Screw FOX and those conspiracy theorists, the moon landings were real!

I just saw one of the most rediculous shows ever on FOX. There were a bunch of conspiracy theorists claiming we didn’t land on the moon, presenting “evidence” like this: “There were no stars in the background of the photos and movies taken, it must have been a backdrop.” I can refute this. When it’s daytime, there would be no stars visible, even on the moon. Sunlight completely drowns out any other light. The only reason the moons sky was black was because sunlight wasn’t scattered by an atmosphere.

Another thing they tried: “The flag was flapping as the astronauts held it, it must have been filmed on Earth, in an atmosphere.” This can be explained as the astronauts struggling to put it up, moving it around. It must have been tough in those spacesuits to hold on to the flag.

Also: “Even when the astronauts were in the shadow of stuff, like the lander, they were still brightly lit. There must have been another light to do this.” I think it’s because of light reflected from the moons surface into the shadows. Moonlight gets bright here on earth, imagine what it looks like on the moon. It must be pretty bright.

“They went through the Van Allen belts, which are highly radioactive. They should have died, or at least had severe radiation burns. They either stayed on earth or in earth orbit.” I have heard the Van Allen belts get weaker the further out they go. The farther from earth the astronauts got, the less radiation they would have been exposed to. They also claimed that the ships would have been covered in six feet of lead to survive the radiation. First of all this is based on their beliefs that the radiation was very high, second the ships were designed for this.

“When the LEM landed, it should have caused a blast crater underneath, but there was nothing. It must have been a movie studio.” Actually once the flame came out, it would have spread out because of the vaccuum. The thrust doesn’t have to go against the ground, just the inside of the fuel tank.

There are some things that stumped me. One was an Apollo 16 film that showed the astronauts on a hill, another film of the same mission shows astronauts on a hill six miles away, but the hills looked exactly the same. Another was the flag waving after they let go of it. How did that happen?

Did you see the same show? Can you refute it or confirm it? What else can you come up with? Did I forget anything?

The flag was wired up in a “waving” position; otherwise it would have drooped and not been photogenic. This was discussed on TV at the time of the first landing.

Look, conspiracy theorists aren’t interested in finding the truth. They’re interested in a good story. Truth can be dull, but conspiracies – probably with secret passwords and code rings – are a lot more fun.

I mean, what was the POINT of faking the moon landing? And, if you were faking it, why make mistakes so obvious that these people can point them out?

It shouldn’t surprise anybody that this show made it to the air. Heck, Sci-Fi channel gave a guy who talks to ghosts a show and the so called “Learning” channel regularly has shows that give unwarranted respectibility to psychics, UFO nuts and ghost hunters. We live in a sad world.

The moon landing hoax “theorists” have been discussed many times here. I would suggest searching on “moon landing” in various forums and seeing what comes up. Much like the several “scientific” arguments against evolution, there is not one point made by these folks that can’t be refuted by somebody who received even a moderate high school science education.

Don’t forget Earth light.

BTW: My coworker came in mad about this. He thinks that the families of Gus Grissom and the other dead astronauts should sue these guys for defamation of character for even suggesting that they were “in” on the conspiracy.

I also found This Site which details the reasons why they were able to get through the belt.

Remember, anybody can go on t.v. and say: “It would take 8 miles of lead shielding to protect them from the radiation in the Van Allen belt!” Just because it’s wrong doesn’t mean somebody won’t say it.

Hey is this some kind of Möbius thread?

I know flag was held up by a wire, but was the wire bent to mimic movement? This seems to be a be a better explanation.

Yeah, with that 60 billion dollar “film” budget, you’d think they would get it right! :slight_smile: Really, conspiracy theorists want so much to believe stuff that’s not true, they will fake anything. There are only a few conspiracies that hold any weight with me, one of the Kennedy’s assassination. But lets not talk about that. This is about the moon “film”

The guy on the show said the chance of the US getting to moon safely was less than 1%. He said these numbers were taken in 1968. I know that in one year, with the quick development of space technology, the numbers skyrocketed (no pun intended). He also said the Russians had no desire to go to the moon because of the dangers it posed. That is entirely false. I read a Scientific American or Popular Science (I don’t remember which it was) magazine article that was about newly released information from The US and Russia about both of their space programs. One part of the article was about the USSR’s moon program. Spy sattelite photos from the US showed a huge rocket, one that would put the Saturn V to shame, on a pad in the middle of Russia. The next sattelite to come showed a huge charred spot where the rocket had been. The USSR definitely had plans to go to the moon, but the plans literally never made it off the ground. The rockets were confirmed to be moon rockets by US intelligence forces. There were no photos in the magazine, but it mentioned them.

The point of faking it was because time was running out on the 10year deadline made by Kennedy, and the whole project was designed to boost American morale- you can’t let a project like that fail!

