Why was the moon landing film faked?

Question

It was faked, at least portions of it- there is no question about that. I am not necessarily saying we did not actually land on the moon; just saying the photographs and film were fakes.
Had the astronauts been on the moon, they could have bounded upwards 10 feet with each step, everything they did was filmed in slow motion, and nothing they did (movement- wise)couldn't have been filmed here on Earth. I won't get into the other factors of dust, lighting, wind, radiation effect on film etc., because it is apparent the pictures were indeed faked.
But, as I alluded to earlier, just because the pictures are obviously fakes, that doesn't mean that man did not land on the moon. Perhaps we did land on the moon but what we found was so ??? that the government had to cover it up with the fake images....

garrit, have you ever tried reading through something before replying? i am not saying WE DID NOT land on the moon. I am saying the pictures we were shown are fakes.

Answer 1

hehehe. you guys crack me up...
especially the " won't get into the other factors of dust, lighting, wind, radiation effect on film etc., because it is apparent the pictures were indeed faked"

Yes.. we wouldn't want to cloud the issue with facts.

Answer 2

The fakest thing about those pictures were the cheesy poses with the flag. Actually,no, they were as genuine and necessary, like everything else.

It's just that the environment on the moon is nothing like on Earth, so basic assumptions one makes about the behaviours of objects there are wrong.

They would not have "bounded ten feet". The gravity is less, but not that less. Besides, they had been taught to walk that way. The suits are incredibly restricting, as you may notice if you try one on in a science museum, you can hardly move. Even the reduced gravity isn't going to make mechanical motion any less restricted. Slow movements coupled with slow gravitational acceleration may then appear to be slow motion, but it is not.

There is no wind on the moon (no atmosphere!), the closest to it was the exhaust from the lander rockets. There was only one light source (the sun) which also caused the stars to be underexposed, and the film was sufficiently protected from radiation other than the visible spectrum long enough to return intact.

Answer 3

There is no question that you are absolutely wrong. Just what is your scientific basis for claiming that the lunar images are fake? The argument that NASA had the means to fake the images is not sufficient. And before you make claims about the flag waving and the radiation's effect on the film, you should be advised that scientists have soundly dubunked these "common sense"-type claims.

It should tell you something that not one scientist questions the lunar landings, even though these same scientists have scrutinized all of the photos and videos from the Moon. Would they really miss a scientific abnormality that only the average person would notice? Check out my source - it offers incontrovertible scientific explanations for the "abnormalities" that you've seen. You'll see that these "abnormalities" only prove that the photos and videos from the Moon are real.

Answer 4

The first source is a QuickTIme video from Apollo 16 that I got from the NASA history page "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal" (the second source). Note that the astronauts arms and legs are moving at normal speeds, but when they jump they fall much more slowly than on Earth. This proves the film is not fake, because slow motion photography would have made the arm and leg movements slow too. Either that or the "actors" would have had to make impossibly fast movements to look that way. The reason the astronauts can't jump higher is that the suits weighed 180 pounds (on Earth) and were so stiff that the astronauts could not move as freely as you and I can in our regular clothes. Look at the other videos on the site. There are many in the "video Libs." section. The Apollo 15 "hammer and feather" one (3rd source) is good too. In it Dave Scott drops a hammer and a feather to show them falling at the same speed. It must be a vacuum for the feather to fall as fast as the hammer, it must be 1/6 gravity for them both to fall so slowly and it must be real time video from the speed of the astronauts hand movements.

Answer 5

The 'first step on the Moon' broadcast (the one that was received live through the Parkes radio-telescope in Australia) was not faked, unless you are willing to go as far as saying that it was recorded BEFORE the fact, then sent to the Moon (how?) and broadcast from there.
The Parkes telescope was the official link (it is that signal that was then rebroadcast to American TV channels).
The TV images from the Moon were also received by other radio telescopes (including those in the southern portion of the Soviet Union, as the Moon was over the Pacific Ocean as the first step was taken).

This was a live broadcast (not a film) and, on it, astronauts are not bounding 10 feet in the air. And that is OK. When we walk on Earth, the thrust from our feet is barely enough to raise our centre of gravity by a few inches. Moon gravity being one sixth of Earth's, you'd expect astronauts to bound upwards 10 inches (not feet) with each step; in reality, the suits make them more massive (less bounding) and the training they got prevented them from doing anything foolish like bounding upwards on purpose (you don't want to risk tearing the suit on a sharp rock on the way back down).

It is a good thing that you don't go into the other factors of dust, lighting, wind... because those so-called "proofs" have been disproved so many times and so long ago.

Answer 6

Well... gee... I haven't seen this idiotic question for about a month now... Why do you people keep REPEATING this NONSENSE... you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I was on a tracking ship off the Azores for the first 4 Apollo LANDINGS... I KNOW where the dish antenna was pointed and I KNOW the signals could ONLY HAVE COME FROM THE MOON.

If Man didn't land on the moon... HOW did they manage to get the LASER REFLECTOR MIRROR into the Sea of Storms?.,.. You can't just drop it and expect it to work... it HAD TO BE AIMED AT EARTH.

This moronic question and the idiotic prmise that man did not land on the moon comes from an equally STUPID article that was written by the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY..

NOW... go outside and play with people of your own mental age... and don't annoy the adults with your nonsense again until you grow up a bit.

Answer 7

Your initial premise is flawed, seriously. The pictures and film are NOT fake, and a thorough examination of the record will confirm that. The astronauts could not have bounded up 10 feet with every step, but there are plenty of examples of them making leaps that would be impossible on Earth while wearing that spacesuit. There are plenty of examples of objects behaving in ways that cannot be replicated on earth. There is no wind anywhere in the record, and radiation efects on film are irrelevant and easily dealt with.

So we did land on the Moon, and the 20,000+ pictures and hours and hours of film and video are a genuine record of that event.

Answer 8

The moon landing films and photos were NOT faked, so there can be no answer to "why" they were.

Try looking at the scientific explanations of what you think makes them "faked" on some reputable sites, such as:

www.badastronomy.com
www.clavius.org

Answer 9

Terrific answer by campbelp2002, I'd forgotten about the "Galileo" experiment.

To be honest, I'm not going to dignify such a loaded and biased question with a response. I like to think I'm an open-minded person and happy to consider alternative interpretations of history. But this moon-landing-was-faked crap is starting to really annoy me, primarily because the evidence for it is so flimsy and the historical documentation for the moon landings is so patently, undeniably real.

I think it's a real insult to the many thousands of people who worked their guts out trying to achieve the greatest feat in human history - not once but SIX times.

Answer 10

No, actually, the pictures AREN'T fakes, and no, you can't fake a low grav environment on the Earth with 60's technology. Or a no-atmo environment.

Seriously. I'm an astrophysicist. I've looked at the pictures. Everyone who thinks they've been faked just doesn't understand the physics or the photography behind them.

Check out this website for more info.
http://www.badastronomy.com