Re: Moon Landings Faked?
So the video was faked huh. Damn good job considering that even hollywood couldn't make decent sci-fi special effects at the time! Why is every major event in human history a conspiracy or a fake? Are we just a lame species not capable of anything so we need to resort to charades? And if so, how did we get to the modern technologically adavnced society we are. Wasn't Columbus jailed or somethin' when he claimed he had reached the east indies heading west? Guess they thought he faked it. I believe that to acknowledge their existance gives credence to their demented argument. That is why NASA has no intention of proving anything. The proof is in the pudding. Look around, there are many benifits that society enjoys because of the technology developed by the moon landings. It's ironic that the conspiracy buffs get to use some of that technology to try and discount that which created it! I have a great idea. Lets take anyone who doesn't believe it ever happened and ferry them all one by one, anesthetised, on a one way trip to the moon. Then when they wake up they can try and figure out how they got there. We'll have hidden "conspiracy" cameras up there so we can televise their reactions. Oh what a wonderful new reality TV show that would be!! We can call it Loons on Moons! I can see the previews now ...and in this week's episode of Loons on Moons, Charlie kicks moon dust at Harry who doesn't believe :roll: that he has found proof that they are all really in a giant hanger at area 51! Stay tuned!
So the video was faked huh. Damn good job considering that even hollywood couldn't make decent sci-fi special effects at the time! Why is every major event in human history a conspiracy or a fake? Are we just a lame species not capable of anything so we need to resort to charades? And if so, how did we get to the modern technologically adavnced society we are. Wasn't Columbus jailed or somethin' when he claimed he had reached the east indies heading west? Guess they thought he faked it. I believe that to acknowledge their existance gives credence to their demented argument. That is why NASA has no intention of proving anything. The proof is in the pudding. Look around, there are many benifits that society enjoys because of the technology developed by the moon landings. It's ironic that the conspiracy buffs get to use some of that technology to try and discount that which created it! I have a great idea. Lets take anyone who doesn't believe it ever happened and ferry them all one by one, anesthetised, on a one way trip to the moon. Then when they wake up they can try and figure out how they got there. We'll have hidden "conspiracy" cameras up there so we can televise their reactions. Oh what a wonderful new reality TV show that would be!! We can call it Loons on Moons! I can see the previews now ...and in this week's episode of Loons on Moons, Charlie kicks moon dust at Harry who doesn't believe :roll: that he has found proof that they are all really in a giant hanger at area 51! Stay tuned!
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Well, what would stop the woo woo nutjobs from claiming that the new HD footage is a fake? If we could fake a moon stage and landing in 1969, or '70, '71, or '72, they would certainly claim that we could fake one now.
Woops! Just went to read the last post, didn't steal from you guilo, we're just thinking along the same lines.
You'd think that pictures of the distant Earth taken from the Moon would be evidence enough. No science fiction production at that time had such an image, and CGI of that level was not available, even to the US government, that I know of, anyway. The outer space special-effects of "2001: A Space Odyssey" do not even come close. And that was made in, lo and behold, 1968!
Shadowslayer81":225nikpg said:
Well, what would stop the woo woo nutjobs from claiming that the new HD footage is a fake? If we could fake a moon stage and landing in 1969, or '70, '71, or '72, they would certainly claim that we could fake one now.
Woops! Just went to read the last post, didn't steal from you guilo, we're just thinking along the same lines.
You'd think that pictures of the distant Earth taken from the Moon would be evidence enough. No science fiction production at that time had such an image, and CGI of that level was not available, even to the US government, that I know of, anyway. The outer space special-effects of "2001: A Space Odyssey" do not even come close. And that was made in, lo and behold, 1968!
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Even if one knew for lead-pipe certain that (a) They were on the moon and (b) They had their actual
hand on the hardware - then the question of *when* that hardware got their will still be open.
Even if they brought the hardware back and tested it at a trusted lab, and knew for 100% certain
that is had the right age figure, then they could still be able to say that it was built way back
in the 60's, but it wasn't placed there until later.
