Buggerbollocks, I'm sick of the QOTW finishing when I'm still writing
So I'll post it anyway. Sod the lot of you.

I really hate find it creepy that people don't believe that astronauts walked on the Moon and it was all faked. If that was the case, then why do it more than once? You'd proved your point with Apollo 11. Why stage another 5 landings? The arguments that these people supply are just plain stupid:

The shadows are not parallel indicating a local light source rather than the sun which created parallel shadows:
This is because the Moon's surface isn't completely smooth. Stand on an uneven surface and the shadows from the sun are not always parallel if they fall on to a depression or mound in the soil.

There is no atmosphere on the Moon, therefore the sunlight isn't scattered so the surfaces of objects in shadow would be very black. In the pictures, this isn't the case meaning there were other lights:
Yes, the light isn't scattered by the non-existent air. But it is scattered by the surface of the Moon which is quite reflective. If it wasn't and you stood with your back to the Sun, you wouldn't be able to see the surface in front of you. The fact that you can means that light is reflected back. There is actually more than one light source. The Earth is vast in the lunar sky, and reflects a lot of light.

It was a big secret and everybody kept quiet:
Really? Everybody? You're looking at a quantity of personnel greater than the population of East Yorkshire. It would be an impossible task making that many people keep such a vast secret for well over 40 years.

And that's only three weak arguments.
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Thu 7 Apr 2011, 14:27, 19 replies)

I remember watching a programme that said it was fake
and one of the bits of "evidence" was that the pictures were framed too well for chest mounted cameras. So they haven't heard of cropping then?

I think every single bit of moon landing hoax evidence can be easily explained. The same programme made me absolutely sure we had been to the moon and made my Step dad think its all fake.
( Peej, Thu 7 Apr 2011, 14:31, closed)

pfft...
The Mythbusters pissed all over the hoax theory and yet people still believe that nobody landed on the moon....

Totally agree with your comments....how do you keep something like that a secret!
(Lip Up Fatty Fatty Reggae still loves BBQ food on, Thu 7 Apr 2011, 14:57, closed)

Moon Landing
Now, back in 1969 my wife's mother (who passed away 20 or more years ago) was a photo lab technician working for Kodak in Rochester, New York. She was given the roll of film from the camera that Neil Armstrong used to take the photos of the two of them on the moon surface. She developed the negs, then ran off a bunch of test prints, including some six or so extra copies of some of the better ones that she took home that evening and gave to my wife.

The next morning, a bunch of very serious federal agents arrived at the lab to take back the developed negatives and all prints from them. For years she was worried the FBI, NSA, or some other clandestine agency would turn up on her doorstep demanding those extra prints.

They are really great prints, too....
(Maclir, Thu 7 Apr 2011, 15:06, closed)

POIDH.
Oh wait...
( jakedamusss I understand, and dont care., Fri 8 Apr 2011, 0:26, closed)

Moonlanding nay-sayers base their opinions on three things:
Ignorance, Stupidity, and Nothing Else.

Recently I had one spout off at me about how it was all faked -- signally failing to notice the several shelves of books about the Apollo program on my bookshelf next to her. So I fired up the laptop, and showed her a site where they have the latest photos taken of the moon. Then zoomed in to show the lunar module sitting on the surface, with clearly visible footprint trails.

She decided that it probably was true, after all...
(moon monkey is busy making memories worth repressing, Thu 7 Apr 2011, 15:36, closed)

Ooooh!
"a site where they have the latest photos taken of the moon."


URL please!
(flimflam_machine, Thu 7 Apr 2011, 15:46, closed)

You want the LRO sites
Google for "lro takes pictures of the apollo moon landing sites"

An image google will take you straight to the LM close-ups. Apollo 12 is particularly good for footprints, as they walked over to the Surveyor lander.
(moon monkey is busy making memories worth repressing, Thu 7 Apr 2011, 15:56, closed)

Mind you, it probably won't help
For most of these loonies, you could be standing on the moon repeatedly smashing their head against the side of the LM while forcing the flagpole up their arse, and they'd still claim it was all a hoax.
(moon monkey is busy making memories worth repressing, Thu 7 Apr 2011, 16:05, closed)

I had a physics teacher who was mostly very mild-mannered,
patient, calm and fair. Really good teacher. One lesson we drifted on to this topic and one bright spark piped up decrying the whole thing. Quietly, the teacher asked him to explain why he thought this. A chill descended over the class as everyone (bar genius-boy) picked up on the icy tone of the question. So he plowed in to all this balls.

