What do you reckon?

Does the 'evidence' against the landings weigh up under scrutiny?

The Master

To sound very non-technical indeed (LOL!), I think the first 'US' landing was a fake.......

It has been done for real since obviously

I'm not sure. I have read a couple of arguments for and against and I'm still not sure.

One thing I heard on a website radio show today was that as there is no moisture on the moon the astronauts boots should not have left such perfect imprints; depressions yes, but what was holding all the tiny grains of moon dust together so it almost formed a cast of the boot sole?

I don't have any doubt that spacecraft have been to the moon, but whether men went along...well...maybe, maybe not.

On the other hand, there are rumours around that not only did Armstrong and Aldrin get to the moon but that they saw aliens there as well. People have discussed why some of the radio conversation with Houston was censored. I suppose if there is intelligent life out there that is able to travel the vastness of space, the far side of the moon would be an ideal place to set up a base so they can keep tabs on the earth

Scully

Ooooh, interesting idea, a bit like a 'listening' post!

They did happen, I have been dancing there and I have seen all...

I do not believe the famous landing on the moon recording.

think....you have just got to a new planet, you dont know whats out there, so you peer out of your little window...think umm looks ok might go for a walk

you open the door then..........jump!!

they were not hundred percent sure what was out there yet they jumped!

they could of sunk into the ground or there could of been gravity or they could of got sucked into space....but they jumped as if they knew what was there

I would of been far more cautious, a rope round my middle and one toe out first!

it just seemed so set up, like a stage production!

I think that man went to the moon but that perhaps for technical reasons of radiation etc not record the fact and therefore had to fake the footage........ its tough to work out

actually who was recording it??

if there was someone else there with a camera, then neil armstrong was not the first man to walk on the moon?

does anyone know?

was it a remote camera? did they have remote cameras in those day???

On some documentory I saw recently they stated that the camera was mounted outside of the landing craft and pointed at the steps......... surely it would have moved with the jolt of the landing, there would not have been any guarantee that it would not have ended up pointing at the ground

mmmmm

even more convinced it was fake.

For a contrary point of view, have a look at:

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

Regards,

The Master

I checked out interesting site.

both interesting sights and ideas

still not convinced though!

Iam not saying that man has not been to the moon yet, just the first one was wierd

Remember sitting and watching the first moon landing with great excitement. Me I think it was real, don't want to spoil the magic.

I saw one of the astronauts interviewed a few years back (think might be buzz).
Anyway the presenter asked this very question. He of cause said they did land on the moon, but there was genuine hurt on his face. Therefore I sway more to them actually having gone there.

Just a thought, when you considered when it was done and what they were up against isn't it possible that any recordings made were botched or technical faults occured. This was a very big media thing so they would of had a back up plan. Perhaps the recording of them on the moon was simulated and filmed on earth. It would certainly explain a lot and no disappointment to the millions of people watching. Just maybe they were genuine....

This is exactly what I think Shadow, radiation in space would have surely ruined all the camera film?

*sigh*

They used shielding.

3.7cm thickness of aluminium is enough to completely stop the electrons and protons found in the Van Allen belt from penetrating the camera housing.

The Master

But what about the lens? Doesn't the light have to enter the lens in order to fall on the film? Can radiation get through a glass lens?

Scully

Depends how thick it is. A multi element lens would provide the same protection as the Aluminium. In fact, the glass would probably be a better protector than the Aluminium due to the lack of production of 'bremsstrahlung' radiation with occurs with heaver nuclei in shielding materials such as lead.

Besides, they were in the Van Allen belts for about 1.5 hours and only recieved a dose of around 50mSv (millisievert). To put that in perspective, we recieve around 35-50mSv per year from background radiation *anyway* with no ill effects. You would need to recive a dose of 100mSv in 1.5 hours just to see tiny changes in the chromosomes of cells. They only ill effect they would suffer would be an increased probability of getting cancer. (about a 0.05% increase)

Regards,

The Master

Thats all very well but I bet they still forgot to remove the lens cap......

DOH!

Lens Cap darkness and close up then?!