not the first time that i open a site ,and way before a book, that discuss several conspiracies... i just find that this one is pretty easy to accept, too much...
We (they) was in the end of the '60 and they just gift this nice show without evaluating the consequences of further private analysis.
A similar misytake would be never done in our times... but in the '60 is possible.
I am not jumping on the chariot of the skeptics for the first time, i usually try to know as much as possible and have my own idea.
I can agree on the fact of the scientists but some doubts still remain in my mind, and for me is the clearer evidence of something wrong.

You would grant for the pictures?
The pictures and the non more available movie are the only evidences of THIS moon trip.
Can you really say that these evidences can get off any doubt?
not me, and is why i can give some credit to the conspiracy theory.
Why so many incoherencies?
Why so many strange stuff in the pictures?

and how i said i didn't wanted to post a lot of pictures, but for example regarding the crosshairs there is more pictures and more clear, as for the shadows, as for the reactors...

oh obviously for every picture accused to be fake there is also a logic explaination... logic...because the phisic one like


Second pic: lower gravity, lower thrust required for vertical touchdown. The thruster wouldn't be on a constant burn on descent, unlike space shuttles.

are just...uuuuuuuhm.... so you think that the landing motor did not burn ANY part of the nozzle?... come on...

and....
oh ok everybody is watching the Riess movie...

l8r...

[Ammon Ra]

Last and without pictures: a lot of scientists stated that is impossible to reach the moon without being killed by the radiations, 180 cm of screen are ALSO NOW necessary to protect the guys in the space...(where are this 180 cm screen on the shuttle?)
Erm...180cm thick? And of what material? And these are the same 'scientists' that later claimed the landings to be fake?

I really want to see where you got that comment from, as it's just...well, its rubish.

[The fizu]

actually is from this Discovery's movie called "Hystory of space trips", but is translated from the italian...
Don't you know that the "F18 satellite killer" pilots cannot stay for long time near the orbital strip? or they will die...
sun radiations are strong dude, and for some kind of these radiations there is no screen possible.
180 cm thick is not so much, nuclear reactors have a minimum of 300 cm of concrete and Pb.

[Hyperian]

Just so you know we have reflectors placed on the moon so we can send laser beams to the moon and have it bonce back to measure distance between earth and moon.

it shows moon is slowing moving away.

i guess laser reflectors are natrually occuring objects on the moon XD

[The fizu]

i guess laser reflectors are natrually occuring objects on the moon XD
gold...

but the conspiracy talk about the old official first trip. not the other real trips that we have done.

[Ammon Ra]

yeah, solar radiation is dangerous, but earth's magnetic field deflects all the ionized radiation leaving electromagnetic radiation. also if what you say is true, how did Valeri Polyakov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight_records)stay in the mir lab for over a year?

Also, what's an orbital strip?
Also, "F18 satellite killer" gives me this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=F18+satellite+killer) in wikipedia, and this (http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GEUA,GEUA:2006-31,GEUA:en&q=F18+satellite+killer) in google.

edit: :wtf2: GOLD? you HAVE seen un-refined, un-processed gold nuggets, yes? Gold doesn't come in ignots out of the ground. :p

[Moe]

Fizu, the problem is this. All of those conspiracy theorists have NO IDEA ABOUT SPACEFLIGHT OR EXTRATERRESTRIAL CONDITIONS. Meaning that they are all talking out of their ass. They see something they cannot explain, so therefore it must be fake. Those guys are not physicists, they are not astronoms, most of them don't know squat about what it's like on the moon and how that will affect pictures. They assume things without double-checking them first, and then they draw a false conclusion from that.
The thing is that certain people actually make money from this by suckering people into buying their crazy books and DVDs that are filled with nothing but crap. They will twist everything out of context to appeal to the uninformed majority of people in order to increase sales. And those are the ones who keep getting interviewed and quoted by conspiracy sites.

All of those arguments are scientific bullshit. Especially the light ones. You can trust me on that one. I know lights. I deal with how light is reflected and absorbed and how it travels, a lot. And I'm telling you that those shadows and lights are exactly as they should be.

