Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked

  • 33 Replies
  • 19964 Views
Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« on: August 09, 2011, 10:06:48 PM »
1) When the astronauts are putting up the American flag it waves. There is no wind on the Moon.

The flag is held up by a horizontal bar and simply moves when it is unfurled and as the pole is being fixed into position by the astronauts. The flagpole is light, flexible aluminium and continues to vibrate after the astronauts let go, giving the impression of blowing in the wind.

2) No stars are visible in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon.

The Apollo landing takes place during lunar mornings, with the Sun shining brightly. The stars are not bright enough in this light to be captured in the photographs.

3) No blast crater is visible in the pictures taken of the lunar landing module.

The landing module touches down on solid rock, covered in a layer of fine lunar dust, so there is no reason why it would create a blast crater. Even if the ground were less solid, the amount of thrust being produced by the engines at the point of landing and take off is very low in comparison to a landing on Earth because of the relative lack of gravitational pull.

4) The landing module weighs 17 tons and yet sits on top of the sand making no impression. Next to it astronauts’ footprints can be seen in the sand.

The layer of lunar dust is fairly thin, so the landing module sits on the solid rock. The dust, whilst blown away by the blast from the descent engines, quickly settles back on the ground and is under the astronauts when they begin their moonwalk.

5) The footprints in the fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, are unexpectedly well preserved, as if made in wet sand.

The lack of wind on the moon means the footprints in fine, dry lunar dust aren’t blown away in the way they would be if made in a similar substance on Earth.

6) When the landing module takes off from the Moon’s surface there is no visible flame from the rocket.

The rockets in the landing module are powered by fuel containing a combination of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide, which burn with no visible flame.

7) If you speed up the film of the astronauts walking on the Moon’s surface they look like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down.

The best you can say is: yes, a bit, but not really.

8) The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt.

This claim is largely based on a claim from a Russian cosmonaut. The short time it takes to pass through the belt, combined with the protection from the spacecraft, means any exposure to radiation would be very low.

9) The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica.

Some Moon rocks have been found on Earth, but they are all scorched and oxidised from their entry into the Earth’s atmosphere as asteroids. Geologists have confirmed with complete certainty that the Apollo rocks must have been brought from the Moon by man.

10) All six Moon landings happened during the Nixon administration. No other national leader has claimed to have landed astronauts on the Moon, despite 40 years of rapid technological development.

This is a favourite among conspiracy theorists because it needs no evidence but points the finger at the presidency of Richard Nixon. The fact is that after the Apollo landings, the race had been won and the money dried up. The USSR has no interest in coming second, and politicians on both side realised that lower-orbit missions had much greater commercial and military potential.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5833633/Apollo-11-Moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html


















"Even Dr. Robert Park, Director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society and a noted critic of NASA's human space flight program, agrees with the space agency on this issue. "The body of physical evidence that humans did walk on the Moon is simply overwhelming."" - http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/

« Last Edit: August 09, 2011, 10:12:35 PM by AndersonG22 »
Ice wall ninja

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2011, 10:18:13 PM »
Seeing as how spaceflight is impossible on a flat Earth, I need only one item to debunk everything you just said.

Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2011, 10:22:41 PM »
Seeing as how spaceflight is impossible on a flat Earth, I need only one item to debunk everything you just said.


Find me scientists who believe you and are alive today. I would also like to see there evidence backing up there claims, and peer reviewed papers.
Ice wall ninja

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2011, 10:30:10 PM »
Read Earth not a Globe and search for Tom Bishop and James on this website. Both have fantastic evidence showing that NASA is a conspiracy and all trips to space have been faked.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2011, 10:37:36 PM »
Seeing as how spaceflight is impossible on a flat Earth, I need only one item to debunk everything you just said.

Not all Flat Earth believers state that spaceflight is impossible.  I just need to debunk one of the non-space travelling believers to prove that spaceflight is possible.

Berny
Silly Silly
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2011, 10:41:44 PM »
Seeing as how spaceflight is impossible on a flat Earth, I need only one item to debunk everything you just said.

