I don't believe it happened
CONVINCE ME
"What's in the basket?"
"MY BROTHER!!!" :P
What do you not believe happened?
share
MovieChat Forums > A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (2001) Discussion > I don't believe it happened
Try expanding your research beyond conspiracy videos.
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/toc.html
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4205/contents.html
http://honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_missions/index.html
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/index.html
So why don't you believe men landed on the Moon?
__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
I believe they did but I wont be sure until I set my own foot on the moon.
I don't believe anything is to disgusting for alot of humans to do. Hiding behind the taboo of speaking about it. False flag operations have been done in plenty in the past so a hoax like this wouldn't surprise me in the slightest BUT I don't think they had to fake this, there's ALOT of evidence for moon landings outside of what is shown in this very biased documentary.
What about the existing evidence do you find unconvincing?
shareEverything. :)
The sheer volume of pictures that were supposedly taken in the amount of time they had is also pretty hilarious.
The photos in general are the most telling evidence IMO.
Yeah, I've seen those picture calculations, subtract the time spent on science and there isn't enough left for pictures. Trouble is, this ignores the fact that a lot of the science was picture-taking: document each rock in situ before picking it up, document deployment of science instruments, take regular panoramas of the lunar landscape. Nearly all the pictures are accounted for in the time allowed for science picture taking, no problem.
shareYou say no problem as if taking such an enormous amount of pictures with bulky gloves and spacesuits, helmets, and no viewfinders on chest mounted cameras isn't a difficult thing to do in their allotted time frames. Some of the areas they had to travel to for pictures were over 30 miles away and the rover only traveled approximately 8-10 miles an hour. The calculations for time spent on experimenting seem very honest and accurate IMO. Even when you cut out half or even all of the estimated time it took for experiments, the volume of perfectly composed photos taken per hour would be ridiculous -- especially given the equipment that they had to work with, the limits of the equipment, the Astronauts handicaps, and the fact that they were not professional photographers. We can logically assume that these experiments and travel time did cut into their photography time though, especially when there's a pretty good amount of video evidence indicating that they spent a lot of time on other things (bouncing around, playing golf, kicking rocks, throwing stuff etc). Video evidence also shows that both Astronauts were not wearing a camera at all times, which makes the amount of pictures seem even more ludicrous when you factor in the detaching and attaching of the chest mounted cameras, setting the aperture perfectly for each exposure with gloves on, and the time it would take to switch out the numerous rolls of film seeing as how they only held a little over a hundred exposures each. And they successfully accomplished all of this without damaging a single roll.
Amazing! These guys must have had a secondary photography degree, as well as superhuman camera taking abilities and speed!
NASA also avoids this subject. I haven't been able to find a listing anywhere on their site for how many pictures were taken. I could have overlooked it though, feel free to point me in the right direction.
NASA and others avoid the subject for the same reason a person avoids getting into a philosophical discussion on why grass is green and not blue with a 4 year old. It's a cute little thing for somebody to think up, but it doesn't merit any real discussion.
The simple fact is that the entire NASA machine was geared around getting the astronauts to and from the moon safely, and while there to document as much as possible for future study. Photographs are the next best thing to the actual lunar material to study the moon. It may be a surprise to some people, but not anybody who has ever taken on a large project that they actually sat down and THOUGHT about the limitations of time and environment when designing the missions. The cameras and equipment were DESIGNED to be operated with all the handicaps of a bulky space suit. The focus and aperture settings were pre-designated for particular situations and provided to the astronauts so they didn't have to guess.
What hoax believers tend to forget is that there were THOUSANDS of people involved in the moon effort. I'm not saying that to indicate that there wouldn't be a hoax with that many people, but rather to point out that all of those people were dedicated to figuring out every problem and procedures to overcome them. There were people whose whole job for YEARS revolved around the documentation of lunar surface activities.
It's just sad that there are people who have such low self-esteem that they don't believe they could ever accomplish something great, therefore, nobody else must have either.
We can logically assume that these experiments and travel time did cut into their photography time though, especially when there's a pretty good amount of video evidence indicating that they spent a lot of time on other things (bouncing around, playing golf, kicking rocks, throwing stuff etc).