[The fizu]

sorry ammon,
i mean orbital strip the end of our atmosphere and the start of the ...orbital strip
an FA18 satellite killer is a '90 project of a fighter plane done to destroy orbital satellites with a special missile that need to be launched from a very high altitude, near our orbit... a lot of these pilots done a quasi orbital flight.

[Moe]

gold...

Uhm... the reflector is perfectly plane and about 1m in diameter. Gold is usually not shaped like that, so the laser would scatter in crazy ways. It's a mirror, all right.

[oneredpanther]

This stuff makes me so angry.

Why so many incoherencies?
Why so many strange stuff in the pictures?
Like Moe said - the Moon is a strange place. Anything you know about photography and light on the earth doesn't necessarily hold true on the moon.

Besides, there is far more compelling evidence to debunk the hoaxers. That is this: Do you really think that out of the tens of thousands of people that worked on the moon landings that in sixty years not ONE single person has come forward to say it was a hoax despite the fact that such evidence would make them multi millionaires? The only people that have are crackpot hippies from Kentucky.

Some of you people need a good dose of reality and to pull your conspiracy-fantasy-addled heads out of your arses. It's you that's ignorant, not the rest of us.

[The fizu]

oh...it's a mirror?
finally is clear why it took so long to download WA1.5 patch...

@Oneredpanther...there is no reason to call ignorant who think different stuff from you...

[Captain Pierce]

AFAIK, the anti-satellite missile tests were done by the Air Force, and thereby used an F-15 fighter rather than a Navy or Marine F/A-18. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/almv.htm So right there, anybody who's talking about F/A-18 pilots having problems in these tests is, as Moe so aptly puts it, talking out of their ass. ;) Not to mention that the program was cancelled in 1988, rather than taking place in the 90's as you're telling us...


but the conspiracy talk about the old official first trip. not the other real trips that we have done.

Wait, so you're saying that the Apollo landings were fake, but that there have been real ones since? :umm: After spending billions of dollars to publicly fake moon landings, that we secretly spent billions more to secretly do it for real?

[The fizu]

and why not?

[Benjamin]

Wait, so you're saying that the Apollo landings were fake, but that there have been real ones since? After spending billions of dollars to publicly fake moon landings, that we secretly spent billions more to secretly do it for real?

I don't see how that is confusing. First off, I'm not saying that they were fake, far from it. The US wanted to get to the moon and they wanted to beat the Russians in doing so. I suppose looking at it from a conspirisy nut, oh um... theorists point of view...

...If they could have done it for real they would have, but were cutting it thin to do it propperly. Therefore they were forced to make a fake landing to make it appear that the US won the Moon race. After they would have to do it for real... they do want to go to the moon after all, plus with all the space activity going on with russia they would have to do it for real anyways.

I don't think they were fake, but to look at it objectivly, then that idea is not inconseavable, there is just no physical evidence that holds water for them being an elaberate hoax.

Personaly I think people who think the landings were faked at nuts (no offence Fizu :D) but with the "they faked it to beat the Russians" argument I can see where they're going with it...... but no, not realy mate I think you're nuts.

Edit: hang on wait... where did the "secretly spent billions more to secretly do it for real" come in?

[Siguld_001]

I really doubt that in the 60's special effects were up to the standards where they could genuinley fool scientists and other experts for such a long time

[LordZon]

Italy is jealous the only thing they've done since Rome, is support Hitler and give us the wonderful gift of the Mafia.

Yes, we have been to the moon. And don't start this van Allen belt radiation nonsense either.

[The fizu]

Italy is jealous the only thing they've done since Rome, is support Hitler and give us the wonderful gift of the Mafia.

omg?

OMG?

A MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD !!!!!!!!!!!!
wth

at least the pizza...moron

[willMurderface]

Italy is jealous the only thing they've done since Rome, is support Hitler and give us the wonderful gift of the Mafia.

Yes, we have been to the moon. And don't start this van Allen belt radiation nonsense either.

ouch.
also, owned.

[SquidDNA]

Oh please, not more of this crap.

fizu, it'd be different if you were willing to actually respond to the effort people are putting into this instead of making sarcastic jokes.

Also, to others, specifically lordzon, nation bashing is basically racism and we won't tolerate it for long.