why i think the moon landings were a hoax.

cometvomit · Mar 13, 2008

I work with a guy, whose dad was contracted out by nasa to come up with skin(tinfoil looking stuff). He didn't get to see his dad much during that time and remembers it well. He was with his dad watching the launch and everything. His father isn't a government worker or anything and would have no reason to lie. It happened. Infact my coworker specifically remembers the amount of stress his father was under during the launch.From what I understand he looked similar to a wild animal paceing back and forth in a cage... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Mar 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I work with a guy, whose dad was contracted out by nasa to come up with skin(tinfoil looking stuff). He didn't get to see his dad much during that time and remembers it well. He was with his dad watching the launch and everything. His father isn't a government worker or anything and would have no reason to lie. It happened. Infact my coworker specifically remembers the amount of stress his father was under during the launch.From what I understand he looked similar to a wild animal paceing back and forth in a cage... Posted by cometvomit</DIV>This is what the Hoax Belivers don't appreciate.  Apollo to them must seem like a few photos, a few minutes of grainy footage, and some magazine articles.  It is not the thousands of tonnes of preserved hardware, thens of thousands of photos from the Moon, hundreds of thousands from Earth, hundreds of hours of lunar video, tens of thousands of hours of terrestrial video, tens of thousands of scientific papers, many more technical documents, and almost half a tonne of rocks.They also don't appreciate that it is the record not just of a handful of astronauts but of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who too part, some in senior positions some in minor technical jobs that were none the less important.  Some like your father's friend, some like people I met who worked in the local tracking station. There were the women who fabricated the space suits, who filled the heat shield cells with epoxy.  Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Mar 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is what the Hoax Belivers don't appreciate.  Apollo to them must seem like a few photos, a few minutes of grainy footage, and some magazine articles.  It is not the thousands of tonnes of preserved hardware, thens of thousands of photos from the Moon, hundreds of thousands from Earth, hundreds of hours of lunar video, tens of thousands of hours of terrestrial video, tens of thousands of scientific papers, many more technical documents, and almost half a tonne of rocks.They also don't appreciate that it is the record not just of a handful of astronauts but of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who too part, some in senior positions some in minor technical jobs that were none the less important.  Some like your father's friend, some like people I met who worked in the local tracking station. There were the women who fabricated the space suits, who filled the heat shield cells with epoxy.  Jon Posted by jonclarke</DIV>There was once a spurious statistic that I was very fond of.  During the Apollo days, it was estimated that 1 in 10 workers somehow, someway, had a connection to the Apollo program.  They may only have made toilet paper orded by construction crews building housing for technical workers building equipment for subcontractors hired to work on the project, but they still contributed.In adjusted dollars, the US spent over 100 billion on Apollo.  That's over $100,000,000,000 dollars.  That's an impressive sum.I imagine someone would be hard pressed to find anyone in the US that either wasn't involved with the program or didn't have a member of their family or know someone that had some connection to the program.  It was that ginormous.I agree Jon, there are people who must think that Apollo was just some grainy photographs held up by a guy with glasses and a pocket protector.Apollo - There were giants in those days with big brass balls that clanked when they walked...  /salute <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

JonClarke · Mar 14, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There was once a spurious statistic that I was very fond of.  During the Apollo days, it was estimated that 1 in 10 workers somehow, someway, had a connection to the Apollo program.  They may only have made toilet paper orded by construction crews building housing for technical workers building equipment for subcontractors hired to work on the project, but they still contributed.In adjusted dollars, the US spent over 100 billion on Apollo.  That's over $100,000,000,000 dollars.  That's an impressive sum.I imagine someone would be hard pressed to find anyone in the US that either wasn't involved with the program or didn't have a member of their family or know someone that had some connection to the program.  It was that ginormous.I agree Jon, there are people who must think that Apollo was just some grainy photographs held up by a guy with glasses and a pocket protector.Apollo - There were giants in those days with big brass balls that clanked when they walked...  /salute Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV>And let not foregt there were thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people outside the US who were involved.  Canadian components provided sub systems for the CSM, navies from several nations were involved in recovery exercises, There were tracking stations in Spain, on Bristish island territories, and in Australia.  Scientists from dozens of countries - inlcuding the Soviet union - were involved in analysis of the data.  The USSR also independently tracked the missons and recorded the transmission, amateur astronomers round the world did the same.Claiming that Apollo was a hoax is like claiming the Vietnam war did not happen. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