If one is determined to not believe something, there is always a way to get around any "proof".
Wayne
Even if one knew for lead-pipe certain that (a) They were on the moon and (b) They had their actual
hand on the hardware - then the question of *when* that hardware got their will still be open.
Even if they brought the hardware back and tested it at a trusted lab, and knew for 100% certain
that is had the right age figure, then they could still be able to say that it was built way back
in the 60's, but it wasn't placed there until later.
If one is determined to not believe something, there is always a way to get around any "proof".
Wayne
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Well folks its like this plain and simple.... IF we faked the moon landings, who do you think would have brought it up loudly? The Russians would have screamed bloody murder and it would have been all over the media in short time..... They knew we landed on the moon and thats why you never heard any such things about it until people dreamed up an idea trying to sell video tapes on the subject to make money.... Thats the facts....
Well folks its like this plain and simple.... IF we faked the moon landings, who do you think would have brought it up loudly? The Russians would have screamed bloody murder and it would have been all over the media in short time..... They knew we landed on the moon and thats why you never heard any such things about it until people dreamed up an idea trying to sell video tapes on the subject to make money.... Thats the facts....
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Because of the high quality and scientific accuracy of the effects in "2001: A Space Odyssey", many no-moonies have claimed that Kubrick himself was hired to perform the Moon fake. Never mind that the Apollo reality actually contradicted Kubrick's moon scenes from "2001". Kubrick had done a fine job, incorporating information from the robotic probes to that point, but things such as the dustiness of the lunar surface were simply not known. Consequently, his lunar surface isn't dusty at all, but rocky.
The beautiful image of the Earth out the window of the space station was produced in the same way as the beautiful images of Jupiter and the Moon and also the crescent Earth. A team of artists painstakingly painted the images onto large glass circles, which were then backlit. This produced an amazingly authentic look, except for one thing -- the planets realized in this fashion were entirely static. They could be moved up and down or side to side, but they obviously could not rotate without spoiling the illusion. Even today, that's a tricky thing to manage. You can do it with CGI, but getting the light right is very difficult. Kubrick's glass painting technique remains superior, despite its limitations (and great cost; CGI planets are a bit less realistic, but a hell of a lot cheaper, and you can actually rotate them).
No one has ever faked an image of the Earth passing by outside a spacecraft's window in a way good enough to fool the experts. You can fool the general public in a movie where they are willing to suspend disbelief, but that's a much easier task. The giveaway on the faked images of the period is that they don't move.
Interesting factoid: the book "2001" (produced concurrently with the film) puts the final scenes at Saturn, not Jupiter, and uses an old estimate of the age of Saturn's rings as a plot point, along with the curious split personality of Iapetus (called Japetus in the book; it's black on one side and white on the other). Clarke kept this for the book, but Kubrick was forced to abandon it. While his glass painting technique was working beautifully for the planet, it just didn't work for the rings of Saturn. So he just switched gas giants. As this was a late change, it didn't make it into the book. Clarke's subsequent books followed the movie's continuity, though, and preserved Jupiter as the location.
Another divergence from the book is the monolith's color. In the book, it is crystalline. As with Saturn's rings, Kubrick found this impossible to realize effectively enough to meet his own lofty standards. So after much frustration, he simply had the FX team paint it matte black. Again, as this is a late change, it didn't make it into the book, but Clarke used the black monolith for the sequels to preserve continuity with the film. "2001" is one of those rare instances where the book's author decided that the movie was more canon than the book! (The same cannot be said of "2010", though.)
It's worth mentioning one major scientific flaw in "2001" FX. There are several instances of crescents seen above a monolith. This is better explained in the book, but this very striking image is meant to tell you that something important is happening -- sunlight is falling on the monolith in a particular way, triggering it to execute the next stage in its programming. We see this happen once on Earth, when the monolith has finished doing its thing with the apes, again on the Moon when sunlight strikes it for the first time after being dug out of Tycho Crater, and again by Jupiter before the rather perplexing "stargate" sequence. The scenes are breathtakingly gorgeous, but the crescents are wrong. That close to the Sun, they should be impossible to see because they should be new. But I think Kubrick deserves a creative license pass, especially since this is the worst offense in the entire movie. Not bad at all.
