Many still doubt the moon landings but some still think we went-heres a good ole classic movie to show how it was done/faked-capricorn one

Wicked movie! I saw it long time ago and still viberates in my mind what else they r capabale of.

LIFE IS FICTION AND FICTION IS LIFE!

One other thing ive asked all those believeing we went to the moon is a simple questionthat to this day after 30 years of asking still hasnt been answered

The question is, since the gravity of the moon is very evry low as thats why the space suits help keep the astronuts anchored as this is all well uh hmmm known then why when u see the astrnuts driving the moon rovers around and goofing off while kicking up loose sand/dust w/the rovers tires, why does this sand/dust immediatly fall right back to the ground in the very very low gravity of the moon?
If u watch the videos of these u will see that this sand/dust falls egg zack lee as it does here on earth, absolutly no difference and sand/dust in that very very low gravity w/it weighing nuttin to begin w/woulf fly up in the air and keep on going for who knows how many hundreds of feet or even miles

heres egg zack lee what im sayin, a video of the astronuts riding the moon buggy, watch at the very end when they drive right in front of the camera and kick up this so called moon sand/dust, hell the dirt around here on just the unpaved roads flies up higher and stays in the air longer than it does in this video

[link to video.google.com]

Oh yea, its just one of those great movies that were fantastic, to me no movies of today comes even close to the ones like this of that era of time

Again as i noted, no replies or answer

If you listen to the commentary and watch the "making-of" featurette, the director explains that he himself was a reporter assigned to the space program during the Apollo timeframe, and that the reporter portrayed in the movie (played by Elliot Gould) is somewhat autobiographical.

Of course, the director still feels obliged to bow to the God Apollo by disclaiming any doubt about the reality of the "moon landings."

This just goes to prove the rule that the people most skeptical of the Moon landings are the most ignorant ones: there is no air on the Moon to support the dust kicked up by the rovers. If you watch carefully those videos carefully, you'll see that every bit of dust rises and falls in a perfect parabolic arc - they go right up and come right back down - something that would never happen in Earth's thick atmosphere.

why would it need air?

"Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They are:

1. A body at rest stays at rest, and a body in motion stays in motion, unless it is acted on by an external force.
2. Force is proportional to mass times acceleration (when proper units are chosen, F = ma). Equivalently, force is proportional to the time rate of change of momentum.
3. Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in size and opposite in direction."

Didn't they also crash something into the moon a few years ago so they could observe the dust cloud to see if it contained any water vapour?

[link to science.nasa.gov]

1999.

How did planets form?

Isn't there anything you won't try to spin?

You know, some people go around saying the James Bond film "Diamonds are Forever" exposes the moon hoax. Silly me! When I saw it, I just thought the guys driving that great moon buggy around the simulated lunar set were testing new equipment for NASA!

Oddly enough, though, in the inchoate imaginings in the back of the typical hoax believer's head of how the landings were "actually" filmed in some secret studio, it does look just like this; poor copies of pressure suits, fakey slow-motion, a plaster and styrofoam studio set that is barely forty feet across.

That's why the hoax believers carefully avoid looking at any more than five consecutive seconds of any surface video. Otherwise, they'd realize no studio on Earth could hold all that activity.

That is the problem with the moon landing fanboy worshipers of NASA, they contradict themselves too often. First they say that the dust that was blown up by the Lunar Modules landing traveled in space for a long time, therefore not landing straight back down on the LM(no dust on LM footpads or other parts of the LM). Then they give this nonsense about the perfect parabolic arc(as they keep on calling it)-rather the dirt,dust is seen hitting a wall of air, then dropping straight back to the ground again. So which is it, the dust,dirt had no resistance so therefore just kept on moving in space for miles just above the ground of the moon, or lands immediately straight back down on the moon surface again.

The contradictions lie within your own mind.

You've simplified the explanations given to you until they are no longer accurate enough to be used for comparison in the way you are doing so.

The dust blown by the descent engine didn't go "up." It went where the exhaust went. The exhaust essentially went at right angles to the direction of thrust; the dust traveled almost exclusively horizontally. Think of it as a line-of-sight phenomenon. Think of it like spray-painting, with the engine bell being the spray can. The inside of the pads is out of the direct line of sight. Paint (err, dust) can coat the side that faces the rocket motor, but it won't get on the far side, or the inside.



In the cast of the dust coming from under the wheels of the Rover, one thing is instantly clear; it doesn't hang. Any dusty road on Earth, dust will hang in the air for minutes afterward. Not happening on the Moon. Pretty clear sign there is no air there.

The dust, then, follows a ballistic path. Get a rock. Throw it up at about a 45 degree angle. There is some air resistance, but a rock is small and dense. It will describe pretty close to a 45 degree path on the way down as well.

Now get a styrofoam cup. You may be able to hurl it at a 45 degree angle, but it will very swiftly de-accelerate in the horizontal plane. It will fall pretty much straight down.

