Alright, I'm putting a poll up, asking this question because you're all intelligent and love to call shinannigans when you see it just as much as I do. I wanna know what everyone thinks.

 

Personally, I think it was all a lie. I'd love to hear about this from an older person's perspective. I grew up being told that the USA was the first to land on the moon and saw the typical "that's one small step for man" bs repeated on tv. It was the 60s so I guess it wouldn't have been easy to spread evidence around so easily - it's not like they had youtube and blogs.

 

Were there conspiracy theorists at the time who called bs on this? Or were we all just too happy about the accomplishment at the time?

 

If you haven't seen the evidence, please look it up before voting. There is plenty of info online.

Thanks. Please don't vote until you see the evidence. I'll post some tomorrow so hold off.

In my opinion we did land.  Here's a good website I found awhile ago that explains the conspiracies and answers to them. 

 

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

 

The conspiracy theories that I've read are pretty weak, mostly because the people who write them do not have complete scientific expertise on the subject they are discussing.  What I mean is they are valid questions to ask, but there are facts and reasons for everything that can answer these questions.  IMO, it's similar to the world trade center steel conspiracy theory.  People who do not have an architectural or engineering degree have no right to talk when after taking a intro to structures class, that conspiracy falls flat on its face.

Edit: Posted the Fox video but nevermind. Just looked at that site, it explains everything pretty well. Thanks for the link.

 

The conspiracy theories that I've read are pretty weak, mostly because the people who write them do not have complete scientific expertise on the subject they are discussing. What I mean is they are valid questions to ask, but there are facts and reasons for everything that can answer these questions. IMO, it's similar to the world trade center steel conspiracy theory. People who do not have an architectural or engineering degree have no right to talk when after taking a intro to structures class, that conspiracy falls flat on its face.

 

Agreed. The evidence put forth by fox did seem legit and you would expect a tv station to do a little research first. I guess I didn't look deep enough into it.

 

Conspiracy theorists need to look at evidence given by experts - they're the ones who would know best. It's strange though, that there are so many scholars who are researching 9/11 contending that it is  a conspiracy. They're putting their credibility on the line when it's already been debunked and considered ridiculous.

 

Still, we all know the sinking of the titanic was a hoax:

 

I'll begin to debunk some parts of this video [That was removed!], although a lot of it is using common sense and can be explained by things we see in life everyday.

 

Photo expert.  Remember this is TV drama, they are clearly clipping parts of the interview to make him appear as though he doesn't believe there was a moon landing when in fact if you watch closely his attitudes are somewhat neutral.  They hand him a photo that he can't explain.  So what, I can't explain everything I see in photos either.  He also mentions that the cameras are indeed hard to use, which is absolutely true.  But remember that NASA actually cropped the photo and lightened them to present to the public.  The astronauts never had to use view finders, simply point the camera somewhat in the correct direction and hit the shutter.  The originals are actually terrible looking if you do some searching on the net.  The public wanted to see good images, just like we choose to see decent exposures here on u/o.

 

Shadows.  This conspiracy I'll prove false on my own.  This is a matter of surface terrain and visual perspective.  We all know that terrain and physical structures manipulate shadows.  You can actually see in the video that the terrain slightly dips where the rock is in the background.  Because of perspective, the shadow also appears more shallow.  It's merely a visual effect of perspective and terrain.  Shadows are technically all 5 o'clock in this video, but if there is a change in elevation, there will be distortion to the shadows.  The video fails to consider this.  Next time you are in a park with some dynamic terrain and lots of trees, take note of this and you will see some good examples.

 

Astronaut Illumination.  I'll debunk this on my own too based on experience using lighting systems in photorealistic 3d modeling.  The only thing that should be cast in complete shadow is the ground, simply because it's low, somewhat flat, and blocked by the spacecraft.  The astronauts are however tall 6' foot bodies.  They are actually only blocked from direct sunlight, but not indirect sunlight.  Light is also bouncing off the ground outside the shadow, and back up onto them.  Next time it's really sunny out, walk near the exit of a building, but don't go outside, stand inside where it's dark but look at the concrete.  If it's covered in snow, and bright and sunny, it's probably very bright and you squint.  Yet you are inside a dark building.  That's light bouncing off the pavement and up onto you.  Same goes for the spacecraft, and it's very reflective.  It's interesting that when I look at the saucepan on my stove, the bottom of it is most illuminated, yet the only thing on in my apartment is the overhead kitchen light!  How could that be, wouldn't the top be illuminated the most?  Light is bouncing, the curved edge  at the bottom of the saucepan is receiving reflections of light from my almond colored stovetop.  But there's also some photo editing imagery at play here you see in some of the photos.  See "photo expert part"

 

I've watched up to 4:00 minutes, but now I have to get some sleep.  I'll watch the rest tomorrow.