ZenGalacticore":1e5ny6vt said:
Because of the high quality and scientific accuracy of the effects in "2001: A Space Odyssey", many no-moonies have claimed that Kubrick himself was hired to perform the Moon fake. Never mind that the Apollo reality actually contradicted Kubrick's moon scenes from "2001". Kubrick had done a fine job, incorporating information from the robotic probes to that point, but things such as the dustiness of the lunar surface were simply not known. Consequently, his lunar surface isn't dusty at all, but rocky.
The beautiful image of the Earth out the window of the space station was produced in the same way as the beautiful images of Jupiter and the Moon and also the crescent Earth. A team of artists painstakingly painted the images onto large glass circles, which were then backlit. This produced an amazingly authentic look, except for one thing -- the planets realized in this fashion were entirely static. They could be moved up and down or side to side, but they obviously could not rotate without spoiling the illusion. Even today, that's a tricky thing to manage. You can do it with CGI, but getting the light right is very difficult. Kubrick's glass painting technique remains superior, despite its limitations (and great cost; CGI planets are a bit less realistic, but a hell of a lot cheaper, and you can actually rotate them).
No one has ever faked an image of the Earth passing by outside a spacecraft's window in a way good enough to fool the experts. You can fool the general public in a movie where they are willing to suspend disbelief, but that's a much easier task. The giveaway on the faked images of the period is that they don't move.
Interesting factoid: the book "2001" (produced concurrently with the film) puts the final scenes at Saturn, not Jupiter, and uses an old estimate of the age of Saturn's rings as a plot point, along with the curious split personality of Iapetus (called Japetus in the book; it's black on one side and white on the other). Clarke kept this for the book, but Kubrick was forced to abandon it. While his glass painting technique was working beautifully for the planet, it just didn't work for the rings of Saturn. So he just switched gas giants. As this was a late change, it didn't make it into the book. Clarke's subsequent books followed the movie's continuity, though, and preserved Jupiter as the location.
Another divergence from the book is the monolith's color. In the book, it is crystalline. As with Saturn's rings, Kubrick found this impossible to realize effectively enough to meet his own lofty standards. So after much frustration, he simply had the FX team paint it matte black. Again, as this is a late change, it didn't make it into the book, but Clarke used the black monolith for the sequels to preserve continuity with the film. "2001" is one of those rare instances where the book's author decided that the movie was more canon than the book! (The same cannot be said of "2010", though.)
It's worth mentioning one major scientific flaw in "2001" FX. There are several instances of crescents seen above a monolith. This is better explained in the book, but this very striking image is meant to tell you that something important is happening -- sunlight is falling on the monolith in a particular way, triggering it to execute the next stage in its programming. We see this happen once on Earth, when the monolith has finished doing its thing with the apes, again on the Moon when sunlight strikes it for the first time after being dug out of Tycho Crater, and again by Jupiter before the rather perplexing "stargate" sequence. The scenes are breathtakingly gorgeous, but the crescents are wrong. That close to the Sun, they should be impossible to see because they should be new. But I think Kubrick deserves a creative license pass, especially since this is the worst offense in the entire movie. Not bad at all.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Very interesting Calli, thanks.
Btw, I was in no way knocking '2001', just illustrating that special effects-then and now-don't come close to the real thing, IMO.
Very interesting Calli, thanks.
Btw, I was in no way knocking '2001', just illustrating that special effects-then and now-don't come close to the real thing, IMO.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Most of the claims that the moonlandings were fake focus on the footage of men in spacesuits bouncing around on the lunar surface.
I think this represents an underlying perception that we spent all this money, and this is all we got to show for it.
