Comments on: Where in the Australian Outback was it all Filmed?

By: Ruel The Midianite

Ruel The Midianite — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:07:51 +0000

By 1969, the Americans had retro-engineered the saucers from Rozwell, and it was easy for them to get to the Moon. So why would they film in Australia? The answer is simple: there is too much radiation on the Moon to stand outside in a spacesuit. So it was all filmed out beyond Bourke.

By: nshooter11

nshooter11 — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:56:42 +0000

The Moon landings were all actually filmed on the Moon. The only way to recreate regolith falling in an air-free environment is to build a giant vacuum chamber to put your fake astronauts into. Then you have to simultaneously reduce gravity.
The simplest explanation, and actually the best scientific explanation, is that they were all actually filmed on the Moon. Accept it. It’s true.

By: Geoff G

Geoff G — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:31:40 +0000

There is nowhere on Earth that looks anything remotely like the Moon. There is nowhere the Moon landings (remember, there were six of them) could have been filmed except on the surface of the Moon. The Moon landings are solidly established historical facts, and were not faked.

The six Apollo Moon landings are among the best documented events in human history: thousands of pictures, hours of video, nearly half a ton of Moon rocks, and millions of eye witnesses, including myself. There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts that they took place. To deny them is to discredit the magnificent achievement of the team which went to the Moon, and to reveal abysmal scientific ignorance.

The proofs of the Moon landings have been documented in detail on web sites like these:

By: Labsci

Labsci — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 06:25:44 +0000

You could not film anything like that in the Outback.
- For a start the gravity is the same as everywhere else on Earth, and anyone who watched it on TV would tell you that the gravity thing could not have been faked.
- The Outback is the wrong colour, red not grey.
- Wrong type of sand, it is really coarse, not fine like the Moondust.
- The USSR would have spotted them landing in the Outback, since they tracked them from when they took off till when they landed in the sea after re-entry. A small detour like going to Australia instead of the Moon may have caught their attention.
- Parkes Radio telescope was manned by Australians, who were also tracking Apollo, and would have loved to prove to the world that the Americans were landing in the Outback, if only for the chance to sell souvenirs of the event.
.

By: Ella

Ella — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:13:43 +0000

Lol at some people’s answers.
You mean the Big Dish? It’s in NSW somewhere…hang on.
Here it is…Parkes Observatory.
20km N of Parkes in NSW Australia.

EDIT: I have finished reading your question and I think you are confused. The moon landing was not filmed in Australia as such. For one, our Outback has deep red soils. It is flat and often cloudless and sunny. There is no way it is the site for the moon landing.
Australia did however recieve some transmission during the moon landing. When the moon was on “Australia’s side” of the world, Parkes took in the transmission signal and relayed it back to NASA…therefore, filming the landing.
Are you sure that isn’t what your friend meant?

By: Juliet

Juliet — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:32:26 +0000

It was filmed 3km south of Orange, NSW.

By: Urwumpe

Urwumpe — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:10:22 +0000

The most likely place to film this would be on the moon. Not even the full brunt of CGI today could turn the Outback into a lunar landscape.

Also, it can be easily proved that the six Apollo missions landed on the moon. This starts with the technical description of the Apollo program (can this spacecraft work) and ends with comparing planned flight plans with the observations of radio observatories worldwide. Radio observatories can not only tell, where a signal comes from, and that with high accuracy, they can also measure the velocity of the spacecraft emitting the signal by measuring the Doppler shift.

This alone tells you that something large landed on the moon, while something equally big orbited it, something returned from the moon and entered the atmosphere at 6° angle and high speeds, and typical cold war LEO monitoring also ensures that what returned to Earth was not a capsule from low Earth Orbit (especially since you can’t reach the measured reentry speeds from LEO – you need 10 km/s velocity in 5000 km altitude above Earth).

If all available evidence about the landings is not enough, you should maybe think about your thought model being wrong.

By: The Lazy Astronomer

The Lazy Astronomer — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:36:39 +0000

And what type of proof do you require?

Like most nutjobs, you won’t believe anything happened unless you actually saw it firsthand – but then the eyes are easy to deceive! Can you prove to me that you exist?

By: Tom A

Tom A — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:08:24 +0000

Lord, you’re a fool.

By: tick tock

tick tock — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:54:46 +0000

ah, a smile before bedtime… thank you.

you must be too young to remember the Moon landings.

back in the 60s when good science fiction looked like 2001: A Space Odyssey?

no one that watched that film believed for a second that it was really made in space and then passed off as fiction, so why would you watch the Moon missions and say they did the opposite?

its really pretty easy to tell one from the other.

nothing against Outback, gosh, I love their steaks.