Not all Flat Earth believers state that spaceflight is impossible.  I just need to debunk one of the non-space travelling believers to prove that spaceflight is possible.

Berny
Silly Silly
The society is a work in progress. Work is being done to unify it.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2011, 11:12:34 PM »











*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2011, 11:18:33 PM »




















« Last Edit: August 09, 2011, 11:51:15 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2011, 05:07:48 AM »
Wow, can you say assumptions to the max? The video below shows how the author only looks for evidance portraying a hoax, the point of view hes trying to sell. He never takes anything else in to consideration, clearly bias.

The mythbusters look for the answer, the auther of the stuff you posted doesnt accept other possibilities. He wont change his answer, hes already chosen it.


« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 05:10:02 AM by AndersonG22 »
Ice wall ninja

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2011, 05:31:35 AM »
Almost everything Bishop posts there has been discussed and explained in other threads, and the rest of it is just plain wrong. Clearly put together by someone who knows nothing about how photography works. I have personally posted examples that explain some of these things.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2011, 05:44:23 AM »
Almost everything Bishop posts there has been discussed and explained in other threads, and the rest of it is just plain wrong. Clearly put together by someone who knows nothing about how photography works. I have personally posted examples that explain some of these things.

So bishop knowingly posts false info, cant say Im surprised.

Skeleton, why do you still post here? I started for the comedy.
Ice wall ninja

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2011, 05:49:19 AM »
Almost everything Bishop posts there has been discussed and explained in other threads, and the rest of it is just plain wrong. Clearly put together by someone who knows nothing about how photography works. I have personally posted examples that explain some of these things.

So bishop knowingly posts false info, cant say Im surprised.

Skeleton, why do you still post here? I started for the comedy.

So that when new people come here they can instantly see from my posts that every argument put out by the flattists is bolox, and that none of them really believe it and its a troll site. Its a public service almost.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2011, 06:07:05 AM »
Almost everything Bishop posts there has been discussed and explained in other threads, and the rest of it is just plain wrong. Clearly put together by someone who knows nothing about how photography works. I have personally posted examples that explain some of these things.

So bishop knowingly posts false info, cant say Im surprised.

Skeleton, why do you still post here? I started for the comedy.

So that when new people come here they can instantly see from my posts that every argument put out by the flattists is bolox, and that none of them really believe it and its a troll site. Its a public service almost.

Thank you for your service, however, there FAQ is so far out there that Im sure most people realize its boloxs after that. There FAQ is a work of art, they should charge admission its so funny.

Do you think bishop is a troll? His responses make me think he is but then I see he joined years ago...

Yo bishop, how do you explain solar eclipses?
Ice wall ninja

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2011, 07:28:14 AM »
The images I posted above have not been refuted. Unless we count "well yeah, NASA faked that one little bit but that's it" as a refute.

The Solar Eclipse occurs when the moon passes in front of the sun.

« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 07:32:30 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2011, 07:43:33 AM »
We don't use any of the bs 'evidence' in the OP, you'll be glad to hear. We are scientists, not conspiracy theorists. I recommend that you read ENaG and the FAQ. Once you have accepted the true shape of the earth, you will understand that the conspiracy is a necessity.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2011, 08:06:18 AM »
The images I posted above have not been refuted. Unless we count "well yeah, NASA faked that one little bit but that's it" as a refute.


If you think this is the case, you will please refer to how the images you posted differ from the details seen in the pictures of the vertebra and guitarist that I used as examples in the other thread. You will explain how you know none of the effects seen in the above pictures are the result of burning and dodging, and to show you know what those terms mean, you will explain them here.
If you do not do this, your statement "the images I posted above have not been refuted" will have been shown to be a lie, and your ignorance of photography will have been laid bare again.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2011, 08:14:29 AM »
No amount of "burning and dodging" can explain all of the discrepancies in the above images.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42250
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2011, 08:22:47 AM »
No amount of "burning and dodging" can explain all of the discrepancies in the above images.

Are you sure about that?  Are you proficient with photographic darkroom techniques?  I'm not referring to Photoshop, I'm talking about real film.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2011, 08:42:44 AM »
Are you sure about that?