I for one am sick of hearing how the astronauts spent a lot of time playing golf. That is completely false. One Apollo astronaut (Apollo 14 Commander Alan Shepard) spent less than two minutes hitting a few golf balls on the Moon's surface. Two minutes out of nine hours and 22 minutes of EVA time. That's it. You're just exaggerating to try to make the astronauts sound unprofessional and dismiss all the hard work they did on the Moon.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14v.1350811.rm
__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
Ok, so during Apollo 14 they had an EVA of 9 hours and 22 minutes. Let's subtract the 2 minutes for golf time. That makes the EVA at 9 hours and 20 minutes, or 550 minutes. There were 374 pictures taken during the Apollo 14 EVA. Not even accounting for any other experiments, travel time, or random goofing or exploring (which they did), that means they took an average of 0.68 photos (almost 1 photo) every minute. Not impossible certainly, but still very impressive.
Now we'll just estimate that they spent 3 hours of experimenting, traveling, and goofing off (not unreasonable). That gives them 371 minutes for just photography. That brings the average amount of photos taken to exactly 1 photo per minute. Impossible? No. Unlikely? I think so.
In any event, Apollo 14 is easily the most realistic mission in terms of time spent on the moon to photos taken, if of course you believe they were snapping a picture every minute they were up there. I don't, and video that I've seen hasn't suggested that this is the case either.
The other missions based on this simple math formula:
Apollo 11: 1 photo every 15 seconds.
Apollo 12: 1 photo every 27 seconds.
Apollo 15: 1 photo every 44 seconds.
Apollo 16: 1 photo every 29 seconds.
Amazing the pace these guys kept up!
Even if you don't factor in experimentation time for the other missions, they're all right around the 1 picture per minute average. Of course we all know that other stuff got in the way of photography, so the averages aren't even that generous.
How long does taking a panorama last? Click, turn, click, turn, etc, you can easily take 20 pictures in a minute. Try it.
Apollo 11 didn't involve any travelling, all on foot within a couple of hundred metres of the LM, Apollo 14 involved a lot of travelling on foot, hence the difference in rate of picture taking.
As I said earlier, the experiments involved a lot of picture taking, so you can't subtract the experiment time.
"Goofing" was minimal on all missions, a couple of minutes for golf, or dropping the hammer and feather, or speaking to the president. With only a limited amount of time, the EVAs were designed to be as productive as possible.
[deleted]
You have some strange ideas. I did photography extensively with film cameras in the past and I could easily blow through a roll (36 exposures) in a couple minutes, or even less at times. One picture a minute is not even breaking a sweat, photographically speaking.
shareI was thinking the same, Earthman. With photo burst you get hundreds if not thousands of photos with hopes one or two look great. That's exactly how they took photos and how they got great photos. Have you seen the photos that aren't great? I have and they're bad!
On to "goofing off", please remember each golf ball hit and hammer dropped was a science experiment in itself. These highly trained men did not "goof off" on the moon and rarely did they not follow the highly scrutinized and often practiced schedule that was drilled into their heads and on their cuffs for good measure.
"A_Sheeple_Nation"
Classic name .
you can tell that guy knows his shit
shame heres not here anymore to lead us into the light.
Of course we went, we just haven't been back in ~50 years because we already learned everything there was to learn, and there's no military/strategic value to having a virtually untouchable missile platform there whatsoever.
shareWhy are they going back then?
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-moon-to-mars-plans-artemis-lunar-program-gets-fast-tracked-in-2019
..and why does everything have to have a "military/strategic value" ?
Ooooooo, astronauts will be back on the Moon in 2024 . . . an election year . . . just 4 years away!!!
Kelly Smith at NASA thought we'd be running test flights to Mars by now way back in 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6comw1-0DZE
Of course, George Bush had him beat in 2004 with having us 'back' on the Moon in the year of 2020.
That's THIS year, is it not?
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/bush_vision.html
..and why does everything have to have a "military/strategic value" ?
. . . because that's what gets money to change hands in Washington. share
"That's THIS year, is it not?"
nope, its 2024 , no sign of that moon trip occurring either though, unless it was the unmanned Indian one yesterday