Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum


Go Back   Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum > Deep Space Tracking Station > Breakaway

Notices

SPONSORED BY
&

Reply Bookmark and Share
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-04-2006, 06:26 PM   #1
Eagle
Commander Ret.
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,723
Default Were the Moon landings faked?...

*
I personally believe that the landings were possible (just) and that they probably did land on the Moon.

I do however believe (strongly) that a lot of the video and photographic evidence was faked.

Over to you!
*
Eagle is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2006, 07:19 PM   #2
Elric
Astrophysics Technician
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 482
Default

I personally believe 100% that the moon landings were not faked.

There are sites online that demolish the 'fake landing' claims very convincingly but they don't get as much attention as the fake claim sites.

Eagle - What makes you doubt the video and photographic evidence?
Elric is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2006, 07:58 PM   #3
Eagle
Commander Ret.
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,723
Default

*
I'm a professional photographer by trade. They're just not 'right'.
Eagle is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2006, 07:58 PM   #4
Mark42
Chief Eagle Pilot
 
Mark42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nottingham, England
Posts: 1,204
Default

As someone who has been very interested in special effects over the last four decades and have spotted faults in most (if not all) SFX shots - the vast majority of which only last a few seconds at a time, I find it totally unbelievable that such a huge amount of film could be faked to such a flawless degree and feature such great (long duration) shots. Special effects have never been that good!
__________________



....... S.I.G David Mark Sisson
Mark42 is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2006, 08:00 PM   #5
Eagle
Commander Ret.
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,723
Default

*
How come there is so much moondust - right next to the lander.... where it would have been blown to hell by the thrust on landing?
*
Eagle is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 06-04-2006, 08:21 PM   #6
Neal
Astrophysics Technician
 
Neal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle
*
How come there is so much moondust - right next to the lander.... where it would have been blown to hell by the thrust on landing?
*
It's a bit after April 1st, but assuming for a moment that you're sincere -- check out http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm, scroll down to "Issue 5".
Neal is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2006, 08:24 PM   #7
Elric
Astrophysics Technician
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle
*
How come there is so much moondust - right next to the lander.... where it would have been blown to hell by the thrust on landing?
*
The lander thrust issue is discussed here

The Clavius.org site also goes in depth into the photographic evidence too. The whole site is a good read no matter what your opinions are!
Elric is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2006, 08:47 PM   #8
Ketzer.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle
*
I'm a professional photographer by trade. They're just not 'right'.
well, you did not catch my little photoshop Eagle modification.

Tim
  Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2006, 09:11 PM   #9
Eagle
Commander Ret.
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,723
Default

*
Exactly!
Eagle is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2006, 09:30 PM   #10
BlackBirdCD
Geological Technician
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 111
Default

The whole notion that the moon landings were faked is pure bunk. You've gotta be pretty bored to pursue the issue.
BlackBirdCD is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 06-04-2006, 10:01 PM   #11
doon
Communications Officer
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Jersey U.S.A
Posts: 854
Default

The photos and film could be faked, the resulting childbirth can't be
doon is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2006, 11:50 PM   #12
saturnapollo
Medical Officer
 
saturnapollo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 2,704
Default

Don't even get me started on this one.

2001 took several years to film and you can still see mistakes. How could anyone churn out hundreds of hours of TV, thousands of stills and yards of 16mm footage every six months or so? It would be more expensive than just going there and doing it for real (like they did)!!!!

It is a real shame that for some reason these days, people are more willing to believe in conspiracies such as this than actually believe technology could accomplish such a great feat.

There was an interesting documentary about a year back which took all the arguments against a landing and proceeded to carry out experiments refuting all the claims.

Keith
saturnapollo is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 12:23 AM   #13
BlackBirdCD
Geological Technician
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 111
Default

(serious chain-pulling. . .)

Well certainly the British Moon landings were faked (Space: 1999)
BlackBirdCD is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 07:19 PM   #14
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

I'm sure the thread has been created to generate some controversy but it's something that really yanks my chain. I had some idiot at a party telling me how the Moon landings were faked and I simply turned around and walked away from him mid sentence. I have no time for idiots. I can understand why Buzz Aldrin decked the reporter who had been stalking him claiming that they were faked. It's hugely insulting to the hundreds of thousands of people who contributed to doing it, who in some cases gave their lives, and it belittles the whole endeavour which is arguably one of the greatest achievements of mankind.

