Jelvyc

The Apollo Hoax
« on: December 20, 2013, 04:20:14 PM »
Did we really land on the moon? There are some people who believe that it was all a hoax! They claim that they have evidence that the moon missions were faked. They say that there are problems with the video and pictures transmitted back from the Apollo Missions:

1. Unparalleled shadows
Problem: In some photos, objects appear to make shadows in unparallel directions. They suggest that there is more than one source of light besides the sun, which could be evidence that they faked the images in a Hollywood studio.

Answer: Objects on a flat surface will cast parallel shadows but the Moon's surface is bumpy and uneven. Because of the different angles of the ground, shadows were cast in unparalleled directions.

2. Rock with a C
Problem: A picture taken from Apollo 16 moon landing shows a rock with a letter 'C' on it. Some would say that this rock was a prop that had a label that was supposed to be removed before filming. It really does appear to be a letter 'C'.

Answer: When the original negatives of the picture were looked at, there was not a letter 'C' on the rock. It seems that something was accidentally added when the film was developed later.

3. Flag waving
Problem: In many photos it appears that the flag is waving as if being blown by the wind. But there is no atmosphere on the moon to cause the flag to wave. So the picture must be a fake

Answer: It is known that there is a horizontal bar in which the flag was attached. Astronauts Aldrin and Armstrong had trouble extending the bar out as far as it could go, so they left it that way. This created creases in the material of the flag, making it look like it is actually waving. It then became a tradition of the Apollo missions to not fully extend the flag.

4. Who filmed Armstrong as he stepped out onto the moon?
Problem: The event of Neil Armstrong stepping out onto the moon was broadcast on television so that all could witness the event. However, if Armstrong was the first man on the moon, who was shooting the camera? It must be a fraud.

Answer: NASA engineers built a video camera onto the outside of the Lunar Module. Aldrin, the man inside the module turned on the camera and Armstrong pulled it into position, thus not needing a cameraman to film the event.

5. Lit astronaut in dark shadows
Problem: Several photos show an astronaut standing in the shadow of the Lunar Module, but you in the photo, you clearly could see the astronaut. Some say that this means there must have been another light source shining on him.

Answer: The surface of the moon is very reflective, like the snow reflecting the sun. In a sense there are two light sources; the sun and the light reflecting off the moon's surface. Because the astronauts were wearing white suits the reflective light from the moon's surface was enough to illuminate their suits making them visible in the shadows.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 04:21:55 PM by Jelvyc »

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2013, 04:44:49 PM »
Answer: Objects on a flat surface will cast parallel shadows but the Moon's surface is bumpy and uneven. Because of the different angles of the ground, shadows were cast in unparalleled directions.

So the "lunar surface" in the studio couldn't have been bumpy and uneven?  Of course it was.  I don't think there were multiple light sources at play - however, I do see evidence of radial shadows from a single light source, indicating a light source much closer to the scene than the sun supposedly is.



Problem: Several photos show an astronaut standing in the shadow of the Lunar Module, but you in the photo, you clearly could see the astronaut. Some say that this means there must have been another light source shining on him.

Again, seems pretty obvious.  No one said NASA weren't smart.  Certainly smart enough to not light their space exploration video so sloppily.  This production had to stand up to international scrutiny - we were in a cold war with the other major power (allegedly) trying to go to space too.   Losing wasn't an option - but soviet scientists weren't dumb, either, so yes.  The lunar landing footage is very convincingly shot.  There wasn't any room for error.

I don't buy the vast majority of the so-called "evidence" for the fakery - most of it show a gross misunderstanding of how such a film would have been produced.  There are a few compelling pieces, however, which you didn't mention.  For instance, see how deep the footprints are compared to how the lunar lander sits delicately atop the lunar dust.



I'm admittedly not the resident conspiracy expert here, but I'm sure someone will chime in with a more comprehensive response. I tend to spend more time observing the earth, since I live there and all. 

Welcome to the forum, by the way. :)

Jelvyc

Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2013, 05:36:04 PM »
 
I tend to spend more time observing the earth, since I live there and all. 

Welcome to the forum, by the way. :)
[/quote]

And within that time apparently you actually think the earth is flat. That utterly head-scratching to me because I wonder how you can picture how the earth is able to orbit around the sun if it's flat. An what about that other planets? Are they flat too? NASA takers pictures of Mars too, you know. And NASA isn't the only space program out there because they didn't launch the Sputnik. Friggin centuries after 1492 and we still have people thinking the world is flat.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2013, 06:11:57 PM »
EDIT:  I've repeated this post in Flat Earth Q&A, since this topic fits better there: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=994.0

If you'd like to continue the discussion of the earth's shape, let's do so there, and leave the moon landing discussion here.

