# Moon hoax?



## gl600 (Feb 11, 2010)

I just watched an episode of Mythbusters where they tested some of the theories against NASA's 'claim' that they landed people on the moon. That got me thinking:
Why was this never resolved by taking a powerful telescope and seeing if there is all the stuff left over on the moon by the missions that went there?


----------



## itznfb (Feb 11, 2010)

Because the hoax is a crazy conspiracy theory that has been dis-proven thousands of times in a thousand different ways and it still lingers because people love conspiracy theories. (ok thousands is an exaggeration)

I thought they did just that as one of the ways to disprove the hoax though? I thought it was on mythbusters. I know there are pictures taken through telescope of footprints and such.


----------



## KmH (Feb 11, 2010)

itznfb said:


> I know there are pictures taken through telescope of footprints and such.


Damn! That's one hell of a telescope!


----------



## itznfb (Feb 11, 2010)

KmH said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > I know there are pictures taken through telescope of footprints and such.
> ...



Lol. Well, I don't think you could see the Nike swoosh in the foot print. More along the lines of a photo analyst pointing out specific things in the photo and describing what they were and how it provided evidence.


----------



## Munky (Feb 11, 2010)

itznfb said:


> Because the hoax is a crazy conspiracy theory that has been dis-proven thousands of times in a thousand different ways and it still lingers because people love conspiracy theories. (ok thousands is an exaggeration)
> 
> I thought they did just that as one of the ways to disprove the hoax though? I thought it was on mythbusters. I know there are pictures taken through telescope of footprints and such.



*It's 2010 and 99% percent of the Vessels sent into space from NASA dont even come back; and you are telling me that in 1969 when a computer was as big as a house! A man; Walked on the Moon, Talked to the President on the Phone, All this Recorded on Tape....come on man...you cant be THAT naive....






PD. Mythbusters WONT disprove this 'myth' cause it will shatter US's Credibility...*


----------



## itznfb (Feb 11, 2010)

I actually don't believe Hollywood was capable of producing such a realistic video of a man walking on the moon. The capacity of actors in that time just wasn't there. :er:


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 11, 2010)

Munky said:


> *It's 2010 and 99% percent of the Vessels sent into space from NASA dont even come back; and you are telling me that in 1969 when a computer was as big as a house! A man; Walked on the Moon, Talked to the President on the Phone, All this Recorded on Tape....come on man...you cant be THAT naive....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Post of the week.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 11, 2010)

Mythbusters actually did something this tasteless?  This is why I rarely watch TV.


----------



## Corry (Feb 11, 2010)

Omg, is this conversation actually going on?  What year is it now?  2010?


----------



## KmH (Feb 11, 2010)

Munky said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > Because the hoax is a crazy conspiracy theory that has been dis-proven thousands of times in a thousand different ways and it still lingers because people love conspiracy theories. (ok thousands is an exaggeration)
> ...


Had you been born yet, in 1969? Your 99% figure is way off too. 

Business computers were as big as a house, but that was mostly data storage and output devices. The actual CPU was about as big as a TV.

The success of a conspiracy is inversely proportional to number of people involved in it. *WAY* to many people have been involved over the years to make any arguments for a conspiracy tenable.


----------



## skieur (Feb 11, 2010)

Quote: Originally Posted by *Munky* 

 
_*It's 2010 and 99% percent of the Vessels sent into space from NASA dont even come back; and you are telling me that in 1969 when a computer was as big as a house! A man; Walked on the Moon, Talked to the President on the Phone, All this Recorded on Tape....come on man...you cant be THAT naive....*_

*A little mixed up, eh?  Computers were as big as a room in the 1950s, and as big as a frig or desk around 1969. Quad tape was used for videotaping television and portable systems used 2 inch tape.*
*The technology was somewhat primitive in comparison to today, but it was there and it did work.*

*skieur


*


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 11, 2010)

Remember in Apollo 13 when Tom Hanks AIM chatted to Houston "We have a problem?"

My <3 stood still.


----------



## IgsEMT (Feb 11, 2010)

> > Quote: Originally Posted by *Munky*
> >
> >
> > _*It's 2010 and 99% percent of the Vessels sent into space from NASA dont even come back; and you are telling me that in 1969 when a computer was as big as a house! A man; Walked on the Moon, Talked to the President on the Phone, All this Recorded on Tape....come on man...you cant be THAT naive....
> ...


                                                                                       __________________

_*AMEN*_


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 11, 2010)

epp_b said:


> Mythbusters actually did something this tasteless?  This is why I rarely watch TV.


Ummm...

disproving theories that the moon landing was faked is somehow... tasteless? Alrighty, then.


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 11, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> Remember in Apollo 13 when Tom Hanks AIM chatted to Houston "We have a problem?"
> 
> My <3 stood still.


That movie was faked. People just say it was released to theaters.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 11, 2010)

> Ummm...
> 
> disproving theories that the moon landing was faked is somehow... tasteless?


Oh, I'm sorry, the first post wasn't entirely clear.  I thought Mythbusters was _joining in_ on the conspiracy theories.  My bad.

