0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It's kept alive for commercial reasons. There's lots of money in a good conspiracy.
When Buzz Aldrin was confronted by a moon-shot-was-faked-conspiracy-theorist who was calling him a coward and a lier, General Aldrin responded with a splendid right hook smack in the loud mouth's maw.And it's on YouTubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hUI for one salute you, Buzz.
Good Photos:The easiest exposures to estimate that you could imagine. Illuminant: totally predictable.Weather conditions: totally predictable.Time of 'day': constant throughout.Use a wide angle, excellent quality, lens with slow, fine grain film ( excellent lighting conditions).Crop the pictures to compose the print.Armstrong knew the subjects he was required to record.Tell him to avoid shooting at the Sun.Recipe for excellent shots.Astronauts were selected for being 'good at things'. Oh he could land the damned thing then he could produce a good photo of it.A box. Brownie would have done quite well, in fact.
I think the rationale is more that they did go to the moon but that the photos and videos they presented were fake - at least part of them. By none other than Stanley Kubrick. Check this out:http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIb.html
It would have been trivial for the Russians to prove that the US was not on the moon at that time. All that had to do is claim that radio transmissions werenít coming from the moon. But since they were and that would be impossible to fake with even modern technology the conspiracy idiots ignore this all too simple fact.
Quote from: Pmb on 06/08/2009 13:11:00It would have been trivial for the Russians to prove that the US was not on the moon at that time. All that had to do is claim that radio transmissions werenít coming from the moon. But since they were and that would be impossible to fake with even modern technology the conspiracy idiots ignore this all too simple fact.That is an absolute clincher of an argument. It has to remove ANY doubt that there was someone there when they said they were. I don't think the conspiracy theorists understand the first thing about the geometry a d dynamics of a Moon shot.
[^]They would have needed not to be in orbit if the transmissions were continuous. [^] OK?
Ok, but the fact there was a transmission coming from there doesn't mean that astronauts landed there.
Would they really have risked the astronaut's death?
Quote from: lightarrow Would they really have risked the astronaut's death? Yes, most definitely. It was a huge risk even getting into that rocket and lighting it up. Heck, the worst accident in the history of the Apollo program was when a fire broke out during a test and killed the three astronauts inside. The greater risk would be to get caught in a hoax. The astronauts knew that they were risking their lives and they did so willingly.
If the crew were in orbit, then how could they be using the radio link on the surface when they were on the other side??You'll have to do better than that, lightarrow.