And within that time apparently you actually think the earth is flat. That utterly head-scratching to me because I wonder how you can picture how the earth is able to orbit around the sun if it's flat. An what about that other planets? Are they flat too? NASA takers pictures of Mars too, you know. And NASA isn't the only space program out there because they didn't launch the Sputnik. Friggin centuries after 1492 and we still have people thinking the world is flat.

I know that NASA isn't the only alleged space program, I clearly stated that we were in a race against the Soviets.  It is far easier to fake a satellite launch than to fake a moon landing.

The shape of the earth is something I feel pretty passionate about, and is entirely a different topic, so if this discussion is to continue I'd suggest we make a thread in Flat Earth Debate or Flat Earth Q&A to address you more fully.  However, to address your questions here:

That utterly head-scratching to me because I wonder how you can picture how the earth is able to orbit around the sun if it's flat.

The earth does not orbit the sun.  The sun circles above the disc of the earth in a circle whose radius is wider in the winter, and more narrow in the summer (in the northern hemidisc).  The moon also circles above us.

An what about that other planets? Are they flat too?

I've never been to another planet, so I couldn't say for sure.  As for the wandering celestial bodies in our sky, I believe the ancient greeks had many things right in their geocentric solar system model, including the nature of the motion of the heavens (at least in principle), but unfortunately many bought into the spherical earth idea put forth by some of their thinkers, and thus the charade was born.  The reason for this was that many ancient Greeks believed in perfect heavens - all perfect circles and spheres, and they simply assumed that the earth must be the same.  They were wrong.  The earth is not the same as the other celestial bodies, and all one needs to do is look at them to see it.

I do own a telescope and have looked at a few of them, and they appear to be spheres, but again I can't say for sure.  However, just because other celestial bodies are spherical does not mean the earth is.  The earth is special - most notably because life exists on it, but for other reasons as well.

NASA takers pictures of Mars too, you know.

NASA has released many images purporting to be from  mars, yet cannot explain how landers and rovers with an estimated active lifespan of 90 days can still be transmitting data years later.  NASA's funding comes from the federal government, so it's in their favor to keep up the charade.  That said - as mentioned, I'm not a conspiracy expert, so I'll leave off here.

Friggin centuries after 1492 and we still have people thinking the world is flat.

I assume you're referring to Christopher Columbus, but by 1492 the idea of a spherical earth was pretty common.  Columbus himself believed in a spherical earth.  Thanks to the ramblings of the cult leader Pythagoras and the arguably insane Aristotle whose writings were parroted by a later mathematician named Copernicus, the round earth fallacy was unfortunately pretty virulent.  Copernicus also popularized the incorrect notion of a heliocentric solar system in which the earth orbits the sun, but this was largely discredited at the time. 

So you see, one false experimental result, one mistaken calculation, repeated enough times leads to laziness.  Repetition gives way to assumptions that later turn to accepted fact - all based on fallacy.

I don't pretend to have a complete picture of cosmology, because I try to depend upon observable phenomena for my ideas.  Most other Flat Earth Theorists here will say the same.  I do have some pet projects that are purely theoretical, but I would never try to assert those as fact without direct observation and verification. 

I would now ask the same of you - how do you know, with such certainty, that the earth is a sphere?  I'm asking how you yourself know, based on your own experience, separate from any false assumptions that have been taught to you over your life.  If one begins to take stock of what one truly knows to be true, for the overwhelming majority of us, it is sadly little.

This is the realization that opened my eyes to the possibility that everything I thought I knew was wrong.  This is the realization that led me to Zeteticism. 
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 06:20:44 PM by Tintagel »

Jelvyc

Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2013, 03:29:02 AM »
I know that NASA isn't the only alleged space program, I clearly stated that we were in a race against the Soviets.  It is far easier to fake a satellite launch than to fake a moon landing.

So does the year 1969 mean nothing to you or is it the fact going into space is impossible?

The earth does not orbit the sun.  The sun circles above the disc of the earth in a circle whose radius is wider in the winter, and more narrow in the summer (in the northern hemidisc).  The moon also circles above us.

It is extremely arrogant to say that everything revolves around the earth.

An what about that other planets? Are they flat too?

