Moon landing conspiracy?

[Finless]

I saw (for the first time) the documentary covering the views of those people who think that NASA lied about sending men to the moon (a la Capricorn 1 film).

The photgraphic evidence alone (lens cross hairs/shadows/ full detail in shadows) seemed very convincing.

What do you reckon? Obviously, the documetary put forward the "hoax view" and the NASA replies were crap - didn't ansew any of the important questions. Was this deliberate editing by the program makers? I don't know enough about it.

Hopefully, a Japanese unmanned mission to the moon in a few years may provide conclusive evidence.

[PeteM]

Originally Posted by Finless

What do you reckon? Obviously, the documetary put forward the "hoax view" and the NASA replies were crap - didn't ansew any of the important questions. Was this deliberate editing by the program makers? I don't know enough about it.

Did not see it this time but have seen it before, here is an interesting critique of it by a professional astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[aclivity]

According to a growing body of real scientists with real science degrees from such hallowed institutions as the Redneck University of Bhumfuck, Iowa, and the School of Really Hard Sums in Atlanta, Georgia, the Moon itself is a hoax:

http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

[DanE]

I think this shows all the proof I need to believe they landed on the moon.

dan

[Dr Stevil]

Bart Sibrel, a conspiracy theory nut, confronted Buzz Aldrin about this a couple of years ago:
"You're a coward," he exclaimed, "and a liar, ..."

The 72 year old ex-astronaut Aldrin (dubbed "Dr Rendezvous" because of his MIT doctoral thesis in orbital mechanics) punched the guy
See it on video here:
http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/


If it was a hoax it would have been exposed by the Soviets who followed everything the US did with the utmost scrutiny (and vice versa of course)

[Garf]

As soon as the japs send a probe to the Apollo11 Landing site in two years time the debate will be over one way or the other

[Finless]

Thanks for the links guys. I have to admit that I thought the documatary was OVERLY one sided and that, possibly, the NASA replies had been "cherry picked" to give the worst impression.

Also, I have learned that Van Allen is not spelt Van Halen - I kind of thought that Eddie had turned his amps up too high. I wish I could widdle like EVH .

Just goes to show (again) that trying to have an opinion about anything you have not been involved in is a waste of time.

One bit of photographic evidence that I did not see refuted (i.e. I missed it) was why the astronauts legs were never in shadow (on the shots shown) when they were on the shady side of the lander.

[Dr Stevil]

Originally Posted by aclivity

According to a growing body of real scientists with real science degrees from such hallowed institutions as the Redneck University of Bhumfuck, Iowa, and the School of Really Hard Sums in Atlanta, Georgia, the Moon itself is a hoax:

http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

I particularly like their argument that "No photographs were ever taken of the moon until the 1850’s. " Yeah, well... the first effective method of photography (ie exposures of less than 30mins), the daguerreotype, wasn't invented until 1839

Apparently Joseph Nicéphore Niépce took the first still image in 1827, with an eight hour exposure!

[Finless]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Bart Sibrel, a conspiracy theory nut, confronted Buzz Aldrin about this a couple of years ago:
"You're a coward," he exclaimed, "and a liar, ..."

The 72 year old ex-astronaut Aldrin (dubbed "Dr Rendezvous" because of his MIT doctoral thesis in orbital mechanics) punched the guy
See it on video here:
http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/


If it was a hoax it would have been exposed by the Soviets who followed everything the US did with the utmost scrutiny (and vice versa of course)

A South Paw huh! Excellent! In fact worthy of a green BUT I am not allowed to, yet.

[FOX]

I've seen the documentary before and recorded it last night cos it was very convincing first time round, there seems to be a lot of evidence against the landing that can't be explained.

I've put myself in the not sure camp

It does make interesting viewing though.

Assuming it was real and indeed possible it seems to me that there should have been loads of landings since, just a thought.