I was even more distressed to have the same argument with some moron on Starship Modeler who claimed to be a teacher and well educated, who was adamant they were faked. I asked him if his superiors knew he was teaching his pupils this stuff because if he was, he should lose his job. There are enough delusional paranoid conspiracy theorists out there without the numbers being swollen by programmes such as "The X Files".

Oh you've started me off now!
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 07:25 PM   #15
Neal
Astrophysics Technician
 
Neal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DX-SFX
It's hugely insulting to the hundreds of thousands of people who contributed to doing it, who in some cases gave their lives, and it belittles the whole endeavour which is arguably one of the greatest achievements of mankind.
Hear, hear!
Neal is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2006, 07:54 PM   #16
LastGuardian
Hydroponics Technician
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle
How come there is so much moondust - right next to the lander.... where it would have been blown to hell by the thrust on landing?
The lunar module descent engine was not all that powerful, and there is no air on the moon to magnify and spread the effects of engine thrust on the surface. Upon landing, the gases from the nozzle of the engine were deflected by the surface at a somewhat upward angle, largely (but not completely) sparing the surrounding area. Only places directly touched by the engine gases saw any disturbing of surface dust -- rocks, rises and hollows blocked the flow and created 'shadows' of undisturbed lurain.

For other lunar photo questions:

Why no stars in the lunar sky? Because when you set a camera's aperture to properly photograph that which is as brightly lit as lunar surface objects, you lose relatively 'dimmer' things such as stars.

Why was there apparently 'fill light' in the photos when things away from direct sunlight should have been in dark shadow? Because the lunar soil is almost entirely glass. It reflects light quite efficiently back in the direction from which it came, much like reflective street signs do. All 'down sun' photos taken on the surface show this phenomenon -- the surface is largely washed out whenever the sun is directly at the astronaut/photographer's back.

There is nothing wrong with the lunar photography brought back by the Apollo missions. It is straightforward and unretouched, and presents no evidence whatsoever of anything having been faked.

Shane
LastGuardian is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 10:27 PM   #17
tak5haka
Eagle Pilot
 
tak5haka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 558
Default

I just want to know when we can go back. I feel saddened when you think about the risks that where taken back in the '60s and '70s to get humans on the moon in little more than a tin can and then think about all the time we wasted knocking about in LEO when we could have been on Mars (or beyond) by now.

I applaud everyone involved in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo projects (and the Russian projects) for their willingness to put everything on the line back then.

Damn it - I want my children (or even my grandchildren) to see Saturn's rings with their own eyes!
tak5haka is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 11:19 PM   #18
LastGuardian
Hydroponics Technician
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tak5haka
I just want to know when we can go back.
We'll be back there -- boots on lunar soil -- within nine years if NASA is allowed to continue with the president's Moon/Mars initiative.

Unfortunately, if the opposing party gains either the presidency or control of Congress between now and 2009, the first thing they'll do is kill the program. The Democrats hate this president, and therefore anything he wants -- no matter how good it may be for America -- must be eliminated.

Shane
LastGuardian is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 11:51 PM   #19
Eagle
Commander Ret.
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LastGuardian
There is nothing wrong with the lunar photography brought back by the Apollo missions. It is straightforward and unretouched, and presents no evidence whatsoever of anything having been faked.

Shane
From what I've seen, there is a few examples of the 'crosshair' marks being behind the items in the photos... when they should be in front of them. Perhaps attempts were made to enhance the images when processed and this was accidental?
Eagle is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2006, 12:05 AM   #20
Neal
Astrophysics Technician
 
Neal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle
From what I've seen, there is a few examples of the 'crosshair' marks being behind the items in the photos... when they should be in front of them. Perhaps attempts were made to enhance the images when processed and this was accidental?
Answered here: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/i...ard/moon01.htm
Neal is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site and contents are copyright Bernard Walsh 2010 all rights reserved, no reproduction of material in any form without written permission email: Bernie.walsh@mac.com