Once he'd finished spouting, the teacher methodically ripped his arguments to shreds. Just.... demolished them, mercilessly. She then turned away from the stunned pupil to tell us how it displeases her to hear this nonsense as it is disrespectful to all of the brave and clever people involved, particulary as the points raised are so incredibly flimsy.

We left that class with new respect (and a teensy bit of fear) for that teacher. Numbnuts stopped asking quite so many stupid questions.
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Thu 7 Apr 2011, 18:39, closed)

To be fair SLVA, you did post about 6000, mostly quality, responses to the QOTW so there was a reasonable chance you'd be writing at closing time.
( enoughblueskyforsailorstrousers, Thu 7 Apr 2011, 21:26, closed)

There's a dickhead on a football forum that I frequent
His arguments for the Moon landings being faked include the Ascent Module 'not being pointy enough', the van Allen belts would fry everyone, it would be impossible because there's no atmosphere in space for the rockets to push against, how could they film the Ascent Module leaving the moon if they didn't leave a man behind and other reasons far too numerous to go through. He also believes that 911 was a setup and, somehow, the Chilean Miners was a scam and they weren't really underground. Oh, and the Fukushima is many MANY times worse than Chernobyl was, they just aren't telling us.

I tried the 'Why did they go back then after Apollo 11, he said for the same reason that they made Rocky 2 and 3, and Police Academy sequels. Genius...
( His Popiness the Hole Invaded Poland on, Fri 8 Apr 2011, 0:40, closed)

Pah!
You'll be telling us that our Queen of Hearts was killed by a pissed-up Frenchman next.
(Mao's stepson is doing his bit for East/West relation's, Fri 8 Apr 2011, 6:28, closed)

useful argument for:
If we haven't landed on the moon how did we place perfectly alligned mirros on teh surfcace for better measuring the distance changes between the earth and the moon?
( Crap Little Monkey Deathstar, so good they built it twice, Fri 8 Apr 2011, 10:39, closed)

the only guy that I know of who doesn't believe in it....
he reckons that they have gone, it was just the Apollo 11 landing that was faked, so that the sepos could beat the ruskies. One of his main arguments is that there is more technology in modern cars than cars from the sixties, so it would be much easier to go back now, so why don't we?

It makes my blood boil. The fact that the tech was so (relatively) primative just makes the achievement that much more impressive. He also doesn't seem to get that in the same breath, he is giving the exact reason why they went (to beat the Russians) as the reason that they faked it. They've not been back recently because the Russians have been beaten to it, so there is not the politcal will to fund subsequent missions on scientific merit alone (not sure what merits there are, actually. Most stuff can be done in orbit, what can be gained with the added expense and risk of an extra landing and take off?). The prestige factor is gone, and there are other things to look at.
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Fri 8 Apr 2011, 11:23, closed)

Just make the naysayers
watch through one of those Spacecraft Films DVD boxed sets that have ALL the footage taken for each moon mission (multi camera setups and all), or the CD-Roms that come with the Apogee books series that contain every photo taken on each mission.
NOBODY could fake that much material.
(greatoldone Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl f'tagn, Fri 8 Apr 2011, 10:43, closed)

The film Capricorn One has a lot to answer for...

(SonoraAeroClub "OH SWEET HELEN OF BALLS!", Fri 8 Apr 2011, 12:52, closed)

That isn't irrational. You gave reasons and evidence.

( idonthaveafunnynickname Drink-Aware? Sure. I'm aware I want another drink., Sat 9 Apr 2011, 11:17, closed)

But there's no stars in the pictures
It's alright, I know really.
(An Alien sneezed on Bill Oddies binoculars, Mon 11 Apr 2011, 11:21, closed)

Really,
the best argument against these people is that the Russians didn't say it was a hoax. If there was any doubt, do you not think the Soviets would have been all over it?
(friedel, Wed 13 Apr 2011, 14:04, closed)