Yes. I am sure that no amount of "burning and dodging" can explain all of the discrepancies in the above images.

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2011, 08:46:19 AM »
No amount of "burning and dodging" can explain all of the discrepancies in the above images.

Are you sure about that?  Are you proficient with photographic darkroom techniques?  I'm not referring to Photoshop, I'm talking about real film.
He is proficient, he just chooses to nitpick about something being darker or lighter than the other is you turn up the brightness or contrast by a ridiculous amount.
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2011, 10:16:19 AM »
Are you sure about that?

Yes. I am sure that no amount of "burning and dodging" can explain all of the discrepancies in the above images.

Sorry, this sentence alone is not sufficient Mr Bishop. I asked you to explain what the techniques of burning and doging are so we know you know what youre talking about. If you are so certain that burning and dodging cannot account for these effects then you obviously have a deep knowledge of the subject and will be more than happy to explain how one does it in the darkroom.
If you dont do this, your statement is nothing more than a reality denial, and you can take your place with Thork and Pizza Plant in the Proven Trolls Club.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2011, 10:26:47 AM »
Are you sure about that?

Yes. I am sure that no amount of "burning and dodging" can explain all of the discrepancies in the above images.

Sorry, this sentence alone is not sufficient Mr Bishop. I asked you to explain what the techniques of burning and doging are so we know you know what youre talking about. If you are so certain that burning and dodging cannot account for these effects then you obviously have a deep knowledge of the subject and will be more than happy to explain how one does it in the darkroom.
If you dont do this, your statement is nothing more than a reality denial, and you can take your place with Thork and Pizza Plant in the Proven Trolls Club.

No amount of burning or dodging is going to cause buzz aldrin's arms to become monstrously large, the earth to be pasted into the background scene, tire tracks to disappear behind the tires of the rover, sneaker shoe prints to appear on the surface of the moon, or cause the lunar lander to drive into a crater ditch.

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2011, 10:34:28 AM »
1. Buzz's arms do not become "monstrously big", he simply changes position.
2. The Earth was not pasted, it was either an effect of the brightness compared to the background or a result of processing it for visual appeal.
3. The fact that the light weight rover had its weight distributed over 4 wheels might have had something to do with it. Also, there are subtle tracks behind the wheels in the picture.
4. Weight of human and suit over 2 points
5. Not a ditch, more like a shallow depression.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 10:37:11 AM by thefireproofmatch »
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2011, 11:33:27 AM »
No amount of burning or dodging is going to cause...  the earth to be pasted into the background scene

Ladies and gentlemen, irrefutable proof that Bob Bishop doesnt know what the hell he is talking about.
Good grief Tom, you couldnt even be bothered to look it up on Google to pretend you understood it? Lazy.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42250
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2011, 12:49:43 PM »
No amount of burning or dodging is going to cause buzz aldrin's arms to become monstrously large...
Doesn't Rowbotham's updated rules of perspective cover foreshortening?  ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

professor

  • 19
  • REAL professor
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2011, 06:03:49 PM »
NASA faked the photos, now NASA send trolls to this forum
what the heck is going on

Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2011, 09:53:12 PM »
No amount of "burning and dodging" can explain all of the discrepancies in the above images.

I sourced the originals of the images and did my own tests - it is not possible to recreate the effects described using the method described (or any method I was able to employ short of actually cut and pasting a new earth into the picture).  I tried adjusting all variables for hue, saturation, intensity, lightness, rgb, brightness, contrast, gamma or sharpness.   No change in any combination resulted in anything other than what would be expected if the images was real.   (I'm a photographer and also a computer engineer - I have enough experience in both fields to understand how to fake images)

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/3406/lollitopimagesfromthelu.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20461.jpg
http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-20061021-NASA-AS11-44-6642-half-illuminated-Earth-Apollo-11-Lunar-Module-ascends-from-Moon-surface-Apollo-XI-mission-July-21-1969-large.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS17/151/23201.jpg
 
The last two are the original un-enhanced versions.  The versions that that have been analysed in Tom's post are enhanced versions.  I was able to recreate the affect on the enhanced version but not the non-enhanced version.  It seems that what the conspiracy theorists are jumping on are simply artifacts of enhancement.  When the same tests are conducted on the original images, there is no artifacting.  The square border around the earth is simply the area that was selected to enhance the clarity of earth in the enhanced image.  It is not a sign of fraud.

