Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Ronnyboy

Moon Landing Conspiracy

Recommended Posts

Ronnyboy

In this world of skepticism and non-believers, we have to question everything. One of these things is the moon landings.

 

Many people just know the Moon landings as a giant, historic achievement for the U.S., and the world. But, some believe that this all bull sh*t, filmed in a NASA studio. A lot of people throw out the argument that you can not see the stars in the photos, or that when the "Eagle" module landed, the dust layer was not moved, or that when you speed up the moon walk, it seems like they are just running across the screen. Many people have support for these theories, while many people try to disprove them.

 

Personally, I think they did go to the moon. There is no way you can fake that kind of an event without some one letting the cat out of the bag.

 

What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vercetti21

The conspiracies surrounding the moon landing have always interested me; I mean, there are some really good points there. But in the end, I honestly just think there's too much skepticism and paranoia - such as the "flag waving", which wasn't actually waving, it was designed to stand flat out. I think so many people have lost faith in the government that they've gotten to the point where they don't trust anything they see or hear anymore. To each his own, but I'm comfortable in my belief that we actually did land on the moon in 69'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Digital Murders

^^

 

I'm pretty much in the same boat as him.

 

The debate on the moon landing has always been interesting to me. Reading both sides of the arguement is great because they both manage to bring up some good points. It could go either way I suppose, but I would to, like to believe that man had actually landed on the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhoda

This particular consiperacy is one of my favourites because it has valid arguments on both opposing sides. It makes for interesting reading and viewing. It should be noted that most cameras were kept in a "lock box" on the front of the suit, which is why sometimes no cameras were present in the reflections. The most common arguments I've heard are the seemingly "blowing" flag, the lack of moving dust, the lack of stars and the movement issue, which Mark said (speeding up actions, which replicates running).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthYENIK
This particular consiperacy is one of my favourites because it has valid arguments on both opposing sides. It makes for interesting reading and viewing. It should be noted that most cameras were kept in a "lock box" on the front of the suit, which is why sometimes no cameras were present in the reflections. The most common arguments I've heard are the seemingly "blowing" flag, the lack of moving dust, the lack of stars and the movement issue, which Mark said (speeding up actions, which replicates running).

Me and my friend always debate this.

 

The blowing flag: Just because they are on the moon, doesn't mean the flag is going to just hang stiffly. It swings back and forth due to the fact that there is no wind resistance, thanks to the lack of an atmosphere.

 

Moving dust: There is none, because once again, no atmosphere. There is no air to carry the dust.

 

Stars: The astronauts used film made for use on earth in daylight, we don't see the stars, due to the fact that A)cameras of the time would have to have the exposure and focus specifically set to see the stars, and B) supposedly you can't see the stars anyway on the dayside of the moon. Pick your poison they both make sense to me.

 

Movement: It's kind of an invalid point. Just because we can recreate what it looks like on earth using slow motion, doesn't necessarily mean it's fake. (I might regret bringing up another bad conspiracy topic, but...) I'm sure the 9/11 attacks could have been made in hollywood, to look identical to what really happened. But does that mean they are fake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhoda

All the points that Yenik said were featured on a documentary I saw not long back on the moon landing, and they're all points I believe in. There's also some discrepancy over the crosshair markings on the lens to map out positioning. The controversy came when many crosshairs were slanted or even shown to be underneath foreground material, such as rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

...you can find the lunar lander on the moon with laser reflection.

 

I mean, really, this stuff is just idiotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony
I mean, really, this stuff is just idiotic.

Welcome to the world of conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Unvirginiser

Personally, I believe that we did land on the moon, but the photographs f*cked up, so we had to fake the thing while they were on the way back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

 

Personally, I believe that we did land on the moon, but the photographs f*cked up, so we had to fake the thing while they were on the way back.

...why? There's nothing wrong with the photos. Or are you being cheeky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BAPEDOWNLOADS

I DONT THINK WE WENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony
I DONT THINK WE WENT

HOW ABOUT PROVIDING SOME EVIDENCE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vince_ThePhoenix

The question of whether the landing was faked or not is older than most of us in this thread, and the reason it still exists is because there is no irrefutable evidence for it being faked or real.

