A Conversation for Conspiracy Theories

The Moon landings

Post 1

Dinsdale Piranha

You forgot the 'Man Has Not Been To The Moon' one, which seems to be based on things like 'The light was behind Buzz Aldrin in the famous photograph, there's only one source of light on the moon, but you can still see detail in the picture'.

Haven't these people heard of reflected light (Earthshine, the soil on the moon is very pale, etc, etc)? Deliberate overexposure?

The Moon landings

Post 2

Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista)

The big "proof" of this was a magnified shot of the tread on one boot as one astronaut was descending a ladder. In a documentary last year, they brought on one of the most vocal theorists who claimed the tread was lit from the opposite side to everything else, and the conspiricy factor was "proved" because if you sent off to NASA for a direct copy of the original negative the tread was "airbrushed out".

Then, they brought in a retired NASA representative, who pointed out that as far as he knew, all the images with "disputed shadows" were taken from a selection produced for a publicity pack intended for circulation around US schools in the early 1970s, and which all had some details airbrushed *in* to make them look prettier! The shoe tread had been added for a poster because the lack of a suitable light source meant it had never shown up properly in the original negative... smiley - biggrin

The Moon landings

Post 3

Just zis Guy, you know? † Cyclist [A690572] :: At the 51st centile of ursine intelligence

You're right, I'd forgotten about that. Mind you, since the earth is known to be flat this is clearly a genuine conspiracy not just some vague theory.

The Moon landings

Post 4

Gnomon - time to move on

Wrong, the Earth is not flat, it is a hollow sphere and we are on the inside. If we tunnel down deep enough, we will get to see the real universe.

The Moon landings

Post 5

Researcher 33337

But you all forgot teh ultimate proof tehat the moon photos were faked. Its hidden in that classic bond film, "Diamonds are forever" In a daring escape, bond enters a "training area" that looks liek a film set of teh lunar surface. He says to confused "Astronaut" "I'm here to check teh radiation shielding" Obviously a reference to the fact that teh cameras were not radiation shielded and so none of teh pictures would have turned out if taken on teh moon.

Now, despite teh fact that peopel who shot otehr peopel to teh moon may have thought of this one and covered it. And despite the fact that bond was posing as someone related to nuclear research (I think) its an obvious hint to a conspircay dont you think.

The Moon landings

Post 6

Dinsdale Piranha

Not wishing to sound rude, but do you think you can proof-read your postings prior to posting them? After wading through the typos, I'm not sure where you stand on this one.

The Moon landings

Post 7

Researcher 33337

The reason (Whcih many will wonder about) as to my many typos, Is that I am on a poor internet comapny and pay dearly for all my phone calls. So my access time is limited and typing must be done quickly, so I have not actual time to proof read because a slow modem and machine make my download times quite lengthy. (A discussion formum can take 2-3 minutes to load) as for my position, sarcasm as to the bond reference theory, but The photos are clearly faked. For what reason, WHo knows, cameras didn't work and they knew noboddy would believe them if tehy just sair tehy went, so tehy threw together a couple of photos and a bit of film.

The Moon landings

Post 8

Dinsdale Piranha

'Clearly faked'? Please make it clear to me how they are fakes.

The Moon landings

Post 9

Researcher 33337

Well, teh shadowing is off on many of teh photos, plus in one a rock appears to have a number written on it (In clear, regular type) And tehre is teh problem of the film. Camera film doesn't liek extreme hot or cold. It tends to shatter in cold and melt in heat. Both of these extremes were present on teh moon. There are otehr reasons, But Professional Photographers have deemed tehm fakes, and IMHO, they're teh ones who shoudl know.

The Moon landings

Post 10

Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista)

Were these "wrong shadows" in prints, or on the original negatives? See post #2 for explaination of dodgy shadows in prints released by NASA... smiley - bigeyes

The Moon landings

Post 11

Dinsdale Piranha

Which one has the rock with the number written on it? Which Professional Photographers? What were their reasons?

I've sold pictures. Does that make me a Profesional Photographer?

The Moon landings

Post 12

Sir Bedevere

I know this is rather pointless to reply as all Conspiracy Theorists can hold at least 2 total contradictory arguments to prove what ever they want to say at that moment, however:

Lets address some of the most common "evidence" put forward to prove that the pictures are fakes.

1) There is only one source of light on the moon and the pictures are lit...

The Sun is the main source of directional light on the moon (i.e. will cast a shadow). When HBO made the mini-series "From the Earth to the Moon" they needed something like 12-16 12Kwatt Xenon spot lamps bounced off a parabolic mirror to simulate sunlight on the lunar surface (did such things exist in 1960's ?).

But there are other sources of light that Theorists seem to completely forget about the Luna surface reflects sunlight, about 4% I think. This may not sound a lot but in 1999 when there was a 99% partial eclipse it didn't really get that dark, so even 1% the sun's light is rather bright. The reflected light from the moon is bright enough to travel 1/4 million miles to earth pass though the scattering atmosphere and illuminate the earth (i.e. during a full moon you can see pretty well). So imagine standing on the luna surface the scattered light must be pretty bright, it's something like standing on a sandy beach in bright sunlight, the surface reflects enough light to burn you.

