Moon landing conspiracy question (just wondering)?

Question

I would like to say before I ask that I do not beleive the moon landing conspiracy theories. I would also like to say that I am not trying to be biased in any way. My question is this: if the videos from the moon were in fact only played in half-speed on earth in a factory in Nevada, rather than one-sixth gravity i.e. the moon's gravity, how do NASA, and those against the theories explain this? Once again, just wondering since this idea intrigues me. Thanks for all answers, and try to make them mature.

Let me add that i'm not debating whether they went to the moon or not, I'm just wondering how NASA try to explain this. Watch this clip, as it is what the conspiracy theorists use as evidence. THis is supposed to be the lunar 'car' played at double speed. It seems to be in earths gravity. How can we explain this.
Oh, and ths is not related at all but is funny and is a joke about the lunar landings:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0

Once again, unlike some of you who answer seem to think, I am not arguing if we went there, I am wondering how we (those than beleive NASA that we went to the moon) explain the intriguing idea that the movie was shot on earth and was played at double-speed. Thank you all for your serious answers. For those that tell me we landed on the moon and that i am wrong-READ THE QUESTION

that's 'half speed' by the way. Not double.

Answer 1

What is there to explain? Lets take a closer look at the video. As the rover zooms by on the accelerated tape it disturbs the surface and stirs up some of the moon dust. Now, lets look at how that dust behaives. If you look closely; it moves very differenly then we would expect it to. The particles rise and fall in a perfect parabolic trajectory. On earth those same particles would be suspended in the air and their movement shifted by the air displacement as the vehicle passes. Here there clearly is no air, there is nothing substantial inbetween the vehicle and the particles; it is a vacuum. Hence, we are looking at something that would have been extremely difficult to fake.

Answer 2

You cannot prove a negative. NASA can tell you how the movies were produced - on the Moon - but they cannot PROVE that they were not produced another way. That is the "fun" part for conspiracy theorists, they only need to come up with another possible explanation. Since they are not required to prove their :"theory" and the target cannot prove a negative, it seems like their theory has merit. But once you open that box, Pandora, the conspiracies are everywhere you want to turn your imagination: every "what if" and "maybe" becomes a "why not". Since conspiract theories are not true theories - they lack real supporting facts - they are just wild imaginings. If you study the root of most conspiracy theory, you find someone with no more "authority" on the issue or experience at hand than you have. Thinking up conspiracies is easy, landing on the Moon was a major engineering achievement and an act of great bravery by those who actually made the journeys.

Answer 3

I'm not sure that NASA would even feel the need to dignify the charge with a response.

I guess the challenge would be this: Take a moon rock and perform some fairly straightforward chemical analysis.

Now find another rock like it on Earth. OK, if you can't do that ... try to manufacture a rock with those characteristics.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Until you can do that ... conspiracy theory aren't going anywhere.

Given modern technology you can fake all kinds of things - and you certainly can imagine somebody playing games with the video, even back then.

But the substantial proof is clearly visible at most of the NASA centers.

And soon enough, we'll have telescopes that actually have the resolution to show us the landers, rovers and other crap we've left on the surface.

I guess if NASA is guilty of anything, it would be littering.

Answer 4

No explanation is necessary. That's just a prime example of the deceptive, smoke-and-mirrors nature of the conspiracy theory. Slowing down the video doesn't replicate the ease with which the astronauts moved. If you pay attention to the way the astronauts moved, it becomes clear that they were on the Moon and not the Earth.

Shooting a video on Earth and then slowing down the replay offers only a crude - and highly imperfect - approximation of the lunar environment. That something can be imperfectly simulated on Earth is not evidence in favor of a conspiracy; it's actually evidence against a hoax.

Since you asked this question in this particular forum, you're going to receive a number of terrible answers (such as one of the ones below mine) that claim that the landings were faked. Be aware that these answers are supremely ignorant and have no basis in reality; they jump to faulty conclusions and contain half-truths, bad science, lies, and misinformation that should be disregarded.