 

Considering NASA knew what the moon should have been like, and that they are in control of what information they release, it's unlikely that they would release evidence that would have proved it was faked.

Nonetheless, there are some commonly reoccurring arguments, so here is a list of some, with there current status;

_________________________________

|

| >No crater (or other evidence of landing)

| -Inconclusive

|------------------------------------------

| >Shadows (non-parallel, and objects in shadows)

| -Inconclusive

|------------------------------------------

| >No flame (seen from the rocket upon takeoff)

| -Inconclusive

|------------------------------------------

| >Flag waving

| -Inconclusive

|------------------------------------------

| >Alterations have been noticed in many photos of the

| landing

| -When confronted with this, NASA said they did it so

| the photos would look better in the papers/on TV.

| Unaltered pictures weren't given for comparison

|------------------------------------------

| >Jump distance (in 1/6th earth gravity, their

| movement should have been greater than expected

| on earth)

| -Debatable

|------------------------------------------

| >The Van Allen belt (had too much radiation for people

| to pass through and survive)

| -Debatable, (as people can't seem to agree just how

| strong the field is)

|_________________________________

 

There are also other interesting questions, such as;

- Why hasn't NASA tried to prove it was real if they know people believe it was faked?

- Why do they release pictures from the moon over the course of years, rather than all when they returned from the moon?

- Why didn't the Russians get to the moon?

- Why is returning to the moon taking longer than it did originally, even though technology is 30+ years more advanced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Irrefutable evidence? THERE'S A LANDER ON THE MOON. All your other examples that you list as "inconclusive" are conclusively wrong, as proven by better men than I, over and over and over.

 

Now, to answer you silly questions:

 

- Why hasn't NASA tried to prove it was real if they know people believe it was faked?

They have, with a wealth of photography, film, flight data, and astronomers.

 

- Why do they release pictures from the moon over the course of years, rather than all when they returned from the moon?

Because they wanted to keep precious secrets from the Ruskies. Think about it. They just went to the bloody moon.

 

- Why didn't the Russians get to the moon?

Because there's no real benefit to going to the moon, aside from scientific discovery, and the big one - getting there first. Think about that for a while. Then think about the astronomical (literally! tounge.gif) costs involved.

 

- Why is returning to the moon taking longer than it did originally, even though technology is 30+ years more advanced?

See the answer to question 3. It's not financially, culturally, or even scientifically, viable at this point in time. What, you figure we should be going to pleasure trips? You know there are still places on Earth that man has not yet set foot, but we just dont have the reason to go there. It's that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eddie280

Of course we went to the moon. I agree with everything Otter said in the Post above me. However, in regards to there being no reason to go to the Moon at the moment, NASA may be sending another manned expedition to the moon in the near future (next few years possbly) in response to the First Chinese space walk wich took place last month.

 

Like Otter said, there would be no real reason for doing this except for international prestige; America will not want to appear to be falling behind Chinese technical advancements and so may engage in another Space race merely to save face, which was one of the main reasons for the Space race during the Cold War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig Kostelecky

 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mythbusters+moon+hoax&search_type=&aq=0&oq=mythbusters+moon

 

 

Check out some of the videos from that Mythbusters episode. I'm not sure if the full episode is online somewhere.

 

We went to the moon. Nearly every theory has been shot down many times. Mythbusters did it most recently, and they did one of the best jobs of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Unvirginiser
Personally, I believe that we did land on the moon, but the photographs f*cked up, so we had to fake the thing while they were on the way back.

...why? There's nothing wrong with the photos. Or are you being cheeky?

No, you have misunderstood me.

They landed, took photograpghs, which were not good enough. So The images and recordings we see are in a studio set.

Maybe some of the ones we see are genuine, like the breath taking shots of Earth, but the ones with the flaws... my opinion is that the origionals didn't come out well enough to be substabtial proof to the commines... hence the mistakes in the re-shot versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthYENIK

They were broadcast to the world live, so I don't think that it's possible to say they were re-shot for the sake of quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter
Personally, I believe that we did land on the moon, but the photographs f*cked up, so we had to fake the thing while they were on the way back.
...why? There's nothing wrong with the photos. Or are you being cheeky?
No, you have misunderstood me.They landed, took photograpghs, which were not good enough. So The images and recordings we see are in a studio set. Maybe some of the ones we see are genuine, like the breath taking shots of Earth, but the ones with the flaws... my opinion is that the origionals didn't come out well enough to be substabtial proof to the commines... hence the mistakes in the re-shot versions.

