03-24-2003, 09:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2003, 09:35 AM by Chaerophon.)
For the past year, my girlfriend has been bothering me with bits of trivia with regard to the impossibility of NASA's trips to the moon. She staunchly contends that there is an abundance of legitimate theories out there and that it is impossible that such an event ever occurred. For the most part, I dismissed her claims as sensational. However, last night, I came across a program on the space network that raised doubts in my mind as to the veracity of America's Apollo missions. They even had the gall to suggest that the deaths due to accident, etc. of approximately 15% of all of the astronauts involved in the program could be government-sponsored assassinations intended to hide the cover up.
Some of the evidence was VERY convincing; however, as is usual for shows such as this, there was very little in the way of effective rebuttal. I figure that this could be for one of two reasons: 1.) they didn't want their points to be weakened, or 2.) there is no rebuttal!. The show emphasized the importance of the space race to the outcome of the Cold War.
Some (I can't quite recall all of it) of the evidence:
1. Many photographs taken on the moon have shadows in two separate directions, indicating that there were two light sources present when the pictures were taken. This is, of course, impossible.
2. Photos taken of astronauts who are in the shadows seem strangely illuminated (they should have been mere sillhouettes) as though the cameras used had a flash. The cameras designed for the mission had no such technology.
3. The photographs taken are of extremely high quality and the images are centered and focused. The cameras used on the expedition were attached to the astronaut's chests and the viewfinders could not be seen by astronauts due to mobility restrictions of their suits.
4. There are 6 crosshairs present in each photo taken on the moon. They are always placed over top of the subjects of the photos. In several photos, the items in the picture are superimposed over the crosshairs.
5. There are at least three STARTLING instances when it seems that the same footage of the "moon" was used in different situations. In particular, there is one picture of a moonscape in which there is a lunar lander and another of the exact same moonscape, minus the lander. They superimposed such images over one another and it is clear that they are the EXACT SAME IMAGE, same angle, same distances...
6. The flag seems to be waving (not that convincing, in my mind)
7. The construction of the lunar lander was such that in tests conducted on earth by Neil Armstrong (they showed the footage), it was completely unmanageable due to there only being one rocket providing lift. It crash landed and he barely escaped with his life, ejecting at the last second. Scientists claimed that any movement on board would have shifted the balance of the craft and sent it off course.
8. There is a spot of land in Area 51 that looks EXACTLY like a moonscape. It was shown by satellite photo in the program and the cratered surface, etc. looked like an exact match. It has been suggested that this, and not other concerns, is the primary reason for the security of Area 51.
9. The lunar lander did not raise up any dust, nor did it leave a blast crater when it landed.
10. The feet of the lander were completely clean after it landed on the moon. It would seem likely that some dust would have been stirred up onto the "landing feet".
11. When the tape of the astronauts "moon walk" is sped up, they simply appear to be running.
12. It seems unlikely that the lander would have been entirely silent, as it appears in the landing footage of the Apollo 11 footage. We shouldn't have been able to hear their voices as clearly, if at all.
13. We can see absolutely no stars in any of the footage. They should have been clear and plentiful.
14. (This may or may not be a big one, I don't know enough about it to comment) The radiation present in "deep space" would have killed the astronauts in short order, particularly given the fact that the largest recorded solar flare of the 20th century took place at a time when there was supposedly men on the moon. (Former Russian cosmonauts attested to the veracity of this "radiation" theory and claimed that this was the primary reason that Russian's never landed on the moon.)
15. Just two years prior to the first successful moon landing, it was generally felt by NASA officials that they would never land on the moon due to all of the immense complications involved.
16. Members of the Apollo mission who tragically burned up in a test mission on Earth inside of the lunar capsule had overtly criticized the Apollo program and raised doubts as to the possibility of actually landing on the moon.