Since we never made it to the moon (which is why we haven’t gone back) we had to make these shuttle things, which are elaborate ‘virtual reality’ sets. They’re made to look like they blast off the same way Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.

The real trick Kennedy did was staging his assassination (he, of course, was an Illuminati leader) so he could continue to pull strings around the world to keep the cold war going. The culmination was making us all believe that the politicians we see in congress and the whitehouse all these years are actually human, despite all the evidence (their statements & actions) to the contrary.

That’s why we all have to join the TLC to fight the world conspiracy of the Illuminati.

:stuck_out_tongue:

The wife and I happened across this show (which I had read about on Bad Astronomy). After maybe two minutes, our heads hurt so bad from the asinine conspiracy-mongering and total lack of critical thinking that we had to change it.

I’d also point out the extremely high reflectivity of the astronauts’ suits. The one thing we saw on the show (before we fled in horror) was a movie shot by an astronaut on the moon of another astronaut climbing down the ladder. Aside from all the ambient light reflected from moon and earth, the very, very white suit of the astronaut holding the movie camera would provide a lot of bounced light as well.

Too bad being stupid isn’t a crime. Fox would be off the air right now.

(By the way, if you haven’t checked out the Bad Astronomy site linked above, I highly recommend it. Entertaining and informative. What more do you want?)

“The flag was wired up in a “waving” position; otherwise it would have drooped and not been photogenic”

Sounds like you didn’t see the Fox show. That flag was waving when no one was near it & it was waving for at least 30 seconds, up & down & back & forth except that part with a wire in it.

Which is the best proof ever that we did go. The flag was held up with a wire so that it would not droop. The waving you saw on that show occurred after the liftoff of the LEM from the surface, filmed by the camera left on the surface. The flag was set waving from the blast. Without air to slow it down, and only the Moon’s much lower gravity, it waved for a lot longer than it would have on Earth. The part stiffened with the wire was the only part not waving.

The flag waving you saw was nowhere near 30 seconds, it lasted about one to two seconds, and was the result of the flag unfurling on the wire.

The people claiming a hoax apparently did not watch movies from that period. We did not have the technology to fake it.
Most sifi flix from that period really sucked.

Frankly, it scares the be-jesus out of me that science, reason and logic isn’t enough to convince a majority of the population. It takes a blind distrust of the government to help them form an opinion.

Not only do they prey upon an increasing paranoia of anything the government tells us., These theories are preying on non-scientifically minded individuals. Individuals who don’t understand the basic differences between the Earth and the Moon; Gravity, Atmosphere, etc…

One thing I’ve noticed about these shows and these theorists is, they present evidence than can be interpreted both ways. They ignore the evidence that irrefutably shows we have been to the moon. But it’s useless to present such evidence based on scientific fact because the theorists will tell you that the scientist making such a claim is “in on it”. Even though anyone who picked up a sixth grade science book would see the principles clearly explained.

A friend of mine and I have perpetual debates on this subject, we’ve been beating each other with it for the 3 years we’ve known each other. Basically it gives us something to argue about when we’re drinking.

Most of the film at the time was low budget, not that having a budget double that of the Apollo Program would have helped Planet of the Apes. Conversly 2001:A Space Odessy was way ahead of it’s time, and (thanks to Arthur C. Clarke’s pursuit of perfection) pretty realistically showed people on the moon.

Wait! Who’s side am I on?

[quote]
Originally posted by PosterChild
The real trick Kennedy did was staging his assassination (he, of course, was an Illuminati leader) so he could continue to pull strings around the world to keep the cold war going. The culmination was making us all believe that the politicians we see in congress and the whitehouse all these years are actually human, despite all the evidence (their statements & actions) to the contrary.

Next up on Fox: The bite pattern on the infamous Lewinsky cigar clearly matches the dental records of the late JFK.:slight_smile:

CB

What was funny is that when the ship took off, it didn’t even have a visible blast under it. You’re supposed to see a blast or air, etc, you know pld, in order for YOUR theory to be correct, e.g. “waving you saw on that show occurred after the liftoff of the LEM from the surface”

Umm, why? Have you ever watched a jet aircraft fly past? Do you see anything “coming out” the back? Most of the visible stuff at a space launch is water vapor in the atmosphere being affected by the superheated thrust exhaust. There is no water vapor on the moon. Just how visible do you thing rocket exhaust is?

Minor correction, Tom: Most of the water forming those clouds under a rocket does, in fact, come from the rocket exhaust: Burn anything containing hydrogen, you’ll get water. However, in a vacuum (like on the Moon), that water will remain as invisible vapor, and not condense into clouds of visible microdroplets.

So tell me, handy, what does air look like, anyway? I’ve often wondered.

Can people guess what my contribution to this thread will be?

Was the Apollo moon landing a hoax? (31-Mar-2000)