I've never been to another planet, so I couldn't say for sure.

Oh, we will. I believe Total Recall will be our future. Not the mutated angle mind you but that our civilization will move toe Mars and make an artificial atmospheric dome for us to live in.

I do own a telescope and have looked at a few of them, and they appear to be spheres, but again I can't say for sure.  However, just because other celestial bodies are spherical does not mean the earth is.  The earth is special - most notably because life exists on it, but for other reasons as well.

One of which being the only natural space object that is flat. And you acknowledge that other planets are spherical and yet Earth is a planet and you still say its flat. O.o

Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2013, 06:58:37 AM »
I just came across something ... Interesting.  I'm not sure what to make of this, bur Apollo 11 astronauts left 2 medals on the moon dedicated to Soviet cosmonauts who were killed in training.  This was oficially announced by President Nixon himself.  Why would the American space agency honor members of their enemy/rival nation?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19690717&id=TVVQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kFcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4597,3775034

The feeling wasn't mutual apparantly, as the Soviet Union, and several other communist nations, declined to submit a message for the silicon disc to be left behind on the moon.

Quote
The Cold War politics are evident in how governments responded, or chose not to. For example, China’s message came from Chiang Kai-Shek, President of Taiwan –- the only Chinese government recognised by the US at the time. Similarly, the Vietnamese message was issued by the president of South Vietnam, whose regime fell in 1975. The Soviet Union and most of the eastern bloc countries were notably absent. However, Nicolae CeauÅŸescu of Romania sent a one-liner.

http://groundviews.org/2009/07/18/how-sri-lanka-missed-the-moon/

NOTE: This isn't really to argue for or against the hoax.  Just wondering why they would do this, hoax or no hoax.
I don't even care to find out what you're doing wrong, but I'm sure you're doing something wrong.

Offline Antonio

  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2013, 02:06:34 PM »
Hello Tintagel

Answer: Objects on a flat surface will cast parallel shadows but the Moon's surface is bumpy and uneven. Because of the different angles of the ground, shadows were cast in unparalleled directions.

So the "lunar surface" in the studio couldn't have been bumpy and uneven?  Of course it was.  I don't think there were multiple light sources at play - however, I do see evidence of radial shadows from a single light source, indicating a light source much closer to the scene than the sun supposedly is.



You are assuming that the sun should cast parallel shadows on a flat surface, that's true on a 2D view, but on a 3D real world, perspective plays some funny tricks. You can try your own true zetetic experiment, put some poles on a flat ground and wait for an adequate solar illumination.

You will get this kind of pattern :



Obviously not parallel.


I don't buy the vast majority of the so-called "evidence" for the fakery - most of it show a gross misunderstanding of how such a film would have been produced.  There are a few compelling pieces, however, which you didn't mention.  For instance, see how deep the footprints are compared to how the lunar lander sits delicately atop the lunar dust.



Again, you are assuming a given dust depth, and a flat landing module footpad.  As you may say, you were not there, so the best you can say is that the dust depth below the footpad is unknown.

If you take a look at this:



You can see that the footpad is bowl shaped. The picture you provided does not show the whole stuff, its shape hides some dust below it. You can also see the contact probe clearly sinked into the dust.

You can find a brief explanation from James Mitchell, P 351:

Selected Geotechnical papers of James K Mitchell




*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2013, 03:17:00 PM »
One of which being the only natural space object that is flat. And you acknowledge that other planets are spherical and yet Earth is a planet and you still say its flat. O.o

I don't understand this reasoning.  There is no evidence that the earth is anything like the other celestial bodies, and a lot of evidence that it is not.  The fact that we have applied the word "planet" to both the earth and these other bodies is not evidence of anything except a fallacious line of thinking borne out of the ancient greek notion of celestial perfection.  Is the earth a planet, as you say?  If we call certain other things in the sky planets (which I do, as it's Greek for "wanderer" which is a pretty apt description), then we cannot also call the earth one.  It is a disc, and is wholly different.

Also - to be clear, I said that the other object in the sky *appear* to be spherical, or at the very least circular.  I cannot definitively discern their shape, so don't put those words of pronouncement in my mouth.

Oh, we will. I believe Total Recall will be our future. Not the mutated angle mind you but that our civilization will move toe Mars and make an artificial atmospheric dome for us to live in.

It's sort of amusing that one of us believes that a science fiction movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger is an accurate depiction of mankind's scientific accomplishments, yet while I base my picture of reality upon things I have observed them with my own eyes, I am the delusional one.