Another source of light is Earthshine. Now we are lucky at the moment if you get a chance to look at the moon tonight around 17:45 GMT you will see the moon with only a thin crescent lit by the sun, but you can also see the rest of the moon as well and that's because the earth reflects something like 6 times the amount of sunlight than the moon. This Earthshine is travelling to the moon and only 4% is being reflected back to us on earth and you can see it, so that tells you how bright it is.

Now because the moon travels in orbit around the earth at the same rate that it spins on it's axis the same side always faces earth, this is called a captured rotation. One of the other upshots of this is that the Earth and Moon mirror each other's phases, so when it's a full moon the earth below is in full blackness, when it's a new moon the earth is in full daylight, etc. (BTW Jupiter's moon Europa also has a captured rotation).

When the Apollo missions landed on the moon they always did just after the local dawn so that the Astronauts could see the shadows in the terrain to guide them down. So when Apollo 11 landed the sunlit part of the moon was around 1/4 meaning that the earth was 3/4 full.

So the famous picture of Buzz Aldrin on the moon, which the Theorists say is fake, was lit not only by the Sun directly, but also by reflected defused light from the surface and 3/4 full earth. Also you must remember that when the film was developed and printed there would have been some deliberate over exposure etc. just to bring up some detail.

2) The film would melt as the daytime temperature is 200 C, or snap as in the shadows it's -200 C.

Well yes the temperature is 200 C in sunlight and -200 C in shadow, but even with my 'O' Level maths I make that 0 C. So in reality the camera has an internal temp of around 0 C because no matter how it was held one side is in daylight and the other is in shadow.

Some convenient things that the Theorists forget about is that the USA and USSR had been using film in space for years before in both manned and unmanned spacecraft (how do you think the spy satellites took pictures?) they never had a problem. Also that even is an object is placed in sunlight it doesn't instantly jump to 200 C it takes a while to warm up.

3) The pictures would all be fogged by radiation.

Well yes radiation does fog film this is true, that's what the dosimeters badges (or Radiation Shield in the USA) have in them and it's also how medical X-rays work.

But radioactivity is something that on the whole that people don't understand. Now going back to my school physics lesions there are 3 types of radioactivity Alpha, Beta and Gamma.

Alpha radiation is Helium Nuclei and the Sun throws off a lot of them. As Alpha radiation is a rather heavy particle it doesn't take much to stop it, a sheet of paper will do the trick. (I have done this experiment).

Beta radiation is Electrons and the Sun throws off these as well. As an electron is a rather light and small particle it tends to penetrate better (BTW electrons from your CRT will be passing through the glass and hitting you right now!), so paper won't stop them but Aluminium foil does, as it is slightly denser. (I have also done this experiment).

Gamma radiation is Electromagnetic waves and the Sun throws off these waves (but Alpha & Beta are most the Solar Wind). Now Gamma rays also come from deep space (cosmic rays) and the thing about them is that they very hard to stop. In fact they will pass right through concrete etc. but because of their nature they mostly pass straight through things without hitting anything. This is because they can pass through the space between atoms and even between the electrons and nucleus.

The way in which these would fog the film is by hitting it, but as the camera was made of steel most of the Alpha and Beta Particles never reached the film and the gamma rays just passed straight through.

If you believe the Theorists here you would never take you camera on a plane as at high altitude you get a dose of radiation, the X-ray machine at the airport would ruin the film and don't even bother to use you camera in a Cornwall with all the Radon Gas...

4) There are no duff pictures

It's true that NASA never published any duff pictures, but if you look into it there where hundreds and hundreds of pictures taken but only a few got released. That's because they didn't publish the rubbish ones as that makes them look bad.

You go ask these "professional photographers" how many shots they take just for the 1 picture that gets published.

BTW Neil Armstrong, who had the camera on Apollo 11 was a poor photographer and quite a few shots had heads missing, lens flares etc. See he was Human too.

5) They did it all at Area 51

OK as in 1 above the Sunlight at night is very hard to fake even with 1990's technology. But the staggeringly obvious point is if they did it at Area 51 (the world worst kept secret) the USSR Spy satellites would have picked it up (as the USA did the USSR's moon rocket).

Theorists counter this one by suddenly saying that the USSR and USA were in the conspiracy together, completely forgetting the fact that only 15 minuets earlier they told you that the USA faked it all because they wanted to beat the very same USSR to the moon.

As I said Why do I bother?

BTW another contradiction is that NASA was so careful to hide the fact that they made the fakes and also made sure the lighting was correct but were careless enough to have a rock with a number on it! P*@# Off!

Sir Bedevere

The Moon landings

Post 13

Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista)

Another thing which shows up on cheap documentaries a lot is "structures on the moon", where photographs have been enhanced and contrast-stretched to show what looks like skyscrapers and towers in the shadows on the horizon. The fact that this can be shown in so many photographs over a number of missions is used as "proof" of a conspiracy to hide the "fact" that the moon is inhabited by a sophixticated super-race, and the governments of the world are trying to hide this fact from us. I've even heard a narrator express wonder at the technology required to keep all these "towers" absolutely straight, with nothing but right angles discernable... smiley - biggrin

Of course, it's obvious to anyone who has used Photoshop that they have sourced all these images off the internet in JPEG format, and have done precisely the sort of contrast adjustments necessary to emphasise the JPEG artefacts in the images! I was once sent a 3-hour documentary (ominously labelled "Part one") where it was apparent that a lecturer was making a good living touring the USA espousing this theory! smiley - winkeye

The Moon landings

Post 14

Researcher 33337

Exactly. My actual problem with the moon landings conspiracy is that it has a lot of very innocent reasons why teh photos were faked.

Consider 1. NASA scientists don't realise challanges of filming and using film on the moon. Hence, none fo the shots turn out. (probably already worked out by a possable failiure in teh onboard camera) so tehy fake it, not for America, who woudl believe it regardless because its what tehy want to believe, but for the rest of teh world who will say "Prove it" when tehy claim to have been to the moon.

Consider 2. Photos did turn out, but looked awful and uninspiring. To continue space program funding, photos were touched up.

Of course, A great way to prove it to nayone is to take tehm to the moon to see al teh rubbish left behind (Moon Buggys, Golf Balls etc) Best thing is, once tehre tehy say "AHA! you didn't make it to the moon" If aforementioned stuff is absent. Scientists then say, well, we're here now arent we. AHA.

And you can make a tidy living off lecturing to rooms full of conspiracy theorists. I have decided to start trying to prove that the elements of the moon landings taht prove that tehy are fakes, are in fact fake to make us think that teh moon landings never happened. Why, who knows. I'll dream up something involving martians with big elbows.

The Moon landings

Post 15


Prove we have been to the moon:
1.Rock brought back from the moon. Moon rock would be impossible to fake on the earth for numerous resins (but manly the oxygen content ect.)
2.Photos of starfield behind picture match what would actauly seen on the moon.
3.Getting 160,000 or so Americans to keep a secret, is not possible.
4.The oringinal photo's were VERY poor quality, almost all pictures have been 'enhanced'.
5.'Radiaction' would not interfere with most camera's, let alone specialist cameras.
Ps.I like the idea someone meationed of us leaving on a Dyson Sphere, but how would we get day and night?

The Moon landings

Post 16

Researcher 33337

I agree with most of tehse. And radiation may not affect teh camera or teh film (Even though taht is a test for radiation, it fogs film) Iths teh temeprature variations on teh moon. Basically and with no real numbers, its really hot in teh sunlight and near absolute zero in teh cold. I've had camera film crack and break off at just below zero. and in the warm the sprocket holes melt. Doesn't mena we haven't been to teh moon, just means teh photos didn't turn out when tehy got home.

Oh, day andnight on a dyson sphere are created using flocks of highly trained formation flying bats.

The Moon landings

Post 17

Mr K H Jordan. Totally brain washed and incapable of making sense (the BBC has done its work well)

i know this doesn't really contribute to your conversation but reading through it seems like your all in agreement. man did go to the moon and above there is a ton of evidence to prove that. so why are you still trying to prove this to eachother. you all agree and yet you all seem like your argueing. if you want to keep putting foward evidence to prove a certain argument surely you should put it to someone who is going to oppose you, to try and convince them of the truth. it seems a bit pointless otherwise.

Dyson spheres

Post 18

Gnomon - time to move on

I thought the trouble with Dyson spheres is that there is no gravity inside. So you all have to walk around with velcro on your shoes. Bob Shaw just ignored this in his "Orbitsville" books.

There's also a problem with heating: if you have a central sun to provide warmth, there's nothing to keep it central, as the sphere exerts no pull on the sun. Gradually the sun drifts until it strikes the sphere. Unless you have some way of moving a sun around.

The Star Trek Next Generation crowd encountered a Dyson sphere in one episode and it was fairly incidental to the plot. Their reaction was "oh look, it's a Dyson sphere". I suspect the real reaction would involve amazement.

Dyson spheres

Post 19

Researcher 33337

Ah but in that episode they'd just found scotty. And besideswhat you didn't see was the huge line of dyson spheres behind that one.

As a curiosity, Is the dyson who invente dteh dyson sphere teh same guy who ibvented teh dyson hoover or is it just a sponsorship deal?

Dyson spheres

Post 20

Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Eggcups-Spurtle-and-Spoonswinner, BBC Cheese Namer & Zaphodista)

I believe the episode they found Scotty was called "Relics", and involved him using a transporter programmed into an endless loop as an impromptu stasis chamber... Or am I just pissed? (Inclusive-Or smiley - smiley)

Key: Complain about this post

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more