 

 

EDIT!  Damnit david, I spend a whole bunch of time composing this and you pull the video!  put it back up!

I had no idea intelligent adults still don't believe we landed on the moon.....

 

Kind of scary.

Laaawd you people born in the 80's!  What drugs were your parents on while you were in the womb?  ::)

If I read it on the interwebs or wikipedia, it MUST be true!

Great movie!

 

 

Capricorn One (1978)

 

Classic conspiracy tale about the first manned mission to Mars. All appears to be going well until the astronauts are pulled off the ship just before launch by shadowy government types and whisked off to a film studio in the desert. It transpires that the space vehicle has a major defect which NASA just daren't admit. At the studio, over a course of months, the astronauts are forced to act out the journey and the landing to trick the world into believing they have made the trip. Meanwhile, a Journalist (played by Gould) is getting suspicious and every clue he uncovers seems to result in an attempt on his life! The astronauts are just about to splashdown when a further twist to the tale occurs, leaving them with no choice but to try and escape... Written by MT

 

When the head of NASA's manned Mars missions discovers that the capsule meant to carry the astronauts will suffer a catastrophic failure, he forces the three astronauts to participate in a hoax by broadcasting their 'Mission' from a studio built at a now abandoned air force base. Over the many months of the mission, the astronauts send broadcasts to Earth on their progress and all goes well until their space capsule burns up on re-entry. They soon realize that the only way for the hoax to be maintained is for them to die and they make a desperate attempt to escape their captors. Throughout this period, an investigative reporter gets wind of the fact that something is amiss with man's first mission to Mars and slowly puts together the pieces of the mystery. Written by garykmcd

 

Charles Brubaker is the astronaut leading NASA's first manned mission to Mars. Seconds before the launch, the entire team is pulled from the capsule and the rocket leaves earth unmanned much to Brubaker's anger. The head of the programme explains that the life support system was faulty and that NASA can't afford the publicity of a scratched mission. The plan is to fake the Mars landing and keep the astronauts at a remote base until the mission is over, but then investigative journalist Robert Caulfield starts to suspect something. Written by Col Needham {[email protected]}

 

Brolin, Waterston and Simpson play astronauts agreeing to spare the government embarrassment by faking their Mars landing after their spacecraft is unsafe for a manned takeoff. When mission controller Holbrook plots to kill them in a staged capsule fire, they try to expose the truth. Gould stars as a journalist determined to crack the conspiracy and Telly Savalas is an eccentric farmer coming to Gould's aid.

 

1973:

 

Neil Armstrong teaching a class at UC, saw him leaning against his classroom door in Old Chemistry.  Mentioned to my father during our "weekly" Sunday call* that I saw him, and he couldn't believe I didn't take the opportunity to ask him about the moon!

 

*For those of you born into the world of instant communication, long distance was cheaper on Sunday, and each Sunday I would call home person-to-person, have the operator ask for me, which would signal my parents to call me direct!

 

I long for the days when I didn't have to be in constant communication with everyone!

 

*For those of you born into the world of instant communication, long distance was cheaper on Sunday, and each Sunday I would call home person-to-person, have the operator ask for me, which would signal my parents to call me direct!

 

I long for the days when I didn't have to be in constant communication with everyone!

 

Oh gawd...I'm old  :|

Laaawd you people born in the 80's! What drugs were your parents on while you were in the womb? ::)

 

You're obnoxious.

I little while ago, a show was on History Channel (?) about the moon landing hoax...the main "expert" they interviewed who supports the hoax theory lived in a trailer in the sticks in Arizona or somehwere like that.

OK, I'll play along...

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUGRngAhBI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUGRngAhBI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I'm too young to remember this, but talk to people who were alive in the late 60s.  They lived through this stuff.  When the moon landing was televised, it wasn't aired at some convenient hour for everyone.  It was around 11 PM at night. 

You're obnoxious.

 

Watch yourself.  You're treading a very thin line.  Let this be a warning.  Now back to the topic at hand.

^Put a space-sock in it...BOTH OF YOU.

Watch yourself.  You're treading a very thin line.  Let this be a warning.  Now back to the topic at hand.

 

Applying for a job?

Watch yourself.  You're treading a very thin line.  Let this be a warning.  Now back to the topic at hand.

 

Applying for a job?

 

HUSH!  Before the HBIC smells this thread and we have a "picture"!  LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrMQrZopKqY

Not a picture, but point taken!  :o

I can't believe that I'm on a forum with people that believe this garbage. (Out of curiosity did anyone else see the episode of Mythbusters on this topic?)

I can't believe that I'm on a forum with people that believe this garbage. (Out of curiosity did anyone else see the episode of Mythbusters on this topic?)

Thank you for your wholly constructive and intelligent post. Further postings of this nature will be removed.