Science was done on the moon also. Measurements were made and rocks were brought back and our knowledge of the solar system was advanced. (and in totally spurious directions if that data was faked)
People that can believe that all this analysis was totally safe from verification, that it could not be discredited by a single rock returned from a later probe by russia or by advances in ground based techniques or simple better understanding of the solar system, fundamentally believe that science is just a whole bunch of waffle that rests purely on the self congratulary backslapping of scientists.
Most of the claims that the moonlandings were fake focus on the footage of men in spacesuits bouncing around on the lunar surface.
I think this represents an underlying perception that we spent all this money, and this is all we got to show for it.
Science was done on the moon also. Measurements were made and rocks were brought back and our knowledge of the solar system was advanced. (and in totally spurious directions if that data was faked)
People that can believe that all this analysis was totally safe from verification, that it could not be discredited by a single rock returned from a later probe by russia or by advances in ground based techniques or simple better understanding of the solar system, fundamentally believe that science is just a whole bunch of waffle that rests purely on the self congratulary backslapping of scientists.
LRO photographs Apollo 11 lander *from orbit*
This is the first time I ever waded into this forum to post something.
This new photo from orbit clearly deserves its own thread, not buried in all of the laughable moon landing denial threads.
Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Lunar landings were real. Time to take off your tin hats. End of argument now PERIOD
http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro-apollo11-images.html
New Photos Reveal Apollo 11 at First Moon Landing Site By SPACE.com staff
posted: 17 July 2009
12:44 pm ET
For stubborn folks who still believe the Apollo astronauts never landed on the moon, NASA has new images - definitive proof - that clearly show the Apollo 11 lander that carried the first astronauts to the lunar surface 40 years ago.
The images, taken by NASA's first lunar scout in more than a decade, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), show the Eagle lunar lander at Tranquility Base, where Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on July 20, 1969. They were snapped between July 11 and 15 of this month and released by NASA today.
The image does not reveal whether the U.S. flag planted there is still standing or not.
The Apollo 11 landing site wasn't the only one that the LRO camera (dubbed LROC) photographed: It also snapped pictures of the landing sites of the other five Apollo landings. (The remaining site, for Apollo 12, is expected to be photographed in the coming weeks.) The lunar modules for all of these sites imaged are visible as small dots; their shadows can also be seen. A few more details can be seen in the image of the Apollo 14 landing site, including scientific instruments and astronaut footprints.
"The LROC team anxiously awaited each image," said LROC principal investigator Mark Robinson of Arizona State University. "We were very interested in getting our first peek at the lunar module descent stages just for the thrill -- and to see how well the cameras had come into focus. Indeed, the images are fantastic and so is the focus."
As LRO gradually descends to a lower orbit, the images will improve and provide closer looks at the lunar landing sites.
The images of these sites are expected to show scientists how the sites have changed since the astronauts trod across them, whether there are any new craters and how the leftover human artifacts have fared in the lunar environment.
About the size of a Mini Cooper car, the $504 million LRO probe, an orbiting satellite, launched toward the moon on June 18. The probe is expected to spend at least one year mapping the moon for future manned missions, as well as several more years conducting science surveys.
Some people have questioned whether NASA really went to the moon or if the whole thing was faked. No serious and level-headed historian, researcher or space industry analyst doubts the moon landings, however.
This is the first time I ever waded into this forum to post something.
This new photo from orbit clearly deserves its own thread, not buried in all of the laughable moon landing denial threads.
Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Lunar landings were real. Time to take off your tin hats. End of argument now PERIOD
http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro-apollo11-images.html
New Photos Reveal Apollo 11 at First Moon Landing Site By SPACE.com staff
posted: 17 July 2009
12:44 pm ET
For stubborn folks who still believe the Apollo astronauts never landed on the moon, NASA has new images - definitive proof - that clearly show the Apollo 11 lander that carried the first astronauts to the lunar surface 40 years ago.
