Was the landing on the moon a fake?

[bat1]

What do you think?


Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations)
Jump to: navigation, search
Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong in NASA's training mock-up of the Moon and lander module. Hoax proponents say the entire mission was filmed on sets like this training mock-up.
Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong in NASA's training mock-up of the Moon and lander module. Hoax proponents say the entire mission was filmed on sets like this training mock-up.

Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories are claims that some or all elements of the Apollo Moon landings were faked by NASA and possibly members of other involved organizations. Some groups and individuals have advanced various theories which tend, to varying degrees, to include the following common elements:

* The Apollo Astronauts did not land on the Moon;
* NASA and possibly others intentionally deceived the public into believing the landing(s) did occur by manufacturing, destroying, or tampering with evidence, including photos, telemetry tapes, transmissions, and rock samples;
* NASA and possibly others continue to actively participate in the conspiracy to this day.

Many commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims. A 1999 poll by the The Gallup Organization found that 89 percent of the US public believed the landing was genuine, while 6 percent did not and 5 percent were undecided.[1][2]
Contents

[MrsKellyPierce]

oh lord and the many people that watched the rocket go straight out of orbit were all paid too, to lie lol

conspiracy theories are so silly sometimes.

[bat1]

We watched it go up but what about after it left earth did it really
go to the moon?

[MrsKellyPierce]

We watched it go up but what about after it left earth did it really
go to the moon? it went to the moon, they did many lifts after. Stop the conspiracy theories, they are so silly. :roll: :roll:

[dan_drade]

A lot of people say the holocaust never happened either. But I would have to say they are wrong too.

[alpha2117]

Ahhh just ask Buzz Aldrin. A man classically called Buzz a coward for faking the Moon landing and Buzz who was then about 60 flattened him with one blow before explaining in no certain terms that guys like Gus Grissom died in that program and the guy was a f wit. Buzz wasn't charged because the idiot had grabbed him and called him a coward in a loud voice and the police and da said it was self defence and let him off.

All the theories are complete f'n bs.

[Oli]

“In fact, one thing that I have noticed . . . is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume the believer is endlessly stupid.”

[meghanchavalier]

Personally I find it hard to believe that we were able to go to the moon 40 years ago, yet we've never gone back? We can't even get a rover to land correctly on Mars without it failing so the thought that there were astronauts dancing on the moon is highly implausible.

[Paladin]

We watched it go up but what about after it left earth did it really
go to the moon?

No, they didn't have the correct change at the intergalactic tollbooth and had to turn around and go back to earth. Stop smoking the wacko weed...

[chefmike]

Is that a serious question?

Or are you really that stupid?

[todd1971]

I can understand why someone would say it's fake. After all now a days NASA struggles for a orbit of the Earth. By my math reach the Moon in '69. Mars in '79, People living on the the moon in '89 and by '99 exploring space. but the truth is the moon in '69 and in 2009........we replace the space shuttle with something new?

[sunairco]

There's still a vestige of the Apollo program that's still being funded to this very day. What remains is a trailer with a high powered laser. The laser is reflected by equipment that was initally placed on the moon's surface by one of the landing missions. They have recorded measurements on a frequent (daily ?)basis since then to measure the drift of the moon from the earth. If we didn't actually land on the moon and this is all a hoax, who put the equipment there?

[Oli]

I can understand why someone would say it's fake. After all now a days NASA struggles for a orbit of the Earth. By my math reach the Moon in '69. Mars in '79, People living on the the moon in '89 and by '99 exploring space. but the truth is the moon in '69 and in 2009........we replace the space shuttle with something new?

Consider that at it's height, NASA was receiving 5.5% of the Federal Budget (FY 1966). IF we'd kept spending at that level (it would be about $150 billion dollars this year instead of $18 billion), I'm fairly confident we would be living on the moon, have sent men (or women) to Mars and explored even more of the Solar system.

http://www.richardb.us/nasa.html

[Ponyboy]

I was part of the camera crew and I can confirm it was a fake. It was not the moon. We actually recorded it on Mars.

[Anubis1079]

Personally I find it hard to believe that we were able to go to the moon 40 years ago, yet we've never gone back? We can't even get a rover to land correctly on Mars without it failing so the thought that there were astronauts dancing on the moon is highly implausible.

Are you serious??? Let's think about this. Mars has an atmosphere, which makes it very difficult to land something there (btw- The rover send thousands of pictures back from Mars...failed huh?), the moon has an atmosphere so thin as to be almost negligible. Oh, and Mars 35 million miles from earth at it's closest orbit, the moon is only 238,000 miles away.

We haven't been back because it's expensive and we'd rather waste our money fighting pointless wars.

Also, if we never landed on the moon, how do you explain the American flag which is visible through a high powered telescope?

Get real.

:roll:

[LOAS]

all I can say is that the world lives in a society that lets it's self be controlled by media and government propaganda.

I say believe what you want to believe... but sh_t sometimes I think life would be better if we just know the straight fact.

anyways someone throw some shemale moons in this thread to get the party going

[MacShreach]

Or are you really that stupid?
Chef, as you should know after 3 years, yes, he really really is.

Musta been a rhetorical question.

[meghanchavalier]

http://www.thetoque.com/010717/pics/nasa.jpg

[xact]

Check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)
The movie is available on amazon...

[Belgie]

People who think we didn't go to the moon, are being DELIBERATELY ignorant.

Every single tired-out clapped-out silly idea put forward by these nutballs, has been explained over and over again. These conspiracy nuts don't bother looking at the explanations. They just keep pointing to the same tired photos or some other cockamamie thing.

[zukkobaby]

I never pinned Meghan as being that ignorant. I wonder if THAT photo was faked! Why not post the evidence as to why the holocaust didn't happen? Or would you rather tell me about how the aliens built the pyramids.

[angie]

If the landing was a hoax, isn't it likely that the Russians, or someone else, would have called us on it at the time ?

It's not that hard to determine the direction telemetry is coming from - and Apollo staying in earth orbit would have been very obvious to anyone with a relatively simple tracking device.

[bat1]

Dark side of the moon is a French mockumentary by director William Karel which originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick.

[DJ_Asia]

It was faked...no way we had the technology in the 60s to fly safely to the moon,land without killing everyone on board,h and takeoff again and fly home...ummm...no chance,no way.no how.

[Anubis1079]

http://www.thetoque.com/010717/pics/nasa.jpg

WOW! There's this amazing program that's been out for a long time, you may have even used it...It's called Photoshop!!

You still have tried to cover the fact that the flag IS visible with a telescope from earth :lol:

[Anubis1079]

It was faked...no way we had the technology in the 60s to fly safely to the moon,land without killing everyone on board,h and takeoff again and fly home...ummm...no chance,no way.no how.

By "we" you must be referring to the Thai people, since that's where it says you live. In that case, I agree with you. In fact, you still don't have the technology

[DJ_Asia]

It was faked...no way we had the technology in the 60s to fly safely to the moon,land without killing everyone on board,h and takeoff again and fly home...ummm...no chance,no way.no how.

By "we" you must be referring to the Thai people, since that's where it says you live. In that case, I agree with you. In fact, you still don't have the technology

It amazes me,reading through this thread,just how many people will believe anything that the government and press tells them.
I dont think we went to the moon,at least not when we claimed we did.
This is my fav picture of our "moon landing"...of course believers will say its Photoshop,I say its proof...regardless we'll never know for sure so who gives a fuck.


And no Zippy im not Thai.

[zukkobaby]

All it takes is a quick search on Amazon to see why some idiots are motivated to sell the idea that it was all a hoax, it's called dollars. Look at the emblem in the bottom right of your picture, it says Fox, like all broadcasters they want to make money. Because you think we didn't have the technology to get to the moon in the 60s, doesn't make it so. I have a hunch if in the year 2050 people said that the internet didn't exist in the year 2000 and it was a big hoax you'd probably believe it. Please tell me as the authority if people had the technology to fly in 1903? It's amazing reading this thread how many dumbasses, particularly DJ Asia apparently listen to dumb shit conspiracy theories. They'll just listen to crackpot theories and believe anything. By the way, they took the word "gullible" out of the dictionary.

[Anubis1079]

All it takes is a quick search on Amazon to see why some idiots are motivated to sell the idea that it was all a hoax, it's called dollars. Look at the emblem in the bottom right of your picture, it says Fox, like all broadcasters they want to make money. Because you think we didn't have the technology to get to the moon in the 60s, doesn't make it so. I have a hunch if in the year 2050 people said that the internet didn't exist in the year 2000 and it was a big hoax you'd probably believe it. Please tell me as the authority if people had the technology to fly in 1903? It's amazing reading this thread how many dumbasses, particularly DJ Asia apparently listen to dumb shit conspiracy theories. They'll just listen to crackpot theories and believe anything. By the way, they took the word "gullible" out of the dictionary.

co-sign

[DJ_Asia]

All it takes is a quick search on Amazon to see why some idiots are motivated to sell the idea that it was all a hoax, it's called dollars. Look at the emblem in the bottom right of your picture, it says Fox, like all broadcasters they want to make money. Because you think we didn't have the technology to get to the moon in the 60s, doesn't make it so. I have a hunch if in the year 2050 people said that the internet didn't exist in the year 2000 and it was a big hoax you'd probably believe it. Please tell me as the authority if people had the technology to fly in 1903? It's amazing reading this thread how many dumbasses, particularly DJ Asia apparently listen to dumb shit conspiracy theories. They'll just listen to crackpot theories and believe anything. By the way, they took the word "gullible" out of the dictionary.

co-sign

[angie]

DJ Asia -

The "disapearence" of part of the crosshair is actually due to a well known phenomenon - glare. It happens in front of a highly reflective, usually white, image .

If you'd like to see a good example, see :

http://archives.gov/media_desk/press_kits/picturing_the_century_photo_gallery/space_shuttle_challenger.jpg

(It's way too big to post here - look what happens to the crosshairs in front of the clouds. )

[DJ_Asia]

DJ Asia -

The "disapearence" of part of the crosshair is actually due to a well known phenomenon - glare. It happens in front of a highly reflective, usually white, image .

If you'd like to see a good example, see :

http://archives.gov/media_desk/press_kits/picturing_the_century_photo_gallery/space_shuttle_challenger.jpg

(It's way too big to post here - look what happens to the crosshairs in front of the clouds. )

Ive read up on the moon landing for several years and there are too many anomalies in the images to ignore,such as the multiple light sources in many images,the flag waving in the atmosphere-less moon,crosshair photos etc....

Some can be explained,some cannot,however since the government has a long history of lying to the public,I tend not to believe anything they say until proven otherwise.
Again we can debate this topic til the sheep come home and we'll never know the truth.
To be honest I could care less,too many other issues to think about in this day and age to worry about something as trivial as this.
Thank you for the non deflamatory response tho...

[Bigguy]

OK, who believes in this too? http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

[DJ_Asia]

OK, who believes in this too? http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

We all know thats silly afterall everyone knows its an impossibility for the earth to be flat and hollow at the same time. :)

[tonkatoy]

I know some people I'd like to send to the moon.

[manbearpig]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

[Belgie]

Ive read up on the moon landing for several years and there are too many anomalies in the images to ignore,such as the multiple light sources in many images,the flag waving in the atmosphere-less moon,crosshair photos etc....

With respect, I'm going to say that's not true.

Anyone who has spent years looking at this, would not still refer to "flag waving in the atmosphere-less moon" and so forth. Why? Because the explanation can be found in under 5 minutes with google. (The flag was only ever in motion when someone was holding on to it.)

As can the explanations for all of your so-called anomalies.

If you genuinely think you have anything which has not been answered satisfactorily, please let us know.

[angie]

DJ Asia,

I have to say that I agree with Belgie, that all of the anomolies have rational, scientific explanations.

I also have faith in the flaws of the US government in not doing anything quite right - do you realy believe that they can't do the simplest things correctly, but can manage a huge fraud and coverup ?

OTOH. I fully support your right to have a dissenting position. Do we truly know the absolute truth of this ? Probably not, though what we're missing, in MHO, is relatively minimal.

In a totally un-scientific aside, I've actually met Gene Cernan, famously the "Last Man on the Moon", and I did not get the impression that he was someone who would take credit for something he did not do.

But DJ, I do thank you for a spirited, and non-rancorous discussion. I may disagree with you, but you seem to be the king of person I'd love to disagree with over a nice shiraz !

Angie

[oldto77]

No moon trip, no holocaust, no September 11, no Joan of Arc, no Jesus Christ, nothing ... All is fake: just a bunch of idiots are really true !

The last conspirationist I know is today at Ste Anne Hospital in Paris . Trully.

[zukkobaby]

Asia, how about talking to an Astro-physicist if you hate the government so much. Have you also done alot of research about the time that the aliens from Roswell kidnapped Elvis to kill JFK and then went into hiding in Atlantis with the Loch Ness monster? "we'll never know the truth." Stop having OPINIONS about FACTS, people with OPINIONS about FACTS also start lies like the holocaust never happened... are you going to start giving us proof about that too? I bet my friend's grandpa would disagree with you, given the tattoo on his arm.

[zukkobaby]

I can't wait to hear Asia tell us if because HE thinks so then Europe automatically didn't have that many Jews, or if Germany's admission of fault is just a government cover up?

[zukkobaby]

No 911, I like that one oldto77, I bet Asia would love to tell us how it was all planned by the government and that a building shouldn't collapse like that?

[DJ_Asia]

No 911, I like that one oldto77, I bet Asia would love to tell us how it was all planned by the government and that a building shouldn't collapse like that?

Funny that none of you cock hungry bozos arent talking shit to Meghan Chevallier who also agrees with me...why..hmmm I wonder.

And whats with this silly comparison to the holocaust?Must be a derivitive of Godwins Law...typical noob move. :roll:

Yall believe what you want and I will believe what I want,but as I've said previously until one of us marches up to the moon and checks things out personally this debate is moot,and all its accomplishing is getting Zukko's panties in a ruffle.

[DJ_Asia]

DJ Asia,

I have to say that I agree with Belgie, that all of the anomolies have rational, scientific explanations.

I also have faith in the flaws of the US government in not doing anything quite right - do you realy believe that they can't do the simplest things correctly, but can manage a huge fraud and coverup ?

OTOH. I fully support your right to have a dissenting position. Do we truly know the absolute truth of this ? Probably not, though what we're missing, in MHO, is relatively minimal.

In a totally un-scientific aside, I've actually met Gene Cernan, famously the "Last Man on the Moon", and I did not get the impression that he was someone who would take credit for something he did not do.

But DJ, I do thank you for a spirited, and non-rancorous discussion. I may disagree with you, but you seem to be the king of person I'd love to disagree with over a nice shiraz !

Angie

You're most welcome Angie,good to see some people here can agree to disagree without pulling out insults and the Nazi's...lol.

Anytime you want to disagree over a nice shiraz,or a sixer of Pabst Blue Ribbon for that matter drop me a line.

[hwbs]

just make sure its not yellow tail , lmao

[angie]

Asia DJ -

Yes, it is rather amazing to expect cordiality to be above and beyond common decency.

But BBR - I haven'r had that since college, and IU grew up in the shadow of the Newark brewery !

If you prefer beer, I am rather succeptible to a Newkie Brown !

Angie

[zukkobaby]

I did take a jab at Megan, re-read the post. I just have low tolerance for reading your stupidity. You actually seem like a clever guy, if you read a real science book you probably wouldn't sound so stupid. You can hide behind your big bad government theories or just realize that the government isn't always lying and not every conspiracy is real. You call us sheep yet you follow the crackpot theories blindly because they're anti establishment, aren't you cool. I still love your "proof" that in your opinion we didn't have good enough technology, because you were obviously a NASA scientist in the 60s? So far you've had alot of opinions, most of them have been downright stupid. Oh well, this topic is getting boring. I'm sure Asia will live a long happy life... ignorance is bliss after all.

[oldto77]

Useless to argue with these kind of guys: they are always right and you can never demonstrate !
It fact all that is due to some kind of monomania which gets cured quite well in Mental Health Hospitals nowadays.
I am just sorry for there relatives.

[dbev]

The very last mission, Apollo 17, surely was not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17

As to the other missions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_missions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions

many affirm that it's quite likely that only from the 14th onwards they really happened.

As to Apollo 11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

the "official" justification given for the many inconsistencies in the photographs is twofold: some have official been recognised as "retouched", others are said to have been "reshot" because radiation had ruined the film.

In any case, pointing a laser beam to the Moon or Luna triggers the response of the Laser Ranging Retroreflector

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/experiments/lrr/

so that means that at least one mission among 11, 14 and 15 was successful... not to mention 16 and 17.

[Paladin]

I'll bet all the idiots who think the moon landings are faked think that all the photoshopped girls in those brasilian (taiksha, etc) sites are real...

[DJ_Asia]

Useless to argue with these kind of guys: they are always right and you can never demonstrate !
It fact all that is due to some kind of monomania which gets cured quite well in Mental Health Hospitals nowadays.
I am just sorry for there relatives.

As you 2 continue to flog a dead sheep I will repeat:

When yall decide to do a weekend on the Sea of Tranquility lemme know and we can settle this once and for all.

At least you didnt dredge up the Holocaust again...making progress!

[trish]

The Apollo 11 astronauts left a bank of mirrors on the Moon. We bounce laser beams off those mirrors every day. The time delay for the return beam gives us an accurate measure of the Moon's distance to Earth. I have colleagues who use this data to understand the complex dynamics of the Earth-Moon system. Since the two bodies aren't point masses, they effect each others motions through tidal forces and frame dragging. Any person in the world, given the coordinates of the mirrors can ping the moon, and many independent universities and laboratories have done so.

[zukkobaby]

DJ Asia probably thinks that the US didn't have the technology to make mirrors in the 60s.

[MacShreach]

I'll bet all the idiots who think the moon landings are faked think that all the photoshopped girls in those brasilian (taiksha, etc) sites are real...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[DJ_Asia]

DJ Asia probably thinks that the US didn't have the technology to make mirrors in the 60s.

[trish]

You have to say "uncle" first.

[trish]

Before Apollo 11 no one could ping a laser beam off what seems to be a small array of mirrors in the Sea of Tranquility. Since the Apollo 11 mission scientists of different countries, universities, labs and institutions could independently ping the Moon with lasers and use the “echo” to determine this distance between the mirror and their locations. They’ve been able to compare their independently collected results and see that the combined data they’ve collected is consistent. Other arrays of mirrors have appeared at the landing sites of other missions. So we can now triangulate and investigate theories of lunar geology.

One conspiracy theory might contend the mirrors have appeared thanks the aid of extraterrestrials. Others might be persuaded the missions that installed the mirrors were done robotically. But by far the simplest explanation, and the one consistent with all the facts is that the missions were exactly as advertised, manned missions to the Moon.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/apollo.pdf

http://tau.fesg.tu-muenchen.de/~fesg/web/forschung/llr/llr.php?&lang=en

[sukumvit boy]

Yeah, way to go Trish.
Trish KICKS ASS AND TAKES NO PRISONERS!!!