My apolgies if you feel that my post was unintelligent. I'll admit that it was unconstructive and will try to avoid further unconstructive posts of this type. (Though admittedly many of the Urbanbar posts are quite unconstructive.)

 

My point was that most of the people that I've encountered on this site have been intelligent, well educated, somewhat normal people and I'm surprised that a significant portion of you would buy into this conspiracy theory, or for that matter even consider it more than garbage. I believe that a little research would show that most of the supposed evidence of a coverup can be explained, and what little evidence remains seems to be outweighed by the evidence that the Apollo astronauts did in fact land on the moon.

Grumpy mentioned it, but "mythbusters" did a pretty extensive test of whether or not the moon landing could even be hoaxed. They tested the various conspiracy theories and the reasonings behind why people might have thought it was a hoax. They even went so far as to compare faked moonwalks in a studio compared to in a zero-g environment (conclusion: there isn't a way to exactly emulate walking in a zero g environment in a studio ). They pretty much debunked the theory that it was a hoax. It's a good episode, worth watching if it ever comes back on again.

 

Edit:

 

Of course, in the interest of equal time, I can also re-present this...which is a highly compelling argument advocating the whole thing was fake.

 

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

It must have been a hoax, since I recall my great-uncle from Canada (who would be well over 100 if he was still alive) saying it was, claiming, like many others at the time, that the astronauts “landed” in a desert somewhere. Then again, that was the same great-uncle who disliked his brother-in-law so intensely that he saw no need to ever visit him in Florida despite repeated invitations, convinced it was a land filled with nothing but “swamps and shacks.” Seriously, I remember the moon landing as the most hyped-up up story ever at the time (with endless re-creations of what it will look like when they finally land), that when the actual—very grainy—televised images were beamed into our living rooms they were such a letdown that ultimately no one even cared whether it was real or not!

That Neil Armstrong has remained so admirably low-profile in a mild-mannered Cincinnati suburb since the moon landing has fed this conspiracy theory.  He could, with few phone calls, be on every talk show tonight and have streets and schools named after him, but he's obviously above that. 

 

The video broadcast from the moon's surface in real time was real because it was video.  But the still photographs taken by the astronauts were shot on medium format color positive film -- the type of film that can be fogged by airport X-ray machines.  I've never heard an explanation as to how the film survived cosmic rays on the surface of the moon, because as I understand it they used a stock Hasselblad that had been modified with a motor drive, a big film magazine, a big button for their gloved hands, and had the focus, aperture, and shutter speeds locked down (a very easy exposure calculation that could be confidently preset, btw).  Neil and Buzz were on the surface of the moon for around 10 hours if I remember correctly so that film was being bombarded with all kinds of crap from the dark reaches of the universe.  The afore mentioned History Channel documentary showed the actual rolls of film being examined on a light table, and most of the shots were crooked and/or of nothing, as would be expected given the circumstances, but a few were truly amazing.  I had previously heard that a 38mm SWC had been used, but that show said it was a 60mm lens, which is a mild wide angle and probably better since the pesky sun threatened to flare out tons of shots.       

 

Also, the whole bit about the stars not being visible is photography 101.  The only time you can photograph stars during the day on the earth is during a solar eclipse, as was done in the late 1910's to prove Einstein's Theory of Relativity. 

Also, the whole bit about the stars not being visible is photography 101. The only time you can photograph stars during the day on the earth is during a solar eclipse, as was done in the late 1910's to prove Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

 

But it's way cooler and more authoritative to hear it from a great-uncle from Canada...

I still believe in Bigfoot and Candyman, I dare you to say Candyman 5 times in the mirror!

2 or 3 times a month I work at my uncle's place, and this one dude won't shut up about Moth Man.  Or the secret military installation and "men in black uniforms" near the Winton Woods Dam. 

Thread title manipulated, indicating inclusion of related subject matter.

Speaking of urban legends,  anyone know what really happened to David's old roommate?  Rumor has it he has not been seen in a long long time!

 

I still believe in Bigfoot and Candyman, I dare you to say Candyman 5 times in the mirror!

 

Don't forget about the Easter Bunny, Toothfairy, Mother Goose, the abominable snowman, The Great Pumpkin, Father Time, Santa Claus and the Lochness monster.

It seems to me you can 'prove' anything if you arrive at your conclusion before looking at the evidence.

 

I think a few folks need to reline their hats. :weird:

 

 

 

 

:wink:

That Neil Armstrong has remained so admirably low-profile in a mild-mannered Cincinnati suburb since the moon landing has fed this conspiracy theory. 

 

 

how's that? he's famously publicity shy. what better place to go to disappear?  :wink:

 

besides, buzz aldrin blabs enough for all the moon mission astronauts.

 

Hayward, the original link you posted went over each argument about the moon landing pretty well, and I'm voting we did really land on the the moon.

