Moon landing?

[HamaticBabylon]

Well for one Yom, the photos look suspicious.

 

[Yom]

Well for one Yom, the photos look suspicious.

Show me how. The burden of proof is on you, as NASA has already given sufficient evidence of a moon landing.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

I liked that cartoon as a kid, it never said a word!

 

[homeyg]

Why do you have doubts about the original moon landing(s)?

Because of the footage of the first one and all of the mistakes pointed out in it.

I do have one redeeming doubt about the hoax thing: why fake something that big?

 

[nonconformist]

Because of the footage of the first one and all of the mistakes pointed out in them.

I do have one redeeming doubt about the hoax thing: why fake something that big?

More like "Why fake it at all?"

 

[homeyg]

More like "Why fake it at all?"

Yes, that's what I meant.

What I'm trying to say is that, I partly believe that we did land, and partly believe that we didn't, if that's possible.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

My god do some people still people believe that the moon landing was a hoax. come on we all know that it was real. why would nasa do something for ten times when its a fake?

 

[homeyg]

Show me how. The burden of proof is on you, as NASA has already given sufficient evidence of a moon landing.

Okay, one example that I like the best is the fact that when the American flag is in view, it is moving like there is wind. How can that happen if there is no atmosphere on the moon? Explain that please.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Show me how.

On all Apollo footage there should be cross hairs or reticules present on the film. These crosshairs were,
according to NASA, placed on the film to help calculate distances on the Moon. The crosshairs were actually built into the camera and therefore should be visible on every single picture taken by the astronauts on the surface of the Moon. Incidentally, Jan Lundberg has stated that the only way that you could calculate the distance in the shot using the crosshairs would be if you had two cameras set up to take a stereo picture!

Take a look at the pictures presented here and you will see that parts of the crosshairs have disappeared from the film. This is impossible unless the film has been tampered with. The crosshairs should be completely visible in all shots and not hidden behind objects in the pictures. The only solution must be that NASA has gone to the trouble of either airbrushing out certain objects in the film, or added them over the crosshairs!

Why does this rock have a letter 'C' on it? There is also a 'C' on the ground in front of the rock... The use of the letter C on film props is well known by the people in Hollywood and is used to show where the centre of the scene should be.
One sceptic on the Bad astronomy sceptics web group has even said it is a hair??? on both the rock and ground... Now who's trying to cover things up?

One of the biggest anomalies that show on the Moon shots are the way in which shadows seem to be cast in totally different directions, even when the objects making the shadows are a mere few feet apart? A classic example can be viewed by clicking the picture to the right. If the guy on the left was near a vertical rise of ground (as has been suggested) his shadow would show a definite 'crease' where the land begins to rise...it doesn't!


Question: How can an astronaut cast a shadow several feet taller than his colleague who is standing a few feet away from him?

Answer: He is standing farther away from the arc light that is illuminating them both. I truly believe that this footage is taken on a film set, you cannot reproduce this strange shadow phenomenon with natural light, and that includes taking into consideration two natural light sources (the Earth and Sun) as many sceptics would have you believe.


Some of the lighting on 'official NASA film' are very suspect... The NASA picture below should show the astronaut in complete shadow because the sun is behind the him, and yet the whole of the astronaut is caught in bright light? The shot should appear like the one below the first one, which was simulated by David Percy.

 

[Yom]

Okay, one example that I like the best is the fact that when the American flag is in view, it is moving like there is wind. How can that happen if there is no atmosphere on the moon? Explain that please.

@homeyg and HamaticBabylon:

Here are all the answers from NASA.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/19/nasa.moon/

 

[Birdjaguar]

HB and Homeyg: Stop parading your ignorance around in public. If you must believe such nonsense that we never landed on the moon, please do so in private. You are an embarassment to the OT posters who actually do think.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Take a look at the pictures presented here and you will see that parts of the crosshairs have disappeared from the film. This is impossible unless the film has been tampered with. The crosshairs should be completely visible in all shots and not hidden behind objects in the pictures. The only solution must be that NASA has gone to the trouble of either airbrushing out certain objects in the film, or added them over the crosshairs!

White light bleeding...

 

[nonconformist]

Are you just copy-pasting?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Moderator Action: Duplicate thread. Closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103568