Answer 5

you're a adverse troll and a liar. there's no video, in any respect, the place the flag seems to be "flapping". each and every video clip the conspiritards can factor to and say "oh look the flag is shifting" is while the astronauts can for sure be considered to be manipulating the flag pole, or that's getting blown around by ability of the rocket exhaust from the ascent module. would not take a genius to be certain that a flag could pass decrease than those situations. however i'm valuable that moron will chime in right here any minute who consistently mentions the "wrinkles interior the spacesuits". notwithstanding he has been informed dozens of situations that the "wrinkles" are interior the NONpressurized shielding fabric overlaying that's OVER the stress greater healthful. All moon landing conspiracy "theorists" are fools.(era) Uh, yeah dude. i've got considered all the movies of all the landings, and that i've got considered that delusion Busters episode. As I pronounced the flag isn't flapping, ever. and there is no pictures of the flag even looking love that's "flapping" on the Moon. The flag became shifting, by using fact as I pronounced, the astronauts might desire to for sure be considered manipulating the flag pole. It became shifting by using fact they have been shaking the pole it became linked to. merely an fool might desire to declare that it looked like it became "flapping", it for sure became shifting to and fro on an identical time as the pole became shaking. It endured to bypass (not "flap") for some seconds while they enable bypass of the pole by using fact they have been in a vacuum. As became for sure defined on the parable Busters episode.

Answer 6

The orbiter satellite already had the resolution to see an object the size of a desk on the moons surface. And that is smaller than the remains of the rover or lander supposedly left behind. Yet they refuse to provide photos of any of the apollo landing sites! The number of apollo lunar photos nasa has exceeds the number that can reasonably be taken on the moons surface. To do so would require the astronauts taking a new photo about every 3.2 seconds while they are on the moons surface. The cameras don't have that much capacity! At one point one of the astronauts was supposedly reloading his camera outside on the moons surface, as if that were physically possible! None of the cameras had viewfinders. I don't think they were just point and shoot cameras. If you just pointed them then a large percentage of photos would be unusable! There are so many questions it has to be a hoax! To believe they landed with primitive computers, tin foil exterior skin surface and non-existent environmental systems for their suits in 1969 is sheer folly! Measure the depth of the famous foot print of the 1st step on the moon and you can determine the persons weight. Since the moons gravity is only one sixth of Earths, then the print should not be so deep! Take a plaster cast of an astronauts boot on the same kind of mineral base on Earth and it will match the one supposed foot print on the moon!

Answer 7

The videos are not played in slowmotion to simulate lunar gravity. You can tell by the way the astronauts move. If you speed up the clips to simulate earth gravity (to undo the "slowmotion") all of a sudden their arms move like crazy making the clips look sped up (which it is) like a Benny Hill skit.
Also there are audiotracks that go along with the videos. If all the footage was in slowmotion then there would be more audio than video. But the videologs show no discrepancies.

Answer 8

We explain it by noting that in that short clip the only things moving are either motorised or influenced by gravity. Since gravity determines the rate at which things fall, speeding up the film will make it look like evrything is happening at higher gravity.

HOWEVER, that piece of footage does not exist in isolation. There are hours and hours of film and TV footage taken on the Moon, much of it long, continuous pieces of footage well over an hour in length, only short clips lasting mere seconds of which can be so sped up as to look natural. There are moments when astronauts fall over and flail as they do so. Speeding up the footage so their fall looks as if it happened in Earth gravity makes their limb-flailing motions comically fast. In other sections they might be digging trenches or otherwise using their hands, and their hand movements loko fine. Only the falling objects and dust move more slowly, as would be expected since they are only affected by gravity.

So we explain it by pointing to the rest of the footage and asking the people who say it was recorded here and slowed down to exp[lain all the bits that can't possibly have been shot that way.

Answer 9

As to the technical aspects ,I cannot answer them.
However theories and conspiracies are more complicated,
firstly to define and analyse all that was/is involving the Moon landings,how can we here at this time have the means to determine how they could have been concocted
Meantime lets keep on wondering and have open and mature minds ,that perhaps one day we will have a definitive answer

Answer 10

Cameras work underwater and that is essentially a weightless environment. Cameras are powered by a motor that has nothing to do with gravity. Just like you can swallow hanging upside down. Gravity has nothing to do with swallowing either.