 

Still, we all know the sinking of the titanic was a hoax:

 

And BTW, the Titanic most certainly did sink. There's no argument against that. And it probably did sink in the dramatic fashion we saw in the James Cameron movie, splitting in half down to the keel. Still, that video you posted was hilarious.

 

Did you honestly think I thought the Titanic didn't sink? lol! Maddox was just making fun of conspiracy theory videos on youtube.

 

That bastard never writes anymore. He sold out after his book deal. I'm p!ssed.

ya gotta love him.... :laugh:

 

stanton freidman

leading cable tv ufologist

 

 

This particular experiment should put an end to the debate of landing on the moon for any reasonable person.

 

Science Experiments - Laser Ranging Retroreflector

The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment was deployed on Apollo 11, 14, and 15. It consists of a series of corner-cube reflectors, which are a special type of mirror with the property of always reflecting an incoming light beam back in the direction it came from. A similar device was also included on the Soviet Union's Lunakhod 2 spacecraft. These reflectors can be illuminated by laser beams aimed through large telescopes on Earth. The reflected laser beam is also observed with the telescope, providing a measurement of the round-trip distance between Earth and the Moon. This is the only Apollo experiment that is still returning data from the Moon. Many of these measurements have been made by McDonald Observatory in Texas. From 1969 to 1985, they were made on a part-time basis using the McDonald Observatory 107-inch telescope. Since 1985, these observations have been made using a dedicated 30-inch telescope. Additional measurements have been made by observatories in Hawaii, California, France, Australia, and Germany.

 

Laser beams are used because they remain tightly focused for large distances. Nevertheless, there is enough dispersion of the beam that it is about 7 kilometers in diameter when it reaches the Moon and 20 kilometers in diameter when it returns to Earth. Because of this very weak signal, observations are made for several hours at a time. By averaging the signal for this period, the distance to the Moon can be measured to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters (the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 385,000 kilometers).

 

The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment has produced many important measurements. These include an improved knowledge of the Moon's orbit and the rate at which the Moon is receding from Earth (currently 3.8 centimeters per year) and of variations in the rotation of the Moon. These variations in rotation are related to the distribution of mass inside the Moon and imply the existence of a small core, with a radius of less than 350 kilometers, somewhat smaller than the limits imposed by the passive seismic and magnetometer experiments. These measurements have also improved our knowledge of changes of the Earth's rotation rate and the precession of its spin axis and have been used to test Einstein's theory of relativity.

 

 

I don't have enough faith in human nature to believe conspirators could be unified enough to pull off such an enormous, broad hoax such as the moon landing (or WTC collapse). One of the big reasons I lack such faith in human nature is that there are so many seemingly sane people who could take seriously the silly notion that the landing was faked.

lawd.  As another forumer said, "I weep".  :'(

 

As my wisecracking old grandfather said to me, "One day you smartass know-it-alls will look back on this day and release all you THINK you know doesn't amount to a hill of beans or an ounce of common sense"

I really think we missed the moon by a long shot due to an error and ended up on Mars.  To bad we didn't realize that at the time.  Could have been saving us some big bucks today. 

 

Oh well, so what if we didn't go to the moon.  There really isn't much to do there anyhow but walk around.  Heck, I'd rather go to Cabo. 

Can we lay off the 9/11 talk.  Some of us had to live through that and had friends/co-workers die.

 

Thanks.

9/11 Chatter goes here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,13907.90.html

I always wondered the discussion that these astronauts had with they're wives before they went up to space.  "They're going to stick me in a little capsule big enough for two people to fit in, and blast me through to outer space.  They will calculate how much rocket fuel thay think it should take so we don't plummet right back to the ground.  And then to come back, we're going to aim toward the planet earth, and blast back off the moon in that direction and try to break through the atmosphere.  The rocket ship will reach temperatures of about 5000 degrees and catch on fire at that time during our return.  They're thinking the fire should go out though.  Finally, they're thinking we'll probably land in an ocean somewhere.  Don't worry, the rocket ship has a parachute on it that should break the fall a bit.  They'll send a boat out looking for us in the ocean somewhere to give us a ride back.  All in all, it sounds like a plan to me.  What do you think"

^lol

 

When you look at it like that, it seems really petty to get a life insurance policy for a simple plane flight.

^Take a gander at some of the clothing and jewelry that Lois Aldrin sports to different social events. I don't think the whole "capsule/5000F/plummet-to-earth" thing fazed her too much ;-)

* * * NSFW (though damn funny) AUDIO * * *

 

just so there is no ef'ing doubt we landed on the ef'ing moon!  :laugh:

 

 

or read thee classic front page from the onion here:

http://members.shaw.ca/rlongpre01/moon_tiny.jpg

 

* * * NSFW (though damn funny) AUDIO * * *