Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?

I find conspiracy theories, particularly well-researched ones, fascinating. This film makes you think about something that you perhaps never considered -- that man may actually have never landed on the moon. The thought surely had never crossed *my* mind before! It asks very interesting questions.....even a few I *have* wondered about, but never attributed it to being a hoax -- for example, why there seem to be no stars in the photographs from the moon. Some of the stuff they show is pretty convincing....such as two film clips supposedly showing two different locals on the moon, but when shown overlapped, they are the same ___location (however I agree this is a case of bad editing or a mislabel!) Though the questions brought up are interesting, the answers given are lame (though a few are somewhat convincing), and obviously biased, with almost no comment by 'the other side' (the scientists/researchers/ASTRONAUTS who believe we went to the moon). Overall, this will either freak you out, make you laugh or just remind you not to accept things without question.

1. Crosshairs on some photos appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be, as if the photos were altered.

* In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion.

2. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.

* NASA selected only the best photographs for release to the public, and some of the photos were cropped to improve their composition. There are many badly exposed, badly focused and poorly composed images amongst the thousands of photos that were taken by the Apollo Astronauts. Many can be seen at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Photos were taken on high-quality Hasselblad cameras with Zeiss lenses, using 70 mm medium format film.

3. There are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report seeing any stars from the capsule windows.

* There are also no stars seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station and Earth observation photos. Cameras used for imaging these things are set for quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film for the brightly lit daylight scenes. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film.

* Believers in the hoax theory contend that the stars were removed from the photographs because they would have looked identical to the stars as seen from the Earth, i.e. no parallax view. However, the distance from the Earth to the Moon is very small compared to the distance to the stars, so no parallax would have been visible anyway. (The nearest star is over 100,000,000 times farther away than the Moon, and most stars are much farther away than that.)

4. The color and angle of shadows and light.

* Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources; the Sun, Earth and the Moon itself. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple expectations of the hoax believers. More significantly, perspective comes into play. This effect leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found. (Plait 2002:167-72).

5. Identical backgrounds in photos that are listed as taken miles apart.

* Detailed comparison of the backgrounds claimed to be identical in fact show significant changes in the relative positions of the hills that are consistent with the claimed locations that the images were taken from. Parallax effects clearly demonstrate that the images were taken from widely different locations around the landing sites. Claims that the appearance of the background is identical while the foreground changes (for example, from a boulder strewn crater to the Lunar Module) are trivially explained when the images were taken from nearby locations, akin to seeing distant mountains appearing the same on Earth from locations that are hundreds of feet apart showing different foreground items. Furthermore, as there is no atmosphere on the Moon, very distant objects will appear clearer and closer to the human eye. What appears as nearby hills in some photographs, are actually mountains several kilometers high and some 10-20 kilometers away.

6. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. When the total number of official photographs taken during EVA of all Apollo missions is divided by the total amount of time of all EVAs, one arrives at 1.19 photos per minute. That is one photo per 50 seconds. Discounting time spent on other activities results in one photo per 15 seconds for Apollo 11.

* The astronauts were well trained before the mission in the use of photographic equipment. Since there were no weather effects to contend with and the bright sunlight scenes permitted the use of small apertures with consequent large depth of field, the equipment was generally kept at a single setting for the duration of the mission. All that was required of the astronauts was to open the shutter and wind the film to take a picture.

Why are you all so determined to slate the show? Does it not seem reasonable that the American Government is lying again, they do lie about most things you know! With all the conjecture about "did we?" or "didn't we?" No body has thought about what the Government of a nation is capable of... Threatening, killing, destroying, lying, hiding... etc.

It's obvious to even the very dim that the video footage and all its evidence is fake. It does NOT mean that there was no Moon landing though. It IS possible to land on the moon (even then), but those bits of evidence from NASA were faked in order to show what couldn't be shown for real (due to technology issues). Some of those pictures were most probably 'touched up' to show detail. Since NASA had already denied this, they would lose face if the truth came out. So they continue to deny. As for: No stars, no engine plume, no crater, flag moves... These are explained through simple means (as mentioned in earlier posts). It does, however, raise other questions, like... Who filmed the ascent? Or, why evidence suddenly goes missing after its authors death, which could prove or dis-prove this whole debate? THINK BEFORE YOU RANT AND WAVE YOUR FLAG!

So instead of slagging those whom know the difference between fake and real pictures/film. Remember, they would also be happily proved wrong. Fox are bound to issue a rebuttal. Wouldn't you, if the Government threatened you? They are known for it after all.

This is nothing more than a way to get your money. Everything in the film has been completely disproven. The Fox Network produced the show and they don't care what you think. They assume you're a moron, and they want your cash. Better to spend it on a good SciFi film, which this isn't.

In my astronomy class, we watched this movie and then went through why all the theories are wrong. There is an entire website dedicated to why everything in this movie is wrong Everything in this movie is taken out of context for sensationalism.

Conspiracy-theory-nutjobs should spend less time researching the Illuminati, the reverse-vampires, the Zionists, the saucer-people, and the Freemasons and instead take an introductory physics course.