The images, taken by NASA's first lunar scout in more than a decade, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), show the Eagle lunar lander at Tranquility Base, where Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on July 20, 1969. They were snapped between July 11 and 15 of this month and released by NASA today.
The image does not reveal whether the U.S. flag planted there is still standing or not.
The Apollo 11 landing site wasn't the only one that the LRO camera (dubbed LROC) photographed: It also snapped pictures of the landing sites of the other five Apollo landings. (The remaining site, for Apollo 12, is expected to be photographed in the coming weeks.) The lunar modules for all of these sites imaged are visible as small dots; their shadows can also be seen. A few more details can be seen in the image of the Apollo 14 landing site, including scientific instruments and astronaut footprints.
"The LROC team anxiously awaited each image," said LROC principal investigator Mark Robinson of Arizona State University. "We were very interested in getting our first peek at the lunar module descent stages just for the thrill -- and to see how well the cameras had come into focus. Indeed, the images are fantastic and so is the focus."
As LRO gradually descends to a lower orbit, the images will improve and provide closer looks at the lunar landing sites.
The images of these sites are expected to show scientists how the sites have changed since the astronauts trod across them, whether there are any new craters and how the leftover human artifacts have fared in the lunar environment.
About the size of a Mini Cooper car, the $504 million LRO probe, an orbiting satellite, launched toward the moon on June 18. The probe is expected to spend at least one year mapping the moon for future manned missions, as well as several more years conducting science surveys.
Some people have questioned whether NASA really went to the moon or if the whole thing was faked. No serious and level-headed historian, researcher or space industry analyst doubts the moon landings, however.
Re: Moon Landings Faked?
Thread on photographing Apollo 11 from orbit is here: http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=18883
Thread on photographing Apollo 11 from orbit is here: http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=18883
Re: LRO photographs Apollo 11 lander *from orbit*
Pffft. <dismissive wave of hand>
Do you think we don't realize that those photos are obviously faked? I think we can safely agree that if NASA could fake the moon landings in 1969, then faking a few photos in 2009 is easy. I can't believe how naive some of you are.
Pffft. <dismissive wave of hand>
Do you think we don't realize that those photos are obviously faked? I think we can safely agree that if NASA could fake the moon landings in 1969, then faking a few photos in 2009 is easy. I can't believe how naive some of you are.
Re: LRO photographs Apollo 11 lander *from orbit*
Some people wouldnt believe we landed on the moon unless you took them to the moon and proved it to them in person.....
Some people wouldnt believe we landed on the moon unless you took them to the moon and proved it to them in person.....
Re: LRO photographs Apollo 11 lander *from orbit*
Some of them still wouldn't believe it even then ... :roll:
davcbow":256lu7bj said:Some people wouldnt believe we landed on the moon unless you took them to the moon and proved it to them in person.....
Some of them still wouldn't believe it even then ... :roll:
Re: And LRO photographs Apollo 14 lander *from orbit*
Conspiracy theorists on other boards are already asking why the black mark shown as "LM shadow" in the above photo, and also in other photos here appear to be going in the opposite direction to the shadows in the craters.
I'd quite like to answer that point, but I don't know the reason, (unless they are not going in a different direction because the shadows in the craters are coming from the walls on the left, with sunlight on the right of the crater floors.) Any ideas, anyone?
silylene":2cshgzcb said:And Apollo 14, from the same link as above:
Conspiracy theorists on other boards are already asking why the black mark shown as "LM shadow" in the above photo, and also in other photos here appear to be going in the opposite direction to the shadows in the craters.
I'd quite like to answer that point, but I don't know the reason, (unless they are not going in a different direction because the shadows in the craters are coming from the walls on the left, with sunlight on the right of the crater floors.) Any ideas, anyone?
Re: And LRO photographs Apollo 14 lander *from orbit*
I would direct that question to Richard C. Hoagland. :lol:
Smersh":2zggk1jj said:silylene":2zggk1jj said:And Apollo 14, from the same link as above:
Conspiracy theorists on other boards are already asking why the black mark shown as "LM shadow" in the above photo, and also in other photos here appear to be going in the opposite direction to the shadows in the craters.
