Apollo: What really happened?

2006-09-01 13:35:20

#1

UON: Junglist Massive; +223|6869

Now correct me if I'm wrong (feel free to close/delete), but after 7 or 8 searches around the keywords "moon landing fake apollo conspiracy 1969" I can't find a single thread entirely devoted to the subject. And there was me thinking that there were supposed to be loads of whacked out liberal terrorist lapdog conspiracy theorists in this forum, but it would seem that this issue has merely been a sideshow in other topics of conversation.

Anyway, I'm starting this thread because I stumbled upon this three and a half hour documentary today, made in 2000, which you might consider the 'Loose Change' of the moon landing conspiracy theories.

Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 3747128107
Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 2896358451

There are some quite convincing arguments, counter-claims, historic precedents and analysis's which seem to point towards the entire Apollo program being a staged hoax. Obviously being a terrorist lapdog, I've come across the odd site here or there which has a few odd bits and pieces which can be easily explained away, but this one really made me wonder.

Watch and comment. Or comment anyway. Or don't. Whatever.

2006-09-01 13:51:38

#2

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6900|United States of America

My word, a 3 hour video? Come on, you can't give me this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moo … ccusations)

I was just reading that article and Buzz Aldrin is my new hero.

"[Bart] Sibrel made repeated demands over several years that Apollo 11 Lunar Module Pilot 'Buzz' Aldrin swear an oath on the Bible that he had walked on the Moon, or admit that it was all a hoax. Aldrin ignored Sibrel, and in September 2002, Sibrel approached Aldrin and a young female relative as they were leaving a building, and called Aldrin "a coward, a liar, and a thief".[89] The right-handed Aldrin punched Sibrel in the face with his left hand, saying that he felt forced to defend himself and his companion (Sibrel was about half Aldrin's age and rather taller and larger), knocking him down. Sibrel suffered no permanent injury: in fact, immediately after being hit, he turned to the cameraman and asked, "Did you get that?" The Beverly Hills police investigated the incident, but no charges were filed. CBS News reports that "witnesses have come forward stating that they saw Sibrel aggressively poke Aldrin with a Bible and that Sibrel had lured Aldrin to the hotel under false pretenses so that he could interview him."[90]"

Last edited by DesertFox423 (2006-09-01 14:16:32)

2006-09-01 14:44:59

#3

UON: Junglist Massive; +223|6869

It's the bit about the astronaught opening his PlSS flaps in deep space that makes you wonder if the still photography was happening at the same time as the live footage. Most of the still photography/shadows/lighting doesn't prove much either way.... although the glint on the boot heel is weird...

2006-09-01 14:51:21

#4

APortillo: Member; +21|6728|California, USA

The other day I read that NASA lost the videos of the landing

2006-09-01 16:00:55

#5

jimmanycricket: EBC Member; +56|6871|Cambridge, England

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
It's the bit about the astronaught opening his PlSS flaps in deep space that makes you wonder if the still photography was happening at the same time as the live footage. Most of the still photography/shadows/lighting doesn't prove much either way.... although the glint on the boot heel is weird...

actually when you look at the footage the flap does go up and down so the picture is probly real.

Last edited by jimmanycricket (2006-09-01 16:01:22)

2006-09-01 16:48:43

#6

UON: Junglist Massive; +223|6869

jimmanycricket wrote:
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
It's the bit about the astronaught opening his PlSS flaps in deep space that makes you wonder if the still photography was happening at the same time as the live footage. Most of the still photography/shadows/lighting doesn't prove much either way.... although the glint on the boot heel is weird...
actually when you look at the footage the flap does go up and down so the picture is probly real.

Yeah, but when am I ever going to get the chance to use PLSS flaps in a sentence again?

To me it's just another one of those "we'll never know for sure", because although the technology and motives were there to fake it, there is no real proof aside from circumstancial inconsistancies, strange as they may be. Strange enough to fill three and a half hours as they may be...

2006-09-01 16:56:00

#7

GotMex?: $623,493,674,868,715.98 in Debt; +193|6978

Think of it this way... is landing on the moon really THAT hard that they had to create a megaelaborate conspiracy. We know they made it to the moon itself since no one doubts that Apollo 13 was real (Or any other Apollo missions). Landing on the moon after that is considerably much simpler than landing back on the earth (re-entry) so I don't see why they'd have to fake it. Yea it's nice to imagine that the government can do things like that, but I'm convinced that this was real.

2006-09-01 18:26:32

#8

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|6973|Argentina

I found this photo. You decide if it is real or fake.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel … entid=2378

2006-09-01 18:45:20

#9

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6859

the moon doesnt exist, fools.

2006-09-01 20:09:56

#10

GotMex?: $623,493,674,868,715.98 in Debt; +193|6978

sergeriver wrote:
I found this photo. You decide if it is real or fake.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel … entid=2378

"Aldrin's shadow (A) is far longer than Armstrong's. Yet the only light on the moon - and the only light source used by NASA - comes from the sun, and should not create such unequal shadows."

There's also the light that the Earth reflects from the sun, the sun itself, and light the moon reflects from the sun, and the light scattered by lunar dust. This is why there can be unequal shadows. Different light sources, which also behave different than on the Earth because there is no atmosphere on the moon.

2006-09-01 20:17:56

#11

[R3n]izzy: Member; +1|6842|norway

like Wtf, who Care's if it's fake or not... if it is u guy's got one up on the russkie's, and if it isn't u still got one up on the russkie's.. The moon isn't a big deal, it's Mar's that is cause it's ET like not Terra ferma...

2006-09-01 20:41:02

#12

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6859

bring pluto back

2006-09-01 20:41:13

#13

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|6888|Colorado

please, they landed on the moon, period. Conspiracy kooks!

2006-09-01 21:02:07

#14

FoShizzle: Howdah Lysozyme; +21|6843|Pittsburgh, PA

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the moon doesnt exist, fools.

LOL, true dat!

2006-09-01 21:07:34

#15

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6932

TrollmeaT wrote:
please, they landed on the moon, period. Conspiracy kooks!

damn straight. if any of you said the moon landing was fake, go ask neil armstrong

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-09-01 21:24:04

#16

AAFCptKabbom: Member; +127|6874|WPB, FL. USA

I see that two more family members broke the taboo and bred another mental giant.

I bet I can make a very believable video that makes you look like a normal, middle class, church going, educated, and conservative human being. We would know it's not true but we wouldn't be able to get people to believe us since they would only believe the video.

America is turning to shit and we are just waiting to be flushed. Fat, lazy, and stupid we are

2006-09-01 21:56:48

#17

Noobzorz: You are what you eat.; +8|6694

Moon landing false?

Is this a joke?

Don't you have neighborhood "FIGHT AL QAEDA" meetings to attend?

2006-09-01 22:16:12

#18

PRiMACORD: Member; +190|6841|Home of the Escalade Herds

GotMex? wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
I found this photo. You decide if it is real or fake.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel … entid=2378
"Aldrin's shadow (A) is far longer than Armstrong's. Yet the only light on the moon - and the only light source used by NASA - comes from the sun, and should not create such unequal shadows."

There's also the light that the Earth reflects from the sun, the sun itself, and light the moon reflects from the sun, and the light scattered by lunar dust. This is why there can be unequal shadows. Different light sources, which also behave different than on the Earth because there is no atmosphere on the moon.

What the fuck, that has to be the worse explanation i've ever heard - about anything.

I see nothing wrong with that picture, the ground is not flat, the are both standing on different portions of the surface. Differences in elevation on the surface will elongate or shorten shadows.

We went to the moon and yes, it is made out of delicious creamy cheese, EOD.

Last edited by PRiMACORD (2006-09-01 22:18:36)

2006-09-01 22:40:13

#19

GotMex?: $623,493,674,868,715.98 in Debt; +193|6978

PRiMACORD wrote:
GotMex? wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
I found this photo. You decide if it is real or fake.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel … entid=2378
"Aldrin's shadow (A) is far longer than Armstrong's. Yet the only light on the moon - and the only light source used by NASA - comes from the sun, and should not create such unequal shadows."

There's also the light that the Earth reflects from the sun, the sun itself, and light the moon reflects from the sun, and the light scattered by lunar dust. This is why there can be unequal shadows. Different light sources, which also behave different than on the Earth because there is no atmosphere on the moon.
What the fuck, that has to be the worse explanation i've ever heard - about anything.

I see nothing wrong with that picture, the ground is not flat, the are both standing on different portions of the surface. Differences in elevation on the surface will elongate or shorten shadows.

We went to the moon and yes, it is made out of delicious creamy cheese, EOD.

Lol chill out... wikipedia seems to agree with my reasoning. And I was refutting the claim that the only light source is the Sun. It is not, there are many others. I just hate how these conspiracy theories always have "facts" based on incorrect arguments from the start.

In the case of this pic, it could be different elevations... it could also be the fact that a 16mm camera was used. That's a mega wide angle lens which is gonna cause the edges to have a fish eye effect. Thus elongating certain features making it seem like the shadows are longer.

My best explanation, photoshop didn't exist back they surely couldn't fake the photos this well

2006-09-01 23:03:01

#20

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6890|Canberra, AUS

Conspiracy theories fail.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-09-02 00:19:25

#21

apollo_fi: The Flying Kalakukko.; +94|6746|The lunar module

arggg.... slander and blasphemy.

;-)

2006-09-02 00:57:56

#22

Noobzorz: You are what you eat.; +8|6694

GotMex? wrote:
PRiMACORD wrote:
GotMex? wrote:

"Aldrin's shadow (A) is far longer than Armstrong's. Yet the only light on the moon - and the only light source used by NASA - comes from the sun, and should not create such unequal shadows."

There's also the light that the Earth reflects from the sun, the sun itself, and light the moon reflects from the sun, and the light scattered by lunar dust. This is why there can be unequal shadows. Different light sources, which also behave different than on the Earth because there is no atmosphere on the moon.
What the fuck, that has to be the worse explanation i've ever heard - about anything.

I see nothing wrong with that picture, the ground is not flat, the are both standing on different portions of the surface. Differences in elevation on the surface will elongate or shorten shadows.

We went to the moon and yes, it is made out of delicious creamy cheese, EOD.
Lol chill out... wikipedia seems to agree with my reasoning. And I was refutting the claim that the only light source is the Sun. It is not, there are many others. I just hate how these conspiracy theories always have "facts" based on incorrect arguments from the start.

In the case of this pic, it could be different elevations... it could also be the fact that a 16mm camera was used. That's a mega wide angle lens which is gonna cause the edges to have a fish eye effect. Thus elongating certain features making it seem like the shadows are longer.

My best explanation, photoshop didn't exist back they surely couldn't fake the photos this well

Well, for that matter, there could very well have been light from the shuttle or the lander, because something took the photo from that elevation.

2006-09-02 01:45:13

#23

PRiMACORD: Member; +190|6841|Home of the Escalade Herds

GotMex? wrote:
And I was refutting the claim that the only light source is the Sun. It is not, there are many others

The problem is...thats completely incorrect. There is only one direct light source in that picture and it is the Sun.

1. Reflected light from the Earth is far to weak to show up at the exposure length this photograph was taken in (which i assume is around 1/3000th of a second +).

2. Other light sources would not manipulate the shadows length, they would create there own shadows.

2006-09-02 01:47:59

#24

apollo_fi: The Flying Kalakukko.; +94|6746|The lunar module

Opération lune.

If you have access to this documentary, please try to find the time to watch it.

I saw Opération lune on the Finnish TV a while ago, and was appalled, horrified, intrigued and entertained by it. And relieved, at the end...

2006-09-02 05:21:07

#25

its true, light reflected from the earth will be far to weak.

As far as i know, Neil is an alien, working uncover for hezbullah.

BF2S Forums Apollo: What really happened?

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

jimmanycricket wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

TrollmeaT wrote:

GotMex? wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

PRiMACORD wrote:

GotMex? wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

GotMex? wrote:

PRiMACORD wrote:

GotMex? wrote:

GotMex? wrote:

Board footer