Anyways, that's a whole bunch of the arguments as they were presented. I found it to be rather persuasive, particularly given the fact that so much of it was visual and the guy from NASA could only say that, essentially, "these guys are crackpots", which seemed unlikely. I'm sure that there are many of you who have looked into this in greater depth than I have. Just curious as to what your opinions are and why. In particular, I'm wondering how much of this evidence can be refuted and on what grounds.
Some of the evidence was VERY convincing; however, as is usual for shows such as this, there was very little in the way of effective rebuttal. I figure that this could be for one of two reasons: 1.) they didn't want their points to be weakened, or 2.) there is no rebuttal!. The show emphasized the importance of the space race to the outcome of the Cold War.
Some (I can't quite recall all of it) of the evidence:
1. Many photographs taken on the moon have shadows in two separate directions, indicating that there were two light sources present when the pictures were taken. This is, of course, impossible.
2. Photos taken of astronauts who are in the shadows seem strangely illuminated (they should have been mere sillhouettes) as though the cameras used had a flash. The cameras designed for the mission had no such technology.
3. The photographs taken are of extremely high quality and the images are centered and focused. The cameras used on the expedition were attached to the astronaut's chests and the viewfinders could not be seen by astronauts due to mobility restrictions of their suits.
4. There are 6 crosshairs present in each photo taken on the moon. They are always placed over top of the subjects of the photos. In several photos, the items in the picture are superimposed over the crosshairs.
5. There are at least three STARTLING instances when it seems that the same footage of the "moon" was used in different situations. In particular, there is one picture of a moonscape in which there is a lunar lander and another of the exact same moonscape, minus the lander. They superimposed such images over one another and it is clear that they are the EXACT SAME IMAGE, same angle, same distances...
6. The flag seems to be waving (not that convincing, in my mind)
7. The construction of the lunar lander was such that in tests conducted on earth by Neil Armstrong (they showed the footage), it was completely unmanageable due to there only being one rocket providing lift. It crash landed and he barely escaped with his life, ejecting at the last second. Scientists claimed that any movement on board would have shifted the balance of the craft and sent it off course.
8. There is a spot of land in Area 51 that looks EXACTLY like a moonscape. It was shown by satellite photo in the program and the cratered surface, etc. looked like an exact match. It has been suggested that this, and not other concerns, is the primary reason for the security of Area 51.
9. The lunar lander did not raise up any dust, nor did it leave a blast crater when it landed.
10. The feet of the lander were completely clean after it landed on the moon. It would seem likely that some dust would have been stirred up onto the "landing feet".
11. When the tape of the astronauts "moon walk" is sped up, they simply appear to be running.
12. It seems unlikely that the lander would have been entirely silent, as it appears in the landing footage of the Apollo 11 footage. We shouldn't have been able to hear their voices as clearly, if at all.
13. We can see absolutely no stars in any of the footage. They should have been clear and plentiful.
14. (This may or may not be a big one, I don't know enough about it to comment) The radiation present in "deep space" would have killed the astronauts in short order, particularly given the fact that the largest recorded solar flare of the 20th century took place at a time when there was supposedly men on the moon. (Former Russian cosmonauts attested to the veracity of this "radiation" theory and claimed that this was the primary reason that Russian's never landed on the moon.)
15. Just two years prior to the first successful moon landing, it was generally felt by NASA officials that they would never land on the moon due to all of the immense complications involved.
16. Members of the Apollo mission who tragically burned up in a test mission on Earth inside of the lunar capsule had overtly criticized the Apollo program and raised doubts as to the possibility of actually landing on the moon.
Anyways, that's a whole bunch of the arguments as they were presented. I found it to be rather persuasive, particularly given the fact that so much of it was visual and the guy from NASA could only say that, essentially, "these guys are crackpots", which seemed unlikely. I'm sure that there are many of you who have looked into this in greater depth than I have. Just curious as to what your opinions are and why. In particular, I'm wondering how much of this evidence can be refuted and on what grounds.
But whate'er I be,
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II