The dust from the Rover's wheels does not do this, either. It comes down at an identical angle to how it went up.



It's the same dust, the same vacuum, the same gravity. The only difference is what accelerated the dust in the first place; in one, direct mechanical contact with a wheel. In the other, direct mechanical contact with molecules of fast-moving gas.

Did you actually listen to the commentary and watch the featurette yourself, or are you just blathering?

On the one hand, the director speaks at length about how easy it would be to fool the public with a fake space mission. He emphasizes that with a single video angle, you can fake anything. On the other hand, he blithely waves his hand and says, "Of course I believe we went."

More ominously, the featurette includes a snip of an "establishment" terrorist who actually recommends violence against anyone who disagrees with NASA.

I happen to agree it would be possible to fool the public with a fake space mission.


Before you go and quote me, tho, we need to parse that.


I believe it would be possible to fool the public with a fake space mission.

Just not that mission. (How long you'd get away with it, I don't know. Probably not long. Certainly not decades.)

Oh, you need more help breaking it down? Point being, if you are only aiming at the general audience, you can get away with a lot more. For instance, you don't have to return any science. For another, you don't have to make any of the numbers work out.

But it would still be tough to fake Apollo. So many things are wrong in that program from the point of view of an intended hoax.

No...you make the big announcements and the publicity but you keep the spacecraft under wraps. You don't release details. You don't allow the public to watch. You don't allow journalists or foreign observers. You observe radio silence. You don't provide a television stream. You don't take multiple photographs. You do one mission under the tightest secrecy you can manage...

Oh, and you don't waste any time with anything that isn't an effective proof. Don't bother with LLLR emplacement. Don't waste time with core samples. No, organize the entire thing towards big obvious "proofs." I'd suggest, for instance, dropping an orange dye bomb on the Moon to prove you went there. Or you could work some tricksy deal with a sealed envelop, or a sealed flight recorder (which of course is no where near as sealed as the public thinks it is).


Faking the mission we actually made? Not so easy.





(There's a rather interesting problem that comes up if you try to fool more than the general public. See, a lot of science is counter-intuitive. So what "looks right" to Joe Public may in fact be wrong -- in fact, so wrong it will tip off Jill Engineer. And the inverse is true as well; if you put in the details that are true to physics, Joe Public will look at it and go "But....where are the stars?")

(There's a saying around the movies....goes back to fiction...Mark Twain put it nicely once. Point is that reality can get away with shit a movie can't. Fiction doesn't need to be possible, it needs to be plausible.)

(As a specific case of that, pity the poor sound engineer. Many things we take for granted in the movies don't sound like that in real life. The real sound, unfortunately, sounds fake. Only a fake sounds real. It occurs throughout the industry.)

(And that's the problem we have in making a lunar mission that will convince everyone. If we build a streamlined, metallic craft with a bright rocket flame landing in a self-made crater while stars shine around it, Joe Public will like it but Julie Scientist will be going "what the hell?" If on the other hand we build a spidery kapton-covered craft that silently touches down on a nearly-invisible exhaust, against a stark black sky, Jill Engineer will be going "lovely!" but Joe Public will be howling "It's an obvious fake!")

(And, funny thing, that's exactly what happened.)

We never went and prolly never will, at least in our lifetimes and if ever

Lol, I love watching these NASA shills do their song and dance.

gotta repost this for the 1000,s of newbies

And all the supposed moon footage was all filmed at area 51

Look, they just had a seperate program to make these videos on a set, in case something happend, a signal loss, destruction of film or catastrophic accident. They wanted to have the option to lie cos the stakes internationally (against the Russians) was very high.
We don't know if what we saw was the real thing or the fake thing. There is another conspiracy that says that we were 'warned of the moon' by a presence over there. So if that is true, we would have needed to be there.

We don't know if what we saw was the real thing or the fake thing.

Well I can tell u I am no part of ur "We"

AAHHHHH dang it I cant remember my password but I posted this here at glp a few years ago and this is a must see video and simply shows how easily the moon landings were faked and will always believe that.

We cant GO BACK to somewhere u aint never been before.

I will try to think of my password so I can edit the first post of this thread as the original link thru google movies at that time has been PULLED tee hee BUT I found another link to it which is in HD if u wish and its click and play.

HERE YA GO and enjoy this movie and I am still an oldtimer lol as I was a teen when I originally seen this at the movie theater

[link to www.veoh.com]

you really need your

the dust falls exactly like it should... know why? because they are on the moon

you seriously think the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the moon landings and space missions could keep it a secret that it was "filmed"

you are seriously delusional. i suggest antipsychotic meds. NOW

BS!! Due to the gravity or lack thereof with dust being pushed up in the air or lack thereof, The dust would continue to rise to several hundred feet or more before it slowly (prolly an hour or more) to fall back down.

HELLO!!! Your reply?

With a vehicle capable of only 10 kph? You haven't thought that through, did you?