NASA Moon Landing Videos: Fake or Real?

a reply to: misterz


My belief in the Moon landing has nothing to do with simply "seeing it on TV", or just because it's part of my national identity -- just like I wouldn't necessarily believe in a hoax simply because "someone told me it never happened".

I don't know about you, but I don't believe in things simply because it's part of my national identity or because someone tells me.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

We believe in things because we are presented with convincing evidence.

All kids believe in Santa Claus. But when we grow up, we realize that fairy tales are bull# and just about everyone lies to us constantly our whole lives through.

Except the US government.

originally posted by: misterz
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

We believe in things because we are presented with convincing evidence.

All kids believe in Santa Claus. But when we grow up, we realize that fairy tales are bull# and just about everyone lies to us constantly our whole lives through.

Except the US government.

The evidence that we went to the Moon holds up under scrutiny, and is consistent with what is known about technology and the natural world. The alleged evidence that the landings were hoaxed does not stand up to scrutiny, and the arguments of the hoax supporters can all be countered.

It's that simple. People can talk all you want about sheeple believing in the moon landings simply because they were taught in school to believe in them, or any other kind of rhetorical postruring you can think of, but it's really as simple as that evidence supporting landing far outweighing the evidence supporting a hoax.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yes.

It could be real, a lot of people believe that it is real and nobody can prove that it isn't real.

Therefore, it is real. Just like God.

originally posted by: centarix
a reply to: centarix

ADDITION TO OP:
Summary of points I found most interesting from the following Youtube Video:

0:11:03 Apollo 16 TV footage shows a "jumping salute" to the American flag with a triangle flap that is quite "bouncy" moving from a state of up to down without a good explanation in the laws of physics outside of being suspended by a wire attached to the triangle flap. See NASA source: www.hq.nasa.gov... and NASA source: www.hq.nasa.gov... to see the flap bouncing around in a questionable pattern where the still photo seems to show a much higher flap than can be seen on the TV camera footage. Certainly a simulation can be designed that could A) prove or disprove that there is a contradiction in the triangle flap between video and still photo and B) prove or disprove conclusively that the flap couldn't have been behaving in such a way without something connected to the flap to be moving it around.

The film "What Happened on the Moon" has been paraded around here quite often in the past. Just about every piece of evidence of a Moon hoax mentioned in that film has been debunked.

Here is a quick debunk of the flap issue you mentioned:


And another similar one:


Below are links to web pages that more thoroughly debunk David Percy's film. There are 8 pages of this debunking, so I linked them all. All of this has been discussed on ATS many many times in the past, so I'll just point you to this pretty good debunking rather than bringing up the same dead horse that have already been beat on ATS in the past

What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 1
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 2
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 3
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 4
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 5
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 6
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 7
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 8

The "earth in the window" hoax evidence you mentioned usually tries to claim that the Apollo craft was in low earth Orbit, thus the earth would have filled the entire window. This film claims the earth was some sort of fake transparency. Another similar film named "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" claims the Earth was a stencil cut out put in the window -- i.e. to make it look as if they were far away from Earth, they made a stencil "cut out" that they put in the window that made the Earth look small (because all you could see was the small cut-out portion).

As you mentioned, this video claims that the "gotcha!" moment when they could tell it was a hoax is when the window lit up completely blue. There are a few reasons why the window would look blue, one being that there was a blue-green coating on the window that may have caught some glare from inside the capsule.

Aside from that, these videos blatantly lie about the "small far away" Earth being just a transparency or a cut-out in the window, because they UTTERLY FAIL to show the parts of the video that do in fact show the entire earth in a full window -- with no cut out. Here is that part they decided NOT to show:


I wonder why these videomakers would leave that obvious part out of their movie? Is it maybe because they just want people to buy their film, so they make blatant lies in order to make it seem there was a Moon hoax? I'm sorry, but the makers of "What Happened on the Moon" and "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" seem like the hoaxers to me.

Here is a fuller version of the Earth from the command module video. You can see at about the 5:55 mark and again at the 7:15 mark that the Earth is truly far away. Again, David Percy didn't include this video for some reason:



You also mention that the video camera on the Rover did not have pan capability. this is false. The Rover's camera COULD pan, and were able to be controlled remotely from mission control on earth, often to be able to keep tabs on the astronauts, and there were several examples of occasions when it did. So I really don't quite get this "hoax evidence". They say simply "the rover camera couldn't plan, so how did it take a pan of Surveyor?", whent the simple answer is "yes -- it could pan":


From Wikipedia:

The color TV camera mounted on the front of the LRV could be remotely operated by Mission Control in pan and tilt axes as well as zoom. This allowed far better television coverage of the EVA than the earlier missions. On each mission, at the conclusion of the astronauts' stay on the surface, the commander drove the LRV to a position away from the Lunar Module so that the camera could record the ascent stage launch. The camera operator in Mission Control experienced difficulty in timing the various delays so that the LM ascent stage was in frame through the launch. On the third and final attempt (Apollo 17), the launch and ascent were successfully tracked.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: centarix
a reply to: centarix

ADDITION TO OP:
Summary of points I found most interesting from the following Youtube Video:

0:11:03 Apollo 16 TV footage shows a "jumping salute" to the American flag with a triangle flap that is quite "bouncy" moving from a state of up to down without a good explanation in the laws of physics outside of being suspended by a wire attached to the triangle flap. See NASA source: www.hq.nasa.gov... and NASA source: www.hq.nasa.gov... to see the flap bouncing around in a questionable pattern where the still photo seems to show a much higher flap than can be seen on the TV camera footage. Certainly a simulation can be designed that could A) prove or disprove that there is a contradiction in the triangle flap between video and still photo and B) prove or disprove conclusively that the flap couldn't have been behaving in such a way without something connected to the flap to be moving it around.

The film "What Happened on the Moon" has been paraded around here quite often in the past. Just about every piece of evidence of a Moon hoax mentioned in that film has been debunked.

Here is a quick debunk of the flap issue you mentioned:

And another similar one:

Below are links to web pages that more thoroughly debunk David Percy's film. There are 8 pages of this debunking, so I linked them all. All of this has been discussed on ATS many many times in the past, so I'll just point you to this pretty good debunking rather than bringing up the same dead horse that have already been beat on ATS in the past

What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 1
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 2
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 3
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 4
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 5
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 6
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 7
What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 8

The "earth in the window" hoax evidence you mentioned usually tries to claim that the Apollo craft was in low earth Orbit, thus the earth would have filled the entire window. This film claims the earth was some sort of fake transparency. Another similar film named "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" claims the Earth was a stencil cut out put in the window -- i.e. to make it look as if they were far away from Earth, they made a stencil "cut out" that they put in the window that made the Earth look small (because all you could see was the small cut-out portion).

As you mentioned, this video claims that the "gotcha!" moment when they could tell it was a hoax is when the window lit up completely blue. There are a few reasons why the window would look blue, one being that there was a blue-green coating on the window that may have caught some glare from inside the capsule.

Aside from that, these videos blatantly lie about the "small far away" Earth being just a transparency or a cut-out in the window, because they UTTERLY FAIL to show the parts of the video that do in fact show the entire earth in a full window -- with no cut out. Here is that part they decided NOT to show:

I wonder why these videomakers would leave that obvious part out of their movie? Is it maybe because they just want people to buy their film, so they make blatant lies in order to make it seem there was a Moon hoax? I'm sorry, but the makers of "What Happened on the Moon" and "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" seem like the hoaxers to me.

Here is a fuller version of the Earth from the command module video. You can see at about the 5:55 mark and again at the 7:15 mark that the Earth is truly far away. Again, David Percy didn't include this video for some reason:

You also mention that the video camera on the Rover did not have pan capability. this is false. The Rover's camera COULD pan, and were able to be controlled remotely from mission control on earth, often to be able to keep tabs on the astronauts, and there were several examples of occasions when it did. So I really don't quite get this "hoax evidence". They say simply "the rover camera couldn't plan, so how did it take a pan of Surveyor?", whent the simple answer is "yes -- it could pan":

From Wikipedia:

The color TV camera mounted on the front of the LRV could be remotely operated by Mission Control in pan and tilt axes as well as zoom. This allowed far better television coverage of the EVA than the earlier missions. On each mission, at the conclusion of the astronauts' stay on the surface, the commander drove the LRV to a position away from the Lunar Module so that the camera could record the ascent stage launch. The camera operator in Mission Control experienced difficulty in timing the various delays so that the LM ascent stage was in frame through the launch. On the third and final attempt (Apollo 17), the launch and ascent were successfully tracked.

en.wikipedia.org...

Was that dust?

originally posted by: misterz
Was that dust?

Can you be more specific?

If you mean on the Apollo 17 Ascent video, then probably not. Most of debris seen on that liftoff was from the ascent stage engine thrusting onto the descent stage platform.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The last video, looks like a dust cloud.

originally posted by: misterz
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yes.

It could be real, a lot of people believe that it is real and nobody can prove that it isn't real.

Therefore, it is real. Just like God.

It's different than a belief in God.

If you asked a pious individual if there was any hard evidence in the existence of God, that person is likely to tell you that a belief in God requires faith. In fact, being able to have "faith in God" without any evidence is a major tenet of some religions.

On the other hand, in order to think that we did go to the Moon only requires a knowledge of technology, some science, and some understanding of the natural world...

...no faith is required.

originally posted by: misterz
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The last video, looks like a dust cloud.

Yes. Other than the debris from the descent stage, some dust was kicked up by the directed thrust of the ascent stage.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The same person would tell you that faith means believing without seeing.

Did you personally witness the moon landing?

originally posted by: misterz
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The same person would tell you that faith means believing without seeing.

Did you personally witness the moon landing?

Did you personally witness your conception?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: misterz
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The same person would tell you that faith means believing without seeing.

Did you personally witness the moon landing?

Did you personally witness your conception?

No. Thank God.

However, whether or not I was conceived can be tested.

I actually do want to test the moon landing, but I don't have a rocket ship or the most powerful telescope in human history.

a reply to: misterz

However, whether or not I was conceived can be tested.

How can you do that without relying on someone else's testimony?

Are you trying to be serious?

originally posted by: misterz
Are you trying to be serious?

Are you trying to avoid answering?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: misterz
Are you trying to be serious?

Are you trying to avoid answering?

I am trying to avoid dignifying a dumb question with an intelligent response.

But if you insist, let's go ahead and open up this can of worms.

I don't know for certain that I was conceived and I am open to alternate theories on how I came to exist.

What's your take on it?

a reply to: misterz

You do, however, have evidence from orbiting lunar satellites not just from the US but from China, India and Japan that have photographed evidence of human activity, and also of the details in Apollo images that were not known about before human being took the photographs.

You have photographs of Earth taken during the missions that contain time and date specific weather patterns verified by satellite images.

You have photographs of the moon's lunar far side.

You have the eye witness testimony of the people involved in tracking the mission who pointed their antennae at the moon, as well as others involved in the program.

You have the returned data received from the moon of laser signals and electronic data from the scientific equipment.

You have the returned rock samples.

You have photographs of stars and planets taken from the lunar surface and in orbit that are astronomically correct for the times they were taken.

You have the testimony of the astronauts themselves, and most of those still living are available for comment.

All of the evidence, and I mean all of it, supports the historical fact of Apollo. Every single element of the missions provides a consistent and coherent narrative of historical events. None of the claims that dispute it hold water.

Very few murders are witnessed, but this does not mean that they can not be solved if there is overwhelming evidence pointing towards the murderer. No-one saw your conception, not even the people directly responsible for it, but your presence on this board supports the fact that it happened.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks for providing links to the material that attempts to address the flap issue. The question in my mind was why the flap does the "bouncing around" (as the video you link to says) up and down independently to the pack it is threaded to on the TV footage occurs when the jumping worker reaches the ground. If I were suspended on a wire that was pulling me upward from a backpack as in an acting scene, and then I landed on the ground from a jump while the wire was pulling me upward, I may well expect to see an element at the top of my backpack where I was connected to the wire bouncing around as an effect of the sudden release of tension on the wire. My instinct continues to be that the worker was suspended from a wire because that is what the behavior of the flap bouncing around in the video leads me to believe. This behavior seems to be quite pervasive in many Apollo videos. Certainly I saw it even more clearly in the Apollo 11 footage during the "kangaroo hop", and no explanations have been provided on this thread as to why that bouncing around of the flap happens in the way it does. Man on a wire is certainly one explanation that could work.

My only claim is that only by rendering the same exact scene under a physics engine with the two scenarios of 1) man suspended by wire on Earth and 2) man jumping on moon, can someone claim certainty what the flap should be doing when someone is on the moon with that design vs what the flap would look like when suspended from a wire. Without such a thing, I consider either assertion a guess. I imagine the backpack is still intact and on display, so this will issue is something that can proven or disproven beyond any question by such a simulation.

I'll yet take a look at the other material provided but I'm out of time for now.

a reply to: centarix

The top of the backpack is the least sensible place to attach a wire. It would pull up the backpack first and leave the astronaut behind, and place unnecessary strain on the equipment.