Lunacy: Have we really been to the moon?

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

... The real question is, is this REALLY relevent, 40 years later?

Well we bebate about many things on the I:SB forum. Is it really relevant for us to discuss the origins of the universe? The theory of evolution? Global warming? Religion? We're not going to change anything, it is just often interesting discussing it.

Then again, do you value truth? There are many things that happened long ago, which people debate about all the time. JFK. Roswell. The lunar landings. If you value truth, maybe discussing these things is a good idea.

So in answer to your question, no it probably isn't relevant, but it is interesting, and potentially enriching, and anyway, no one is forcing you to take part in the debate.

Here's something I dug up on Wikipedia to address that issue.

Originally Posted by Guy

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.

"5. The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.

* Shadows on the Moon are complicated by uneven ground, wide angle lens distortion, light reflected from the Earth, and lunar dust.[13], pp. 167–172. Shadows also display the properties of vanishing point perspective leading them to converge to a point on the horizon."

Originally Posted by Guy

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.

"4. There are no stars in any of the photos. The Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed to have not remembered seeing any of the stars in a press conference after the event.

* The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure."

Is the flag not a dead give away? I mean what is the defense for that?

I guess the Red Hot Chili Peppers may have been correct:

Space may be the final frontier
But it's made in a Hollywood basement

- Californication.

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

Is the flag not a dead give away? I mean what is the defense for that?

Simple. First, let me ask you this. If you're on a planet with no air to cause friction, then what's to stop the flag from waving after you move it?

Wikipedia says:

"5. The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon [69]. Sibrel said "The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, un-circulated space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for Earth’s six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over".

* The astronauts were moving the flag into position, causing motion. Since there is no air on the Moon to provide friction, these movements caused a long-lasting undulating movement seen in the flag. There was a rod extending from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display (visible under the fabric in many photographs). The fabric's rippled appearance was due to its having been folded during flight and gave it an appearance which could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph. The top supporting rod of the flag was telescopic and the crew of Apollo 11 found they could not fully extend it. Later crews did not fully extend this rod because they liked how it made the flag appear. A viewing of the videotape made during the Moonwalk shows that shortly after the astronauts remove their hands from the flag/flagpole, it stops moving and remains motionless. At one point the flag is in view for well over thirty minutes and it remains completely motionless throughout that period (and all similar periods). (See inertia.) See the photographs below."

Thank you for feeding my ignorance, Blizzaga.

Not necessairly Blizzaga, if the flag was waved before it was stuck in the ground, it would have stayed like that due to there being no wind.

Anyways, if you guys really believe we havent been to the moon, then you're all in denial. We have been to the moon, and were going back. Were going to explore space, who knows, we may have colonies one day in space.

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

Here's something I dug up on Wikipedia to address that issue.

Haha, Wikipedia. One of the most unreliable sources for such a topic.

Anyway, I don't care if it was real or not. I suppose a person won't ever know unless he goes to the moon himself. After all, what do we know, besides from what we read on sites and books? I doubt any of you are Astronauts, or work for NASA. Therefore, you can only guess. You've never experimented.

Of course there are counter-arguments for this, but still.

Originally Posted by avyuir

Anyways, if you guys really believe we havent been to the moon, then you're all in denial. We have been to the moon, and were going back. Were going to explore space, who knows, we may have colonies one day in space.

It is also possible that the Earth will acquire a dictator that will kill everyone, including herself/himself.

if we have the technology to send voyager to jupiter we have the tech to go to the moon.

Originally Posted by avyuir

Not necessairly Blizzaga, if the flag was waved before it was stuck in the ground, it would have stayed like that due to there being no wind.

Not necessarily, avyuir. Moon still has a bit of gravity, which can eventually stop the flag from moving.

Oh, and here's the address to the page that might address the other issues too. Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by avyuir

Not necessairly Blizzaga, if the flag was waved before it was stuck in the ground, it would have stayed like that due to there being no wind.

Anyways, if you guys really believe we havent been to the moon, then you're all in denial. We have been to the moon, and were going back. Were going to explore space, who knows, we may have colonies one day in space.

I'm not in denial, I just think the evidence suggests otherwise. And maybe we will go to the moon sometime. And then we'll see that neither the flag, nor the lunar module's docking station are actually there.

The moon does have gravity yes, but if the picture were taken right when the flag struck the ground, then it would still look likethat.

Guy: But your denying the fact that we went to the moon in the 60's, which would make u in denial

*Sigh*

Not only have we been to the moon, but we've been there 6 times. We've also left mirrors on the moon which give us a precise distance between the Earth and Moon to within a few centimeters.