[tg4me]

I read that all of the Stealth F-117 fighters are being replaced by the F-22's. They already have been around for 20+ years. If the F-117's were flying 20 years ago, why is it so hard to think we landed on the moon?

[jordyd19]

This is the conspiracy I like to believe in the most, plus the chili peppers I'm backing up on this one.

Choose your battles

[bat1]

:shock:

[sockmonkey]

Now wait one. Fucking. Minute.

I took collegiate-level astronomy classes in high school (which seems like a while ago now). Despite that it's a small planetarium, we have one of the largest collections of NASA memorabilia in the entire world. Y'all remember when they shot that first monkey into space for a test flight? We have the actual capsule the monkey rode in, as in it's not a replica. We have over a dozen artefacts in the collection that actually have been on the moon, in addition to nearly four dozen other space artefacts; this includes documents signed by presidents Kennedym Johnson, and Nixon relating to the space program. I've personally met and spoken with both American astronauts who've walked on the surface of the moon, as well as a Russian cosmonaut. You ask Art Klinger, who has been curator/operator of the planetarium since its inception, and he still remembers me. He wrote, by himself, the textbook that we used in class, and I can to this day reference it to discredit any hoax (astrology) or prove any factual occurrence (the moon landing). I've personally seen rocks and dust brought back from the moon, seen the capsules that have returned, met the people who have come back and seen how it affected them physiologically.

There's a legitimate debate on whether we should spend the money we do on the space program (on of the more significant reasons for our national debt of the last several decades), but there is no serious argument that can be made insinuating we never actually went. None.
At all. End of story.

[PrinceVince99]

I dont know if anyones mentioned this so feel free to bump this. But the mythbusters did a whole episode about this and you can watch it on surfthechannel.com.

[phobun]

Life itself is a hoax.

[justatransgirl]

I've been keeping this a secret since I was a kid, but actually the photo in the OP was taken in my backyard by my Dad, who designed and built much of the instrumentation for the Apollo craft but never had time to water the grass...

We were all sworn to secrecy, failure to do so would result in the revocation of our company swimming pool rights - which in the summer would be intolerable. But after all this time I feel compelled to set the record straight before I'm disappeared by men from the black helicopters.

But I'll never divulge where Jimmy Hoffa is buried.

TS Jamie :-)

[Clind]

http://images.google.gr/imgres?imgurl=http://forgetomori.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/moonhoax32qhjk.jpg&imgrefurl=http://forgetomori.com/2007/skepticism/the-apollo-moon-hoax-photographic-proof/&usg=__Rw6hC3Aj0jUjbiX-2xq2i6ER0uc=&h=393&w=500&sz=69&hl=el&start=14&sig2=ZL27jUuXTuj8iRaRy6Iw0g&tbnid=kI8vkcD6RrU4UM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=130&ei=UfwrSZ6GGZfywwHluaHPAg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmoon%2Bconspiracy%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Del

[sockmonkey]

(insert eerily conspiratorial picture)


I do hope you realise that this picture and the hundreds like it were taken in the middle of a desert in Arizona. Where else are you going to conduct training exercises in a terrain similar to that of the lunar surface?

[Nikka]

fakeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeee

[vanessabutterflygirl]

So nobody watches Mythbusters? They settled this pretty well a few months ago.

[Nintendo64]

Also, if we never landed on the moon, how do you explain the American flag which is visible through a high powered telescope?

Get real.

:roll:

Erm...excuse me? And which of these amazing magical telescopes actually exists?

The largest Optical telescope in the world is only 10 meters in diameter, it would probably be just as expensive to build the required telescope as it would cost to go there and take a picture with a normal camera.

Hubble isn't able to picture it either.
http://calgary.rasc.ca/moonscope.htm
http://www.pa.msu.edu/people/frenchj/moon/landingsite.html

The landing area:
http://www.pa.msu.edu/people/frenchj/moon/9pixelview.jpg


People who think we didn't go to the moon, are being DELIBERATELY ignorant.

Strong disagree. Some might be, but I'd say judging by some of the responses on this board that the people blindly swearing it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and anybody with any sort of alternative view must be some kind of crackpot suggests they are the ones being deliberately ignorant.


Every single tired-out clapped-out silly idea put forward by these nutballs, has been explained over and over again. These conspiracy nuts don't bother looking at the explanations. They just keep pointing to the same tired photos or some other cockamamie thing.

Isn't categorising the theorists as nutballs akin to BNP categorising homosexuals as un-normal?


oh lord and the many people that watched the rocket go straight out of orbit were all paid too, to lie lol. it went to the moon, they did many lifts after.

There IS a difference between watching a rocket go out of orbit and said rocket actually landing on the moon you know. Sending more rockets up into space doesn't = moon landings genuine either.

I'm not trying to argue they were faked or were real, I just find that a lot of people who seem to so confidently believe it was real never have much of an argument as to why, and can't resist putting it down to "crackpot loonies" the second they read the words "conspiracy theory".


I never pinned Meghan as being that ignorant. I wonder if THAT photo was faked! Why not post the evidence as to why the holocaust didn't happen? Or would you rather tell me about how the aliens built the pyramids.

This kind of response for example is incredibly ignorant. Why is everything getting lumped together? Just because a person might be taken by persuasive arguments against something like the moonlandings doesn't mean they also subscribe to redneck psychobabble about aliens and holocausts and grassy knolls. Not everybody subscribes to the National Enquirer you know.


So nobody watches Mythbusters? They settled this pretty well a few months ago.

I personally can't bear to. Those hosts are hideous and mangae to make a fairly interesting sounding show a wretched pain to sit through.

[DL_NL]

So nobody watches Mythbusters? They settled this pretty well a few months ago.
They did. Myth busted, as far as I'm concerned.

[elizats]

soviets were the first people at space.
soviets were the first going around earth.

when they asked them why didn't you go to moon they anwser...
because its impossible:

1) the cosmic dust will cause death as soon as you get outside of magnetic field of earth.
2) the suits of that time wasn't anything more than just a suit to avoid cold and losing oxygent, just a simple suit of aluminium and a few other materials.
3) the control room of that time hadn't no more power than a today's computer. (can you send a space ship to space with just a computer notimes?)
4) why do they send any space ship now to the moon? they can't because they never did!!!
5) Soviets said bravo to NASA for what they have archive because nobody could do it. off course nobody couldn't that time nobody can't this time.

money is not the reason because the project it cost less that the money that congress gave to save USA banks.

to pitty that people, not even they don't want to hear the other opinion but they dont want to hear any other opinion at all.

[sucka4chix]

I find it hilarious that most of you have NO IDEA (except what you've been TOLD) what the 60s were like, but feel confident in arguing what happened!!!

[trish]

I hate to be repetitive, but I have colleagues who have pinged laser signals off the mirror arrays that astronauts have placed on the Moon. The mirrors are essential for this experiment to work. No mirrors, no "echo". How did the mirror arrays appear on the lunar landscape at the precise sites that NASA claims to have visited? The answer is simple. NASA put them there.

For me, that evidence alone pretty much nails the case closed (though there is of course loads of other evidence some of which contributors here have mentioned).

Of course not everything that goes into space goes to the moon, as Nintendo has pointed out. But only the fact that some things do can reasonably explain how all the different mirror arrays suddenly appeared on the lunar surface exactly where and exactly when NASA said they would.

It also true, as Nintendo asserts, that disbelievers in the manned moon missions are labeled as crackpots and their evidence is never considered. It’s also true that the patent offices around the world, with good reason, deny patents to all purveyors of perpetual motion machines without so much as glancing at the plans. Some things are just a waste of time and effort. On the other hand, I do believe Cardinal Bellarmine can be rightly criticized for refusing to look through Galileo’s telescope. I think a comparison of the behaviors of the world’s patent offices and Cardinal Bellarmine would make for an interesting discussion. One difference is the patent offices base their behavior on a well established principle known the second law of thermodynamics. Bellarmine was merely fearful of being deceived.

I think pushing aside the evidence of the mirrored arrays is a lot like Bellarmine refusing to peer into the eyepiece of Galileo’s telescope. There lot’s of evidence that the Sun is the dynamical center of the solar system. But the telescopic evidence was a clincher. The existence of mirror arrays on the Moon appearing exactly when and where NASA said they would appear is a clincher.

[muhmuh]

i dont think anyone has ever doubted that there were quite a few unmaned missions to the moon which is of course a perfectly valid explanation for the reflectors
iirc when apollo 11 swung into orbit some russian unmaned lander was already there

[CORVETTEDUDE]

OK....There are MORONS running around this thread!!!

[trish]

Well you got me, muhmuh: a consistent explanation is that rovers could’ve been responsible for the placement of the mirrors. It is not, however, the simplest explanation nor the one that coheres with the other facts mentioned by others in this thread. For one, it’s an explanation that requires an expensive and elaborate conspiracy involving not only astronauts but a hoard of mission specialists who have kept the secret after all these years.

Bellarmine got Galileo as well. Even if the Copernican system greatly simplifies the paths that planets take through the heavens, and even if it coheres with observational evidence, it’s still consistent that the Earth could be at the center of the Solar System and everything goes around it in circles with loopy epicycles.

The conspiracy theory requires that rover technology in the late sixties be such that a NASA technician can remotely scoop up soil samples, pick up rocks, take pictures from different locations and perspectives, and oh yes deploy a mirror array. The conspiracy theory requires the cooperation of the astronauts (how many were there altogether?). It requires the cooperation of the ground crews, or an elaborate scheme to keep them in the dark even though they’re the ones operating all the robotic controls. I’m not saying these difficulties can’t be overcome, or that they alone disprove the conspiracy theory. What I am saying is that these difficulties are the loopy epicycles that are required of a conspiracy theory.

We know there are mirrored arrays on the moon. Bellarmine would not have acknowledged that because he would have refused to ping them. We know the arrays appeared exactly on cue; i.e. when and where NASA said they would. Any honest account of humankind’s role in lunar history has to explain how they got there. The simplest explanation for the existence of the mirrors is the one given by NASA: the televised manned teams placed them there. Any other explanation has to contend with all the loopy epicycles.


BTW happy thanksgiving everyone.

[muhmuh]

The conspiracy theory requires that rover technology in the late sixties be such that a NASA technician can remotely scoop up soil samples, pick up rocks, take pictures from different locations and perspectives, and oh yes deploy a mirror array.

wasnt all of that except the mirrors bit supposedly done in a studio?
also why deploy it? all the lander has to do is get down right way up and you could mount the reflector on top of it... a great engineering solution very much unlike bicycle pants


The simplest explanation for the existence of the mirrors is the one given by NASA: the televised manned teams placed them there.

youre making the mistake of seeing the mirrors as part of an entire web instead of as isolated events for which compared to the massive combined mercury gemini and apollo effort a unmaned lander is a much simpler explanation

[Paladin]

Will a moderator please close this thread. I can't put up with the idocracy any longer.

[elizats]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RXrKRuNvNU&feature=PlayList&p=0733956996132F02&index=4&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU5YyolUHAw&feature=PlayList&p=0733956996132F02&index=5

....................................

[elizats]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RXrKRuNvNU&feature=PlayList&p=0733956996132F02&index=4&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU5YyolUHAw&feature=PlayList&p=0733956996132F02&index=5

....................................

[alpha2117]

The conspiracy theory requires that rover technology in the late sixties be such that a NASA technician can remotely scoop up soil samples, pick up rocks, take pictures from different locations and perspectives, and oh yes deploy a mirror array.

wasnt all of that except the mirrors bit supposedly done in a studio?
also why deploy it? all the lander has to do is get down right way up and you could mount the reflector on top of it... a great engineering solution very much unlike bicycle pants


The simplest explanation for the existence of the mirrors is the one given by NASA: the televised manned teams placed them there.

youre making the mistake of seeing the mirrors as part of an entire web instead of as isolated events for which compared to the massive combined mercury gemini and apollo effort a unmaned lander is a much simpler explanation


Groan.

Have you ever actually seen the mirrors. They are two foot wide and quite precisely angled so they reflect correctly. They took a lot of effort to both place and then adjust so they were at the right angle.

An Unmanned Lander is such a ludicrous explanation it's not funny. You are actually saying that 40 years ago man was able to build robots with the ability to operate in low gravity with absolute precision whilst being controlled from earth with massive time delays. Since footprints are evident around these arrays said robots also can apparently remove their tracks and replace them with artificial footprints. (although the footprints of course cant be seen from earth they are visable in the photos of the arrays)

If your theory is correct I expect Skynet to attack any moment because robotics would have reached a Terminator level of AI at this point. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE ... HELP ME ...OH GOD!

The Mars landers proved ust how difficult it is today to control rovers. To suggest they would have been able to create and control rovers about 50 times more versatile than todays landers 40 years ago is frankly ridiculous.

There is a simple reason why we dont go back to the Moon with manned missions. It's expensive, inherently dangerous and ultimately useless unless we have more advanced technology than we currently possess. It's a dead rock and unless we are intending to build a telescope, moonbase or other high cost hish risk mission what would be the point?

You may not want to believe that man landed on the moon but overwhelming physical evidence exists that we in fact did and the loopy conspiracy theories simply dont hold water on close examnation.

[phobun]

5) Soviets said bravo to NASA for what they have archive because nobody could do it. off course nobody couldn't that time nobody can't this time.
You should run for Congress.

[2009AD]

5) Soviets said bravo to NASA for what they have archive because nobody could do it. off course nobody couldn't that time nobody can't this time.
You should run for Congress.

LOL. He wuld be a smurt Conguessman who spells good.

[ozma]

Explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWkGTJEK0Mc&feature=related

[phobun]

Explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWkGTJEK0Mc&feature=related
Heh. I think it should be captioned: "El Nino was here"

Look at the actual dipshit description:

"Normally it lasts 14min. What you see is the reason behind all this rush to land on the moon before USSR. It was bombed a few years later by those who decide for us. ufo aliens extraterrestrial base moon Apollo Armstrong space NASA"

[CORVETTEDUDE]

What do you think?


Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations)
Jump to: navigation, search
Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong in NASA's training mock-up of the Moon and lander module. Hoax proponents say the entire mission was filmed on sets like this training mock-up.
Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong in NASA's training mock-up of the Moon and lander module. Hoax proponents say the entire mission was filmed on sets like this training mock-up.

Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories are claims that some or all elements of the Apollo Moon landings were faked by NASA and possibly members of other involved organizations. Some groups and individuals have advanced various theories which tend, to varying degrees, to include the following common elements:

* The Apollo Astronauts did not land on the Moon;
* NASA and possibly others intentionally deceived the public into believing the landing(s) did occur by manufacturing, destroying, or tampering with evidence, including photos, telemetry tapes, transmissions, and rock samples;
* NASA and possibly others continue to actively participate in the conspiracy to this day.

Many commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims. A 1999 poll by the The Gallup Organization found that 89 percent of the US public believed the landing was genuine, while 6 percent did not and 5 percent were undecided.[1][2]
Contents

Absolutely, the lunar landing is fake. JFK and Elvis are actually still alive too, and Marylin is suckin' both of them off, on a regular basis. Oh yeah, I forgot, you're actually a multi-millionaire!!! So, go to the bank and tell them to give you your dough!

[2009AD]

Explain what? It's a link to a shitty video on Youtube. Are we to assume that you get your facts from Youtube videos?


Explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWkGTJEK0Mc&feature=related

[hereorthere]

The REAL question these days is whether or not the Chinese faked their little "space walk" .... check on the web and see the flaws in the video of it - such as the apparent "bubbles" coming out of the helmet. Some nuts are suggesting that the entire "space walk' was done in a water tank. It's interesting to look at the video.

[Border80]

I suggest a few of you non-believers take an astronomy 101 class.

[Border80]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RXrKRuNvNU&feature=PlayList&p=0733956996132F02&index=4&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU5YyolUHAw&feature=PlayList&p=0733956996132F02&index=5

....................................

Wow. Did you even watch the youtube video? It's as vague as you can possibly get. In my eyes, this does nothing but discredit you.

[2009AD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RXrKRuNvNU&feature=PlayList&p=0733956996132F02&index=4&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU5YyolUHAw&feature=PlayList&p=0733956996132F02&index=5

....................................

In the words of Howard Stern's father... "I told you not to be stupid, you moron."

The Youtube clips are from a MOCKUMENTARY....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)


Dark Side of the Moon is a French mockumentary by director William Karel which originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick.

[hippifried]

Pffft! Of course it was a fake. The whole space program is a fake. Colunbus was a fake. Galileo was a fake. Aristotle was a fake.

The Earth is a flat disc, held up by 5 giant elephants, standing on the back of an even larger turtle. The sky is painted daily by demons before the sun crashes into the western sea.

[MacShreach]

Pffft! Of course it was a fake. The whole space program is a fake. Colunbus was a fake. Galileo was a fake. Aristotle was a fake.

The Earth is a flat disc, held up by 5 giant elephants, standing on the back of an even larger turtle. The sky is painted daily by demons before the sun crashes into the western sea.

[thx1138]

I have no idea. But I do know that governments never lie to, and never keep secrets from, their electorate. :>) It should be easy to put this to rest. Just point a high powered telescope at the landing site and look. The flag should still be there.

[jjhill]

I love the Family Guy skit about this

[yosi]

if this clip of this guy walking on the moon wasn't filmed on the moon , where was it filmed anyway?

ok , I got it , it was actualy filmed on the sun :twisted:

[Faldur]

No wonder our country is swirling down the bowl, with dolts like the op.

[alpha2117]

I have no idea. But I do know that governments never lie to, and never keep secrets from, their electorate. :>) It should be easy to put this to rest. Just point a high powered telescope at the landing site and look. The flag should still be there.

Not so easy to be honest. Whilst Telescopes from earth can in fact see the general area but cant make out objects that small accurately

The theoretical resolving power of a telescope, measured in arc seconds, is calculated by dividing the aperture of the telescope (in inches) into 4.56. The largest telescope on Earth is the 10-meter Keck telescope in Hawaii. The theoretical resolving power of this telescope is 0.012", however the Earth's atmosphere limits the resolving power of any ground-based telescope to about 0.5"-1.0". The Hubble Space Telescope does not suffer from this limitation; thus, with an aperture of 94 inches, HST's resolving power is 0.05". At the Earth-Moon distance of 239,000 miles, the smallest object that can be resolved by HST is about 300 feet. The largest dimension of any hardware left behind on the Moon is 31 feet, which is the diagonal distance across the LM's footpads. No telescope, presently in existence, can see the Apollo hardware from Earth.

[MajorTom]

No Comment, well err Bill Cooper FTW on this one....

[2009AD]

I have no idea.

You have no idea? Are you serious?

Did Hitler order the murder of millions of Jews, Roma, and others? I have no idea.

Were blacks ever enslaved in the U.S.? I have no idea.

Is the earth flat or round? I have no idea.

Sorry, but at some point you have to take a stand on some historical facts.

[Legspreader]

I thought there is no gravity on the moon. Can somebody explain what the U.S flag mounted on the moon is made of?

[phobun]

I thought there is no gravity on the moon. Can somebody explain what the U.S flag mounted on the moon is made of?
Another dummy.

[lahabra1976]

oh lord and the many people that watched the rocket go straight out of orbit were all paid too, to lie lol

conspiracy theories are so silly sometimes.

Ha most conspiracy theories do that, take one or few facts that don't make sense and make people focus on it so they won't see the big picture

[phobun]

oh lord and the many people that watched the rocket go straight out of orbit were all paid too, to lie lol

conspiracy theories are so silly sometimes.

Ha most conspiracy theories do that, take one or few facts that don't make sense and make people focus on it so they won't see the big picture
Good point. I also find that most conspiracy theorists tend to have little insight into their own dim-wittedness.

[lahabra1976]

oh lord and the many people that watched the rocket go straight out of orbit were all paid too, to lie lol

conspiracy theories are so silly sometimes.

Ha most conspiracy theories do that, take one or few facts that don't make sense and make people focus on it so they won't see the big picture
Good point. I also find that most conspiracy theorists tend to have little insight into their own dim-wittedness.

Totally agree with you there, speaking of conspiracy theories and now that you brought that up, I am suprised I haven't seen that "worthy" fellow around this trend

[Oli]

“In fact, one thing that I have noticed . . . is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume the believer is endlessly stupid.”

[yosi]

I think this link will end this conspiracy 8)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations

[ozma]

Explain what? It's a link to a shitty video on Youtube. Are we to assume that you get your facts from Youtube videos?


Explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWkGTJEK0Mc&feature=related

It has been posted on other websites.

Can you prove it's a fake?

[2009AD]

Explain what? It's a link to a shitty video on Youtube. Are we to assume that you get your facts from Youtube videos?


Explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWkGTJEK0Mc&feature=related

It has been posted on other websites.

Can you prove it's a fake?

Oh is that how it works? If a clip is posted on many sites, that means it's credible? Chris Crocker should be President of the United States if that's the case.

Prove to you what's fake? The video? No the video exists. I can see it. Spongebob Squarepants videos also exist. I have no idea what I'm looking at or what your point is in posting it.

[rameses2]

There is an monitoring station, in California, that is tasked to record the distance the Earth is from the Moon. It fires a laser at reflectors placed on the lunar surface, calculates the time it takes for the light to reflect back and gives the relative distances down to the centimeter. How could this work if We hadn't gone to the Moon to put the reflectors there in the first place? :x

[baileyandkc]

no, but I'm pretty sure Kirk's stealing of the cloaking device from the Romulans was a staged event..least I think it was...otherwise, we could cloak our ships from these dreaded Somali pirates!

[Oli]

Explain what? It's a link to a shitty video on Youtube. Are we to assume that you get your facts from Youtube videos?


Explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWkGTJEK0Mc&feature=related

It has been posted on other websites.

Can you prove it's a fake?

Can you convince us that it is indeed authentic?

[MajorTom]

I have no idea.

You have no idea? Are you serious?

Did Hitler order the murder of millions of Jews, Roma, and others? I have no idea.

Were blacks ever enslaved in the U.S.? I have no idea.

Is the earth flat or round? I have no idea.

Sorry, but at some point you have to take a stand on some historical facts.

I don't care for your tone one bit.

[phobun]

Explain what? It's a link to a shitty video on Youtube. Are we to assume that you get your facts from Youtube videos?


Explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWkGTJEK0Mc&feature=related

It has been posted on other websites.

Can you prove it's a fake?

Oh is that how it works? If a clip is posted on many sites, that means it's credible? Chris Crocker should be President of the United States if that's the case.

Prove to you what's fake? The video? No the video exists. I can see it. Spongebob Squarepants videos also exist. I have no idea what I'm looking at or what your point is in posting it.
+1 for 2009AD

[phobun]

I have no idea.

You have no idea? Are you serious?

Did Hitler order the murder of millions of Jews, Roma, and others? I have no idea.

Were blacks ever enslaved in the U.S.? I have no idea.

Is the earth flat or round? I have no idea.

Sorry, but at some point you have to take a stand on some historical facts.

I don't care for your tone one bit.
This is the most petulantly gay thing anyone has said yet.

[alpha2117]

I thought there is no gravity on the moon. Can somebody explain what the U.S flag mounted on the moon is made of?

Fair enough question.

There is gravity on the moon but it's much less than earth. I think it's about 1/6th.

The Flags are made of material. Closer looks reveal the flagpole has both the standard pole and a branch coming out from it that holds the flag in place.

If you view footage of the flags they move when the pole is jiggled but because their is no atmosphere they tend to move somewhat differently than your mind expects a flag to move. They also tend to move for longer after jiggling because there is no atmospheric drag.

Below is a list of common hoax theories and explanations from one of the many websites on the matter. It pretty clearly answers most of the standard questions.

The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.

Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017% (1 in 60,000). The source of this information appears to be a report prepared by the Rocketdyne company in the late 1950s. This assessment was, of course, based on understanding and technology existing at the time of the report. As tremendous resources were poured into the problem over the next decade, the reliability studies improved dramatically.

During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.

Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.

This is the claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. Although I am unfamiliar with the source of this information, Mr. Rene's assertion is clear; the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a "defect" and a "major technical problem". None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions with amazing success.

The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.

Television pictures of the Apollo 11 landing were sent directly to Earth from the surface of the Moon using the Lunar Module's antenna and power supply. This placed a restriction on the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted. Apollo 11 was thereby limited to using a black-and-white, slow-scan TV camera with a scan rate of 10 frames-per-second at 320 lines-per-frame. In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 30 frames-per-second at 525 lines-per-frame. The pictures transmitted from the Moon were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a vidicon camera was pointed at the screen and the pictures were scanned at the EIA standard. A number of peculiar image artifacts were seen on the images. One set of artifacts was produced by sunlight reflecting off the astronauts and the LM onto the TV camera's lens. These reflections produced the ghostly effects perceived by the public. Other prominent artifacts were the result of spots burnt into the monitor screens from which the optical conversions were produced.

Apollo 11 was only a first step in what was to be increasingly ambitious missions, thus it was lacking in some capabilities. Among these was the ability to transmit high-quality TV pictures. Later missions, starting with Apollo 12, had enough time in the schedule to permit the astronauts to erect large freestanding dish antennae. This increased the amount of bandwidth that could be transmitted, thus allowing complex color TV pictures to be sent directly to Earth.

There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures.

The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. The photosensitive emulsions layers where placed on an ESTAR polyester film base, which had previously been used primarily for motion picture film. The melting point of Estar is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at around 200° F. Fortunately the film was never exposed to this kind of temperature. The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts' clothing, were indeed white.

Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters.

The implication is that the astronauts could not have achieved this apparent level of perfection. The obvious answer is that they did not, as is evident by this badly underexposed example [see photo]. The photos to which the hoax advocates refer are publicity photos released by NASA. Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. Also, what appears to be perfect composition is, in many cases, the result of cropping. If all the photographs were uncropped, the number, size and pattern of crosshairs would be identical in every photo, which clearly is not the case. I don't mean to take anything away from the astronauts because they performed a remarkable job, which can be explained in three words: practice, practice, and practice. Perhaps no humans have ever been better prepared for a job than the Apollo astronauts.

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example [see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour.

The astronauts should have seen a beautiful star-filled sky above them, yet they never mention it.

Even though there was a black sky above them, the astronauts still had to contend with the glare of a brightly lit lunar surface. The bright landscape prevented the astronauts' eyes from becoming dark adapted, thus making it nearly impossible to see faint stars. It would be like trying to see stars at night on Earth while someone is shining a flashlight directly into your eyes. Some astronauts reported that, while inside the LM, they could see stars through the upper rendezvous window. Also, astronaut Gene Cernan said that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside.

There are several photographs of objects that are in shadows, yet they appear lighted and with surprising detail. Objects located in shadows should appear totally black.

The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. At the Earth-Sun distance, maximum solar illumination is about 10,000 lumens per square foot; however, if the Sun is not directly overhead its rays will strike the surface obliquely. This decreases the intensity of sunlight per unit area. A typical Sun elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, thus the illumination per square foot was about 3,400 lumens. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photographs.

In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts appear illuminated, while the shadow side of rocks appear totally black.

This Apollo 17 photograph [see photo] is a good example of the above hoax claim. The explanation is apparent from the photo itself. Look at the astronaut's feet and you will see that the shadow in this area is just as dark as that of the foreground rocks. The lunar surface acts as a reflector to illuminate the shadow side of the astronaut. At the elevation of the astronaut's feet, and the foreground rocks, this reflector surface is mostly covered by the adjacent shadows. However, at the elevation of the astronaut's head and torso, the shadows cover a much smaller percentage of the surface. For example, on a flat surface the angular distance from horizon to horizon is 180 degrees. At an elevation of five feet, a one-foot wide shadow subtends an angle of 11.4 degrees, or only 6% of the distance from horizon to horizon. At two inches above the ground, this shadow subtends an angle of 143 degrees, or nearly 80% of the surface. Furthermore, the rocks are darker and less reflective than the astronaut's white space suit.

Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source, thus the photos are fakes.

Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here.

This photograph [see photo], taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film. In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.

Apollo 11 footage shows the astronauts' shadows increasing and decreasing in length as they move about. This is because they are in close proximity to a large artificial light source that causes their shadows to change as they move toward or away from the light.

This claim comes from David Percy, who displays this image [see photo] on his Web site. A brief examination reveals that Percy's explanation cannot possibly account for the shadows. If the shadows were produced as described, then the closer an astronaut is to the light source, the shorter his shadow will be, which is just the opposite of what we see. Percy claims ground slope cannot explain the shadows because the terrain is essentially flat. On a large scale the Apollo 11 site was essentially flat, however there were local undulations in the ground surface. Since we are looking at a two-dimensional image we cannot see the slope of the ground, but we can infer it from the shadows. It appears the ground is sloping upward and away from left astronaut either to the top-left, the bottom-right, or a combination of both. Remember, shadows cast on a downward slope are lengthened, while those cast on an upward slope are shortened. It seems that a change in ground slope is the only feasible explanation for the shadows we see.

Many Apollo photographs show lighting "hot spots", as well as a darkening of the surface toward the horizon. Sunlight should not produce hot spots, nor should the surface fade in an airless environment.

The "hot spots" are the result of the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source. There are many reasons for this, but it is mostly due to countless tiny glass spheres found in the lunar soil, and formed by meteorite impacts. When you see a photo taken "down sun", away from the Sun, you see what looks like a spotlight around the shadow's head. This is because the light is strongly reflected back toward the Sun, so the soil around the head of the shadow looks very bright. This phenomenon also explains why the surface fades so drastically toward the horizon. It is brightest near the foreground due to sunlight being preferentially reflected back toward the camera. Farther away, the sunlight is preferentially reflected away from the camera, making the ground look dark. This phenomenon can also be observed in wet grass on Earth, as spherical water droplets act like the glass spheres. The technical term for this phenomenon is Heiligenschein, and is the result of light refraction, reflection, and diffraction on the surface of and inside the glass spheres and/or water droplets. This Apollo 11 photo is very good example [see photo] of Heiligenschein.

Some Apollo photographs show mysterious lights in the shadowy background that appear to be studio spotlights.

The hoax advocates usually reference this photograph [see photo] because the lights bare a vague resemblance to studio spotlights, however there are many photographs, such as this one [see photo], where the same lights seem to contradict this hoax claim. There is no mystery as to the origin of these lights; they are lens flares. A lens flare is an image of the Sun reflecting back and forth between the lens elements of the camera. If you examine the photographs in which lens flares are found you will notice they all have a couple things in common. First, they are all taken with the camera pointing in the general direction of the Sun and, secondly, if you were to draw a line from the center of the photograph through the flares (they usually occur in pairs), the line will point in the direction of the Sun, which lies just outside the frame.

Only two men walked on the Moon during each Apollo mission, yet there are photos in which the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

The Apollo astronauts carried cameras that were attached to the front of their spacesuits. In this Apollo 12 photograph of astronaut Alan Bean [see photo], taken by Pete Conrad, one can clearly see Bean's camera mounted to his chest. The astronauts aimed and operated the cameras while they remained in this mounting. If you look closely at Conrad's reflection in Bean's visor, you can see Conrad's camera, which he is operating with his right hand.

In an Apollo 11 photograph of Buzz Aldrin the horizon is located at eye level; however, if the camera was mounted to Neil Armstrong's chest, the horizon should be at chest level.

The referenced photograph is the most reproduced image in the entire Apollo archive [see photo]. The claim of the hoax advocates assumes that Aldrin and Armstrong were standing on level ground; however, if Armstrong were standing on higher ground, the apparent elevation of the horizon would rise accordingly. If we look at Armstrong's reflection in the visor, we see the horizon is located at his chest [see enlargement]. This shows Armstrong was indeed standing on higher ground with his chest located in approximately the same horizontal plane as Aldrin's eyes. Given this camera position, we see the horizon across Aldrin's eyes as expected.

The hoax advocates also point out that the top of Aldrin's backpack should not be visible if the camera was attached to Armstrong's chest. Again, the hoax advocates fail to recognize that Armstrong is standing on higher ground. In addition, Aldrin is leaning forward, thus exposing the top of his backpack to the camera. Due to the weight of the astronauts' backpacks, a slight forward lean was required to maintain balance.

There is one photograph of an astronaut standing on the surface of the Moon in direct sunlight, yet he casts no shadow, which is impossible.

The photo to which the hoax advocates refer is one of astronaut John Young saluting the Stars and Stripes [see photo]. They often reference this photo as evidence of fraud, however they are very wrong. Young's shadow is clearly visible on the ground below him and to the right (his left). How can his shadow not be attached to his body? The answer is simple; Young was leaping off the ground and was elevated about two feet when the photo was taken. There is also some very good corroborating video of the event. This is one of the most famous of the Apollo photos and it is surprising that the hoax advocates would be unfamiliar with the story behind the photograph.

Other comments I've heard about this particular photo include (1) the flag appears to be fluttering and (2) the flag's camera facing side should be shaded from the sun. The fluttering issue I will deal with later. As for the lighting issue, it seems obvious to me that the flag is angled to the right and toward the camera. With the sun to the left, the flag's camera facing side would be sunlit at a shallow angle, which agrees with the shadows on the flag itself.

Not one still photograph matches the video footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

This statement, made by David Percy, is entirely untrue. For evidence I submit the above-mentioned photograph of astronaut John Young [see photo]. There is some excellent corroborating video of the event captured in this still photo. In the video, the TV camera is positioned behind Young and to his right. The video shows a leaping John Young, the flag (which is not fluttering) and Charlie Duke, who took the photograph. There are other examples as well.

Mr. Percy claims that the triangular shaped piece of fabric located on the top of John Young's backpack, and seen in the still photo, does not appear in the video. This is not true - the tip of the fabric can be seen when one closely examines the video. Percy's claim fails to take into consideration the relative camera angles, the fact that Young in leaning forward, and the fact the fabric is attached at the front edge of the backpack.

If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who shot the video of him descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the lunar surface?

The TV camera was stowed in an instrument pallet in the LM descent stage. When Armstrong was at the top of the ladder, he pulled a lanyard to swing open the pallet, which was hinged at the bottom. The TV camera, which was attached to it, also swung down. Buzz Aldrin then switched on the camera from the LM cabin. The camera was pointing at the ladder of the LM so that TV pictures of Armstrong's initial steps on the Moon could be relayed to the world. The camera was later removed from its mounting and placed on a tripod some 30 feet from the LM, where it was left unattended to cover the remainder of the moonwalk.

Two photographs show an identical mountain background, yet in one the Lunar Module is present while in the other the LM is absent. The mountain scene must be an artificial backdrop.

The above example, which was presented in the FOX TV program, is just one of many hoax claims about "identical backgrounds" and "artificial backdrops" [see photos]. If someone is going to claim the backgrounds are identical, they had better be IDENTICAL. In this case, as in all such claims, the backgrounds are clearly not identical. If you examine the photos with scrutiny, differences can be easily identified. For example, look closely at the hill on the right of each photo and you will notice that the angles of view are significantly different. It is obvious the photos were taken from different camera positions, thus we see different foreground terrain. In the right photo it appears the LM is off-camera to the left.

Another factor to consider is, due to the lack of an atmosphere, distant objects on the Moon appear clearer than they do on Earth, thus the background mountains may be more distant than they appear to be. As such, a change in camera position may, at first observation, have a nearly unperceivable affect on the appearance of the background. However, close examination will reveal otherwise.

Two video clips, claimed by NASA to have been taken at different locations many kilometers apart, show an identical hill.

There's an easy explanation for this: human error. The video clips to which the hoax advocates refer are from a documentary (not made by NASA) that accidentally used a wrong clip. This was a simple mistake, but not one made by NASA. According to NASA, the photos were actually taken about three minutes apart on the same hill.

Apollo 16 photographs show a rock with a clearly defined "C" marking on it. This "C" is probably a studio prop identification marking.

I do not deny that the rock certainly appears to have a "C" on it [see photo], however to suggest this is some sort of studio prop marking seems a bit far-fetched. Fortunately, someone else has already solved this mystery for us. An investigation by the Lunar Anomalies Web page has uncovered that the "C" is, in fact, no more than a hair or fiber that was likely on the paper when the print was made. This print was then scanned to produce the digital image seen on this, and other, Web pages. The original negatives have been found to be "clean" with no evidence of the infamous "C".

Crosshairs, etched into the cameras, are visible in the Apollo photos, however in some images there are objects that appear to be in front of the crosshairs; an indication that the photos have been faked.

In all the examples I've seen the crosshairs, called fiducials, disappear when crossing a brightly lit white object [see photo]. What's happening here is the intense light reflecting off the white surface is bleeding in around the crosshair and saturating the film, thus obliterating the crosshair. This phenomenon is commonplace and is in no way evidence of fraud.

Some of the Apollo video shows the American flag fluttering. How can the flag flutter when there is no wind on the airless Moon?

This I find to be one of the more ridiculous observations. It is readily apparent that all the video showing a fluttering flag is one in which an astronaut is grasping the flagpole. He is obviously twisting or jostling the pole, which is making the flag move. In fact, in some video the motion of the flag is unlike anything we would see on Earth. In an atmosphere the motion of the flag would quickly dampen out due to air resistance. In some of the Apollo video we see the twisting motion of the pole resulting in a violent flapping motion in the flag with little dampening effect.

I've heard many hoax advocates claim that some of the Apollo photos show a fluttering flag. (How one can see a flag flutter in a still photograph is a mystery to me!) I can only guess that ripples and wrinkles in the flags are being perceived as wave motion. The flags were attached vertically at the pole and horizontally from a rod across the top. On some flights the astronauts did not fully extend the horizontal rod, so the flags had ripples in them. There is much video footage in which these rippled flags can be seen and, in all cases, they are motionless.

When astronaut Alan Shepard hit a golf ball on the Moon, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right, yet a slice is caused by uneven airflow over the ball.

This comment by Ralph Rene is another example of inadequate research, as well as evidence of a poor sense of humor. Near the end of Apollo 14's second and final EVA, Al Shepard pulls a PR stunt by hitting a pair of golf balls. He drops the first ball and takes a one-arm swing, topping the ball and burying it. He takes a second swing and pushes the ball about 2 or 3 feet, mostly along the line toward the TV camera. In Houston CAPCOM Fred Haise jokes "That looked like a slice to me, Al". Shepard's third swing finally connects and sends the ball off-camera to the right. He drops a second ball and connects again. Shepard says "Miles and miles and miles", Haise replies "Very good, Al".

The Apollo crews were launched into space but never left Earth orbit.

Orbiting spacecraft and satellites are easily visible to the naked eye; in fact, there are many people who enjoy tracking satellites as a hobby (I have personally seen many satellites, including Mir and the Space Shuttle). The Apollo spacecraft were large vehicles, thus bright and easy to see. Had the Apollos not left orbit, they would have been observed by many people worldwide, yet there were no such sightings. Also, there are documented cases of observers following the Apollos as they left Earth orbit on their translunar trajectories - exactly when and where the spacecraft were predicted to be. Furthermore, the Soviets closely tracked the Apollos all the way to the Moon and back.

NASA used its TETR-A training satellite to transmit data to Earth to simulate transmissions from the Apollo spacecraft. This way ground controllers were fooled into believing they were receiving real data.

The flight controllers in the Mission Control Center (MCC) read only what was on their computer screens and wouldn't have known where the data came from. Thus, it can be argued the MCC flight controllers could be fooled by simulated data, but a satellite would not have been necessary to do it.

On the other hand, a satellite could not possibly fool controllers of the Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN), who collected radio signals from space and relayed them to the MCC. The Apollo spacecraft followed a trajectory to the moon that was tracked with great precision. TETR-A was an Earth orbiting satellite and followed a vastly different trajectory with no similarity to Apollo whatsoever. In addition, TETR-A reentered the Earth's atmosphere on 28-Apr-68, eight months before the first lunar flight.

To reach the Moon astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, resulting in lethal doses of radiation.

This is a claim the hoax advocates often make, but it is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo about an hour to pass through the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "lead shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding.

The hoax advocates also make the mistake of limiting themselves to two-dimensional thinking. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered around the Earth's magnetic equator, and spanning about 40 degrees of latitude - 20 degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to the Earth's equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts.

For more information, please see The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon and Radiation Plan for the Apollo Lunar Mission.

Intense radiation from solar flares would have killed the Apollo astronauts in route to the Moon and back.

Solar flares were a NASA concern as well, but the radiation doses claimed by the hoax advocates are again greatly exaggerated and unsubstantiated. Although low-intensity solar flares are common, they posed no real threat to the astronauts. High-intensity solar flares could have endangered the astronauts' health, but these large eruptions are infrequent. Furthermore, there are statistical methods for determining the likelihood of a major flare during a given time interval. If NASA found an unacceptably high probability for a solar flare event during a scheduled flight, the mission would have been postponed. No large solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions and typical radiation doses received by the astronauts was very low.

For more information, please see Radiation Plan for the Apollo Lunar Mission

In addition to exposure to deadly radiation, the Apollo astronauts would have been pierced by thousands of micrometeoroids.

Shielding was provided to protect the Apollo astronauts from micrometeoroid bombardment. Due to their low mass, only a thin layer of material was necessary to stop these dust-sized particles. For example, the Lunar Module was protected by a thin aluminum outer shield a few thousandths of an inch thick. In addition, the astronauts' spacesuits included a micrometeoroid garment to protect them while performing activities on the lunar surface.

How could the astronauts survive in the heat of the Moon's day? Objects that are heated cannot be cooled by space.

This is true, to a point, however spacesuits can radiate heat. All objects above absolute zero radiate heat; therefore some of the heat energy received from the Sun is radiated back into space as infrared rays. Also, much of the Sun's radiant energy can be reflected away. The astronaut's spacesuits were white because this color reflects the most radiation, thereby minimizing the amount absorbed. Finally, the spacesuits were equipped with a cooling system that utilized water as a medium to carry away excess heat.

The cooling system consisted of a cooling garment worn by the astronaut, a heat exchanger, and a porous plate sublimator. Water was circulated through tubes in the cooling garment where it absorbed heat from the astronaut’s body and then carried it to the heat exchanger in the backpack. As water passed through the heat exchanger, heat was transferred to a layer of ice on the surface of the porous plate sublimator causing the ice to sublimate and the resulting gas carried away the unwanted heat. The ice was replaced by continually seeping a small amount of water through holes in the metal plate of the sublimator. When the water was exposed to the vacuum of space, the sudden drop in pressure caused it to immediately freeze onto the plate’s surface.

The Apollo guidance computer had the equivalent computing power of today's kitchen appliances, far less than that required to go to the Moon.

Unlike general-purpose computers, the Apollo guidance computer had to perform only one task - guidance. Most of the number crunching was performed at Mission Control on several mainframe computers. The results were then transmitted to the onboard computer, which acted upon them. The Apollo guidance computer was capable of computing only a small number of navigation problems itself. Since the guidance computer had to run only one program, that program could be put in ROM, thus only a small amount of RAM was required to hold the temporary results of guidance calculations.

The hoax advocates tend to overrate the tasks performed by the onboard guidance computers of the 1960's. In fact, the Mercury spacecraft, 1961-63, flew into space without any onboard computer whatsoever, yet the trajectories were precisely controlled and the capsule was capable of fully automated control.

The computer technology did not exist in the 1960's to build the Apollo guidance computer.

Computer companies of the 1960's had to produce general-purpose computers at a cost that would attract consumers. NASA, on the other hand, required a computer capable of performing only a single task - guidance - and could easily afford a custom designed and built system using cutting edge components and techniques. Although modern microprocessors did not yet exist, microchips performing simple tasks were available in the early 1960's, and these could be built-up into computer processors. By the mid-1960's several companies were producing commercially available integrated circuits.

The hoax advocates often become trapped into a single way of thinking. Just because one technology is used to solve a particular problem today does not mean that problem was unsolvable before the technology was available. Man is much more creative than the hoax advocates are willing to acknowledge.

The astronauts' movement inside the Lunar Module would change the center of mass, throwing the LM off balance, and making it impossible to control.

This is the claim of hoax advocate and Ralph Rene who, apparently, has a poor understanding of physics and the Lunar Module's control systems. The LM had an automatic computer guidance and inertial control system. This system was designed to measure the attitude of the LM several times per second using a system of gyroscopes. If it found that the LM was out of proper attitude it would make adjustments by gimballing the main descent engine and/or throttling it back, and firing control thrusters as needed to stabilize the spacecraft. Despite claims to the contrary, the control thrusters exerted sufficient force to nudge the spacecraft around as necessary to keep it stable.

How could the untested Lunar Module land flawlessly six times on the Moon when its prototype crashed on Earth during training.

The "prototype" to which the hoax advocates refer was not a prototype at all, but two classes of training vehicles known as the Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV) and the more advanced Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTV). These vehicles included a jet engine to support five-sixths of their airborne weight, a pair of rocket engines that simulated the LM's descent engine, and small jets that mimicked the LM's attitude control thrusters. The Apollo astronauts trained in the LLRV and LLTV to learn the skills necessary to maneuver the actual LM. During one test flight, Neil Armstrong was forced to eject when the LLRV's helium pressurization system for the steering jets failed, causing the LLRV to become unstable and crash. Despite this incident, the LLRV and LLTV flew hundreds of successful flights.

The LLRV and LLTV were very different from the LM and the "untested" LM was far from untested. Every component of the LM was tested over and over again during its development. Furthermore, the LM was tested in space unmanned during the Apollo 5 mission and manned during the Apollo 9 mission. Apollo 10 tested the LM in lunar orbit and performed everything but the landing itself. The next test flight, Apollo 11, performed the first lunar landing. Testing continued during Apollo 12 as the ability of the LM to make a pinpoint landing was demonstrated. The LM flew successfully to the moon because of the hard work of thousands of workers over many years during the design, development and construction of the spacecraft.

The sound of the Lunar Module descent engine should be heard in the Apollo audio, but there is no such sound.

On Earth, a rocket engine is an extremely noisy device; this comes from the shearing action between the high velocity exhaust jet and the surrounding atmosphere. The LM operated in a vacuum so the only sound would be that produced by vibrations transmitted through the spacecraft structure itself. Also, the microphones used by the astronauts were located inside their spacesuits, thus insulated from the cabin environment. Finally, the microphones were designed to pick up only the sound in their immediate vicinity, that is, the astronauts' voices.

The powerful engine of the Lunar Module should have produced a blast crater, yet there is no evidence of a blast crater in any of the Apollo photographs.

Let's consider several facts: (1) Although the Lunar Module descent engine was capable of 10,000 lbs of thrust (the usual hoax advocate's claim), it was throttled down to below 3,000 lbs as it neared the lunar surface. While still several feet above the ground, the descent engine was shut down as probes, extending 5 feet below the footpads, sensed contact with the surface. (2) The LM descended at an angle, moving laterally across the ground. When the astronauts identified a suitable landing site, the LM leveled off and dropped to the surface. The LM did not hover over its final landing site for any significant length of time. (3) The Moon's surface is covered by a rocky material called lunar regolith, which consists of fine dust particles, glass spheres and a jumble of large boulders and rocky debris. Lunar regolith has many unique properties, the most obvious being that the particles are very jagged, which causes them to interlock. When subjected to pressure, the regolith will resist, almost like solid rock. (4) In a vacuum exhaust gases expand rapidly once exiting the engine nozzle.

When one considers these facts the truth becomes obvious - The exhaust stream was not powerful enough or centralized enough to displace the regolith and blast out a crater. In this Apollo 11 photograph [see photo] one can see some discoloration and a general lack of dust, which was mostly blown away. After the dust was removed a hard surface was exposed.

A large amount of dust was generated during the landings, yet no dust can be seen on the Lunar Module footpads.

This thinking draws on our common experience from Earth but, as we all know, the Moon is not the Earth. If wind picks up dust on Earth we get billowing clouds that tend to settle all over everything. This occurs because the Earth has an atmosphere. The Moon has no atmosphere so any dust that was blown by engine exhaust would follow a simple ballistic trajectory and fall immediately back to the surface. The dust would be blown outward away from the LM, thus the lack of dust on the footpads is exactly what we would expect to see.

The astronauts make deep footprints around the landing site, yet the Lunar Module exhaust should have blown the area clean of dust.

The downward traveling exhaust stream would impact the ground and rebound mostly outward and away from the surface. Since there is no atmosphere to interact with, the gas molecules would simply fly off and disperse (see note below). The only dust particles that would be displaced would be those directly impacted by the exhaust gas. Since the exhaust stream was concentrated mostly in the area directly beneath the Lunar Module, this zone would experience the greatest disturbance. The area adjacent to the LM would be largely unaffected by the exhaust stream.

NOTE: On Earth, the exhaust gas would impact and displace air molecules that would, in turn, displace other air molecules and so on. This phenomenon would create a large area of disturbance. Since the Moon has no atmosphere this type of widespread disturbance would be nonexistent.

The Lunar Module weighed about 17 tons, yet the astronauts' feet seem to have made a deeper impression in the lunar dust.

The hoax advocates often quote the weight of the Lunar Module as 16 to 18 tons (weights varied mission to mission). This was the LM's Earth weight when fully fueled and included about 9 tons of descent stage propellant. By the time the LM reached the surface, its weight in lunar gravity was only about 2,700 lbs. With four 37-inch diameter footpads, the load on the surface was about 90 lbs/ft2. Neil Armstrong's fully suited weight on the Moon was 58 lbs. His boots covered an area of about one square foot, giving a load of 58 lbs/ft2. In Armstrong's own words "the LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches". On the other hand, the footprints of the astronauts were depressed only a fraction of an inch, although people often exaggerate their depth.

Moisture must be present in soil for it to form footprints, yet the Moon is a totally dry world.

The lunar surface is predominately composed of materials that fall under the general category of silicates. Silica has a natural tendency to bond with other silica, forming large molecular chains. When a meteoroid impacts the Moon, much of the energy goes into fracturing the surrounding structure causing breaks in the molecular bonds. On Earth, these "exposed" bonds quickly fill with oxygen in a process called oxidation or weathering. On the Moon, with a total lack of oxygen, these bonds have nothing to attach to until an event occurs that aligns the molecules. When an object, such as an astronaut's boot, disturbs lunar dust new molecular bonds are created. The new bonds enable the dust to hold its shape, forming an impression of the deforming object. Thus, footprints can form despite the absence of water.

The astronauts could not pass through the tunnel connecting the Command Module and the Lunar Module with their spacesuits and backpacks on.

Finally the hoax advocates are correct about something. Fortunately, the astronauts did not have to! Their EVA suits and backpacks were stowed in the Lunar Module the whole time. The only time the astronauts donned their suits and packs were when they actually egressed the LM for surface activities on the Moon.

The astronauts could not have egressed the Lunar Module because they could not fit through the hatch and there was insufficient room to open the hatch in the LM.

The hoax advocate who came up with this claim is badly misinformed. The astronauts were positioned on either side of the cockpit panel with the main EVA hatch between them. The hatch, hinged on the right side, swung inward to open, effectively trapping the Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) momentarily on his side of the LM. (There was plenty of room to open the hatch.) Once the Commander egressed, the LMP was able to close the hatch, move over to the left side, and exit himself.

As to the issue of whether the astronauts could fit through the hatch, clearly they could. There are many photos and video, both on the Moon and while in training, showing fully suited astronauts crawling through the hatch. There are a couple possible sources for this misinformation. First, early versions of the LM had a round hatch that hampered astronaut egress, however the original round hatch was changed to a rectangular hatch while the LM was still in development. Second, as I hear the story, a hoax advocate compared the width of the LM's hatch to dimensional data on the astronauts' spacesuit, or EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit). It was found that the published width of the EMU exceeded the hatch width. What the hoax advocate failed to realize is the EMU dimension was the maximum width measured across the elbows. When crawling through the hatch, an astronaut would draw his arms in under his body, thus decreasing his width and allowing him to pass through the opening.

The Lunar Rover was too large to fit in the Lunar Module.

If one takes the measurements of the Lunar Rover Vehicle (LRV) when it was fully deployed and assembled, then yes, it would not fit in the Lunar Module, however the Rover folded for stowage in the descent stage of the LM in a quadrant to the right of the ladder. The chassis was hinged in three places and the four wheels were pivoted nearly flat against the folded chassis occupying only 30 ft3. When the astronauts deployed the Lunar Rover, all they had to do was pull on two cords and the Rover popped right out of its berth and down to the lunar surface. As it did so, the wheels deployed outward and were then locked into position.

Some photographs show the Lunar Rover on the Moon with pneumatic tires while other show it with wire mesh wheels. Pneumatic tires will explode in a vacuum.

There are two problems with this statement. Firstly, there are no photos of the LRV on the Moon with pneumatic tires. NASA produced a training version of the LRV with pneumatic tires but it was only used on Earth. The only pictures of the LRV with pneumatic tires are of this training vehicle. Secondly, a tire will not automatically explode in a vacuum. A pressure vessel will fail when the tensile stress in the skin exceeds the tensile capacity of the material. This tensile stress is a function of the pressure differential between the inside and the outside of the vessel. Moving a tire from sea level on Earth to a vacuum will increase this pressure differential by only 14.7 PSI. This is a minor engineering problem that can be easily accounted for. Note that the tires of the Space Shuttle are exposed to a vacuum while in space, yet they do not explode.

The pressure inside a spacesuit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

While on the surface of the Moon, the Apollo astronauts wore a spacesuit known as the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). The EMU was a closed-circuit pressure vessel that enveloped the astronaut. The environment inside the suit consisted of 100% oxygen at 3.7 PSI (about 1/3 that of a football). The complete article included a liquid cooling garment, pressure garment assembly, and integrated thermal micrometeoroid garment. The pressure garment was an airtight bladder with accordion joints at the knees and elbows, and swivel joints at the shoulders to allow mobility. When pressurized, the suit was allowed to expand slightly, but was kept from ballooning outward too far by a restraint layer of nonstretch netting. The fabric of the EMU's outer garment covered the pressure garment assembly. To suggest the EMU should puff out like the "Michelin Man" is a clear case of the hoax advocates making claims that are based on woefully inadequate research.

Video footage of the Lunar Module's ascent from the Moon should show an exhaust plume from the engine, yet there is no visible plume.

The hoax advocates' claim that an exhaust plume should be visible is due to their experience seeing launches of such rockets as the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle, where large columns of smoke and flame are seen trailing the vehicle. Whether an exhaust plume is visible or not is mostly due to the type of propellant used. The Saturn V's first stage burned liquid oxygen (LOX) and kerosene, which produces an opaque yellow flame. The plume we see trailing the Space Shuttle comes from the solid-propellant boosters; however, if you look closely at the three main engines at the stern of the Shuttle orbiter, which burn LOX and liquid hydrogen, you will see very little flame. The Lunar Module used a propellant mixture consisting of nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50 (a 50-50 mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine), which produces exhaust gases that are nearly invisible. This photograph [see photo] shows a close-up view of the engines of a Titan 2 missile during the launch of Gemini 11. This missile uses the same propellant as the LM - note the near invisibility of the flame. In space, the flame is even less visible as the plume expands and cools very rapidly in a vacuum.

The FOX program points out NASA illustrations showing an exhaust plume coming from the LM's ascent engine. This is a simple case of NASA taking artistic license. The illustrations are a dramatization of a LM launch and are not meant to be scientifically accurate.

Photos from the Space Shuttle show a glow coming from the engines and thrusters, thus proving an exhaust plume should be seen coming from the Lunar Module's engine.

Let us first note that the Space Shuttle orbiters use a different propellant than the Lunar Module. Nonetheless, the nitrogen tetroxide and monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) propellant used by the Shuttle's OMS engines and thrusters also produces a nearly invisible flame. What the Shuttle photographs show is a split-second burst of light that accompanies an engine ignition. This is a transient phenomenon that occurs when the propellant mixture ratio is slightly mismatched, typically at engine start-up and again at shutdown. If one of the propellants is in excess of the proper mixture ratio it does not combust, is expelled from the engine, and is briefly visible. Once the propellant mixture has stabilized, the exhaust gases cannot be seen. Please note that the video of the LM launches show a brief flash of light just as the ascent stages separate and begin to rise.

The fuel tanks of the Lunar Module were nowhere near one-sixth the size of those on the space shuttle, as one would expect to achieve lunar orbit.

This comment, by Bart Sibrel, fails to take into account propellant density. It is not the "volume" of the propellant that matters; it is the "mass". The main engines of the Space Shuttle consume liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Since liquid hydrogen has an extremely low density, a very large tank is required to store it. The LM, on the other hand, used propellants of much higher density. On average, the LM propellants were 3.3 times denser than the propellants stored in the large external tank of the Space Shuttle. With an average specific gravity of 1.19, the 5200 pounds of propellant stored in the LM's ascent stage would displace a volume of only 70 ft3 (2 m3). This volume is consistent with the size of the tanks we see in photographs of the LM.

Also note that Mr. Sibrel assumes that since lunar gravity is 1/6th Earth gravity, 1/6th as much propellant is required to achieve lunar orbit. Unfortunately it is not nearly that simple, however it is possible to calculate the amount of propellant required. The 5200 pounds of propellant in the LM's ascent stage comprised about 52% of the total launch mass. I have performed some rough calculations and have determined that, for the type of propellant used, this is just the right percentage needed to overcome the Moon's gravity and achieve lunar orbit.

When Apollo 17's Lunar Module lifted-off the Moon the video camera followed the ascent, yet no one was left on the surface to operate the camera.

Apparently the hoax advocates have never heard of a remotely operated camera. The video camera that shot the LM launch footage was mounted on the Lunar Rover and was controlled remotely from Mission Control in Houston. The signal commanding the camera to pan upward was sent early to account for the 1.3-second time delay.

The video showing the Lunar Module's rise from the surface of the Moon was created by lifting the ascent stage on wires.

The hoax advocates substantiate this claim by citing how the video abruptly ends when the Lunar Module ascent stage reaches the 'ceiling' of the movie stage. The video to which they refer is an edited version that is often seen in Apollo documentaries and on television. The unedited footage [see video] clearly shows the LM rising far into the sky, pitching over, and then traveling far downrange before moving out of the range of the camera.

The Apollo video is strikingly similar to scenes in the movie Capricorn One. NASA, with a much larger budget, could have produced the Apollo video in a studio.

Capricorn One (released 1978) is a movie about how NASA faked a manned mission to Mars. The scenes look similar to the Apollo video because the movie was filmed to look like the real thing, however the similarities are only superficial. A close examination of the Apollo video reveals numerous examples of phenomena that simply cannot exist on Earth. No matter how big their budget, NASA cannot change the laws of physics. The comparison to Capricorn One is nothing but an attempt by the FOX producers to sensationalize their program.

There are many pictures of spacesuited astronauts inside buildings with artificial moonscapes, presumably the studio where the moon landings were faked.

The hoax advocates often cite such photographs as evidence for the hoax. These photos are common and were obtained during crew training for the actual moon landings. NASA has made no attempt to hide the photos, nor have they ever claimed them to be taken on the Moon. The Lunar Module, Rover, experiments, etc. seen in the training photos are generally training replicas or flight spares, rarely actual flight hardware.

Recently discovered video shows NASA staging part of the Apollo 11 mission. The astronauts, who never left low Earth orbit, used a camera trick to make viewers think that they were seeing a round Earth on their TV screens.

This claim can be credited to Bart Sibrel, who is more than happy to sell you (for a profit) this "never before seen footage" in his so-called documentary A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon. I have recently viewed this video and find it to be a horrible example of journalism. Sibrel simply beats us over the head with his own interpretation and conclusions while not providing any evidence or data that would permit the viewer to evaluate Sibrel's claims or formulate an independent opinion. The purpose of the video is not to inform the viewer, but rather to manipulate. The NASA video to which he refers is neither "never before seen" nor evidence of fraud. Despite Sibrel's billing that this footage is the "smoking gun", very little of it is actually shown and that which is shown is highly edited and voiced over with commentary. The alleged "camera trick" is simply a figment of Bart Sibrel's imagination as there is nothing seen to suggest the slightest foul play on the part of NASA. This Web page, Apollo 11 TV Broadcasts, provides an excellent debunking of Bart Sibrel's claims; I invite you to give it a read.

If the video footage of the Apollo astronauts is played at double normal speed, their motion appears quite normal, thus the images were faked by playing normal motion at half speed.

There's an easy explanation for this phenomenon. An object in free flight will follow a ballistic trajectory in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. The only force acting on the object is gravity, which on Earth has an acceleration of 32.2 ft/s2. On the Moon gravity is much less, 5.33 ft/s2. If the ballistic flight of an object on the Moon is sped up by a factor of 2.46 it will mimic exactly ballistic motion on Earth, and vice versa. The 2X speed the hoax advocates claim is close to this 2.46 ratio, hence free flight motion looks "normal" because it is what our eyes and brains are accustomed to seeing. Other motion however, such as the movements of the astronauts' arms, looks very unnatural when speeded up. The hoax advocates deceivingly apply this explanation very selectively. If the Apollo footage is viewed in its entirety it becomes clear the 2X speed explanation cannot account for the observed motion.

The Apollo video is exactly what it appears to be, that is, man on the Moon. The convincing evidence is in the dust, which is particularly apparent in the video of the Lunar Rover. If this video were shot on Earth there would be clouds of dust thrown into the atmosphere by the Rover's wheels, however there is no evidence of this. The dust falls immediately back to the surface as it would in an airless environment.

Earth based telescopes should be able to see the Apollo hardware on the Moon, yet none is visible.

The theoretical resolving power of a telescope, measured in arc seconds, is calculated by dividing the aperture of the telescope (in inches) into 4.56. The largest telescope on Earth is the 10-meter Keck telescope in Hawaii. The theoretical resolving power of this telescope is 0.012", however the Earth's atmosphere limits the resolving power of any ground-based telescope to about 0.5"-1.0". The Hubble Space Telescope does not suffer from this limitation; thus, with an aperture of 94 inches, HST's resolving power is 0.05". At the Earth-Moon distance of 239,000 miles, the smallest object that can be resolved by HST is about 300 feet. The largest dimension of any hardware left behind on the Moon is 31 feet, which is the diagonal distance across the LM's footpads. No telescope, presently in existence, can see the Apollo hardware from Earth.

The only sure way to prove the moon landings really happened is to return to the Moon and see if the Apollo hardware is there.

Direct visual verification would certainly put an end to the issue, however there are at least three pieces of hardware on the Moon that are not in dispute. Apollos 11, 14 and 15 erected laser reflectors on the lunar surface. Laser beams are routinely fired at these reflectors through telescopes at McDonald Observatory in Texas and near Grasse in southern France. Timings of these reflected beams are used to measure the Earth-Moon distance to an accuracy of one inch. To explain the existence of these reflectors the hoax advocates have no choice but to claim they were placed on the Moon by robotic landers; a huge undertaking for which there is no supporting evidence. The simple answer: the Apollo astronauts placed them there. (More on robotic missions later.)

The moon rocks allegedly collected and returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts were actually manufactured by NASA in a laboratory on Earth.

It has been suggested that researchers could not to tell the difference between fake and authentic rocks since no one had ever examined a moon rock before. This claim is utter nonsense. In addition to the rocks returned by Apollo, we have samples of lunar rocks that have fallen to Earth as meteorites. (Lunar meteorites are very rare with only 25 known samples.) Tests have shown the Apollo moon rocks and the meteorites are of identical origin, however the Apollo samples lack other features that would distinguish them as meteorites. Also, the moon rocks have characteristics that are not found in terrestrial or artificial rocks, such as evidence of meteoroid bombardment and exposure to cosmic rays. Likewise, terrestrial rocks have unique characteristics not found in the moon rocks, such as weathering and exposure to water. Finally, the moon rocks returned by Apollo have been determined to be between 3.1 and 4.4 billion years old. The Apollo samples are without doubt of authentic lunar origin.

NOTE: The Apollo missions returned rock and soil samples totaling 842 pounds, comprising 2,196 individual specimens. These specimens have been processed into greater than 97,000 individually cataloged samples. More than 60 laboratories worldwide actively pursue sample studies; some 1,100 samples are sent out to researchers annually.

The moon rocks allegedly collected by Apollo astronauts were actually collected and returned to Earth by robotic spacecraft.

Any mission capable of returning over 800 pounds of rock and soil samples would be a massive, complex and difficult undertaking. If NASA could pull this off, then surely they had the technical know-how to land a manned vehicle. In fact, with an astronaut at the controls, a manned mission would likely have greater odds of success than a robotic mission. Perhaps the greatest case for the Apollo landings exists in the variety of rock samples collected. A robotic mission would be limited to a random collection of samples in the lander's immediate vicinity. However, the Apollo astronauts visited vastly different geological sites and were able to roam about the surface looking for particularly interesting and valuable specimens. For example, it is very unlikely that a robot would have been lucky enough to scoop up the "genesis rock" found by Apollo 15 astronauts. Only trained human explorers could collect the diversity of samples credited to the Apollo astronauts.

NOTE: During the 1970s the USSR successfully completed three lunar sample return missions - Luna 16 (1970), Luna 20 (1972) and Luna 24 (1976) - however these missions returned a grand total of only 301 grams (10.6 ounces) of soil.

NASA was able to perpetrate and maintain the hoax because the conspiracy required a relatively small number of people within the NASA "inner circle".

The hoax advocates make this claim yet, if all their assertions were true, the conspiracy they describe would be one of stupendous proportion involving literally thousands of individuals. I could cite numerous examples, but nothing illustrates this point better than the Moon rocks. Had the rock samples been collected by robotic landers, as some hoax advocates assert, then a program of huge scope would have been necessary. The design, manufacture, testing and launch of these spacecraft would have involved numerous subcontractors and suppliers, as well as thousands of workers. Since there is no supporting evidence for such a program, then the multitude of people involved in the project would have to be willing participants in the cover-up. (The same is true of the robotic landers that supposedly placed the laser reflectors on the Moon.) Other hoax advocates claim that the rock samples are manufactured fakes. I strenuously maintain the world's geologists could not possibly be deceived by fake moon rocks, thus the rocks are either authentic, or the geologists are lying. If they are lying, then the hoax must be a worldwide conspiracy involving thousands of people in the scientific community.

The anomalies seen in the Apollo photographs were placed there by "whistle blowers", who secretly passed on hoax evidence in order to expose NASA.

David Percy is the main proponent of the "whistle blower"

[BatMasterson]

OK, we went to the Moon. However, I am in the camp that seriously suspects the public was not told about everything that may have been seen or found there.

[phobun]

OK, we went to the Moon. However, I am in the camp that seriously suspects the public was not told about everything that may have been seen or found there.

You mean about the aliens?

[MacShreach]

OK, we went to the Moon. However, I am in the camp that seriously suspects the public was not told about everything that may have been seen or found there.

You mean about the aliens?

LOL aye the ones they gave the camera to and said, "Here, take some pictures while we put this thing through its paces."

This has got to be the king and queen of all bullshit bait threads, and thanks to alpha2117 for comprehensively sinking the hoax theorists' boat.

[alpha2117]

OK, we went to the Moon. However, I am in the camp that seriously suspects the public was not told about everything that may have been seen or found there.

You mean about the aliens?

LOL aye the ones they gave the camera to and said, "Here, take some pictures while we put this thing through its paces."

This has got to be the king and queen of all bullshit bait threads, and thanks to alpha2117 for comprehensively sinking the hoax theorists' boat.

At last my ability to use both the ctrl, C and V keys comes in handy!

[Suckalot1]

how ridiculous is this. No it wasn't fake!

Why do you even bother citing a site like Wikipedia anyway? Not all of wikipedia is fact and not all of it is reliable information. What you posted doesn't even have any info to back it up either. They've been to the moon plenty of times and not just Apollo 11. People have smacked golf balls up in it and now theres so much junk in space they're crashing into our satellites and spacecraft making it more difficult for space travel.

The people who think that the moon landing is a conspiracy, are the same people who think that the Holocaust wasn't real, and that white people hold down all other races...in other words IGNORANT PEOPLE. Oh well think what you want.

[trish]

Good job, alpha2117.

BTW, Sucksalot, escape velocity from the lunar surface is approximately 5300 miles per hour. Tiger Woods couldn't even put a golf ball into orbit from the Moon. Still, I agree, there's a lot of debris up there in space, and apparently a bit in the spaces between your ears as well :)

[ozma]

Explain what? It's a link to a shitty video on Youtube. Are we to assume that you get your facts from Youtube videos?


Explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWkGTJEK0Mc&feature=related

It has been posted on other websites.

Can you prove it's a fake?

Oh is that how it works? If a clip is posted on many sites, that means it's credible? .

Did I say it was?




Prove to you what's fake? The video? No the video exists. I can see it. Spongebob Squarepants videos also exist. I have no idea what I'm looking at or what your point is in posting it.

No shit the video exist. It could be a fake, it could be authentic. I was also was wondering was it's authenticity was already debunked.

[ozma]

Explain what? It's a link to a shitty video on Youtube. Are we to assume that you get your facts from Youtube videos?


Explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWkGTJEK0Mc&feature=related

It has been posted on other websites.

Can you prove it's a fake?

Can you convince us that it is indeed authentic?

Did I implied that it was authentic?

All I said was to explain it. That's it.

[thx1138]

pls. note

[trish]

pls. note

[MacShreach]

pls. note

Total fucking bullshit, as any photographer will tell you.

Face shield is simply showing slight difference in local reflectivity-- no spotlight, bub.

There is no "ground hotspot" round the astronaut. This was taken with a wideangle lens on a modified Hasselblad SWC and these lenses show some light fall-off away from the central axis. It's not a hot-spot, it's a perfectly well understood optical effect.

There is no dark horizon. The tonal value of the ground 10 feet or so behinf the astronaut is the same as that at infinity. Your man has an eye problem--he's seeing things he wants to see.

Rock shadow IS parallel to astronaut's.

"Dark" side of astronaut is filled with reflected light from the ground, just as I would expect it to be.

Is it possible that you are a moron? Because if this BS is what you base your ideas on, I think you have a case to answer.

Now PLEASE

[MacShreach]

pls. note

Trish, just to prove I'm fair, I have to say that while your overall conclusion is bang on the money, the second part of rebuttal point 2 is a tad flawed. I can explain that if you like. But not till tomorrow.

M

[trish]

Trish, just to prove I'm fair, I have to say that while your overall conclusion is bang on the money, the second part of rebuttal point 2 is a tad flawed. I can explain that if you like. But not till tomorrow.



Please do. I’m always happy to learn from someone who knows what they’re talking about.

I also love trying to figure things out on my own. So let me make a quick guess at what you’ll say. That way, if I’m wrong I’ll be doubly embarrassed and I’ll remember the lesson twice as well:
The intensity of light the eye receives from one reflecting surface diminishes with the square of the distance of the surface from the point of observation. However the number of such surfaces that fit into a given solid angle of observation increases with the square of that same distance. So the net luminosity remains fixed with distance.
In the photograph there is an illusion that this net luminosity my be diminishing with distance. But if you hold your hand over the bottom of the photo so that (as you say) only the ground ten feet behind the astronaut to the horizon is visible, it all appears to be evenly lit.

[MacShreach]

Trish, just to prove I'm fair, I have to say that while your overall conclusion is bang on the money, the second part of rebuttal point 2 is a tad flawed. I can explain that if you like. But not till tomorrow.



Please do. I’m always happy to learn from someone who knows what they’re talking about.

I also love trying to figure things out on my own. So let me make a quick guess at what you’ll say. That way, if I’m wrong I’ll be doubly embarrassed and I’ll remember the lesson twice as well:
The intensity of light the eye receives from one reflecting surface diminishes with the square of the distance of the surface from the point of observation. However the number of such surfaces that fit into a given solid angle of observation increases with the square of that same distance. So the net luminosity remains fixed with distance.
In the photograph there is an illusion that this net luminosity my be diminishing with distance. But if you hold your hand over the bottom of the photo so that (as you say) only the ground ten feet behind the astronaut to the horizon is visible, it all appears to be evenly lit.

No embarrassment because I think you have it, but you're expressing it in an unconventional way. Actually this is a lot easier to explain with a pencil and paper, but the rule is normally expressed by saying that the total amount of light that a given surface of constant area will receive from a point source of light will diminish with the inverse square of distance, because light radiates out from a point source at a constant angle. The further the surface from the source, the less actual light energy falls on the surface, either to be reflected or absorbed.

(If the surface maintained its angular relation to the light rays, ie expanded proportionally to distance, then the total amount of light falling on it would remain the same. This does not mean that the surface will necessarily be evenly illuminated, however, and it won't be if it is flat, but if the surface is part of a sphere it will, which BTW is why the images from Hasselblad SWC lenses show some light fall-off in the corners. The same effect is seen looking at the inside of a cylindrical lamp-shade, which will appear evenly lit, but if we take off the shade and put the lamp at the same distance from a white wall, we see a hot-spot. But I digress.)

However the apparent brightness of a source of light or a light-reflecting surface remains the same, irrespective of distance, as long as we maintain the angle of view. (Assuming ideal conditions; over very long distances light is absorbed and reflected by intervening matter, such as dust or vapour.) You can test this if you have access to a spot light-meter, by reading from an object 1 metre away and then again much further away; the reading will not change.

What this means is that how bright an object reflecting light appears is related to the distance from the light source to the object, not the object to the viewer. This is why distant objects, mountains etc, appear as brightly lit as near objects. The sun is so far away it can be considered as at infinity, which is why the tops of mountains do not appear brighter than the valleys below them.

Since a diminution by the inverse square of distance is actually quite a lot, then if the way you put it initially were true we would all be walking around at the centre of brightly-illuminated pools of light, surrounded by total darkness.

(Yes I know some people here ARE surrounded by total darkness, but Trish, you are definitely not one of them.)

Nice to talk to you, as always.

[thx1138]

May I have some cheese with that whine?

[Quiet Reflections]

Pffft! Of course it was a fake. The whole space program is a fake. Colunbus was a fake. Galileo was a fake. Aristotle was a fake.

The Earth is a flat disc, held up by 5 giant elephants, standing on the back of an even larger turtle. The sky is painted daily by demons before the sun crashes into the western sea.

Has anyone read the full Discworld series? i think it has almost 40 books and 25 other texts(maps,picture books,science books,cookbooks,etc)

[MacShreach]

blah

Fuck off back to your room while the grown-ups are having an intelligent discussion.....

[trish]

Thank you MacShreach, for clearing up point (2). Maybe a picture will help thx visualize the geometry. (It is assumed the aperture is sufficiently small for the approximations to apply).

[thx1138]

Mac expounds on the benefits and pitfalls of "tea bagging" to his American fans. Chef Mike to his right and slightly behind looks on in rapt awe.

[MacShreach]

Mac expounds on the benefits and pitfalls of "tea bagging" to his American fans. Chef Mike to his right and slightly behind looks on in rapt awe.

Actually, no, my skin is green...

[MacShreach]

......but on the other hand

[thx1138]

Yes, you could very well be a cartoon character.

[MacShreach]

Yes, you could very well be a cartoon character.

Laddie, I am a cartoon character-- and that makes me a sight more real than your deluded fantasies!

And now for something completely different...

[lahabra1976]

Thank you MacShreach, for clearing up point (2). Maybe a picture will help thx visualize the geometry. (It is assumed the aperture is sufficiently small for the approximations to apply).

Did you draw those yourself?

[Instrumental]

The fact of the matter is, no one who claims the moon landing was fake can bring up a point that hasn't already been refuted. That combined with the fact that to fake such a thing would require the cooperation of thousands of people and you have an opinion with no basis in reality and only a basis in ignorance.

[lahabra1976]

The fact of the matter is, no one who claims the moon landing was fake can bring up a point that hasn't already been refuted. That combined with the fact that to fake such a thing would require the cooperation of thousands of people and you have an opinion with no basis in reality and only a basis in ignorance.

Exactly!!! I mean all these people do is show some photo and try to make sort of some sense to it why it appears false and try to put some logic into to make it believable

Truth is I am not an expert in shadows and that crap, I no idea how a shadow is suppose to look on the photo...thanks to Trish she helped us understand a little more and he explanation made 1000x more sense than the photos...but still despite all the science, somehow people still believe in the nonsense

[trish]

I confress, lahabra, to the deed; the drawing is mine. But thanks should go to MacShreach for his debunking of the four point critique posted by thx, and for giving a correct analysis of point (2) first try.

Hey, MacShreach, are you by any chance a photographer?

[sockmonkey]

Hey, MacShreach, are you by any chance a photographer?


He might be. But what he is, is a MacShreach.

[MacShreach]

I confress, lahabra, to the deed; the drawing is mine. But thanks should go to MacShreach for his debunking of the four point critique posted by thx, and for giving a correct analysis of point (2) first try.

Hey, MacShreach, are you by any chance a photographer?

You're very kind, and guilty as charged.

[thx1138]

How about this to detect the lunar lander? Since it landed in a flat plain it's shadow should be detectable by HST when the sun hangs low on the horizon. (twice a month) The shadow should be long enough to be visible.

[MacShreach]

How about this to detect the lunar lander? Since it landed in a flat plain it's shadow should be detectable by HST when the sun hangs low on the horizon. (twice a month) The shadow should be long enough to be visible.

Jeez, are you still on this?

Whatever. Ask an astronomer. It won't make any difference-- that lander is there (unless some of your wee green chums came and pinched it.)

You know what really gets me about you conspiracy theorists is that you are so busy believing all the complete bunkum you do that you actually miss it totally when Govts DO pull the wool.

A great example would be the whole Roswell/Area 51 hoax, which was deliberately fostered by US military PR spin-doctors to divert attention from the fact that they were developing and testing Stealth Technology aircraft, and lord knows what else, there.

I mean talk about setting yourselves up for the sucker-punch!

And it just goes on and on-- remember crop circles? That first started in England and the hoax got so absurd that eventually the two chaps who started it came out and confessed. (And they knew things no-one else did, and even exactly replicated the effects, which confirmed that they were indeed, the very lads) but still, thirty years later, there are lunatics who actually believe the work of a couple of practical jokers with a lawnmower was evidence of .....Woooo..........ALIENS......and the Gummint is hiding this......

You know there are nutters out every night in fields all over the west of England actually watching for the flying saucers--or whatever the fashionable term is these days. You couldn't make it up, you really couldn't.

Next thing you'll be telling me Erich von Danichen was right after all! Or that there is, actually, a Bermuda Triangle!

This conspiracy theory crap is a whole disinformation industry, and if the US Govt ever DOES get round to doing something on the moon, you can bet they'll be anonymously feeding lines to the gullible and those who make their livings gulling them, to do the exact same thing--muddy the water and prevent anyone finding out what is really going on, because a bunch of crazy, staring-eyed conspiracy theorists are already yelling "Hey, look! Wee green men!"

I ask you.

[thx1138]

As I said earlier I didn't post the original article. I don't really give a shit one way or another over an event that may or may not have happened 40 years ago. No money in my pocket. There's too much going on right now. As for crop circles I knew most of them were pranks by college students. Area 51 is well documented. The Russians had plenty of photos despite all the US denials. Got any more?

[lahabra1976]

As I said earlier I didn't post the original article. I don't really give a shit one way or another over an event that may or may not have happened 40 years ago. No money in my pocket. There's too much going on right now. As for crop circles I knew most of them were pranks by college students. Area 51 is well documented. The Russians had plenty of photos despite all the US denials. Got any more?

To be honest with you I think we will just stop there. Any case, very nice drawing Trish.

[Distance]

Next topic: truth FINALLY revealed, the earth is flat. :lol:

[thx1138]

Is this you?

[Helvis2012]

Say cheese.

[Distance]

I am sorry to tell you that I am much better looking than that ;) . As for you, on the other hand...


http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Whilst I felt it was appropriate to smile at the progressive deterioration of your psyche throughout this thread, it must be pointed out that you stand as living proof that conspiracy theories are indeed linked to paranoia bursts and mental illness. :lol:

[matrixdave]

THIS HAS BEEN A QUESTION ASKED FOR A LONG TIME EVERYWHERE I GO. I ASKED MY MOM WHO BY THE WAY IS OLDER THAN MAYBE MOST OF US HERE ABOUT THIS AND SHE TOLD ME FOR SURE IT WAS REAL. AND SHE SAID HOW PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS FAKE . BUT I HAVE SOME FAMILY WHO SAW THE LAUNCH SO IF THAT ROCKET WAS FAKE LAUNCHING THEN THATS A BIG HOAX NASA PULLED!!!

[Helvis2012]

I am sorry to tell you that I am much better looking than that ;) . As for you, on the other hand...


http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Whilst I felt it was appropriate to smile at the progressive deterioration of your psyche throughout this thread, it must be pointed out that you stand as living proof that conspiracy theories are indeed linked to paranoia bursts and mental illness. :lol:


You may be right about the person this comment is directed, but please, the whole term, "conspiracy theory" was created by the very liars and thieves to help cover crimes. When was Watergate no longer a conspiracy theory but true? Or Iran/Contra?
Do you really buy Bush Co's official story concerning 911? And if you say you do, you're even crazier than the guy you deride, since almost the whole report has been redacted.....that means blacked out so people like you and me can't read the truth. Firemen on the scene all say they heard incremental explosions as the Towers fell and despite the false claim fires melted the steel frame, in the real world of science, steel doesn't melt in an open fire at 600 degrees...which is hottest the fires could have been. Steel melts at nearly 2000 degrees. Bush defies science once again!
And what about domestic spying or torture issues that come into focus of late? Do you remember what these early reports were being called at first, when these programs' very existence was being denied? Yes,
"baseless conspiracy theories."

I'm sure we went to the moon in 1969 because there is proof it happened. From Nixon onward the public has been regularly lied to with little or no consequence. It's a fool's paradise. Enjoy the scenery. :soapbox

[MacShreach]

This thread is like the Duracell Bunny....

[kornuto]

Say only a time... I'm working in a private space agency from a lot. Moonlanding is true, all the rest are bullshit.
Use your brain.
I can talk about for days... but true is true, I haven't to prove sun shining.
Sorry my english, i'm italian.

Bye

[matrixdave]

This thread is like the Duracell Bunny.... THAT IS GREAT DURACELL BUNNY,LOL

[MacShreach]

You may be right about the person this comment is directed, but please, the whole term, "conspiracy theory" was created by the very liars and thieves to help cover crimes. When was Watergate no longer a conspiracy theory but true? Or Iran/Contra?
Do you really buy Bush Co's official story concerning 911? And if you say you do, you're even crazier than the guy you deride, since almost the whole report has been redacted.....that means blacked out so people like you and me can't read the truth. Firemen on the scene all say they heard incremental explosions as the Towers fell and despite the false claim fires melted the steel frame, in the real world of science, steel doesn't melt in an open fire at 600 degrees...which is hottest the fires could have been. Steel melts at nearly 2000 degrees.

It's a characteristic of committed (and committable) conspiracy theorists that they begin on safe ground where yes, we do know a conspiracy happened, before taking a walk in the loony farm. The technique is designed to give the preposterous baloney they are trying to sell credibility by associating it with known truths.

Now, for your benefit, mild steel melts at 1600 deg F, not 2000, and you are not talking about an "open fire", the temperature of which would in any case be determined by the fuel, but an artificially fuelled fire in an enclosed chimney, which created a powerful updraught resulting in a firestorm. Firestorms can easily reach 1600 deg F, as here in a firestorm in a bush fire in Australia in February this year:

"a furious fire storm that was so intense that it melted steel sheds and even motor vehicles. One person described how they fire proofed their home only to see a gigantic fireball destroy it in seconds."

Full Story: http://www.myapologetics.com/firestorm-in-australia-may-have-killed-200/



This phenomenon is very well documented and understood and there are many well-researched examples of firestorms where the temperature became high enough to melt steel; the most famous, probably, being in Dresden after a British bombing raid in WW2, which was the subject of Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse 5. This phenomenon is not at all rare; I have seen the effect personally on several occasions, after the fire was out.

Furthermore, it is completely normal for firemen to report hearing multiple explosions in situations like this, because these explosions are actually happening as a consequence of the intense heat.

Yet again, a conspiracy theory based on wilful and deliberate disinformation using statements that are actually false, not applicable in the circumstances, or misinterpretations of the facts.

Incredible.

[Helvis2012]

You may be right about the person this comment is directed, but please, the whole term, "conspiracy theory" was created by the very liars and thieves to help cover crimes. When was Watergate no longer a conspiracy theory but true? Or Iran/Contra?
Do you really buy Bush Co's official story concerning 911? And if you say you do, you're even crazier than the guy you deride, since almost the whole report has been redacted.....that means blacked out so people like you and me can't read the truth. Firemen on the scene all say they heard incremental explosions as the Towers fell and despite the false claim fires melted the steel frame, in the real world of science, steel doesn't melt in an open fire at 600 degrees...which is hottest the fires could have been. Steel melts at nearly 2000 degrees.

It's a characteristic of committed (and committable) conspiracy theorists that they begin on safe ground where yes, we do know a conspiracy happened, before taking a walk in the loony farm. The technique is designed to give the preposterous baloney they are trying to sell credibility by associating it with known truths.

Now, for your benefit, mild steel melts at 1600 deg F, not 2000, and you are not talking about an "open fire", the temperature of which would in any case be determined by the fuel, but an artificially fuelled fire in an enclosed chimney, which created a powerful updraught resulting in a firestorm. Firestorms can easily reach 1600 deg F, as here in a firestorm in a bush fire in Australia in February this year:

"a furious fire storm that was so intense that it melted steel sheds and even motor vehicles. One person described how they fire proofed their home only to see a gigantic fireball destroy it in seconds."

Full Story: http://www.myapologetics.com/firestorm-in-australia-may-have-killed-200/



This phenomenon is very well documented and understood and there are many well-researched examples of firestorms where the temperature became high enough to melt steel; the most famous, probably, being in Dresden after a British bombing raid in WW2, which was the subject of Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse 5. This phenomenon is not at all rare; I have seen the effect personally on several occasions, after the fire was out.

Furthermore, it is completely normal for firemen to report hearing multiple explosions in situations like this, because these explosions are actually happening as a consequence of the intense heat.

Yet again, a conspiracy theory based on wilful and deliberate disinformation using statements that are actually false, not applicable in the circumstances, or misinterpretations of the facts.

Incredible.


People like you make it all possible. Keep that head buried. Ha Ha HA! I wish I knew you personally.

[trish]

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=560476&highlight=#560476

[MacShreach]

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=560476&highlight=#560476

Thank you, Trish.

The problems is that these conspiracy theorists always remind me that "there are none so blind as those who will not see;" who have in common with the god-spotters that they will never accept a rational, comprehensible, supportable explanation for an observed phenomenon if it conflicts with their preconceived notions.

I do have to say, though, mindful of a recent conversation in another thread, that even if they are space-cases, they're by no means the worst around here.

So, THC1138, Helvis and all the other whackos--don't sweat it--whackos I can live with....

[Helvis2012]

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=560476&highlight=#560476

Thank you, Trish.

The problems is that these conspiracy theorists always remind me that "there are none so blind as those who will not see;" who have in common with the god-spotters that they will never accept a rational, comprehensible, supportable explanation for an observed phenomenon if it conflicts with their preconceived notions.

I do have to say, though, mindful of a recent conversation in another thread, that even if they are space-cases, they're by no means the worst around here.

So, THC1138, Helvis and all the other whackos--don't sweat it--whackos I can live with....

Yeah......coming from an ignoramus like you, there isn't much to sweat.
8)

[MacShreach]

there isn't much to sweat.
8)

[Azanti]

dunno if it was fake or not, but I did love te film Capricorn One. What a movie!

[thx1138]

Re multiple explosions at WTC: COULD have been caused by severed elevator cables sending the car plunging to the bottom of the shaft with tremendous impact along with burning jet fuel. I shudder to think of the unfortunates aboard if this were the case.

[Helvis2012]

Re multiple explosions at WTC: COULD have been caused by severed elevator cables sending the car plunging to the bottom of the shaft with tremendous impact along with burning jet fuel. I shudder to think of the unfortunates aboard if this were the case.



No.

[Helvis2012]

there isn't much to sweat.
8)


And like a stupid child, still nothing.

[thx1138]

NO? You mean the explosions were NOT caused by falling elevators? I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[MacShreach]

Re multiple explosions at WTC: COULD have been caused by severed elevator cables sending the car plunging to the bottom of the shaft with tremendous impact along with burning jet fuel. I shudder to think of the unfortunates aboard if this were the case.



No.

On what evidence, pray?

[MacShreach]

Re multiple explosions at WTC: COULD have been caused by severed elevator cables sending the car plunging to the bottom of the shaft with tremendous impact along with burning jet fuel. I shudder to think of the unfortunates aboard if this were the case.

Yes, it could, but that's not necessarily the cause. A lot of things can cause explosions in the heart of an extreme fire, including:

Dust explosions-- airborne dust in a space, if at the right ratio to the present oxygen, and suddenly heated, can explode violently. This is a major hazard in mining operations.

Flash explosions-- a combustible material-- office desks, even-- is heated in an absence of oxygen, say in a closed room. As soon as oxygen is allowed in, by a window breaking or a door burning through, the combustible ignites explosively. This is a major hazard for firemen.

Pressure explosions-- gas within a container increases pressure with heat according to Boyle's law; eventually the container can rupture. If the contents are compressed to liquid and the temp raised above their atmospheric boiling point, you get a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion or BLEVE. This is bad enough, but if the contents are fuel, it's MUCH worse. The fuel does not necessarily have to be a specific fuel like propane, as anyone who has ignored the warning and thrown a can of car paint on a bonfire "just to see" will assure you. BLEVEs have been responsible for many catastrophic explosions, and in a situation such as we are discussing, even cans of spray-glue can explode, quite literally, like hand-grenades.

If you spend time talking to firemen, you will quickly learn that explosions are commonplace in fires.

The GIF shows what happens when you blow just 2 litres of propane at atmospheric pressure; the same from a pressure container would be a catastrophic explosion.

[sockmonkey]

Re multiple explosions at WTC: COULD have been caused by severed elevator cables sending the car plunging to the bottom of the shaft with tremendous impact along with burning jet fuel. I shudder to think of the unfortunates aboard if this were the case.

Quote numerous refutations of hack conspiratorial rubbish...



Dear MacShreach:

Thank you for science.


In a very serious tone, a kid I grew up with died in the WTC. Bollocks if he was murdered by the gub'ment. No government anywhere on earth is coordinated enough to exact this kind of Diabolical Master Plan. Governments are huge clunky things that can't even hammer out the tax code properly, for fuck's sake.

You know, some years back, a gas station exploded a few blocks from where I was living. There wasn't one explosion, there were half a dozen. Nobody was up in arms about the conspiracy to explode the fucking Marathon station.

What is the element, psychologically, that makes individuals look for bogey men that aren't there? Is there a subconscious need to have an (nameless) enemy in one's life, or is it rather since Watergate or the Warren Commission or what have you, that conspiracies are the only things that reconcile the fact that reality, while mostly too boring for conspiracies, is an horrific thing in its own nature? Is the real world too messed up to live in reality? Is manufacturing "evil" the only thing that guides a moral compass?

Whatever the answer, one thing's for sure: some fucking people just need to switch to decaf.

[MacShreach]

Dear MacShreach:

Thank you for science.


In a very serious tone, a kid I grew up with died in the WTC. Bollocks if he was murdered by the gub'ment. No government anywhere on earth is coordinated enough to exact this kind of Diabolical Master Plan. Governments are huge clunky things that can't even hammer out the tax code properly, for fuck's sake.

You know, some years back, a gas station exploded a few blocks from where I was living. There wasn't one explosion, there were half a dozen. Nobody was up in arms about the conspiracy to explode the fucking Marathon station.

What is the element, psychologically, that makes individuals look for bogey men that aren't there? Is there a subconscious need to have an (nameless) enemy in one's life, or is it rather since Watergate or the Warren Commission or what have you, that conspiracies are the only things that reconcile the fact that reality, while mostly too boring for conspiracies, is an horrific thing in its own nature? Is the real world too messed up to live in reality? Is manufacturing "evil" the only thing that guides a moral compass?

Whatever the answer, one thing's for sure: some fucking people just need to switch to decaf.

Thank you for the support.

As to why people are predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories, I think Phobun had it a while back-- maybe some people just need that "something else." Maybe they need some force outside themselves either to have faith in or believe is out to get them. Maybe thinking through and understanding the rational explanation is too tough, or too dull, or too much hard work, and they'd rather somebody just said "It was god/the gummint/wee green men/fairies at the bottom of the garden," and saved them the trouble of thinking.

To paraphrase some ancient saying I can only half-remember, let science be your rod and guiding light. Knowledge is all we have--not faith, whether in wee green men, government plots or old guys with beards on clouds.

[Helvis2012]

NO? You mean the explosions were NOT caused by falling elevators? I'd like to hear your reasoning.

Anything you say. What a joke.

[lahabra1976]

Re multiple explosions at WTC: COULD have been caused by severed elevator cables sending the car plunging to the bottom of the shaft with tremendous impact along with burning jet fuel. I shudder to think of the unfortunates aboard if this were the case.

Quote numerous refutations of hack conspiratorial rubbish...



Dear MacShreach:

Thank you for science.


In a very serious tone, a kid I grew up with died in the WTC. Bollocks if he was murdered by the gub'ment. No government anywhere on earth is coordinated enough to exact this kind of Diabolical Master Plan. Governments are huge clunky things that can't even hammer out the tax code properly, for fuck's sake.

You know, some years back, a gas station exploded a few blocks from where I was living. There wasn't one explosion, there were half a dozen. Nobody was up in arms about the conspiracy to explode the fucking Marathon station.

What is the element, psychologically, that makes individuals look for bogey men that aren't there? Is there a subconscious need to have an (nameless) enemy in one's life, or is it rather since Watergate or the Warren Commission or what have you, that conspiracies are the only things that reconcile the fact that reality, while mostly too boring for conspiracies, is an horrific thing in its own nature? Is the real world too messed up to live in reality? Is manufacturing "evil" the only thing that guides a moral compass?

Whatever the answer, one thing's for sure: some fucking people just need to switch to decaf.

Maybe it just comes from all those conspiracy movies and such?

[Helvis2012]

Re multiple explosions at WTC: COULD have been caused by severed elevator cables sending the car plunging to the bottom of the shaft with tremendous impact along with burning jet fuel. I shudder to think of the unfortunates aboard if this were the case.

Quote numerous refutations of hack conspiratorial rubbish...



Dear MacShreach:

Thank you for science.


In a very serious tone, a kid I grew up with died in the WTC. Bollocks if he was murdered by the gub'ment. No government anywhere on earth is coordinated enough to exact this kind of Diabolical Master Plan. Governments are huge clunky things that can't even hammer out the tax code properly, for fuck's sake.

You know, some years back, a gas station exploded a few blocks from where I was living. There wasn't one explosion, there were half a dozen. Nobody was up in arms about the conspiracy to explode the fucking Marathon station.

What is the element, psychologically, that makes individuals look for bogey men that aren't there? Is there a subconscious need to have an (nameless) enemy in one's life, or is it rather since Watergate or the Warren Commission or what have you, that conspiracies are the only things that reconcile the fact that reality, while mostly too boring for conspiracies, is an horrific thing in its own nature? Is the real world too messed up to live in reality? Is manufacturing "evil" the only thing that guides a moral compass?

Whatever the answer, one thing's for sure: some fucking people just need to switch to decaf.

Maybe it just comes from all those conspiracy movies and such?

Again, more opinion but no substance. Ha Ha Ha! What a joke......fucking retards.

[sockmonkey]

Again, more opinion but no substance. Ha Ha Ha! What a joke......fucking retards.


Every bit as substantive as name-calling, I'm sure.

[MacShreach]

Again, more opinion but no substance.

So enlighten us, nitwit. Make your case.

[Rogers]

Dear MacShreach:

Thank you for science.


In a very serious tone, a kid I grew up with died in the WTC. Bollocks if he was murdered by the gub'ment. No government anywhere on earth is coordinated enough to exact this kind of Diabolical Master Plan. Governments are huge clunky things that can't even hammer out the tax code properly, for fuck's sake.

You know, some years back, a gas station exploded a few blocks from where I was living. There wasn't one explosion, there were half a dozen. Nobody was up in arms about the conspiracy to explode the fucking Marathon station.

What is the element, psychologically, that makes individuals look for bogey men that aren't there? Is there a subconscious need to have an (nameless) enemy in one's life, or is it rather since Watergate or the Warren Commission or what have you, that conspiracies are the only things that reconcile the fact that reality, while mostly too boring for conspiracies, is an horrific thing in its own nature? Is the real world too messed up to live in reality? Is manufacturing "evil" the only thing that guides a moral compass?

Whatever the answer, one thing's for sure: some fucking people just need to switch to decaf.

Thank you for the support.

As to why people are predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories, I think Phobun had it a while back-- maybe some people just need that "something else." Maybe they need some force outside themselves either to have faith in or believe is out to get them. Maybe thinking through and understanding the rational explanation is too tough, or too dull, or too much hard work, and they'd rather somebody just said "It was god/the gummint/wee green men/fairies at the bottom of the garden," and saved them the trouble of thinking.

To paraphrase some ancient saying I can only half-remember, let science be your rod and guiding light. Knowledge is all we have--not faith, whether in wee green men, government plots or old guys with beards on clouds.

Take a look at pages 12-15 of the following book, Mac.
http://aphrohead.com/Product.aspx?pid=13844077

If you Google the keywords, Paranoid + Insight, you'll get more examples. There is a well recognised problem with mental processing in people with paranoia. Take our little friend, thx1138. On the "swine flu" thread he drop hints about it being bio-engineered in some Fort which I can't remember the name of. He then posts a link(s) saying that the outbreak has been greatly exaggerated so far. So which is it, the doom of mankind or a damp firework? He just can't seem to connect the dots for some reason. There's no need to invoke spirituality when simple flawed thinking explains things. Of course, some may say that spirituality is a cognitive problem. ;)

Paranoia is much more common than most people think. This may explain why so many get carried along with the conspiracy theorists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5126208.stm
http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/apps/paranoidthoughts/default.aspx

[hippifried]

If anybody had landed on the moon in '69, Gidney & Cloyd would have scrooched them.

[celticgrafix]

who fucking cares, we got there now

[GinX]

Personally I find it hard to believe that we were able to go to the moon 40 years ago, yet we've never gone back? We can't even get a rover to land correctly on Mars without it failing so the thought that there were astronauts dancing on the moon is highly implausible.

Point 1: Why would we want to go back to the Moon? There is nothing remarkable about the Moon that would warrant much interest in a second landing. Mars, however, has far greater potential for use, i.e., possible future terraforming.

Point 2: Gettting the logistics and telemetry down on trying to remote something that's on a planet whose closest theoretical distance to us is 55 miilion kilometers or roughly 35 million miles away. is no picnic. It's not impossible, as the NASA Rovers and Recon Orbiters both succeeded, but I'm sure it wasn't very easy.

Point 3: The technology of 40 years ago is better than one might realize. There's a big difference between the technology we use in the general population and what government funded programs use.

[MacShreach]

Take a look at pages 12-15 of the following book, Mac.
http://aphrohead.com/Product.aspx?pid=13844077

If you Google the keywords, Paranoid + Insight, you'll get more examples. There is a well recognised problem with mental processing in people with paranoia. Take our little friend, thx1138. On the "swine flu" thread he drop hints about it being bio-engineered in some Fort which I can't remember the name of. He then posts a link(s) saying that the outbreak has been greatly exaggerated so far. So which is it, the doom of mankind or a damp firework? He just can't seem to connect the dots for some reason. There's no need to invoke spirituality when simple flawed thinking explains things. Of course, some may say that spirituality is a cognitive problem. ;)

Paranoia is much more common than most people think. This may explain why so many get carried along with the conspiracy theorists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5126208.stm
http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/apps/paranoidthoughts/default.aspx

Thank you for those references, Rogers.

I suspect that paranoia, like so many other things, has at its root a good Darwinian reason to exist; evolving humans were surrounded on all sides both by competitors for the food supply, and predators which regarded them as part of it. Being aware that a threat existed must have contributed to survival and success.

However, the nature of modern life, which we are actually not that well adapted for, frequently, as we know, causes perfectly normal responses to become exaggerated or indeed pathological, as in this case.

It is not at all unreasonable to feel at risk if walking down, say, Sauchiehall St in Glasgow late on Saturday night; a degree of paranoia may cause you to spot a potentially threatening situation early and avoid it. Thus this is appropriate. Being afraid to walk down the same street at 11am, however, is not.

Believing that flu viruses have been engineered, or terror strikes or whole space exploration programmes faked, by the Gummint, is inappropriate to the point of the pathological.

[Clind]

Here's another one: Pictures of Apollo astronauts erecting a US flag on the Moon show the flag bending and rippling. How can that be? After all, there's no breeze on the Moon....

[2009AD]

double post

[2009AD]

Here's another one: Pictures of Apollo astronauts erecting a US flag on the Moon show the flag bending and rippling. How can that be? After all, there's no breeze on the Moon....

Cind, you are kidding right? This has been explained, over, and over, and over, and over. It's been 40 years since the landing, all the questions have been answered...


http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Flag.htm

This picture and other filmed footage of the American flag on the moon seems to show it fluttering. How is this possible if there's no atmosphere or wind on the moon?

This is one of the most common questions about the Apollo landings and is often used as evidence of a hoax. Fortunately there is nothing peculiar about what we can see here at all. Not if we remember this is happening on the moon.

Firstly the flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top. This was done so that the flag would stand out from the flagpole. NASA appreciated that there would be no wind on the moon, so any normal flag would just hang limply and unattractively down the pole. To make things look better they added a bar that stood out at 90 degrees from the pole. The flag was really hanging from this, rather than from the pole. The bar was also not quite the full width of the flag, so that it was slightly furled to give a 'wave look' to it.

The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter.

The flagpole itself was light aluminium that is quite springy. Even once the astronaut let go the pole would continue to vibrate. This in turn would shake the bar and flap the flag. Without any air to dampen this it would continue to do so for longer than you might expect.

[MacShreach]

Here's another one: Pictures of Apollo astronauts erecting a US flag on the Moon show the flag bending and rippling. How can that be? After all, there's no breeze on the Moon....

Cind, you are kidding right? This has been explained, over, and over, and over, and over. It's been 40 years since the landing, all the questions have been answered...


http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Flag.htm

This picture and other filmed footage of the American flag on the moon seems to show it fluttering. How is this possible if there's no atmosphere or wind on the moon?

This is one of the most common questions about the Apollo landings and is often used as evidence of a hoax. Fortunately there is nothing peculiar about what we can see here at all. Not if we remember this is happening on the moon.

Firstly the flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top. This was done so that the flag would stand out from the flagpole. NASA appreciated that there would be no wind on the moon, so any normal flag would just hang limply and unattractively down the pole. To make things look better they added a bar that stood out at 90 degrees from the pole. The flag was really hanging from this, rather than from the pole. The bar was also not quite the full width of the flag, so that it was slightly furled to give a 'wave look' to it.

The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter.

The flagpole itself was light aluminium that is quite springy. Even once the astronaut let go the pole would continue to vibrate. This in turn would shake the bar and flap the flag. Without any air to dampen this it would continue to do so for longer than you might expect.

Nicely demonstrated.

But this is so typical of the conspiracy theorists-- you can explain over, and over and over and over again, the truth of any given situation, and if it does not fit whichever whacko, ridiculous, absurd pet theory they are keen on, that's it-- they just ignore it.

And then they have the gall to be offensive towards people who are not taken in by them.

It's incredible.

[Helvis2012]

Here's another one: Pictures of Apollo astronauts erecting a US flag on the Moon show the flag bending and rippling. How can that be? After all, there's no breeze on the Moon....

Cind, you are kidding right? This has been explained, over, and over, and over, and over. It's been 40 years since the landing, all the questions have been answered...


http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Flag.htm

This picture and other filmed footage of the American flag on the moon seems to show it fluttering. How is this possible if there's no atmosphere or wind on the moon?

This is one of the most common questions about the Apollo landings and is often used as evidence of a hoax. Fortunately there is nothing peculiar about what we can see here at all. Not if we remember this is happening on the moon.

Firstly the flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top. This was done so that the flag would stand out from the flagpole. NASA appreciated that there would be no wind on the moon, so any normal flag would just hang limply and unattractively down the pole. To make things look better they added a bar that stood out at 90 degrees from the pole. The flag was really hanging from this, rather than from the pole. The bar was also not quite the full width of the flag, so that it was slightly furled to give a 'wave look' to it.

The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter.

The flagpole itself was light aluminium that is quite springy. Even once the astronaut let go the pole would continue to vibrate. This in turn would shake the bar and flap the flag. Without any air to dampen this it would continue to do so for longer than you might expect.

Nicely demonstrated.

But this is so typical of the conspiracy theorists-- you can explain over, and over and over and over again, the truth of any given situation, and if it does not fit whichever whacko, ridiculous, absurd pet theory they are keen on, that's it-- they just ignore it.

And then they have the gall to be offensive towards people who are not taken in by them.

It's incredible.



That's pretty rich coming a guy who has nothing but a big mouth. No facts, nothing to refer, just a big mouth.

[trish]

Observatories around the world independently monitored the telemetry from Apollo 11 and the Lunar Lander. Each observatory continuously monitored the crafts whenever they were within the window of observation for that particular observatory. Because of their different locations on the Earth’s surface the telemetry signals were received at different times. Simple triangulation of these location dependent signal delays and also of the timing of the window boundaries demonstrates that Apollo 11 was in fact in lunar orbit and the Lunar Lander was on the lunar surface.

These observatories were under any obligation of NASA. They were funded by governments and/or institutions independent of NASA’s control. Had any one of them recorded an unexpected delay time or received telemetry from an unexpected direction they would have secured fame and notoriety.

One of the beautiful things about the manned space flight program was its dependence on the cooperation of the international community. In particular, when Apollo 11 was outside the windows of communication with NASA’s tracking stations, independent stations picked up and relayed those signals to NASA.

I know flag issue as been settled many places and many times. But I think the following sequence of photos nicely illustrates how the flag can appear to be waving in a still picture, when in fact it's not.

[MacShreach]

[quote="MacShreach]
And then they have the gall to be offensive towards people who are not taken in by them.




That's pretty rich coming a guy who has nothing but a big mouth. No facts, nothing to refer, just a big mouth.

Exactly. Thank you for providing the illustration.

Ever hear the expression "Hoist by your own petard?"

Cause you just were. :wink:

[thx1138]

Why go to the moon (other than to escape the poluted air here on earth)? The lunar soil evidently contains enormous amounts of helium3 (virtually none on earth). Helium 3 provides a NUCLEAR reaction which can propel a space vehicle a lot faster than the usual chemical reactions. More velocity means shorter exposure time to radiation both from the sun and cosmic rays.

[sockmonkey]

I know flag issue as been settled many places and many times. But I think the following sequence of photos nicely illustrates how the flag can appear to be waving in a still picture, when in fact it's not.


Well done, as per usual, Trish.

I seem to recall Michael Collins telling me they starched the shit out of that flag to make it look like it was waving.

[Silcc69]

I want to go to the moon too.

[MacShreach]

I want to go to the moon too.
Yeah, speak to THC1138, he knows this studio in Burbank.....

[thx1138]

when his girl friend shoved a vibrator up his ass hole. Simply shocking! his coler went from green to white.

[sockmonkey]

when his girl friend shoved a vibrator up his ass hole. Simply shocking! his coler went from green to white.


This gets my vote for least-cogent post of this thread.

[Rogers]

when his girl friend shoved a vibrator up his ass hole. Simply shocking! his coler went from green to white.


This gets my vote for least-cogent post of this thread.

It's quite elementary, my dear Watson, he has cognitive problems.

[Beagle]

http://www.members.shaw.ca/rlongpre01/moon.html

[sockmonkey]

when his girl friend shoved a vibrator up his ass hole. Simply shocking! his coler went from green to white.


This gets my vote for least-cogent post of this thread.

It's quite elementary, my dear Watson, he has cognitive problems.


How did you know I interned under Sherlock Holmes? Unless... Mycroft, is that you?

[trish]

Beagle, you made my day! Jesus H. Christ! I'm laughing so fucking hard, tears are rolling in fucking sheets down my fucking cheeks! That's the fucking way it shoulda-been. Fuck-Fabulous Article.

[MacShreach]

Beagle, you made my day! Jesus H. Christ! I'm laughing so fucking hard, tears are rolling in fucking sheets down my fucking cheeks! That's the fucking way it shoulda-been. Fuck-Fabulous Article.

+1

[MacShreach]

when his girl friend shoved a vibrator up his ass hole. Simply shocking! his coler went from green to white.


This gets my vote for least-cogent post of this thread.

Och, let him have his wee bit fun; he and his chums have just been so roundly whupped in the debate, there's nothing else they can do to cover their embarrassment.

[thx1138]

Not embarrassed, angry, mostly at myself for posting something without evaluating the "gang up" potential. "those that forget the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes."

[MacShreach]

Not embarrassed, angry, mostly at myself for posting something without evaluating the "gang up" potential.."

ROFLOL the paranoia never stops with you, does it?

[sockmonkey]

Not embarrassed, angry, mostly at myself for posting something without evaluating the "gang up" potential. "those that forget the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes."


Gang-up nothing. You posted something that made so little sense that I couldn't have replicated it if I were drunk. If MacShreach were to post something that incoherent, I'd rip him for it too. The odds of that are accordingly small, granted, but I give no preferential treatment on the basis of being or not being an idiot. Only if you continually demonstrate that you are or are not an idiot.

[thx1138]

Well, I guess this proves the astronauts made it to the mooon. They planted this statue. Probably because they had a bizarre sense of humor: http://thecrit.com/2009/05/05/200000-year-old-statue-found-on-moon/ I have no idea if this is BS or not. I haven't been able to find a second reference.

[thx1138]

He can determine a person's IQ just by reading postings on a transexual chatboard. Must have come from a long line of smart people. :D

[thx1138]

It looks like it IS bull shit: http://weeklyworldnews.com/alien-alert/7929/200000-year-old-statue-found-on-moon/#respond

[Oli]

It looks like it IS bull shit: http://weeklyworldnews.com/alien-alert/7929/200000-year-old-statue-found-on-moon/#respond

With unimpeachable sources like that, I don't know how we ever doubted you... :smh

[sockmonkey]

He can determine a person's IQ just by reading postings on a transexual chatboard. Must have come from a long line of smart people. :D


Exactly. You can obviously tell what a thoughtful person I am from this photo. You'll note the playful expression and the contemplative pose: it informs the viewer of my philosophical nature and self-deprecating sense of humour, yet suggests I'm not nearly enough of a brainless prick to feebly attempt insult with funny pictures. In case you were wondering, I really think I look like my mother in this picture, particularly in relation to the body hair.

[2009AD]

Well, I guess this proves the astronauts made it to the mooon. They planted this statue. Probably because they had a bizarre sense of humor: http://thecrit.com/2009/05/05/200000-year-old-statue-found-on-moon/ I have no idea if this is BS or not. I haven't been able to find a second reference.

You actually thought there may have been some validity to that story? Did you wonder why the story did not make it on the front page of every newspaper in the world or the top of the evening news? Pretty pathetic.

[MacShreach]

Bwaaaaahhhhahahahahahahahahhaha

He gets his stuff from the Weekly World News!!!

God that's so funny.

[Rogers]

Well, I guess this proves the astronauts made it to the mooon. They planted this statue. Probably because they had a bizarre sense of humor: http://thecrit.com/2009/05/05/200000-year-old-statue-found-on-moon/ I have no idea if this is BS or not. I haven't been able to find a second reference.

"proves the astronauts made it to the moon"... "no idea if this is BS or not"... unable to find a "second reference".... hahaha. Funniest thing I've read in days... hahaha. ROFL.

The Simpsons already did it, thx1138!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153483/?searchterm=The+Simpsons+Already+Did+It

[Rogers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Skeptic

Skepticism: doubt about the truth of something; a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Oh, the irony...

[thx1138]

I originally picked this up from what i thought was a reputable guy - one whom I thought did fact checking. I checked further ( the original source) and of course it smelled to high heaven. I'll stop when you stop hitting me with ad hominem attacks. You're the ones that are acting like 9 year old school kids. Name calling? - for God's sake grow up. You're adults now. It's time your brains caught up with your bodies.

[2009AD]

I originally picked this up from what i thought was a reputable guy - one whom I thought did fact checking.

He was probably having fun at your expense. In any case, a story like that would have made headlines around the world, you would not have heard it from a guy. There would have been non-stop news coverage.

[MacShreach]

Hey guys-- take a look at this! Maybe ol' THC's onto something after all!

[2009AD]

Hey guys-- take a look at this! Maybe ol' THC's onto something after all!

Mac, that looks possible, I don't know. I'm going to have to double check that one, give me a few minutes. :wink:

[Rogers]

I originally picked this up from what i thought was a reputable guy - one whom I thought did fact checking.

You have to start being observant and critical of not only the government, but everyone including YOURSELF.


You're the ones that are acting like 9 year old school kids. Name calling? - for God's sake grow up. You're adults now. It's time your brains caught up with your bodies.

You incite name calling by your obsessive paranoia, persistent fear-mongering, and general feeble mindedness, thx1138.

Hypocrisy: the act of being less critical of oneself than of others.
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=43014&highlight=chefmike

[Rogers]

Hey guys-- take a look at this! Maybe ol' THC's onto something after all!

You might have something there, Mac. The plane may have been involved in an early barium-seeding experiment carried out by the Illuminati for the forthcoming New World Order, and flew just a bit too high. Seems they've also started experimenting with more natural disperal mechanisms...

[deee757]

In responding to the most asked questions about the hoax (#10. Fluttering Flag: The American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.
#9. Glow-in-the-Dark Astronauts: If the astronauts had left the safety of the Van Allen Belt the radiation would have killed them.
#8. The Shadow Knows: Multiple-angle shadows in the Moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp.
#7. Fried Film: In the Sun, the Moon's temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted.
#6. Liquid Water on the Moon: To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil, doesn't it?
#5. Death by Meteor: Space is filled with super-fast micro meteors that would punch through the ship and kill the astronauts.
#4. No Crater at Landing Site: When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the "dusty surface."
#3. Phantom Cameraman: How come in that one video of the LEM leaving the surface, the camera follows it up into the sky? Who was running that camera?
#2. Big Rover: There's no way that big moon buggy they were driving could have fit into that little landing module!
#1. Its Full of Stars!: Space is littered with little points of lights (stars). Why then are they missing from the photographs? )

Here is NASA's response
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/19/nasa.moon/index.html



NASA should be giving us more information than that. I seen better rebuttals on this thread than NASA's effort.

[scorpion]

Landing was not a fake... but the images was

[Nooksack]

They recently had a Mythbusters o Discovery Channel that addressed the "Lunar Wind", "Light in the Dark side of the Lunar Lander", "Footprint", "Walking-on-the-moon Stop-Time theory" and "Multiple Light Source" conspiracy theories and they were actually able to debunk all of those myths. Additionally, they fired a laser from an observatory to the moon and got negative returns except at the one coordinate where the astronauts placed a sophisticated mirror array that returns light from any angle, proving that there is a man-made object on the moon.

It's a pretty good show anyways, but that was a particularly interesting episode.

[MacShreach]

Landing was not a fake... but the images was

(sigh)
1 Actually read this thread
2 Eat your hat
3 End of this exchange

[GinX]

In responding to the most asked questions about the hoax (#10. Fluttering Flag: The American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.
#9. Glow-in-the-Dark Astronauts: If the astronauts had left the safety of the Van Allen Belt the radiation would have killed them.
#8. The Shadow Knows: Multiple-angle shadows in the Moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp.
#7. Fried Film: In the Sun, the Moon's temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted.
#6. Liquid Water on the Moon: To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil, doesn't it?
#5. Death by Meteor: Space is filled with super-fast micro meteors that would punch through the ship and kill the astronauts.
#4. No Crater at Landing Site: When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the "dusty surface."
#3. Phantom Cameraman: How come in that one video of the LEM leaving the surface, the camera follows it up into the sky? Who was running that camera?
#2. Big Rover: There's no way that big moon buggy they were driving could have fit into that little landing module!
#1. Its Full of Stars!: Space is littered with little points of lights (stars). Why then are they missing from the photographs? )

Here is NASA's response
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/19/nasa.moon/index.html



NASA should be giving us more information than that. I seen better rebuttals on this thread than NASA's effort.

10. The flag was threaded with rods to try and force a fluttering appearance.
9. That's what full EVA Suits are for. How do you think astronauts on the Space Shuttle take their "space walks"?
8. From the surface of an object that has no atmosphere, has a highly reflective surface and has another astral body between it and the sun, that's going to happen.
7. Yes...those scientists down here on Earth could not have possibly made materials to withstand that kind of heat <eye roll>
6. Nope...you can leave a pretty good print in dry sand or soil...especially in a place that has one-sixth the gravity of Earth.
5. There are not sheets of "micro-meteors" covering the blanket of space. Ever hear of a thing called telemetry?
4. Why would it?
3. Hmm...yes...no such thing as automation....
2. Ever head of modular units?
1. For the same reason you don't see a sky full of stars while in the middle of L.A. but see zillions of them if you go up in the mountains: too much light.

Now, here's a little question that all these conspiracy lovers have yet to answer: Why the hell would we want to fake a moon landing? So NASA could get more money? Nonsense...they are already a government agency, the government would have to be in on it. To one-up our Russian comrades because the Cold War was on? Again, nonsense. If this really was a hoax, Russian scientists would have been able to spot this immediately...AND taken great delight in exposing that fact to EVERYONE.

So, again, I ask....why?

When you conspiracy lovers come up with rational reason for a fake moon landing, only then will I even consider you to possess rationality.

[deee757]

again, that's more information than NASA has provided, no matter how vague your answers were.

[xact]

The so-called "lunar rocks" are obvious fakes, as the moon is actually made of cheese:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Is_the_moon_made_of_cheese%3F

[MacShreach]

The so-called "lunar rocks" are obvious fakes, as the moon is actually made of cheese:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Is_the_moon_made_of_cheese%3F

ROFLOL

I was about to say something like "Jesus are you kidding--this thread still going on?"

But that made me laugh.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[deee757]

I think the cheese theory and the actual moon landing theory are running neck and neck

[trish]

deee writes
In responding to the most asked questions about the hoax ...Here is NASA's response
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/19/nasa.moon/index.html
NASA should be giving us more information than that. I seen better rebuttals on this thread than NASA's effort.


Don't you mean CNN should be giving us more information than that? So CNN doesn't devote enough time or space to the moon landing conspiracy theory and it's NASA's fault!? How does that work? Do you have green cheese for brains? Have mice been gnawing on it?

[superjoe2]

oh lord and the many people that watched the rocket go straight out of orbit were all paid too, to lie lol

conspiracy theories are so silly sometimes.

Did you ever ask yourself why the flag is floating and blowing around when there is no air on the moon? yeah think about that

[2009AD]

oh lord and the many people that watched the rocket go straight out of orbit were all paid too, to lie lol

conspiracy theories are so silly sometimes.

Did you ever ask yourself why the flag is floating and blowing around when there is no air on the moon? yeah think about that

Did you ever bother reading the entire thread? The flag issue has been answered a number of times. :roll:

[bat1]

oh lord and the many people that watched the rocket go straight out of orbit were all paid too, to lie lol

conspiracy theories are so silly sometimes.

Did you ever ask yourself why the flag is floating and blowing around when there is no air on the moon? yeah think about that

there is no wind on the Moon :shock:

[slip969]

This argument could be proven very easily... use a high powered telescope and look for an American Flag on the moon. As for the power of the telescope required, I'm not sure due to the fact that I'm not an astronomer... If it requires the Hubble, we'll were all S.O.L on that one.

[trish]

The surface of the Moon is roughly 376000 kilometers from the surface of the Earth at their closest points. Two points on the surface of the Moon one yard apart from each other would subtend an angle of 1yard/376000km =0 .00000000243 radians = 0.0000000696 degrees = 0.00025 seconds of arc. The Lunar Lander itself might subtend angle of one order of magnitude higher, say 0.0025 seconds of arc. So what is the resolution of our best telescopes? The Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 seconds of arc. Even given it’s slightly closer proximity to the Moon, even Hubble wouldn’t be able to confirm the presence of the Lunar Lander, let alone the flag. Future missions to the Moon, which a currently under preparation may be able to observe it from lunar orbit.

But let's suppose we could build a telescope with the resolving power to confirm the presence of the Lunar Lander on the Moon. I don't think it would resolve the issue. The conspiracy theorists will just take the same position the Catholic bishops took against Galileo, namely they will claim the telescope was designed to decieve.

[Addendum: More accurately Hubble has a resolution of approximately 0.0175 seconds of arc. An object on the Moon less than 32 meters across would be an dot with indistinguishable extension.]

[edits are in square brackets]

[jordyd19]

A lot of people say the holocaust never happened either. But I would have to say they are wrong too.


Genocide vs. landing on the moon good one. I think it was faked.

Sincerely,

Didn't vote for obama

[trish]

I think it was faked.

Sincerely,

Didn't vote for obama
Good to know another idiot who didn't vote for Obama. No one wants the endorsement of a Moon landing conspiracy theorist.

[sugdaddie69]

A lot of people say the holocaust never happened either. But I would have to say they are wrong too.


Genocide vs. landing on the moon good one. I think it was faked.

Sincerely,

Didn't vote for obama
I mean,who really gives a fuck who you did or didn't vote for.

[yosi]

I think it was faked.

Sincerely,

Didn't vote for obama

now I get it , the landing on the moon was a conspiracy made by Obama :twisted: :wink:

[alpha2117]

The sad thing is people who believe in the Moon Landing being faked are allowed to drive, own guns and breed.

[deee757]

deee writes
In responding to the most asked questions about the hoax ...Here is NASA's response
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/19/nasa.moon/index.html
NASA should be giving us more information than that. I seen better rebuttals on this thread than NASA's effort.


Don't you mean CNN should be giving us more information than that? So CNN doesn't devote enough time or space to the moon landing conspiracy theory and it's NASA's fault!? How does that work? Do you have green cheese for brains? Have mice been gnawing on it?

Dont see why that was necessary, or how me asking NASA to provide more info makes me a "cheese brain" lol. (thought this thread was dead) But i dont have an opinion or weather it was a fake or not, just simply stating, there have been no official rebuttals made from NASA to counter some of the claims by prominent scientist. Any body have any info on the next "maned" trip to the moon?

[phobun]

But i dont have an opinion or weather it was a fake or not, just simply stating, there have been no official rebuttals made from NASA to counter some of the claims by prominent scientist. Any body have any info on the next "maned" trip to the moon?

Who is the "prominent scientist"? Name this person if he or she exists, but I bet the person is not a prominent scientist, but instead just another whackjob.

Doesn't NASA have better things to do than to issue "official rebuttals" against every paranoid conspiracy theorist out there?

[trish]

Come on deee! Your link is to a CNN interview with NASA. Because CNN didn't ask enough questions you blame NASA for not providing the public with enough information about the Apollo11 mission. In fact all the scientific data NASA has is available to the public. Here's just a few links:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo_tapes.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo11info.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCatalog.do?sc=1969-059A&ex=01&ds=*
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/apollo11.htm

If you want more, go to NASA and search the archives yourself. What better refutation of the conspiracy accusations can there be then full access to the mission records and the mission data sets?

[2009AD]

t i dont have an opinion or weather it was a fake or not, just simply stating, there have been no official rebuttals made from NASA to counter some of the claims by prominent scientist.


a link just for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance)

[deee757]

Come on deee! Your link is to a CNN interview with NASA. Because CNN didn't ask enough questions you blame NASA for not providing the public with enough information about the Apollo11 mission. In fact all the scientific data NASA has is available to the public. Here's just a few links:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo_tapes.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo11info.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCatalog.do?sc=1969-059A&ex=01&ds=*
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/apollo11.htm

If you want more, go to NASA and search the archives yourself. What better refutation of the conspiracy accusations can there be then full access to the mission records and the mission data sets?

If people claim this is staged, and its a fake, how would reviewing data provided by the people that are accused of being frauds clear up anything? The only reason the conspiracy theories exist because NASA is so quiet on the subject. Plus if you have looked at the pages of the links you posted, its just narratives from pre-publoished information.

[deee757]

But i dont have an opinion or weather it was a fake or not, just simply stating, there have been no official rebuttals made from NASA to counter some of the claims by prominent scientist. Any body have any info on the next "maned" trip to the moon?

Who is the "prominent scientist"? Name this person if he or she exists, but I bet the person is not a prominent scientist, but instead just another whackjob.

Doesn't NASA have better things to do than to issue "official rebuttals" against every paranoid conspiracy theorist out there?

Here are some scientists and people of other professions (whack jobs) that have composed theories

# Bill Kaysing (1922-2005) an ex-employee of Rocketdyne,[87] (the company which built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket). Kaysing was not technically qualified, and worked at Rocketdyne as a librarian. Kaysing's self published book, We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle[9][44], p. 157, made many allegations, effectively beginning the discussion of the Moon landings possibly being hoaxed. NASA, and others, have debunked the claims made in the book.
# Bart Sibrel, a filmmaker, produced and directed four films for his company AFTH,[88] including a film in 2001 called A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon,[89] examining the evidence of a hoax. Again, the arguments put forward therein have been debunked by numerous sources, including svector's video series Lunar Legacy[90] which attempts to disprove the documentary's primary argument that the Apollo crew faked their distance from the Earth command module, while in low orbit. Sibrel believes that the effect on the shot covered in his film was produced through the use of a transparency of the Earth. Sibrel was also famously punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin while accusing the former astronaut of being "a coward, and a liar, and a thief." Sibrel attempted to press charges against Aldrin but the case was thrown out of court when the judge ruled that Aldrin was within his rights given Sibrel's invasive and aggressive behavior.[91]
# William L. Brian, a nuclear engineer who self-published a book in 1982 called "Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program," in which he disputes the Moon's surface gravity.
# David Percy, TV producer and expert in audiovisual technologies and member of the Royal Photographic Society, is co-author, along with Mary Bennett of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers (ISBN 1-898541-10-8) and co-producer of What Happened On the Moon?. He is the main proponent of the "whistle-blower" accusation, arguing that the errors in the NASA photos in particular are so obvious that they are evidence that insiders are trying to 'blow the whistle' on the hoax by deliberately inserting errors that they know will be seen.[92]
# Ralph Rene - An inventor and 'self taught' engineering buff. Author of NASA Mooned America (second edition OCLC 36317224).
# Charles T. Hawkins - Author of How America Faked the Moon Landings,
# Philippe Lheureux - French author of Moon Landings: Did NASA Lie?, and Lumières sur la Lune (Lights on the Moon): La NASA a-t-elle menti?.
# James M. Collier (d. 1998) - American journalist and author, producer of the video Was It Only a Paper Moon? in 1997.
# Jack White - American photo historian known for his attempt to prove forgery in photos related to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
# Marcus Allen (publisher) - British publisher of Nexus magazine said that photographs of the lander would not prove that the US put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959 - the big problem is getting people there."[93]
# Aron Ranen - Directed Did We Go? (co-produced with Benjamin Britton and selected for the 2000 "New Documentary Series" Museum of Modern Art, NYC, the 2000 Dallas Video Festival Awards and the 2001 Digital Video Underground Festival in San Francisco). He received a Golden Cine Eagle and two fellowships from the National Endowment for Arts. Ranen states in Did We Go? that the chances that America landed men on the moon is about 75% certain.
# Clyde Lewis - Radio talk show host.[94]
# Dr. David Groves - Works for Quantech Image Processing and worked on some of the NASA photos. Notably he has examined the photo of Aldrin emerging from the LM. He said he can pinpoint the exact point at which an artificial light was used. Using the focal length of the camera's lens and an actual boot, he has calculated (using ray-tracing) that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera.[95][96] His calculation may be correct because in this location there is a plausible light source: the brightly sunlit part of Armstrong's white spacesuit.

Doesn't NASA have better things to do than to issue "official rebuttals" against every paranoid conspiracy theorist out there?[/quote]

better things like what?

[trish]

…if you have looked at the pages of the links you posted, its just narratives from pre-publoished information.


Of course it’s pre-published. It was published and made available decades ago when the mission was taking place. Look for the data packages. They are available to anyone, some for a small fee.


If people claim this is staged, and its a fake, how would reviewing data provided by the people that are accused of being frauds clear up anything?

What can the data establish you ask? Use your imagination. It can show you the exact lunar coordinates of the placement of mirrors on the Moon off which independent researchers can bounce laser beams confirming their location. The real purpose of the mirrors is to make continuous and accurate measurements of the distance to the Moon. If one is interested in confirming the existence of the mission, however, the telemetry can be checked by any independent person against the mathematical laws of celestial mechanics. There are so many variables that have to match here, there is simply no way of faking it. Moreover the telemetry data was collected not only by NASA but from scores of independent sources around the world (so you don't have to get your data sets entirely from NASA) including by observatories behind the iron curtain. The geological data can and is continually being checked against new and ever evolving theories of lunar geology. The surveyed measurements of mountain heights from the perspective of the Lander’s position can and are being matched against more modern measurements. Etc. etc.

[deee757]

…if you have looked at the pages of the links you posted, its just narratives from pre-publoished information.


Of course it’s pre-published. It was published and made available decades ago when the mission was taking place. Look for the data packages. They are available to anyone, some for a small fee.


If people claim this is staged, and its a fake, how would reviewing data provided by the people that are accused of being frauds clear up anything?

What can the data establish you ask? Use your imagination. It can show you the exact lunar coordinates of the placement of mirrors on the Moon off which independent researchers can bounce laser beams confirming their location. The real purpose of the mirrors is to make continuous and accurate measurements of the distance to the Moon. If one is interested in confirming the existence of the mission, however, the telemetry can be checked by any independent person against the mathematical laws of celestial mechanics. There are so many variables that have to match here, there is simply no way of faking it. Moreover the telemetry data was collected not only by NASA but from scores of independent sources around the world (so you don't have to get your data sets entirely from NASA) including by observatories behind the iron curtain. The geological data can and is continually being checked against new and ever evolving theories of lunar geology. The surveyed measurements of mountain heights from the perspective of the Lander’s position can and are being matched against more modern measurements. Etc. etc.

Which all can be achieved by unmanned missions, but this point has already been made. Russia has extensive unmanned missions that uncovered the bulk of the information that we have today regarding the moon. China is predicting that it will take them until the year 2020 to land a man on the moon. As far ahead of the US as China is in technology, its hard to believe that it takes 50 years to duplicate 1969 US technology. And the project costs 170 million US dollars.
The US supposedly cut the Apollo programs because of budget cuts. The Russians have already conceded that landing a man on the moon is nearly impossible.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/china_moon_040322.html

[trish]

Certainly a lot of science can be done by unmanned missions. Indeed I prefer we slow down on the plans for manned missions to the Moon and Mars and milk more from robotic missions. But that is not the issue here. You asked how can we confirm the legitimacy of the mission from the data of the mission provided by NASA. The above post is a reply to that question. I’m not suggesting the data from Apollo 11 is necessary for understanding the laws of celestial mechanics, the geology or geography of the Moon, but the reverse. What we know now of those sciences can reveal inconsistencies in the Apollo 11 data if there are any. So far none have been found.