No, no, I get your point, but I don't see any proof. I's like saying maybe 9/11 really happened, but what we saw on TV was a recreation. There's no reason to assume this, aside from random speculation.I know that many of the photos were touched up, as is often done, to present to the public. This is entirely normal, and not fishy at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Unvirginiser

But 9/11 had millions of eye witnesses. The moon is desolate, they could have delayed the "broadcast" and made it out to look live, when the actual shots were taken in a studio.

 

It's a theory I heard on a discovery channel anyway, made sense to me the way the narrator explained it. Was more about winning one over on Russia than anything.

Seems more likely than faking the entire thing. It would also explain things like a flag blowing in space.

Who knows though aye?

Edited by The Unvirginiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Why doesn't anyone care that the Russians acknowledges they went to the moon? Or the fact that we today use devices that have been placed on the moon? Or the fact that the many of the conditions in photos from the moon which people claimed to have been faked can easily be discovered in photos taken here on Earth (and obviously not in a studio)?

 

@wesley545: Err, we've only been on the moon 4 or 5 times or something. People didn't care, so NASA scrapped the Apollo Programme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthYENIK

I love that fact, Svip. Because if anything about the moon landings could be proven to be faked, you know for damn sure the Soviets would have exploited it during the cold war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HolyGrenadeFrenzy

We have gone to the moon and the earth is not flat either, although some will go as far to say otherwise.

 

Yet others will go as far to say that everyone is telling the truth about everything when it comes to public media and opinion.

 

The two extremes do not make the only options about such matters.

 

What are the agendas of such things? ......the usual, mostly power, property and prestige but occasionally other very human and vital things such as curiousity and the quest to understand such things that are curious to our species.

Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stef_92

The whole Apollo 11 mission was one HUGE hoax. You have to beliece it, there are a lot of sure evidences which prove that everything was faked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
poopskin

Yes, you tinfoil hat-wearing morons, we went. quit doubting everything the government says. Government tested, Mythbuster approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Katalix

Anyway, I happened to find a photo from the moon landing of a rock with the letter 'C' on it, which is commonly used in movies as the 'icon' for a prop.

 

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM]CJZera

I personally think we went to the moon, but not in 69, I think they fakes that landing to pwn comies, and then they went to the moon on the following landings, I mean, in his "first step" you can clearly see a lot of footprints on the ground, wich shouldnt been there since it was the first step, I think that Mythbusters didnt prove the landing, but they cant tell it's fake on TV, I mean, the goverment wouldnt like them saying that since pretty much everybody follows them, stars I think should have apeared, because the lack of athmostphere would made them more visible than from earth. Anyways, the thing is we went sometime, or at least that's all Mythbusters have proven with their pinging-laser sorta thingy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan
I mean, really, this stuff is just idiotic.

Welcome to the world of conspiracy theories.

I can agree with you on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
CJZera' date='Aug 8 2009, 16:22'] I personally think we went to the moon, but not in 69, I think they fakes that landing to pwn comies, and then they went to the moon on the following landings, I mean, in his "first step" you can clearly see a lot of footprints on the ground, wich shouldnt been there since it was the first step, I think that Mythbusters didnt prove the landing, but they cant tell it's fake on TV, I mean, the goverment wouldnt like them saying that since pretty much everybody follows them, stars I think should have apeared, because the lack of athmostphere would made them more visible than from earth. Anyways, the thing is we went sometime, or at least that's all Mythbusters have proven with their pinging-laser sorta thingy

You probably saw footsteps on the video because the 'first steps' are that of Buzz Aldrin. Neil had already gotten out of the lander. You don't see stars because it is daytime on the moon and the camera was not capable of picking up the small stars in contrast to the very bright sun, same goes for the astronauts, it was far too bright to see any stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.