I still don't watch much TV, though


----------



## astrostu (Feb 11, 2010)

Okay, I'm going to actually address the original question.  It's a simple matter of optics - you can't have an Earth-bound telescope take optical pictures of the moon at sufficient resolution to view objects less than a meter wide.  Since I address this quite thoroughly in my blog, I will direct you to this post:  "The Apollo Moon Hoax: Why Haven&#8217;t Any Pictures Been Taken of the Landing Sites?"

In addition, with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter finally in its mapping phase, we actually DO HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE APOLLO LANDING SITES.  Even proponents of the conspiracy have started to shy away from the claim of "no photographs of the landing sites" because we have the photos now.  Again, I'll direct you to this post on my blog:  "The Apollo Moon Hoax: Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Images Apollo Landing Sites"


----------



## itznfb (Feb 11, 2010)

lol. Was this supposed to be serious?


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 11, 2010)

Conspiracy theorists are here for our amusement. Just point, laugh, and go on about your day.


----------



## gl600 (Feb 14, 2010)

astrostu said:


> Okay, I'm going to actually address the original question.  It's a simple matter of optics - you can't have an Earth-bound telescope take optical pictures of the moon at sufficient resolution to view objects less than a meter wide.  Since I address this quite thoroughly in my blog, I will direct you to this post:  "The Apollo Moon Hoax: Why Havent Any Pictures Been Taken of the Landing Sites?"
> 
> In addition, with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter finally in its mapping phase, we actually DO HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE APOLLO LANDING SITES.  Even proponents of the conspiracy have started to shy away from the claim of "no photographs of the landing sites" because we have the photos now.  Again, I'll direct you to this post on my blog:  "The Apollo Moon Hoax: Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Images Apollo Landing Sites"




Thanks
That's what I was looking for. :mrgreen:


----------



## manaheim (Feb 14, 2010)

This is fun.


----------



## Casshew (Feb 14, 2010)

If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they put them all there?


----------



## matfoster (Feb 14, 2010)

you're ALL just shilling for 'the man' .
..everyone (who isn't totally brainwashed) knows the moon is made of cheese and that both Neil Amstrong and Buzz Aldrin are lactose intolerant anyhow...


----------



## nemopaice (Feb 14, 2010)

Casserole said:


> If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they put them all there?


Ouch! Maybe because our egos are so big that we won't all fit? 

Seriously though, Conspiracy theories are the one and only thing on this planet that I cannot stand. Yes we landed there, no it's not hollow, no we haven't been communicating with and getting our tech. from aliens we keep in contact with, yes I think aliens are a real thing, with a tredecillion + stars and understanding that even if only 1/10000 of them had planets, and of them 1/10000 had the capabilities for life, then at least some of them could have intelligent life. Bush didn't have a role in 9/11, there was no man in the grassy knoll, I've seen the footage and have been there, unless he was on a ladder he wasn't there, and finally, January 1, 2013 we will still be here.

Sorry for the rant. I needed that


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 14, 2010)

Me, I love conspiracy theorists. It's some of the best amateur fiction out there. The fact they actually buy into the crap they're selling makes it even more hilarious. Never argue with them, just step aside and let their craziness flow.


----------



## burnws6 (Feb 14, 2010)

I was there that day. I was part of the lighting crew. It was fun. Here's some behind the scenes stuff:


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 14, 2010)

The HARD part was using CGI in 1969 to fake the reflections in the helmets!


----------



## burnws6 (Feb 14, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> The HARD part was using CGI in 1969 to fake the reflections in the helmets!


----------



## manaheim (Feb 14, 2010)

burnws6 said:


> I was there that day. I was part of the lighting crew. It was fun. Here's some behind the scenes stuff:


 
bahahhaha...

Inspired by this discussion I just went and watched the mythbusters epsiode.  They pretty clearly showed how these things could have happened the way they claimed they did.  Interesting stuff.


----------



## Overread (Feb 14, 2010)

Pfft the reflections in the helmits are easily explained - they are not reflections. Infact what they did was to use shorter actors inside the suit. There was then a metalic skeleton inside that helped to support a TV set inside the helmit - with a special dome shaped front screen.
This is why their movements are slightly slower and odd compared to real life - the suit was heavy and slow to move (wires were of course used for the higher motions and jumping parts). 

It was not easy to get the image as it should be reflected and took a lot of time and dedication on the part of the film crew and many of the shots had to be redone over and over to get that perfect reflection and to then put all the parts together for the final production.


----------



## pez (Feb 14, 2010)

The we-never-went-to-the-mooners are just as hard to reason with as the earth-is-5000-years-old idiots- they never let facts get in the way of their beliefs. I saw one of the conspiracy guys arguing that the LRO images were obviously doctored, "because that stuff isn't there in the first place".


----------



## astrostu (Feb 14, 2010)

pez said:


> The we-never-went-to-the-mooners are just as hard to reason with as the earth-is-5000-years-old idiots- they never let facts get in the way of their beliefs. I saw one of the conspiracy guys arguing that the LRO images were obviously doctored, "because that stuff isn't there in the first place".



That's a logical fallacy we call, "Argument from Final Consequences."


----------



## Formatted (Feb 17, 2010)

I also hear that the Americans have built a Cube, with traps in it, and they put people in it. But they don't know why they just do it.


Obama cancelled the moon missions cause they told him there was nothing there. True story!


----------