I'd quite like to answer that point, but I don't know the reason, (unless they are not going in a different direction because the shadows in the craters are coming from the walls on the left, with sunlight on the right of the crater floors.) Any ideas, anyone?
I would direct that question to Richard C. Hoagland. :lol:
Re: LRO photographs Apollo 11 lander *from orbit*
You're kidding, right?
The government can't keep a blow job in the white house a secret. How could they ever possibily keep "faked moon landings" a secret?
If the moon landings were really faked, it would be out. Period. It wouldn't be in the same category as Bigfoot.
Kerberos":1ub8rkcj said:
You're kidding, right?
The government can't keep a blow job in the white house a secret. How could they ever possibily keep "faked moon landings" a secret?
If the moon landings were really faked, it would be out. Period. It wouldn't be in the same category as Bigfoot.
Re: And LRO photographs Apollo 14 lander *from orbit*
That would be correct, the sunlight is coming from the left of the picture. The right rims of the craters are illuminated as one would expect, while the left rim is in shadow.
This is one thing that really annoys me about moon conspiracy theorists, most of their objections can be answered with a basic knowledge of science (not even high school).
That would be correct, the sunlight is coming from the left of the picture. The right rims of the craters are illuminated as one would expect, while the left rim is in shadow.
This is one thing that really annoys me about moon conspiracy theorists, most of their objections can be answered with a basic knowledge of science (not even high school).
Re: LRO photographs Apollo 11 lander *from orbit*
$24 billion, hundreds of thousands all across the country working on Apollo, that would be some cover-up! They were able to keep the Roswell crash secret for 30 years through intimidation and oaths. It was an extremely short list compared to covering up a faked moon landing.
krash":3dnsgr4j said:
$24 billion, hundreds of thousands all across the country working on Apollo, that would be some cover-up! They were able to keep the Roswell crash secret for 30 years through intimidation and oaths. It was an extremely short list compared to covering up a faked moon landing.
Re: And LRO photographs Apollo 14 lander *from orbit*
You're kidding, right? How silly can people be? Of course you are right, with the sun to the left, the left side of the craters would be the side in shadow. Just shows that what people think they see is not always what they see.
Just shows how little most people really understand about physics and perception.
Smersh":1k3d61ks said:silylene":1k3d61ks said:And Apollo 14, from the same link as above:
Conspiracy theorists on other boards are already asking why the black mark shown as "LM shadow" in the above photo, and also in other photos here appear to be going in the opposite direction to the shadows in the craters.
I'd quite like to answer that point, but I don't know the reason, (unless they are not going in a different direction because the shadows in the craters are coming from the walls on the left, with sunlight on the right of the crater floors.) Any ideas, anyone?
You're kidding, right? How silly can people be? Of course you are right, with the sun to the left, the left side of the craters would be the side in shadow. Just shows that what people think they see is not always what they see.
Just shows how little most people really understand about physics and perception.
Re: LRO photographs Apollo 11 lander *from orbit*
Listen to me, it's bigger than just some spaceman hoax; it's a HUGE conspiracy with tentacles everywhere. You don't even realize how bad it is. It goes back to the fourties when the Government decided to fake the Moon itself.
Don't tell me you're falling for this moon landing fiction.krash":26b4r887 said:
Listen to me, it's bigger than just some spaceman hoax; it's a HUGE conspiracy with tentacles everywhere. You don't even realize how bad it is. It goes back to the fourties when the Government decided to fake the Moon itself.
Re: LRO photographs Apollo 11 lander *from orbit*
Okay. I'll bite. How did the government "fake" the moon itself back in the '40s?
Kerberos":2qbjfn3q said:
Okay. I'll bite. How did the government "fake" the moon itself back in the '40s?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
Highly precise atomic clocks could soon get even better. Here's how- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 13
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram