This all stems from my Martian thread, so if anyone saw that, you'll have noticed me saying that man didn't land on the moon. To avoid going completely off topic though, I set up a new thread, as suggested. Here's my take, responding first off to posts in the Martian thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo
Actually, most of the "proof" has been proven wrong. Like that one guy saying he found a 'C' on a rock in of the pictures, which supposedly proved it was... whatever you call the scenery people use in plays. However, such scenery doesn't have that kinda stuff on them, it was most likely a piece of hair that happened to fall on the picture when they had it made.
|
That may have been proven wrong, but there is much that hasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh O
I've heard conspiracy theories that man never went to the moon but i never gave it much thought, what proof do you guys have?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Nemesis
There's none against it. Just crackpot theories. I've had discussions with NASA employees and asked just about every question there is, so I'd ask you to just take my word for it but that would be a double standard, and you seem to like controversy anyway. :p
Could start a thread about it? Would be an interesting discussion.
|
Done. Crackpot theories? I think not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDwarf
Oigh.
There are a mountain of people who claim to have evidence, yes.
This evidence holds up for about 3 seconds until you realize that they've lied, or are using JPG compression artifacts as proof of "editing", or that the people with the "proof" have no idea how: light, cameras, rockets, perspective, distance, gravity, air, dust, or orbits work.
However, we did go to the Moon. There is a persistent group of people who insist that we didn't. The evidence they offer all tends to be stuff like: "Well, if you look at this picture, and then this picture, you see the exact same mountain in the background, even though they were taken an hour apart. How do you explain that?" (I kid you not, that's one of the more commonly cited pieces of evidence.)
|
That is one piece of evidence yes. But here is a list of some of the things that seem rather more conclusive than that. If you can discredit each one individually, feel free.
Firstly, tne of the biggest issues is that there is no wind on the moon, according to scientific fact. Now, if we accept this as true, how can it be possible, that the American flag is waving in the nonexistent breeze?
Secondly, a piece of knowledge about photography. Crosshairs in the centre of photographs appear in the foreground, in front of the subject of the photograph. Yet in a photograph of the lunar module, the crosshair disappears behind the module. Conclusion: the lunar module has been added in after the photograph was taken.
Third, also concerning the lunar module, there should be, if it really landed as it is supposed to have done, a large blast crater beneath it. There isn't.
Fourthly, despite the incredible clarity of deep space, above the clouds, away from light pollution, there is not a single star or planet in the background of the photographs allegedly taken on the moon.
Fifth, and also concerning light, there is supposed to be only one true light source on the moon (no prizes for guessing what that is) and yet there are shadows of the lunar module, the flag and the astronaut stretching out in completely different directions, which is scientifically impossible.
My sixth point concerns what GDwarf mentioned. It isn't as conclusive as the others, but I'll mention it anyway. The scenes on the moon, many miles apart, are identical. Not just similar, but they can actually be superimposed on top of each other and are exactly identical, except that in one of them the lunar module is there, and in the other, it is not there. Perhaps the second has not been doctored yet.
And finally, the rocket made a helluvalot of noise. Strange then, how there is absolutely no background noise on the official NASA footage?
This evidence is pretty good, as far as I can see (and there is more, which I cannot remember, though if I do, I'll post it). Even if you disagree, I think it is unreasonable to dismiss all of this as a "crackpot" theory. The lunar landings were a hoax, possibly because America feared Russia winning the space race, and emerging dominant in the Cold War, but that's just a theory. It was a good hoax, and perhaps a well-intentioned one, but a hoax all the same.