I will assess the remaining images in Tom's two posts shortly.

Please feel free to play with the images yourself.  If you can recreate the affects described in Tom's post, please post your exact method for achieving the affect. 
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2011, 05:35:35 AM »
More analysis of Tom's "fake" photos:

Picture 5 (the "artistic licence" panorama) appears to be stitched together from different shots....duh....that's because it is a composite photo assembled from different shoots.  Not fake, but normal practice.  As you can see from this version of the same image, there is no attempt made to hide the fact that it is a composite.  I wonder if the composite is even NASA's work.  The conspiracy theorist's work perhaps?
http://robocop11.rajce.idnes.cz/Apollo_11_in_the_mix/#a11.1103147_mf.jpg

Here is an original high quality NASA image that has been used to create the poor quality composite:



Picture 6: Camera Pointed at Lense Flare.
i. The lens flare is coming from the intense reflected light off the astronauts helmet, highly visible directly adjacent to the lens flare itself!
ii. The two flares supposedly from back lighting?  The so called "fixtures" aren't even present in the original image. The "flares" are no where near as dominant and can easily be explained by reflection from equipment or suit.  Both the 'before' and 'after' images in picture 6 are doctored - and not by NASA but by someone attempting to discredit the original NASA images.
iii. The astronauts arm is in shadow because the sun is over the subject's right shoulder and not the left shoulder of the photographer as claimed in the text for picture 6.  Note the shadow of the photographer reflected in the subjects helmet?  It is behind and to the right of the photographer not in front of him, and therefore the sun is shining from behind and to the left (from the photographer's perspective) of the subject, hence the subjects left arm is in shadow.
iv. The astronaut who is the subject of the photo is handling an experiment or sample of some kind, and as shown in the reflection of his helmet, there is equipment, possibly a storage locker, on the ground.  Is it not at all beyond the bounds of reason that the astronaut might be kneeling or leaning forward, hence the apparent raised aspect of the photographer?

High Quality version of the image:

 
The so called analysis performed by the conspiracy theorist is of such poor quality I'm inclined to not even bother continuing to discredit the claims.  The analysis has been performed on non-original low quality images.  Poor observational skills have been used to analyse the details of the pictures.  The assessor was so intent on discovering signs of fakery that they neglected to consider any plausible explanations for the features that appeared at cursory glance to indicate a fake.

Out of bloody mindedness, and because in assessing these images I have come across some truly astounding images of astronauts on the moon, I may continue. 

Note: in case I don't continue, I have to say something about the flipping boots and gloves.....even something grey or black will appear white in direct sunlight, let alone sunlight unfiltered by a dense layer of air.  There is only one kind of boot, high, and I'm quite sure a high quality high resolution image will reveal this quite clearly, and the guy rumaging in the Lunar Module 'boot'?  When he is exiting the photo is taken at about 40 degrees to the perpendicular, while the shot of the astronaut inside the 'boot' is taken at the perpendicular.  Of freaking course he apprears bigger, but if you look closely it's obvious he hasn't magically grown.  And anyway, why the hell would the set designers of the 'fake' moon landing create two different sized lunar modules..???   Sheeesh!!

First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2011, 11:49:56 AM »
No. NASA is known to go back and edit out their mistakes after they are exposed. The images in my post are genuine.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 03:52:22 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked
« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2011, 05:17:21 PM »
No. NASA is known to go back and edit out their mistakes after they are exposed. The images in my post are genuine.

Okay, I'm pretty sure I just outed Tom as a Troll.  No one is that silly.

Tom, your images can't be the original, the un-enhanced versions I've posted are over twice the resolution and have no sign of artifacts - the images are clean and unaltered.

First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "