Did we ever land on the moon?

O.K, O.K,

Now you need good eyes for this, so if you wear glasses watching T.V or whatever, then put them on.

Click the vid in one of my earlier posts, now between 0.18 - 0.23 Look very closely to the flag, at the bottom. It like a gust of wind/air sweeping in underneath it.

Now at home, if you had something like a towel (a towel is an example) if you got something like a fan and let blow the bottom of the towel what do you think happens? Firstly, no it doesn't disappear ( ;) ), you see the bottom of it lifting up on the other side.

Obviously a long, thin metal pole could never sway if it was shaken, right? It has to be the wind at all times, no exceptions.

Oh, wait.

« Last edited by RJ Fighter on Oct 30th 2007 »

My reasons...

1)Just like RJ had said, you can't put a flag up on the moon and watch it wave around in front of your face. If there is no air then nothing can be moving the flag...
2)If you watch the videos that were taken of the landing, how did they position the camera to capture the men from getting out of the shuttle? Did they simply land once, go around to Burger King and do it again? hummm...
3)Dust.. watch the videos and you see dust that goes right back to the ground once they move it. Gravity isn't that strong on the moon and would take a lot longer to land than what the video shows.
4)This is my favorite... HOW COME WE HAVE NEVER GONE BACK TO THE MOON?!?! Is Ronald McDonald up there or Jesus just waiting to kill us when we get there? If we went there one time, why couldn't we go again? and again? and heck, why not again?

NASA for the loss....

*sigh*

There isn't a gust of air sweeping it; in fact, that's caused by the astronaut's nudging of the flag pole. The flag stops swaying as soon as they straighten it.

I'm finding it difficult to comprehend how a "gust of wind" makes any sense if this was shot within a studio. And like I've said so before; if it was obvious enough for you to spot it, they could've just done a re-take; especially since it was done within a studio with a film crew of some kind.

This is getting annoying, so I'm going to go ahead and spoon feed people before I go to bed: Why the heck are they exposed directly to the sun and perfectly fine? How the heck is the filming equipment working in extreme hazards of space? (extreme cold/hot/radiation) Why didn't they point the camera up? Why was it always cropped on the surface? Why were there footprints left on the ground even though the moon's gravitational pull is supposedly 1/6 of the Earth's gravity? If the moon is mainly rocky surface, how was making a foot print even possible?

There are so many things I can think of that was "wrong" with the moon landing videos, however, these so called "conspiracy theories" such as "seeing wires in the moon landing videos" are all dumb; stop looking at whats in front of you, start looking for things that isn't which should be, or things that could've been but didn't.

With that said, your wind argument still fails to prove anything... because just as the flag would've tugged and swayed in an environment where there is air, so too would a flag behave even if it were within a vacuum with minimal gravitational pull.

tl;dr - in theory, the flag would've behaved similarly even if it were in a different environment; the flag was fixated so that you can't tell whether there is air resistance or not.

On 30-Oct-2007 Joshgt3 said:

My reasons...

1)Just like RJ had said, you can't put a flag up on the moon and watch it wave around in front of your face. If there is no air then nothing can be moving the flag...
2)If you watch the videos that were taken of the landing, how did they position the camera to capture the men from getting out of the shuttle? Did they simply land once, go around to Burger King and do it again? hummm...
3)Dust.. watch the videos and you see dust that goes right back to the ground once they move it. Gravity isn't that strong on the moon and would take a lot longer to land than what the video shows.
4)This is my favorite... HOW COME WE HAVE NEVER GONE BACK TO THE MOON?!?! Is Ronald McDonald up there or Jesus just waiting to kill us when we get there? If we went there one time, why couldn't we go again? and again? and heck, why not again?

NASA for the loss....

Ok sorry I had to respond to this:

1) That wasn't what RJ was talking about

2) You saw two guys getting out; the third was outside already

3) Do you know how gravity works? Since there was no atmosphere, hence no air friction, anything of any shape or size (wouldn't matter, as long as they had a fraction of density or mass) would fall at a constant rate. Bowling ball and bag of feathers would land at the same time if dropped at the same height. Back to the dust however; I would argue because there was no air friction, the dust was allowed to settle quickly. Heck I even brought this fact up earlier, good job catching it.

4) ... we went back the year after and the year after that...

Next time when you post something that even so much as suggest you didn't read the posts before yours, or that you just read the first post and decided to state your opinion, I'm going to delete it.

Back yourself up; I only threw the questions out at you guys because I wanted you guys to elaborate, not beat a dead horse (wind argument).

On 30-Oct-2007 Shadow Cast said:

"wind would be the first thing that shouldn't be there"

That was their intention and like I said that was covered, but somewhere along that line you see the bottom of the flag while they're holding and straight after they hold it swaying. Now this is the bottom where they Wern't touching it.

ok for one . i will have to say . it is standerd for eny planitod that has an atmosfer that thair is wind. as for the fact that thay are geting pulled by the sun and the planitods rotashon . it will produse a forse . and in that produse wind . .
also in respect to landings and uther things hears a list of stuf and and manned landings on the moon

http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/lunarform/landing.html

On 30-Oct-2007 neptis said:

ok for one . i will have to say . it is standerd for eny planitod that has an atmosfer that thair is wind. as for the fact that thay are geting pulled by the sun and the planitods rotashon . it will produse a forse . and in that produse wind . .
also in respect to landings and uther things hears a list of stuf and and manned landings on the moon

http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/lunarform/landing.html

It's widely believed that there isn't actually any atmosphere on the moon, hence where the whole "there is wind, i.e. the landing isn't real" argument stems from. Also, gravitational and rotational forces can't really sway a flag... not in any logical way...

No disrespect Neptis, but you're probably going to have to study up if you want to post here.

O.K, let's take step backwards here. Wind = Fail (as we will only be arguing because of it for ages)

Now on Joshgt3's 2nd point, he makes something odd very clear. We see the camera at a different angle when they come out so this means one person must have already left before Armstrong. Either that or it was filmed on set. Back to 'the moon landing is real' part. Armstrong was supposedly the the first man the step foot on the moon, but if there was a camera already outside, well someone must've put it there. It couldn't have been Armstrong as we seen him getting out while the camera had already been setup. my point = NASA, or whoever, couldn't keep the facts straight and they Fail.

On 30-Oct-2007 Shadow Cast said:

O.K, let's take step backwards here. Wind = Fail (as we will only be arguing because of it for ages)

Now on Joshgt3's 2nd point, he makes something odd very clear. We see the camera at a different angle when they come out so this means one person must have already left before Armstrong. Either that or it was filmed on set. Back to 'the moon landing is real' part. Armstrong was supposedly the the first man the step foot on the moon, but if there was a camera already outside, well someone must've put it there. It couldn't have been Armstrong as we seen him getting out while the camera had already been setup. my point = NASA, or whoever, couldn't keep the facts straight and they Fail.

Good point, But then again Armstrong could have put the camera there himself?

this is a good debate =P good thing I brought this up.

My question, can the flag be moving if someone was shaking it on the moon, if so that is the case the person messing with the flag was putting it inot the ground whihc could have caused it to move.

« Last edited by K Dawg on Oct 31st 2007 »

The camera to me looks like its part of the landing module, obviously they would have known that they would need to capture that moment so doesn't it make sense that they would have placed a camera there for that purpose?

@Fwank: Well the fliming equipment was protected from those things, particularly the radiation by been housed in metal containers that prevented the radiation from affecting the cameras.

« Last edited by super craig on Oct 30th 2007 »

On 30-Oct-2007 super craig said:

The camera to me looks like its part of the landing module, obviously they would have known that they would need to capture that moment so doesn't it make sense that they would have placed a camera there for that purpose?

@Fwank: Well the fliming equipment was protected from those things, particularly the radiation by been housed in metal containers that prevented the radiation from affecting the cameras.

Metal containers?

If you want to talk "protected from radiation" then I urge you to explain how the film was able to capture light.

Lighting would've been horrible, camera mechanisms would've froze in the extreme cold, and if exposed, the emulsion on the film would've been destroyed: there are so many things wrong with the fact that the moon landing could even be filmed at all during the first landing that I find it ridiculous people even bother to look into stupid things like why the flag was moving or how the camera got there in the first place.

Again, small things that you and I can notice that suggests there's a break in continuity is the FIRST thing people look at when they film; especially if they wanted the Russians to see it... they're not going to be dumb enough to overlook that... but seriously, camera could've been set up by a probe, part of the ship's landing module like craig said; was that even Armstrong being filmed coming out of the ship?

Anyway... and the wind thing: the reason I already said it doesn't prove anything, like I've said before, and I'll continue to say it so long as there are people who haven't the slightest idea of basic motion physics: the flag will behave like that in a room on Earth AND on the moon in an atmosphere-free environment, The flailing people keep talking about is caused exactly by that KD, and the documentaries needed things to go with their actual footage, hence they were actually dumb enough to talk about it... and people actually thought it was valid...

On 31-Oct-2007 Fwank said:

Metal containers?

If you want to talk "protected from radiation" then I urge you to explain how the film was able to capture light.

Lighting would've been horrible, camera mechanisms would've froze in the extreme cold, and if exposed, the emulsion on the film would've been destroyed: there are so many things wrong with the fact that the moon landing could even be filmed at all during the first landing that I find it ridiculous people even bother to look into stupid things like why the flag was moving or how the camera got there in the first place.

Again, small things that you and I can notice that suggests there's a break in continuity is the FIRST thing people look at when they film; especially if they wanted the Russians to see it... they're not going to be dumb enough to overlook that... but seriously, camera could've been set up by a probe, part of the ship's landing module like craig said; was that even Armstrong being filmed coming out of the ship?

Anyway... and the wind thing: the reason I already said it doesn't prove anything, like I've said before, and I'll continue to say it so long as there are people who haven't the slightest idea of basic motion physics: the flag will behave like that in a room on Earth AND on the moon in an atmosphere-free environment, The flailing people keep talking about is caused exactly by that KD, and the documentaries needed things to go with their actual footage, hence they were actually dumb enough to talk about it... and people actually thought it was valid...

Remember that different types of radiation are blocked by different things, some don't posess the energy to cause any form of damage in the first place and the others can be blocked while allowing a specific form of radiation (light) to get through.

I can only assume that what the cameras were housed in were more complex than just metal conatiners buts that all I could find it saying, probably just to simplify it.

As for the extreme cold problem I can only offer my own idea that they would have kept the cameras in some form of container that heated them or something liek that.

« Last edited by super craig on Oct 31st 2007 »

On 30-Oct-2007 super craig said:

The camera to me looks like its part of the landing module, obviously they would have known that they would need to capture that moment so doesn't it make sense that they would have placed a camera there for that purpose?

@Fwank: Well the fliming equipment was protected from those things, particularly the radiation by been housed in metal containers that prevented the radiation from affecting the cameras.

Yes I did think of that and I know people would have asked. But here comes the extened version. If this camera was part of the suttle (or whatever the heel they got out of) when Armstrong first stepped on the ground and the others followed to setup the flag there was another video/camera pointing at them exactly when they all got out. No person could have set it up as it was immediatly switched to that camera once they touched the ground.

And this one if obviously not part of the shuttle/whatever it's really called.

On 31-Oct-2007 Shadow Cast said:

Yes I did think of that and I know people would have asked. But here comes the extened version. If this camera was part of the suttle (or whatever the heel they got out of) when Armstrong first stepped on the ground and the others followed to setup the flag there was another video/camera pointing at them exactly when they all got out. No person could have set it up as it was immediatly switched to that camera once they touched the ground.

And this one if obviously not part of the shuttle/whatever it's really called.

Are you talking about that video posted earlier? If so then its clearly been edited so that the part where they set it up isn't shown. Now I'm pretty sure NASA would have thought of that problem if it really was a hoax, I mean its a pretty obvious thing and I'm sure that anyone with half a brain would have thought of that so I'm sure the experts at NASA would have thought of that.

Not just a video I posted earlier, ALL the videos I watched about it. Obviously not just on youtube.

There's a reason why I tried avoiding the whole camera-before-Armstrong talk.

Not saying this is any hard proof, but simply claiming "they had a camera out before Armstrong" isn't going to be enough to convince anybody - not even the skeptics - that the moon landing was fake...

But it doesn't matter how you argue it; plenty of people have already brought up credible points on how it was a hoax, but the only thing they've managed to provide undeniable proof for is the motive for the hoax, and not any factual evidence that it was in fact staged.

Maybe you should study up on the real conspiracy theories behind the moon landing: it was staged, but how are the experts justifying these claims? (flag waving certainly isn't one of them... that's just a misconception; like I said, half the people who claim the flag was waving didn't actually see the footage themselves, others who have... I don't even know what the heck they're thinking; maybe they just didn't stay in school...)

It's ery hard to explain how it's a hoax, but, since your getting at, 'it was real' explain how it was real. Explain every detail. The Flag is still an argument that lasts today, not sure about the cameras, so what proof do you exactly have it was real? (Ruling out the camera and Flag)

Look, the flag argument doesn't work. If you still remember high school physics you'd agree that the flag would behave similarly anywhere you planted it.

And I don't have anything to prove; it's a consensus that the moon landing was real... you guys are the ones who can't come up with empirical proof that it was a hoax.

(For the record, however, I find more reasons to believe it was a hoax rather than it was real; I'm a skeptic, but there's no proof... nothing they're not actually capable of spinning in some favorable way)

All I'm saying is, you should probably study up before you side with something? You basically walked in, posted a video, and decided to reach a conclusion...

That aside, here's some brain food:

- There wasn't any stars

- The photographs were unbelievably good in terms of quality

- They left foot prints, despite there being no moisture/atmosphere on the moon, and despite they weighed 1/6 their own weight on the moon

... That's what I immediately though up when I see any moon landing photograph/footages... but they've managed to provide logical explanations for everything... so I don't know what to say...

I can't exactly show you "proof that is real" because the footage is testament to them being there; if you can't disprove that, you can't dismiss it as proof.

"All I'm saying is, you should probably study up before you side with something? You basically walked in, posted a video, and decided to reach a conclusion"

The reason I have been involved in this debate is because I have studied this before. Thats why I am posting other things to take into consideration. If I had no clue on what the hell I was talking about, I would have left after my first post.