Moon hoax

[ar81]

I have seen that moon hoax conspiracy theory is mostly supported by the fact that moon trip could be filmed on Earth.
Under such premise, war on Iraq and US crisis could also be a fake.
The only proof theorists need is some so called "inconsistency" based on people's ignorance.

For example, one of the arguments of theorists is that you have sunlight coming from one side, so why is the other side of the landed lighted...
The reason is simple, and anyone who has studied arts know it.
Moon surface reflects light, just like snow does too, so sunlight reflected by surface causes the opposite side of the lander to be lighted.

One very elaborated conspiracy theory which is also a fake, is the Columbia Sacrifice theory that says that US government intentionally destroyed Columbia. It is fake because even if the site describes lots of things of hypersonic flight with great deal of accuracy, they did not mention pitch moment scale, which causes the shuttle not to achieve a 90 degrees angle of attack sideways.

Any thoughts?

[pkeod]

YouTube - Mythbusters - Moon Hoax

It's showing today

My thoughts are that I have no personal time to ponder if it's fake or not It's just another thing that I don't have to worry about.

[Barcs]

I've never really been too keen on the moon hoax. It's very possible however and I have a friend who's a photoshop graphics design expert who claims that a bunch of the pictures were faked or modified. There's also another really good piece of evidence to support it that I saw a while back that showed a string (or some distortion in the frame) that the astronaut was hanging from or something like that. I'll have to dig that up and post it. There's way more evidence than you mentioned in your post.

[pkeod]

Update: turns out we went to the moon several times.

Cheers!

[Lauxa]

The thing that gets me is that they somehow lost the original high-quality footage that was filmed on the moon. Preserving the evidence wasn't important? But I still think we probably went to the moon.

[Still Growing]

As mentioned, many think that we didn't go to the moon because the photos looked fake. Some point out that there are two shadows in the picture and that this is indicative of a studio photo. Most likely one shadow was created by light from the sun and the other shadow was created by the reflection of light from the earth.

It may be possible that both are correct.

Isn't it possible that the photos were doctored or created by editing but also we went to the moon. I can see it now, they're on the moon and can't get a good picture.... Well we've got to have proof we're here... This wouldn't surprise me at all.

[freestate]

Actually, most of all NASA photos are doctored. NASA has a lot to hide/protect the general public from. At least, they think they're protecting us. (Anyone remember the Orsen Wells radio scare?)

Food for thought, look for photographs of domes on the moon. There's been some interesting evidence thus far. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

[pkeod]

LOL watch the Mythbusters episode. The photos are NOT doctored, and Mythbusters shows you why

The shadows were created because of the uneven surface of the moon made parallel shadows look otherwise. The other photo that was discussed was the photo where people say that the lighting was caused by a dome light, but in fact, as Mythbusters showed, the soil of the moon has a reflective index of like 7% which caused the lighting effect.

We went to the moon several times, alright? We will go back after other countries begin to put a ton of money into space projects and then we'll get butt-hurt and want to be "number one" again.

[Barcs]

YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - InfoDebug.com

Here's a good one. Check out the scene near the end where he effortlessly pushes himself back up.

[pkeod]

Watch the Mythbusters episode! "Slow motion video" AS WELL AS "wire supports" were also covered and debunked

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by freestate

Actually, most of all NASA photos are doctored. NASA has a lot to hide/protect the general public from. At least, they think they're protecting us. (Anyone remember the Orsen Wells radio scare?)

Food for thought, look for photographs of domes on the moon. There's been some interesting evidence thus far. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

Its also interesting to note that they doctor the photos from other galaxies. We've all seen the beautiful photos featuring multi color galaxies far, far away. In truth they color them by computer to represent what they might look like. They need to make it exciting to capture more of our tax dollars.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Its also interesting to note that they doctor the photos from other galaxies. We've all seen the beautiful photos featuring multi color galaxies far, far away. In truth they color them by computer to represent what they might look like. They need to make it exciting to capture more of our tax dollars.

Wow. I didn't realize that. That's messed up!

I'll have to watch that myth busters episode. I'm interested in how they explain that one scene I mentioned. Hopefully they aren't full of crap like a lot of Pen and Teller's show. Their 9/11 episodes was atrocious.

[ar81]

If the evidence about fake moon landing is the fact that it can be faked, then war in Iraq and US crisis could also be a fake.

[Barcs]

Yes sir. The Iraq crisis is fake. Well, not anymore. It was fake before we went in. Now it's a reality. I'm going to download and watch that episode tonight.

[freestate]

pkeod, Mythbusters is doctored – and by that I mean it has its own motivations. There are a lot more sources than Discovery Channel – a network owned by Discovery Communications LLC which itself is owned by a holding company that was spun off from Liberty Media Corp. When you want to know where the message comes from, follow the money.

I suggest everyone do some in-depth independent research if they really want to know.

[pkeod]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Its also interesting to note that they doctor the photos from other galaxies. We've all seen the beautiful photos featuring multi color galaxies far, far away. In truth they color them by computer to represent what they might look like. They need to make it exciting to capture more of our tax dollars.

Please, allow me to inform you about Home | Galaxy Zoo yeah, good luck hand coloring all of those galaxies. Or are you saying they are just doing the same as anyone does when they take a photograph?

[pkeod]

Originally Posted by freestate

pkeod, Mythbusters is doctored – and by that I mean it has its own motivations. There are a lot more sources than Discovery Channel – a network owned by Discovery Communications LLC which itself is owned by a holding company that was spun off from Liberty Media Corp. When you want to know where the message comes from, follow the money.

I suggest everyone do some in-depth independent research if they really want to know.

Paranoia is a dangerous thing. I doubt the people who are cool enough to do this: YouTube - Adam & Jamie draw a MONA LISA in 80 milliseconds! at NVIDIA's Show would allow their work to be "motivated" by anything besides discovering truths. Not everyone is out to get you.

[Fullcrum]

Hey, where's the evidence that the images of galaxies are doctored by NASA?

How could I know this to be true?

[freestate]

Originally Posted by pkeod

Paranoia is a dangerous thing. I doubt the people who are cool enough to do this: YouTube - Adam & Jamie draw a MONA LISA in 80 milliseconds! at NVIDIA's Show would allow their work to be "motivated" by anything besides discovering truths. Not everyone is out to get you.

Cool, Mythbusters likes science. I do, too!

But if you're asserting that I'm promoting paranoia, you are quite wrong. Read my post again. I am asserting that conscious research is necessary.

[schola]

Originally Posted by freestate

Actually, most of all NASA photos are doctored. NASA has a lot to hide/protect the general public from. At least, they think they're protecting us. (Anyone remember the Orsen Wells radio scare?)

Food for thought, look for photographs of domes on the moon. There's been some interesting evidence thus far. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

Very true. Another example: NASA tampered with photos taken on the Martian surface to make it appear "redder" than it really is.

NASA hides the true colours of Mars

[pkeod]

Originally Posted by freestate

Cool, Mythbusters likes science. I do, too!

But if you're asserting that I'm promoting paranoia, you are quite wrong. Read my post again. I am asserting that conscious research is necessary.

Believe what you want to believe. You stated that "Mythbusters is doctored." Sounds like you're fearful that they spread out right lies for no other reason than their distributor is owned by another company that owns a lot of companies.

Time will tell the conscious people from the nuts.

[pkeod]

Originally Posted by schola

Very true. Another example: NASA tampered with photos taken on the Martian surface to make it appear "redder" than it really is.

NASA hides the true colours of Mars

I tried looking that up, but couldn't find any mention of it on any site other than a UFO site. You may be thinking AHA! that proves it's being censored! But I think not.

Could it be that the projector's colors were out of alignment? Maybe not. Maybe that site is the one changing colors

Here is a hi-res JPEG on NASA's own site. It doesn't really look red:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA01466.jpg
and here's another one that does:
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/gall...r_PIA00563.jpg

Ah, could this be caused by different material compositions on different landing areas? Or could it be caused by weather on Mars?

[Brutha]

Hey, where's the evidence that the images of galaxies are doctored by NASA?

Nobody claims that the images of galaxies are analog photographs. The are the result of big computer models.

Creating those pictures is very complicated. There a bunch of data and their are multiple possible ways to create a picture from them.

Photos don't show truth. They show one interpretation of a visual event by a machine.

[WanderingOak]

While I wouldn't say that color alteration of NASA photographs is a CONSPIRACY, I do believe that it has been done. Please remember that NASA is a Gov't bureaucracy, and that they only do what they are expected to do. In the science-poor climate of the current administration, with the current head of NASA (Darth Cheney), they can only do so much...

[schola]

Originally Posted by pkeod

I tried looking that up, but couldn't find any mention of it on any site other than a UFO site. You may be thinking AHA! that proves it's being censored! But I think not.

nasa mars color tampering - Google Search

NASA admits to modifying the coloring of photos returned by Mars rovers. Cameras don't always "see" the same colors that the human eye does and NASA sometimes recolors photos to make them look like they might to a real human observer. That is no conspiracy.

What I question is whether they're embellishing things a bit to make the Red Planet look a little more like we would expect. Maybe for publicity reasons. A blue sky on Mars? That doesn't fit in with the public's preconceptions.

If you look at the old Viking photos you see a very bright red landscape that doesn't match the newer photos on the JPL website.

http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/niel/...dersurface.gif

I have an old astronomy book that has the same "technicolor-red" Viking photos.

[Phil Watson]

Sorry for digging up such an old thread, but there's one argument I've never heard mentioned before. Didn't we leave a flag on the moon? And, given that you had a good telescope and proper visibility, couldn't you see that flag on the moon? I think that would dispel any rumors once and for all.

[Vibration]

The astronuts also left a reflector which a laser is pointed from an observatory, and the distance between earth and moon is measured very accuarately, like to millimeter scale. How did the reflector get there, if no one actually went to the moon?

NASA - Accuracy of Eclipse Predictions

[mityno]

I think we may have really gone to the moon, just not in an Apollo capsule.

Certainly the Russians went and actually put some cosmonauts on the moon first, but a trajectory miscalculation (or possibly the Van Allen Belt killed the crew) made a crater rather than an orbit so their official press release said it was an unmanned probe.

But the TV video images and pics of our moon landings were are all faked.

Here is how the fakery was done and the Hollywood genius who did it for them:

Jay Weidner

[reapwhatyousow]

Originally Posted by Phil Watson

Sorry for digging up such an old thread, but there's one argument I've never heard mentioned before. Didn't we leave a flag on the moon? And, given that you had a good telescope and proper visibility, couldn't you see that flag on the moon? I think that would dispel any rumors once and for all.

There is photos of footprints, lunar module landing marks also
I'm sure you could find better res images.

Lunar orbiter photographs Apollo landing sites | The Space Shot - CNET News

[Barcs]

I think that a lot of it is silly, however I saw one really good video from the moon landing where you can see what appears to be a string and the person unnaturally shifting momentum. I can't remember where that's from. It's possible the first moon landing was faked to put money into a secret weapons program or anti USSR technology, but we've definitely been to the moon since the alleged first landing. It's possible but unlikely, in my opinion, that it was faked. I wouldn't put it past our government, though.