"Moon Landing is a Hoax" Believers, Explain This.

There is a video, showing Apollo 15 Astronaut (David Scott) doing a simple scientific experiment, demonstrating the lack of atmosphere on Moon. He drops a hammer and a feather, at the same time.

Both things fall to the ground simultaneously.

If the moon landing was hoaxed, as some people believe, how was this achieved?

Originally posted by flexy123
There is a video, showing Apollo 15 Astronaut (David Scott) doing a simple scientific experiment, demonstrating the lack of atmosphere on Moon. He drops a hammer and a feather, at the same time.

Both things fall to the ground simultaneously.

If the moon landing was hoaxed, as some people believe, how was this achieved?

edit on 11-8-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

Oh that's an easy one, they use a feather made of metal.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver

Originally posted by flexy123
There is a video, showing Apollo 15 Astronaut (David Scott) doing a simple scientific experiment, demonstrating the lack of atmosphere on Moon. He drops a hammer and a feather, at the same time.

Both things fall to the ground simultaneously.

If the moon landing was hoaxed, as some people believe, how was this achieved?

edit on 11-8-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

Oh that's an easy one, they use a feather made of metal.

ok that was funny

reply to post by flexy123


Haha! Awsome! I never knew they did that.

The above experiment was replicated in the studio once on an episode of Mythbusters, they put a titanium rod into the spine of the feather and it dropped at the same time as the hammer.

I'm not saying that this is the case here, I'm just saying it could easily be, and has been done!

Gnobody

Or maybe...

I do not know what to think, and frankly I do not care. We are far past the moon what matters is now not then.

If you can simulate a human being gravitational effect then why couldn't you do it with any other object?

reply to post by Gnobody

Originally posted by Gnobody

The above experiment was replicated in the studio once on an episode of Mythbusters.........

Correct, except for the 'studio' part. That particular episode was filmed at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.

Although exact details from the episode are mum, NASA has reported that the Mythbusters’ tests included a feather, a weight, a lunar soil boot print, and a flag in a vacuum.

Did NASA have a large vacuum chamber 40 years ago, such as the one used by the Mythbusters? Maybe. Maybe not. If they did, that still wouldn't confirm the claims of it being a hoax. On the flipside of that, the OP's video doesn't confirm that it wasn't a hoax.



The Mythbuster's Team's conclusions:

One of the NASA photos is fake because the shadows of the rocks and lunar lander are not parallel.
Busted


One of the NASA photos is fake because Neil Armstrong can be clearly seen while in the shadow of the lunar lander.
Busted



A flag cannot flap in a vacuum.
Busted


A clear footprint cannot be made in vacuum because there is no moisture to hold its shape.
Busted


The film of the astronauts moonwalking is actually film of the astronauts skipping in front of a high-framerate camera, slowing down the picture and giving the illusion they are on the Moon.
Busted


The Apollo astronauts left behind special equipment on the Moon like reflectors that scientists can bounce lasers off of.
Confirmed

reply to post by Gnobody


Exactly.

If the mythbuster guys can do it I sure hope the nasa scientists could solve the riddle.

reply to post by flexy123


You showed the wrong video. The one the Moon Hoaxers hate is this one:



Apollo 14 SEQ BAy Pendulum

We could have had a moon base for all the money we spent on the cold war and WW2. We never did free Poland, which was the reason for WW2 in the first place.

Instead of a moon base we got testimonials and fake looking pictures about lunar landings that mostly make us easier to lie to-- if they aren't lying 99% already.

The astronauts never jumped higher than a man in fake moon suit could on Earth, and all of the moon rocks could have come to Earth from an asteriod some time in the last 4 billion years.

That silly squirt out of a can stuff (I have very slow internet) could have left the foot track patterns and it can't be that hard to hit the moon with an empty ( except for the silly squirt stuff) lunar lander looking thing. You could try a few dozen times and show the ones that look plausible.

The only proof of the moon landing is the way everybody in the media says it is the truth. Bad sign.

reply to post by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

The only proof of the moon landing is the way everybody in the media says it is the truth. Bad sign.

And people wonder why conspiracy theorists are often ridiculed, and rarely taken seriously.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by Gnobody

 

Originally posted by Gnobody

The above experiment was replicated in the studio once on an episode of Mythbusters.........

Correct, except for the 'studio' part. That particular episode was filmed at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.

Ahh You are right! Thanks for clarifying BrokenCircles, it's been a while since I watched that particular episode!

I recommend all that are interested in this subject to watch this episode, it tackles a lot of the theories and claims that are often cited regarding the moon landings...

Gnobody

Its not that the moon landing was a hoax. That hoax is itself a hoax.
the point is to keep everyone distracted from what they really found there that
they are keeping secreted away from us.

Why is it that if you believe that there is something fishy with the moon landing you are automatically a "moon hoax crackpot"?
There are plenty of unexplained anomalies that still have not been debunked.
The crosshairs in camera for instance...that one alone is worth looking at.
They may have went to the moon, but the record of it is tainted.
I don't think mirrors on the surface left by them is much of an argument either. Those could have been sent there unmanned...
Has anyone considered that some of photos and footage was faked simply because they screwed it up, and didn't want to admit publicly that all the footage from mankind's greatest recorded achievement to date was ruined?
Pretty bad PR that would be....
I don't think it's as black and white as we are led to believe, and saying things like "That theory is so preposterous as to not even warrant attention", is unacceptable.
That was the response to why the crosshairs etched into the lens was BEHIND objects in the photo.
I don't care if you think it's preposterous, it's right there in front of you, explain it to me in small words, oh mighty NASA pinhead PR specialist.
Not too much to ask, unless you can't answer it, or don't want to out of guilt.
I don't doubt they went.
I doubt their sincerity in it's presentation to us.

reply to post by Semicollegiate

We could have had a moon base for all the money we spent on the cold war and WW2. We never did free Poland, which was the reason for WW2 in the first place.

Your internet connection is slow indeed!
news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by ViktorHaze

The crosshairs in camera for instance...that one alone is worth looking at.

Please explain.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Semicollegiate

 

We could have had a moon base for all the money we spent on the cold war and WW2. We never did free Poland, which was the reason for WW2 in the first place.

Your internet connection is slow indeed!
news.bbc.co.uk...

This is getting off topic but if you call that freeing Poland, then WW2 wasn't neccessary. We declared war because the invasion of Poland was "unaccaptable" and when the war ended, Poland belonged to one of its prewar occupiers. So why the war?

Lying about, or completely faking, the moon landing is forgettable in comparison.

reply to post by DJW001


Not really sure how to post a pic, but there are photo's that show the reticules (crosshairs) on the lens of the cameras they used showing up behind objects in the photo.
I have seen it explained as washout on at least one sight, but it was set up by NASA.
Sorry, but I prefer independent analysis, not by the people making the claim for or against, just like I don't believe cops investigating cops aren't biased.
Some of the photos are obviously washed out, or overexposed, and lumping those in with others that aren't so cut and dried is a little disingenuous.
Like I said, I think they went.
But they aren't telling us everything, and what that is, I have no idea and no intention of speculating, out loud anyway..
The after landing interview is a little suspect as well.
Those guys look like they just lost their best friend.
Would you be sullen if you were the first man to step on the moon?
I don't buy the argument that after the moon, everything was a let down...
Bullcrap, you would be losing your mind with the excitement of it, not looking like you just got off of a red eye flight full of screaming babies.

Why did NASA leave the reflector behind to bounce lazers off from earth?

2nd.