Obviously not parallel.

Obviously not a photograph. 

It is extremely arrogant to say that everything revolves around the earth.

It is extremely arrogant to claim as fact things that you have no actual evidence of.  You have been educated all your life that the earth is a sphere which orbits the sun and that we landed men on the moon in 1969.  I understand that it's difficult to consider that everything you know may be wrong.  However - once you take stock of what you actually know about the world around you, you'll likely be humbled and liberated by just how little we really know as humans. 

When you look at the world solely through things you have been taught are truth, then you will only ever see reality as described to you by others.  This shows a woeful neglect of your own powers of reason, intuition, observation, and curiosity.


Offline Antonio

  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2013, 04:14:40 PM »
Obviously not parallel.
Obviously not a photograph. 

The theory is the same, but if you want some pics:





*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2013, 04:33:48 PM »
None of these photos show the extreme discrepancy in shadow angles like the ones shown in the one photo I shared.  I will certainly concede that perspective can and does contribute to some of these effects, and as I said in my first post, I think that much of the "evidence" pointed out by apollo hoax folks is a stretch.  I don't think there was a rock marked with a "C", I can clearly see that the flag doesn't wave in the breeze, and most of the other examples of not parallel shadows can be attributed to perspective and the landscape.  That singular photo, however, I do believe shows evidence of a single light source which isn't the sun - certainly not a sun that's 93 million miles away.

Jelvyc

Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2013, 04:49:46 PM »
It's sort of amusing that one of us believes that a science fiction movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger is an accurate depiction of mankind's scientific accomplishments, yet while I base my picture of reality upon things I have observed them with my own eyes, I am the delusional one.

Be a skeptic all you want, I on the other hand see that we have ability to accomplish so much more than we already have. That is as long as we put faith in everything we do. Whereas the only faith that you put in is supporting "facts" that have been disproven time and time again.

It is extremely arrogant to claim as fact things that you have no actual evidence of. 


Why are you asking me for evidence? I'm not an astronaut. If you want real evidence that you'll only believe with your eyes just go and be an astronaut yourself.

I understand that it's difficult to consider that everything you know may be wrong.

You may repeat that to yourself when you decide to journey to the center of Antarctica and find it is not an ice wall but rather the bottom of the world.

Offline Antonio

  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2013, 05:46:13 PM »
None of these photos show the extreme discrepancy in shadow angles like the ones shown in the one photo I shared.  I will certainly concede that perspective can and does contribute to some of these effects, and as I said in my first post, I think that much of the "evidence" pointed out by apollo hoax folks is a stretch.  I don't think there was a rock marked with a "C", I can clearly see that the flag doesn't wave in the breeze, and most of the other examples of not parallel shadows can be attributed to perspective and the landscape.  That singular photo, however, I do believe shows evidence of a single light source which isn't the sun - certainly not a sun that's 93 million miles away.
Really ?







look, more than 100°,  compared to that



I'm sorry, but the angles on your picture are absolutely consistent with a solar-only lighting.

What about the second picture you provided ?

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2013, 06:04:24 PM »
Fair enough, as I said, I'm not an expert on the Conspiracy and prefer to devote my time to actual zetetic studies.  Your points are noted - with the caveat that it's also lighting that is consistent with a single light source in a studio environment, so the question of the photo's validity is still open, in my mind.  Perhaps some of our members who have devoted more studies to the conspiracy than I have can lend their expertise to the discussion.


What about the second picture you provided ?


The one of the lander's foot?  Your counterevidence doesn't really change my concerns.  I don't know how the lander was built - but the stagers at NASA could easily have plunged that "probe" arm below the foot.  The pad is clearly not sunk into dust at all, though. 

Agree to disagree, and I'd still prefer to move this debate to the upper fora.  Conspiracy topics belong in Flat Earth General, and not Science & Alternative Science.

Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2013, 06:21:58 PM »
Some of these issues are addressed in the following videos by SG Collins.  The second video is particularly impressive.



shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2961
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Apollo Hoax
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2013, 05:03:22 PM »
The one of the lander's foot?  Your counterevidence doesn't really change my concerns.  I don't know how the lander was built - but the stagers at NASA could easily have plunged that "probe" arm below the foot.  The pad is clearly not sunk into dust at all, though. 
You do understand that the lunar module's descent engine blew away a fair bit of dust as it landed, don't you?  Also, who said that the dust layer is particularly thick to begin with?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.