qso1 · Mar 14, 2008

This is a question I myself would like answered.Good points, especially the one I left and highlighted purple. The reason we haven't been back is simple. "No bucks, no Buck Rogers". The NASA budget was hacked to a level of around 50% what it was during the height of Apollo. This occured in 1973-74 period.The budget level continues to be around 50% Apollo budget days. To give you an idea.Record NASA budget was $5.5B dollars in 1966 or about $32B dollars in todays dollars.Current NASA budget is about half that $32B dollar figure. The shuttle program was budget capped at $5.5 B dollars in 1972 which led to the shuttle we have today. Not a bad shuttle technically, just not good economically.Then theres the public at large who by and large could care less about human spaceflight which translates into politicians who don't care about it (Barack Obama may be one) or politicians who do have a vested interest (G. Bush, Texan) but are up against the tide of public cynicism about politicians and NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Mar 14, 2008

The only robotic sample-return mission from the Moon.  (Until Genesis and Stardust, it was the only robotic sample return mission from ANYWHERE.  Still the only one from the surface of another world, since Hayabusa ultimately failed to return samples from 25143 Itokawa.  And then there are the two Lunokhods.  Magnificent vehicles.  It was Lunokhod 2 that carried a retroreflector similar to the Apollo reflectors.  It was a "guest experiment" from CNES (the French space agency); the Russians were an early adopter of the international philosophy towards space exploration. Posted by CalliArcale.Excellent points because in addition to those mentioned, the Russians also capitolized on the growing anti Apollo feelings in the west by showing off the fact they had the unmanned and frugal Lunokhod program vs our seemingly extravagant Apollo.When in reality, and admitted by the Russians in 1988 or 89 under the Gorbachev policies of Perestroika and Glasnost , they did attempt to send humans to the moon except they never actually got past the point of manrating the troubled N-1 among other things. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Mar 14, 2008

The U.S. Apollo workforce alone was nearly half a million people at a time when the population was over 200 million. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

thejinxkitten · Mar 15, 2008

what comes around goes around..it's the same old topic

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div style="text-align:center"><img id="f4c1b2ef-0793-4f27-9615-e4e17a5bc441" src="http://sitelife.livescience.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/4/6/f4c1b2ef-0793-4f27-9615-e4e17a5bc441.Large.gif" alt="blog post photo" /></div> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "there are other worlds than this" Jake Chamber of Dark Tower </div>

zarniwoop · Mar 15, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think so.  After all, I don't ask him to produce evidence because I wish to trounce it.  It's part of a learning exercise - critical thinking.Reading statements on the 'net is one thing.  But, actually finding evidence that corroborates those statements is another.  The first step, always, is to examine the evidence before accepting the statement as truth.  That's why I ask for it - It's in order to get the poster to examine what it is they are proposing and why it is supposedly credible. Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV> hiok all along i have never disputed the achievments nasa had or done during the apollo program...the americans and the russians both made huge advances in technology over the period of the moonrace.i also have never denounced the entire apollo program...just the actual landings and moonwalks...this is where all the faults start to appear...how can i produce evidence to back up my claims and the claims of others.the evidence produced on such programmes as did we actually land on the moon...throw out many questions about the actual landings.......and although nasa and others can produce credible explanations for some of these...there are still some instances where no credible explanation has been given.there are many instances where no explanation can be given either way...ie for or against.as stated in previous posts 36 years years is to long ..if we really went to the moon and landed ..then stating that money is the reason is not a good enough reason to say its why we have never returned.if it could be done ..then we would be there..bases would be established and communities living there by now.why waste countless billions of dollars on building space stns that are basically no use...if the technology is there then build these bases on the moon the cost cant be that much more to build on the moon instead of in space orbit.so go back to the moon ...prove all us doubters wrong.36 years is way to long and as previously stated if nothing is done soon then all people involed in the apollo program will have passed away and the memory of the entire apollo program will fade as well.....as people come to realise if we are not there now...or havent been back since the 1970s then the hoax theory must have been right.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Mar 15, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"this is where all the faults start to appear...""throw out many questions about the actual landings...""there are still some instances where no credible explanation has been given.""there are many instances where no explanation can be given either way..."Posted by zarniwoop</DIV> Provide some examples.  You have yet to provide a reason why you believe it to be a hoax other than your comparison to the Aurora conspiracy.I guarantee every example you come up with has been debunked with VERY credible explanations many times over. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"if the technology is there then build these bases on the moon the cost cant be that much more to build on the moon instead of in space orbit.so go back to the moon ...prove all us doubters wrong." Posted by zarniwoop</DIV> The cost of the apollo program was enormous... dwarfing what we currently spend on the NASA budget.  And that was just to get a tiny lunar module up there.  I can't even imagine the cost to increase the payloads to substantial enough sizes to start building bases.  Not to mention the frequency of trips we would have to make.  Try to sell that budget to the people.  We stopped going because the political and economic will withered away after it was apparent our status as the "better than the USSR" was accomplished.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

JonClarke · Mar 15, 2008

zarniwoopAt 3/12/2008 2:50 PM EDT you wrote:basically the lunar lander was not ready...nasa new thisYou were asked to produce evidence to support this statement by a_lost_packet, qso1 and myself.  You have failed to do this.  In your most recent post () you wrote:i also have never denounced the entire apollo program...just the actual landings and moonwalks...this is where all the faults start to appear...how can i produce evidence to back up my claims and the claims of others.the evidence produced on such programmes as did we actually land on the moon...throw out many questions about the actual landings.......and although nasa and others can produce credible explanations for some of these...there are still some instances where no credible explanation has been given.This does not qualify as an answer.  It is just waffling.  You have made a specific claim that while the journey to the Moon happened the landing did not because the LM "was not ready".  You have been repeatedly asked to produce evidence for this statement.  Please do so.  Failure to answer the question will be prejudical to you as it will show either that you are someone who is rude and does not answer simple questions when asked, or simply does not have an answer and is not mature enough to admit they are wrong.Or you could answer and either provide us with evidence to support of your case or admit you have none.Jon   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Mar 15, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>i also have never denounced the entire apollo program...just the actual landings and moonwalks...this is where all the faults start to appear...how can i produce evidence to back up my claims and the claims of others.</DIV>Just describe the "faults" that you see and then we can all go from there in an attempt to either answer to them or declare them credible. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..and although nasa and others can produce credible explanations for some of these...there are still some instances where no credible explanation has been given.there are many instances where no explanation can be given either way...ie for or against.</DIV>What explanation are you speaking to?  An explanation for what?  Let's examine that.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>as stated in previous posts 36 years years is to long ..if we really went to the moon and landed ..then stating that money is the reason is not a good enough reason to say its why we have never returned.if it could be done ..then we would be there..bases would be established and communities living there by now.why waste countless billions of dollars on building space stns that are basically no use...if the technology is there then build these bases on the moon the cost cant be that much more to build on the moon instead of in space orbit.so go back to the moon ...prove all us doubters wrong.36 years is way to long and as previously stated if nothing is done soon then all people involed in the apollo program will have passed away and the memory of the entire apollo program will fade as well.....as people come to realise if we are not there now...or havent been back since the 1970s then the hoax theory must have been right.   Posted by zarniwoop</DIV>The Moon is a dead rock.  It's inhospitable and doesn't have a whole lot of appeal.  There's very little, if any, water and it's bound up in rocks.  There's no atmosphere to speak of and it's volcanically dead.  To put it simply, the Moon is a desert island in space. Of course, it's the closest island we have and could be like a stepping stone to other planets.  But, until we're prepared to exploit the limited opportunity the Moon presents us as a stepping stone and a test-lab for habitats off of planet Earth, there's no reason to go there.You make a lot of referrences to questions and faults which convince you that we never went to the Moon.  Write them out.  Show us what your questions and doubts are. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

zarniwoop · Mar 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>zarniwoopAt 3/12/2008 2:50 PM EDT you wrote:basically the lunar lander was not ready...nasa new thisYou were asked to produce evidence to support this statement by a_lost_packet, qso1 and myself.  You have failed to do this.  In your most recent post () you wrote:i also have never denounced the entire apollo program...just the actual landings and moonwalks...this is where all the faults start to appear...how can i produce evidence to back up my claims and the claims of others.the evidence produced on such programmes as did we actually land on the moon...throw out many questions about the actual landings.......and although nasa and others can produce credible explanations for some of these...there are still some instances where no credible explanation has been given.This does not qualify as an answer.  It is just waffling.  You have made a specific claim that while the journey to the Moon happened the landing did not because the LM "was not ready".  You have been repeatedly asked to produce evidence for this statement.  Please do so.  Failure to answer the question will be prejudical to you as it will show either that you are someone who is rude and does not answer simple questions when asked, or simply does not have an answer and is not mature enough to admit they are wrong.Or you could answer and either provide us with evidence to support of your case or admit you have none.Jon   Posted by jonclarke</DIV> how can i produce specific evidence to back up these claims,only the evidence shown in certain tv broadcasts ie the failed attempts to land the lm in test flights,the speed at which the moon program was put together.the moon lander was very difficult to control as seen in many videos including the one with neil armstrong ejecting just in time.then in all 6 moonlandings we are asked to believe that ,the lm was successfully landed and took off 6 times without any failure.near perfect landings everytime.this is what is hard to believe.but as for specific evidence i cant produce...unless maybe i find someway to sneak into area 51 or some other top secret establishment and steal some documents from some x -files type cabinet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

zarniwoop · Mar 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just describe the "faults" that you see and then we can all go from there in an attempt to either answer to them or declare them credible. What explanation are you speaking to?  An explanation for what?  Let's examine that.The Moon is a dead rock.  It's inhospitable and doesn't have a whole lot of appeal.  There's very little, if any, water and it's bound up in rocks.  There's no atmosphere to speak of and it's volcanically dead.  To put it simply, the Moon is a desert island in space. Of course, it's the closest island we have and could be like a stepping stone to other planets.  But, until we're prepared to exploit the limited opportunity the Moon presents us as a stepping stone and a test-lab for habitats off of planet Earth, there's no reason to go there.You make a lot of referrences to questions and faults which convince you that we never went to the Moon.  Write them out.  Show us what your questions and doubts are. Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV> ok some of the questions i would like explaining...ie theorys thrown up by the hoax claim..photographs of the missing lm...ie two identical photographs with lm in photo but not the other.cross hairs behind objects on moon surface.perfect surface beneath the lm...no blast crater or even slight uneveness.no moondust on moonlanders feet they look perfect in every shot....some dust would have been blown up no matter what angle the lm came in at and would have settled in the feet...the moondust would have been blown about as can be seen when the astronauts are running about or the moon buggy is driving about moondust is thrown up....so why no dust.clear photographs of astronauts next to lm in plain view when they should be in shadow.the way the lm takes off ...looks like its just been hoisted up in the air.the graininess of first video of moonwalks.these are just some of the doubts i have.there are many more ..but these will do to start.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Mar 16, 2008

Zarniwoop, this is a good start.   If I can reply to your last statement first: but as for specific evidence i cant produce...unless maybe i find someway to sneak into area 51 or some other top secret establishment and steal some documents from some x -files type cabinet.There is a huge amount of material on Apollo which is a matter of public record, available to anyone with access to a good library and the internet.  If something is not right with Apollo, there should be clues here.  And course this is what you claim. You list a number of things that don’t seem right to you in that record.  The problem with your position is that many of these things that don’t seem right to you are based on either a misunderstanding of the record or special pleading.  how can i produce specific evidence to back up these claims,only the evidence shown in certain tv broadcasts I presume you are referring to the Fox so-called “documentary”?  The claims of that program have shown to be false time and time again.  ie the failed attempts to land the lm in test flights There were no actual landing attempts with the LM during flight tests.  As I have already explained, there were two flight tests of the LM, two in earth orbit and one in lunar.  The landing system was tested in various rigs in the lab, but there were no landing flight tests until Apollo 11.  And that did not fail.   the speed at which the moon program was put together. Given the amount of funding and resources invested in the Apollo program why should it not have reached its goal in eight years? the moon lander was very difficult to control as seen in many videos including the one with neil armstrong ejecting just in time.The LM was not particularly difficult to control, just different.  Which is why the astronauts trained extensively with simulators and other training aids and it was extensively tested by Apollo 9 and 10.The videos you see of Neil Armstrong ejecting was not the LM, but a training machine called the LLRV. It was not particularly difficult to fly, just very different to anything the astronauts had flown previously.  It simulated the LM flight profile quite well, which is why it used. Armstrong ejected from it not because it was difficult to control but because it malfunctioned. then in all 6 moonlandings we are asked to believe that ,the lm was successfully landed and took off 6 times without any failure.Given the level of testing, training and expertise that was invested in Apollo, why should they not succeed 6 times? You say that you believe that people went to lunar orbit, what should they not be able to land? near perfect landings everytime. this is what is hard to believe.You may find it hard to believe, but why should they not achieve this level of success, given skill, training, and testing?  People do extraordinary things all the time, like building space stations.  Or is the ISS also a fake?Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

origin · Mar 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the moondust would have been blown about as can be seen when the astronauts are running about or the moon buggy is driving about moondust is thrown up  Posted by zarniwoop</DIV>2 points here:You will have to link the pictures because I have no idea what you are talking about.The buggy is a good one to prove the moon landing was not a hoax.  First if you notice the dust is not suspended in the air which clearly shows that it is not in an atmosphere.  The trajectory of the dust forms a prefect hyperbola which is also only achievable in a vacuum.  And finally you can time how long it takes the dust to fall from its top of the curve to the surface and determine the acceleration due to gravity, which matches the mass of the moonHowever, I think it is clear that you are not interested in anything which goes against your belief that we did not go to the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Mar 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>then in all 6 moonlandings we are asked to believe that ,the lm was successfully landed and took off 6 times without any failure.</DIV> The Lem computer failed, and Neil Armstrong had to fly the lem manually to the surface.  Then, before take off from the surface, a switch on a circuit breaker broke off, which was to arm (or start) the ascent engine.  Buzz Aldrin had to jam the nonmetalic end of his pen into the opening of the circuit breaker to start the engine.  Lots of failures, which were overcome by training, improvising, and inginuity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Mar 16, 2008

I'll address some of your specific questions: cross hairs behind objects on moon surface. Cross hairs were etched directly into the camera lenses, to help provide scope and scale (at least angular) to the images taken.  The reason they occasionally look to be occluded by objects is due to one of two things, either the object is very bright, causing over-exposure of the fine-featured cross hairs (I.e. it's blurred out in the film by bleeding light) or the object is very dark, providing no contrast.no moondust on moonlanders feet they look perfect in every shot....some dust would have been blown up no matter what angle the lm came in at and would have settled in the feet...the moondust would have been blown about as can be seen when the astronauts are running about or the moon buggy is driving about moondust is thrown up....so why no dust. There was dust, however there is no atmosphere on the moon.  The dust will have entirely ballistic trajectories.  And the rocket exhaust would have imparted a lot of momentum away from the lander.  No dust is going to drift back onto the feet, as there is nothing to alter their outbound path.  clear photographs of astronauts next to lm in plain view when they should be in shadow. The moon's surface does reflect light, and the earth itself acts as a second light source.  Recall how bright the night is with a full moon present.  Now, increase that by a factor of 16 or so for the light produced by the Earth reflecting sunlight due to it's greater surface area alone.  It's greater than that actually, as you then have to factor in the Earth's much higher albedo (reflectivity).  It reflects roughly 7x more sunlight (~70% vs the moons 12%).   The other questions I'll leave to those with better understanding of the Operational nature of the Apollo program. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

qso1 · Mar 17, 2008

the moon lander was very difficult to control as seen in many videos including the one with neil armstrong ejecting just in time.then in all 6 moonlandings we are asked to believe that ,the lm was successfully landed and took off 6 times without any failure.The vehicle you are referring to is not the lunar lander. It was a simulator built to completely different specs but built to simulate the lunar landers descent and landing profile as best as possible to provide the most realistic environment in 1G that would be possible.The simulator was, as you pointed out, difficult to control but it did not crash all the time. By your logic, we should believe that 747s, DC10s, L1011s etc all are faked flights because we all know there have been some pretty spectacular crashes of those aircraft.This is the kind of argument that gets hoax believers claims in a position to where they are not very credible. You say how can you prove the hoax position. How can you believe it without proof or depending on logic such as a flying bedstead vehicl which bears only superficial resemblance to the LM and only simulates the landing portion of the flight. You decide that it is the LM and because of a crash, the lunar landing had to be faked.Challenger and Columbia were destroyed before millions of peoples eyes...they crashe, were they faked because they crashed?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Mar 17, 2008

ok some of the questions i would like explaining...ie theorys thrown up by the hoax claim..photographs of the missing lm...ie two identical photographs with lm in photo but not the other.cross hairs behind objects on moon surface.perfect surface beneath the lm...no blast crater or even slight uneveness.no moondust on moonlanders feet they look perfect in every shot....some dust would have been blown up no matter what angle the lm came in at and would have settled in the feet...the moondust would have been blown about as can be seen when the astronauts are running about or the moon buggy is driving about moondust is thrown up....so why no dust.clear photographs of astronauts next to lm in plain view when they should be in shadow.the way the lm takes off ...looks like its just been hoisted up in the air.the graininess of first video of moonwalks.these are just some of the doubts i have.there are many more ..but these will do to start.Ever consider asking a more obvious question?Why would so many obvious discrepancies be allowed in a conspiracy of this magnitude and one that would have to convince the whole world it was real. NASA would have paid $20 billion to Stanley Kubrick to get the details right if thats what it took. The stuff you mention are mistakes a 9 year old would miss, but not an organization of government types intent on fooling the Russians.Very weak case so far.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

CalliArcale · Mar 17, 2008

I don't want to be rude, zarniwoop, but I must confess some disappointment -- you have not raised any questions which have not be answered before, many times.  They are not evidence of fakery at all.  However, happily, that means I can easily address them. how can i produce specific evidence to back up these claims,only the evidence shown in certain tv broadcasts ie the failed attempts to land the lm in test flights,the speed at which the moon program was put together. The Apollo program was a truly herculean effort, comparable in cost to today's ISS but without the benefit of international partners.  It took considerable national will and determination to do it.  It is very likely that without the Cold War, it would not have happened -- and we probably wouldn't have a space program at all today.  The motivation was to beat the Russians, and claim the ultimate high ground.  This is also why the program fizzled so quickly once it reached its objective.  Though science would benefit enormously from a continued Apollo, the national will was only there for beating the Russians. All in all, the Apollo program took about fifteen years, give or take, depending on which event one considers to be the "start" of Apollo.  Astronautix.com counts it from March of '53, when the first study leading towards the Saturn V was begun, but the number is debatable.  Ultimately, several divergent space research efforts came together to become the Apollo-Saturn project.  And yes, it was amazing what was acheived.  The 1960s really was a golden era for human spaceflight, even though the bulk of human spaceflight occured afterwards, with more impressive practical acheivements coming decades later.  The 1960s was when the world made dreams real.  I regret that I was not born until 1975. the moon lander was very difficult to control as seen in many videos including the one with neil armstrong ejecting just in time.That wasn't the LM.  The LM cannot fly on Earth; it has insufficient thrust, and isn't designed for any kind of atmospheric flight.  That was one of two types of lunar module test vehicles.  Built by Bell Aerosystems (well known for building helicopters), the Lunar Lander Research Vehicles were a pair of gangly structures powered by a single 4200-lb turbofan built by General Electric and a set of hydrogen peroxide lift rockets to vary rate of descent and to provide pitch, yaw, and roll control.  The vehicles, humorously dubbed "Flying Bedsteads" because they looked so ridiculous, were initially used to experiment with vertical landing procedures.  You have to realize that jet-propelled VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) is not simple; Harriers occasionally demonstrate this the hard way.  Moeller's Skycar has also become a very good demonstrator of this -- it hasn't crashed, but it's utterly impractical in its current incarnation. Famed NASA test pilot Joe Walker made the first few flights, with his command of the vehicle improving with every flight; it was said to be very difficult to pilot, very susceptible to winds (fortunately not a problem on the Moon), and thus required a lot of practice.  LLRVs were used from 1964 to 1966, when the first Lunar Lander Training Vehicle (LLTV) was delivered.  The LLTVs were basically modified LLRVs which would better simulate the LM.  (The original LLRVs were built well before the LM's cockpit was designed.)  There were several crashes, but NASA continued using the vehicles for training purposes, reasoning quite sensibly that it was better to crash LLTVs than to crash an LM. And that's what it comes down to -- the LLRVs/LLTVs crashed so many times because their pilots were inexperienced at flying them.  And that's not surprising, because nobody had ever flown anything like them before.  By the time they flew the LMs, however, they were experienced and flew them to beautiful landings. then in all 6 moonlandings we are asked to believe that ,the lm was successfully landed and took off 6 times without any failure. near perfect landings everytime.this is what is hard to believe. C'mon, six is not a lot.  And it's not like things were completely flawless every time.  These were damned good pilots, but stuff happens.  Apollo 11 was a gnat's eyebrow away from failure.  They came down in the wrong spot, missing the targeted landing area and instead winding up aimed at a boulder field that would've chewed the LM up.  Neil Armstrong had to pilot it well into their propellant reserves to find a suitable landing spot.  It was a nail-biting landing.  Fortunately, Armstrong (in addition to being an astronaut) was the most experienced of all of the LLRV/LLTV pilots, and also one of the best test pilots in NASA.  There probably wasn't a better person to have behind the controls that day. Basically, six successful landings are evidence that you really do get what you pay for.  The government spent millions (in 1960s dollars) on each training vehicle, on each LM, and on training each astronaut.  The landings were exceptionally well planned.  Spaceflight is one area where this sort of preparation can really pay off. photographs of the missing lm...ie two identical photographs with lm in photo but not the other.I think you are referring to the two pictures of the lunar surface, one with and one without a LM.  They are frequently referred to by hoax proponents.  But if you look carefully, it's really not weird at all.  The mountain in the distance is many, many miles away.  (It seems closer because there is no atmospheric distortion; we're used to distant mountains being darker and more muted, but that doesn't happen on the airless Moon.)  All that's happened is the astronaut took the second picture from a different vantage point.  If I recall correctly, the former picture was taken about fifty yards from the LM, and the latter was taken right next to it.  Since the mountains were so distant, they looked basically the same, because that was a trivial difference in distance.  But the LM is out of shot. If you look at foreground objects in those pictures, you can see that the pictures aren't really identical.  It's just the faraway stuff that looks the same, and that's just a testament to the distance. cross hairs behind objects on moon surface.The cross hairs are reference points useful for later photographic analysis.  They were painted onto the front of each camera.  They were very fine black lines.  Because they were so fine, they didn't obscure details -- but, as the price for that, they were also prone to being wiped out by overexposures.  Film emulsion tends to bleed a little if it gets overexposed, and as the lunar surface is quite reflective, this happened rather a lot.  (As a sidebar, vidicon imagers and CCDs have their own weaknesses when they get overexposed, so avoiding film doesn't really avoid the problem -- it just changes how it'll appear.  CCDs, for instance, suffer from pixel spillage -- electrons will actually spill onto adjacent pixels, which is what causes the weird perfectly straight lines you see coming out of bright objects in some digital pictures.) YOu can get exactly the same effect on the Earth.  What baffles me about this claim, though, is just what is being suggested.  Are you suggesting that the lines were painted onto a set?  In such a way as to simulate perspective?  To what end?  This claim doesn't even make sense. perfect surface beneath the lm...no blast crater or even slight uneveness. Hardly.  You can see visible scoring in several pictures, and although the pilots made a concerted effort to find the flattest spot possible, the ground isn't perfectly level.  The most notable thing is that the descent engine has blasted the dust away from the spot. no moondust on moonlanders feet they look perfect in every shot....some dust would have been blown up no matter what angle the lm came in at and would have settled in the feet...the moondust would have been blown about as can be seen when the astronauts are running about or the moon buggy is driving about moondust is thrown up....so why no dust.What do you mean, no dust?  There's lots of it.  The spacesuits were covered in it, and looked visibly grimy even after the relatively short excursion on Apollo 11.  (So much so that there were serious concerns about the seals getting mucked up.)  When you watch videos of the "moon buggies" (LRVs), there are huge "rooster tails" thrown up behind them.  And watch those rooster tails -- the dust follows perfect ballistic trajectories.  It never floats in the air, and thus doesn't need to settle ,and will never drift back to the point from which it was kicked.  No air, remember?  You can see the exact same thing when the astronauts kick dust up with their feet as they walk around. There's LOTS of dust on the lunar surface, and you can see it plainly in the films and photos.  Less so in the videos, because the quality was relatively poor, but in the films it's very clear.  Pretty cool, too. clear photographs of astronauts next to lm in plain view when they should be in shadow. Have you ever seen a portrait photographer use a round silver thingy in front of the subject?  It's a reflector, and the idea is to get some light to fill in some of the shadows on the person's face.  The exact same thing is happening on the Moon.  The lunar surface is itself reflecting sunlight into the shadows. This would happen regardless of whether you were filming on the Moon or in a studio, so I'm really not sure what the point of this claim is.  That light behaves normally? the way the lm takes off ...looks like its just been hoisted up in the air.I suppose if you ignore all the stuff flying out underneath it, and ignore the velocity and smoothness of the ascent, yeah.  The LM's exhaust plume is nearly invisible.  Actually, most rocket exhaust is invisible (notable exceptions are solid rockets, such as SRBs, and kerosene rockets, such as the Saturn V first stage), except at the moment of ignition, when the propellant mixture is imperfect.  If you watch the video of Apollo 17 blasting off (taken from the LRV's camera, remotely controlled by JSC in Houston), you can see a whole lot of stuff flying out at the moment of ignition.  That's actually mostly junk from the pyrotechnics severing all of the connections between the descent and ascent stages.  There's also some dust.  (There was also dust visible in the out-the-window footage shot on Apollo 11.)  After that, the actual engine plume is invisible, and the vehicle just goes straight up.  Since there is no air on the Moon, there isn't any shaking of the camera (no air to transmit vibrations) and since it's a relatively small engine, the plume doesn't really bother the camera.  The vehicle just flies up.  And that's exactly what you'd expect, really.  I mean, a rocket has just been ignited underneath the thing.  Of course it's going to fly straight up in the air.  There's no wind to push it off course, either, so it'll just go straight up. the graininess of first video of moonwalks.Welcome to portable hand-held video technology, circa 1967!  (Why not 1969?  Because they had to pick the camera well before launch in order to have everything ready.  That's typical of spaceflight; because of all the coordination you have to do, your technology will be a few years out of date by the time you actually launch.  Can't be helped, for the most part.)  It got noticably better by the later missions, especially once they could bring along more weight.  (The first few LMs had considerably less payload margin.) Of course, most folks think it was even grainier than that; the original newscasts were converted to NTSC via a rather crude technique known as pointing a television camera at the monitor.  If it's not synched up right, this produces some odd effects.  For Apollo 11, it was not synched properly.  They did another, superior transfer to NTSC video later, but some recordings of the original live transfer do survive (Edited to fix formatting: I keep using UBBCode out of sheer habit!)  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

RockyBones · Mar 17, 2008

Wouldn't we still see part of the lander and whatnot on the moon? there is noone that can find the coordinates and get some huge telescope to see what they find. I think they took off, landed, and came back but the signal quality of thier cameras and equipment didn't give them a good shot or maybe didn't work as they expected and had to make false pictures not to lose credibility. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ~SwAvE~ </div>

MeteorWayne · Mar 17, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wouldn't we still see part of the lander and whatnot on the moon? there is noone that can find the coordinates and get some huge telescope to see what they find. I think they took off, landed, and came back but the signal quality of thier cameras and equipment didn't give them a good shot or maybe didn't work as they expected and had to make false pictures not to lose credibility. Posted by RockyBones</DIV>No all remaining pieces are too small to be resolved from earth based telecopes.Perhaps when one of the lunar orbiters coming up in the next few years get there, we MAY be able to spot them.The one thing we know for sure is that the reflectors the astronauts placed there are reflecting lasers back to earth, and have allowed us to investigate the distance to the moon with a precision of a centimeter or less. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

drwayne · Mar 17, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wouldn't we still see part of the lander and whatnot on the moon? there is noone that can find the coordinates and get some huge telescope to see what they find.  Posted by RockyBones</DIV>Welcome to the forum.This question "can't we see the landers with a big telescope/Hubble telescope/spy satellites that is actually not that hard to find the answer to.  If one does a minimum of googling about, one finds that the size required to resolve an object the size of the Apollo hardware is much larger than anything ever built, by a large factor.Try to get in the habit of reaching beyond the "Aha!" moment - when someone tells you something that sounds like a "Gotcha!" - to actually trying to run the argument to ground and see if it is in fact reasonable and true.One other piece of information to keep in mind with respect to the suggestion of using various spy satellites - they are a LOT closer to Earth than they are to the moon.Wayne  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

CalliArcale · Mar 17, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wouldn't we still see part of the lander and whatnot on the moon? there is noone that can find the coordinates and get some huge telescope to see what they find. I think they took off, landed, and came back but the signal quality of thier cameras and equipment didn't give them a good shot or maybe didn't work as they expected and had to make false pictures not to lose credibility. Posted by RockyBones</DIV> Well, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will be able to image the landers; it's the first shot ever to do that.  (Ground-based telescopes are not big enough.  Seriously.  Space is really freakin' huge, and you don't have to go far into it before you become hopelessly tiny by comparison.)  That will be cool.  Also, the Clementine spacecraft imaged some of the landing sites.  Though it lacked the resolution to image the actual landers, it was able to tell that something had disturbed the dust in the vicinity of the landers. NASA didn't have to fake any pictures.  The pictures are genuine.  Seriously.  Now, there *were* missions where the equipment didn't work very well, or even failed altogheter.  For instance, there is no video from Apollo 12, because the camera failed.  NASA made no attempt to fabricate video; they weren't worried about losing credibility.  They had more important things to consider, like actually getting their crews safely back to the Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

why i think the moon landings were a hoax.

cometvomit

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

thejinxkitten

Guest

zarniwoop

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

zarniwoop

Guest

zarniwoop

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

origin

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

Saiph

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

RockyBones

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

drwayne

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page