PDA

View Full Version : The Moon!


Riffage
09-02-2002, 08:51 PM
Having watched a documentary a few days about the whole moon landing along with all the evidence, do you believe the US government? Has man landed on the moon?

Ill start, i do not think that we have been to the moon for a few reasons. 1) The moon has been mapped several times but there is no evidence of thier studies on the moon, eg. the moon buggy was left there, but it cant be seen on any pictures taken. 2) Some film companies have examined the films taken and have come up with some questions, why is it that some of the cameras are in colour and some not, and why are some really grainy and some perfectly clear, speeding the film up to a certain rate shows the astronauts just walking around at normal speed. 3) Apparently due to the physics of the magnetic poles of the earth the radiation produced would virtually kill the astronauts when they returned to earth, 4) When the landing pod lands on the moon dust is only blown up for about 1/2 second and then everything goes clear, the moon lander is then spotless of dust or any particles. 5) When the moon lander blasts off from the moon there is no dust blown up and no scorch marks are left, also it looks like it could be on a bungee cord and how does that camera follow it up away from the surface? 6) All the ststic pictures taken by the astronauts were taken from chest mounted cameras, of which they could not see what they were taking pictures of, just point in the right direction and take a picture, but all the pictures taken are expertly framed, none are off the edge of a picure, always directly in the middle.

So what are your comments, do you believe the US government?

mercatfat
09-02-2002, 09:03 PM
Here's some information on why you're retarded:

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm

Give them a once over.

Riffage
09-02-2002, 09:10 PM
you know the forums are called Discussion right, youve just ended it, kinda defeats the point of me asking for comments. nice avatar btw

mercatfat
09-02-2002, 09:12 PM
It's not worth discussing. The evidence against it being a hoax is overwhelming, as every hoax theory has been debunked by intelligence.

Acrylic
09-02-2002, 10:26 PM
well, mek posted this a long time ago in the escape mi forums, in the harbor, find it and read it

Huz
09-02-2002, 10:57 PM
I saw the same programme Riffage did (see, Channel 5 is good for something!). The most interesting part for me was coming up with rational explanations for the 'anomalies' it put forth. Thanks for the links, merc - I never bothered to read up about it myself, but the info on those pages basically tallied with what I thought. :)

Incidentally, Riffage, I was watching a programme on Bravo yesterday (Monday) putting forward the exact opposite view. They'll probably show it again in the near future, so there you go. Something else to think about.

Dark_Assassin
09-03-2002, 05:10 AM
With the cameras point...

The astronauts (supposedly) used cameras with view screens on the top so that they could see what they were taking photos of.

Also... did you notice that in photos of the moons surface taken by the apollo missions there are no stars.

Strange considering that the moon has no atmosphere and stars should be visible at all times...

Tall Guy
09-03-2002, 09:18 AM
having watched the program i think all the evidence points toward it being hoax...even if nasa do have an answer for everything

DomStLeger
09-03-2002, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Dark_Assassin
With the cameras point...

The astronauts (supposedly) used cameras with view screens on the top so that they could see what they were taking photos of.

Also... did you notice that in photos of the moons surface taken by the apollo missions there are no stars.

Strange considering that the moon has no atmosphere and stars should be visible at all times...

Don't forget, they took the photographs on high quality film but we've only ever seen the photos on TV or in magazines. I bet the high res originals are detailed enough to show stars. Though, the pitures were all taken in sunlight, maybe the light of the sun overwhelms the light of the stars even without atmosphere?

The Adventurer
09-03-2002, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Dark_Assassin
With the cameras point...

The astronauts (supposedly) used cameras with view screens on the top so that they could see what they were taking photos of.

Also... did you notice that in photos of the moons surface taken by the apollo missions there are no stars.

Strange considering that the moon has no atmosphere and stars should be visible at all times...

Its another lighting issue. In daylight on the moon you can't see the stars.

Give it up guys we did land, stop being commies...

scabb
09-03-2002, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Huz
I saw the same programme Riffage did (see, Channel 5 is good for something!). The most interesting part for me was coming up with rational explanations for the 'anomalies' it put forth. Thanks for the links, merc - I never bothered to read up about it myself, but the info on those pages basically tallied with what I thought. :)

Incidentally, Riffage, I was watching a programme on Bravo yesterday (Monday) putting forward the exact opposite view. They'll probably show it again in the near future, so there you go. Something else to think about.

Channel 5 & Bravo! I'm disgusted.

If Wallace & Gromit can go to the moon, so can we.

BooJaka
09-03-2002, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by scabb

If Wallace & Gromit can go to the moon, so can we.

I guess someone had to leave that weird oven-thing up there.

Riffage
09-03-2002, 03:53 PM
see discussion!!! ill look out for the program about it not being a hoax aswell, cheers

Riffage
09-03-2002, 03:59 PM
i still have my doubts, i mean there cant be two identical sets of mountains in two different directions, it just doesnt happen.....

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/mountns1.jpg

i still think that we havnt been, even with all the explanations, why? because they seem to good an explanation.

elTee
09-03-2002, 04:41 PM
I think that the evidence that the photos are fake is there, but I refuse to believe the conspiracy. It would make a mockery of this subject (Space, and astronomy) which I love.
That said, Nasa have made some pretty amateurish errors in the past.

The Adventurer
09-03-2002, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Riffage
i still have my doubts, i mean there cant be two identical sets of mountains in two different directions, it just doesnt happen.....

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/mountns1.jpg

i still think that we havnt been, even with all the explanations, why? because they seem to good an explanation.

Guys did you read the site? The first picture is with the lander in the shot. The second shot is the same shot only PAST the Lander. It is the same moutian range. There so far away they just don't look closer when your past the lander.

See the big black spot on the second image? Thats the landers shadow their standing in.

ptdc
09-03-2002, 04:52 PM
It's hard to get an idea of scale and distance in these pictures, the mountains look like hills, but they are probably VERY big. Therefore it would be hard to detect a small change in the location of the camera.

Drunken_Sailor
09-03-2002, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Riffage
Having watched a documentary a few days about the whole moon landing along with all the evidence, do you believe the US government? Has man landed on the moon?

Ill start, i do not think that we have been to the moon for a few reasons. 1) The moon has been mapped several times but there is no evidence of thier studies on the moon, eg. the moon buggy was left there, but it cant be seen on any pictures taken. 2) Some film companies have examined the films taken and have come up with some questions, why is it that some of the cameras are in colour and some not, and why are some really grainy and some perfectly clear, speeding the film up to a certain rate shows the astronauts just walking around at normal speed. 3) Apparently due to the physics of the magnetic poles of the earth the radiation produced would virtually kill the astronauts when they returned to earth, 4) When the landing pod lands on the moon dust is only blown up for about 1/2 second and then everything goes clear, the moon lander is then spotless of dust or any particles. 5) When the moon lander blasts off from the moon there is no dust blown up and no scorch marks are left, also it looks like it could be on a bungee cord and how does that camera follow it up away from the surface? 6) All the ststic pictures taken by the astronauts were taken from chest mounted cameras, of which they could not see what they were taking pictures of, just point in the right direction and take a picture, but all the pictures taken are expertly framed, none are off the edge of a picure, always directly in the middle.

So what are your comments, do you believe the US government?

The way this argument was presented to begin with
almost sounds like a shop steward filing a grievance for a lost cause at the post office.

Too many telescopes were watching that night when
Neal Armstrong and the crew made its landing back
around '69 and plenty caught reflections of
descent.

There's been too many advances about our study of
the weather and oceans since and too many huge
photos of the
earth from just past the Moon's horizon.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74834

The Adventurer
09-03-2002, 06:13 PM
3) Apparently due to the physics of the magnetic poles of the earth the radiation produced would virtually kill the astronauts when they returned to earth,
that is false

6) All the ststic pictures taken by the astronauts were taken from chest mounted cameras, of which they could not see what they were taking pictures of, just point in the right direction and take a picture, but all the pictures taken are expertly framed, none are off the edge of a picure, always directly in the middle.
There were hundred of "crap" pictures. and because they were crap you never see them.

Hellbeard
09-03-2002, 06:32 PM
I went to the moon once.:D

SamNMax
09-03-2002, 06:52 PM
I think we already did. I think we have (had) the techknolagly to do so.

Riffage
09-03-2002, 08:49 PM
Long Live Communists! ;)

Wossname
09-03-2002, 08:52 PM
Reasons why I think the moon landings were real:

1) A reflector was placed on the moon which has been used by many independant scientists for a variety of experiments.

2) If no-one went to the moon, the russians would have called the Americans on it in a heartbeat. To fool the russians, they basically would have had to send _something_ to the moon, so why not people?

3) Hundreds of thousands of people would have to be in on it. Now, I know the conspiracy-theorists say that only a few people at the top were in on it, but that means that the other 400 thousand people actually _were_ designing and building equipment that _could_ take men to the moon. The contractors knew what their stuff could do. It would have been a terrible waste of money to build a ship that could land on the moon and then not actually do it.

4) None of the objections withstands more than 3 minutes thought, or a simple experiment:
- No Stars: Try looking at the sky on a brightly lit city street and see if you can see stars. It's an issue of contrast, and cameras are much worse than the human eye.
- Mapping the moon: Was at too low a resolution to see the moon buggies. Have you ever seen your car on a weather sattelite picture?
- Some pictures are black and white and some are colour, and some are grainy and some are not: Gee, I've never seen any variation in pictures taken on earth. Remember that the Apollo pictures are taken over the course of 6 different moon landings, and they didn't always take the same equipment along.
- Speeding up the film makes it look like they're walking normally: I have to say that to me it doesn't look normal at all. It looks like sped up film taken in a low-g environment.
- Radiation: Simply false and wrong.
- Moon dust doesn't get everywhere: On earth dust blows about because it's in an atmosphere that's constantly moving. On the moon there is no atmosphere, so dust that's blown up travels in a neat parabolic arc. This is convincing proof to me that the landings were real - what's the conspiracists explanation for this effect?
- No scorch mark: The moon has low gravity, it doesn't take a powerful engine to get off the moon.

Wossname
09-03-2002, 09:28 PM
Reasons why I think the moon landings were real:

1) A reflector was placed on the moon which has been used by many independant scientists for a variety of experiments.

2) If no-one went to the moon, the russians would have called the Americans on it in a heartbeat. To fool the russians, they basically would have had to send _something_ to the moon, so why not people?

3) Hundreds of thousands of people would have to be in on it. Now, I know the conspiracy-theorists say that only a few people at the top were in on it, but that means that the other 400 thousand people actually _were_ designing and building equipment that _could_ take men to the moon. The contractors knew what their stuff could do. It would have been a terrible waste of money to build a ship that could land on the moon and then not actually do it.

The design of the lunar module, for example, can be seen to address real issues regarding visibility out of the windows. It's a bizarre shape that no science fiction writer would ever have come up with. Why bother to spend so much time designing such features if they weren't ever going to be used?

4) None of the objections withstands more than 3 minutes thought, or a simple experiment:
- No Stars: Try looking at the sky on a brightly lit city street and see if you can see stars. It's an issue of contrast, and cameras are much worse than the human eye.
- Mapping the moon: Was at too low a resolution to see the moon buggies. Have you ever seen your car on a weather sattelite picture? My god! You've been lying about having a car!
- Some pictures are black and white and some are colour, and some are grainy and some are not: Gee, I've never seen any variation in pictures taken on earth. Remember that the Apollo pictures are taken over the course of 6 different moon landings, and they didn't always take the same equipment along.
- Speeding up the film makes it look like they're walking normally: I have to say that to me it doesn't look normal at all. It looks like sped up film taken in a low-g environment.
- Radiation: Simply false and wrong.
- Moon dust doesn't get everywhere: On earth dust blows about because it's in an atmosphere that's constantly moving. On the moon there is no atmosphere, so dust that's blown up travels in a neat parabolic arc. This is convincing proof to me that the landings were real - what's the conspiracists explanation for this effect? Incidentally, this effect can be seen very impressively on some of the moon rover movies, where the dust kicked up goes in neat parabolas - how would this special visual effect be achieved in the 1960s/70s? Why would people faking the moon landings remember to achieve such a sophisticated effect which 99% of people wouldn't understand, yet forget to put stars in. Maybe they actually filmed in a vacuum set - oh no, that can't be it, because of the 'waving flag' and the 'people standing in shadows' and all the other crap the conspiracy theorists think proves they weren't in a vacuum.
- No scorch mark: The moon has low gravity, it doesn't take a powerful engine to get off the moon.
- How did the camera follow the lander up: That picture was taken remotely by an operator on earth. It was taken on Apollo 17, and was the last chance to get such a picture. Previous attempts failed because the operator on earth misjudged the delay in the signal.
- All good pictures: A modicum of research would reveal that there are lots of pictures that aren't so great.

5) Basically, in order to make all the 'mistakes' that conspiracy theorist allege (Forgetting to put in stars! Accidentally labelling rocks with letters! Painting crosshairs behind objects instead of in front of them! Somehow deliberately lighting the moon "set" so that shadows go in funny directions), the people making the fake moon landing would have had to be complete and utter morons. I'm not talking about your average Joe Moron here, I'm talking about stupidity on a vast and humungous scale never before encountered outside a school for the mentally handicapped. Forgetting to put in stars?!? They may as well have painted the sky yellow - except that the lack of stars is _correct_!!!

Frankly it's easier for me to believe that human beings are both capable of going to the moon and actually went to the moon than it is for me to believe that stupidity on this level could actually have occurred.

I wrote a story a while back that details in a comedic manner many of the brain-dead decisions that would have had to be made for the conspiracy theory to be true. It's on my website at:
http://www.frabjous.org/writing/moon-hoax.html

6) Inconsistencies in the conspiracy theorists explanations for things: For example there is a 'waving flag' (Which is in fact simply the astronaut jiggling it trying to put it in the ground), which according to the conspiracy explanation is caused by a gust of wind, which implies the hoax filming is taking place outside. But hang on - there _are_ stars in earth's night sky. Where'd they go? The no-stars theory, and the rock-with-a-letter-on theory, imply that the filming was taking place on an inside set, which had a painted backdrop (Which the painters apparently forgot to paint stars on) and 'fake' rocks (Like there aren't enough real rocks that they have to make their own and stamp letters on them). On an interior set, where did the wind which blew the flag come from?

7) In one of the missions, one of the astronauts dropped a hammer and a feather, and they fell to the ground at the same speed. This only happens in a vacuum. (One of the conspiracy theorists claims that this actually happens in earth atmosphere too, more proof that they don't even take basic steps to actually verify that the crap they're spouting is true - how difficult would it be for the guy to find a hammer and a feather and drop them and observe the effects? Try it yourself. Hell, if you can't find a hammer and a feather, try a remote control and a piece of paper)

Hellbeard
09-03-2002, 10:03 PM
Is the Moon Made of Cheese!?

Alien426
09-04-2002, 02:26 AM
Of course! Haven't you seen the historical document "Wallace & Gromit: A Grand Day Out"? Any self respecting person will agree that there's unchallengeable proof in it.

Meksilon
09-04-2002, 05:30 AM
[COLOR=crimson]Originally posted by Riffage
you know the forums are called Discussion right, youve just ended it, kinda defeats the point of me asking for comments. nice avatar btw And as you've discovered explinations are just that. Attempts to explain rationally at all costs.Originally posted by Dark_Assassin
Also... did you notice that in photos of the moons surface taken by the apollo missions there are no stars.

Strange considering that the moon has no atmosphere and stars should be visible at all times... Not true, some photos taken on the moon show up to 4 stars (yes that's right, up to four stars)!Originally posted by The Adventurer
Its another lighting issue. In daylight on the moon you can't see the stars.

Give it up guys we did land, stop being commies... That is a myth, "daylight" or night the stars are still just as bright on the moon because there is no atmosphere.Originally posted by The Adventurer
Guys did you read the site? The first picture is with the lander in the shot. The second shot is the same shot only PAST the Lander. It is the same moutian range. There so far away they just don't look closer when your past the lander.

See the big black spot on the second image? Thats the landers shadow their standing in. We know they are definatly NOT taken at diffrent distances because of the cross hairs we can see the mountains to be almost exactly the same size in each photo. Go and get better resolution pictures you will see that your explination is imposible!

http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/backdrop.jpghttp://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/backdrop1.jpg
And explain this^ while you're at it, because they were both on the rolls of film that the Astronaunts took back with them and the ground in both is clearly identical, but the background is compleatly diffrent!!Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor
Too many telescopes were watching that night when
Neal Armstrong and the crew made its landing back
around '69 and plenty caught reflections of
descent.Reflections of A decent. Watch Capricorn One.Originally posted by The Adventurer
6) All the ststic pictures taken by the astronauts were taken from chest mounted cameras, of which they could not see what they were taking pictures of, just point in the right direction and take a picture, but all the pictures taken are expertly framed, none are off the edge of a picure, always directly in the middle.
There were hundred of "crap" pictures. and because they were crap you never see them.NO, there were NOT! The Astronaunt's each took more then 100 shots on continual rolls of film. The pictures were then made public - ALL the pictures were made public. And they didn't even take two thousand pictures. No pictures were hidden.Originally posted by Wossname
Reasons why I think the moon landings were real:

1) A reflector was placed on the moon which has been used by many independant scientists for a variety of experiments.

TWO DOSEN'T DESERVE AN ANSWER

THREE DOSEN'T DESERVE AN ANSWER EITHER.

QUICK POINT RE:

The design of the lunar module, for example, can be seen to address real issues regarding visibility out of the windows. It's a bizarre shape that no science fiction writer would ever have come up with. Why bother to spend so much time designing such features if they weren't ever going to be used?

THE DESIGNS FOR THE LUNAR MODULE, AND THE ENTIRE APOLLO SPACE CRAFTS HAVE BEEN "LOST".

4) None of the objections withstands more than 3 minutes thought, or a simple experiment:
- No Stars: Try looking at the sky on a brightly lit city street and see if you can see stars. It's an issue of contrast, and cameras are much worse than the human eye.
- Speeding up the film makes it look like they're walking normally: I have to say that to me it doesn't look normal at all. It looks like sped up film taken in a low-g environment.
- No scorch mark: The moon has low gravity, it doesn't take a powerful engine to get off the moon.

5) Basically, in order to make all the 'mistakes' that conspiracy theorist allege (Forgetting to put in stars! Accidentally labelling rocks with letters! Painting crosshairs behind objects instead of in front of them! Somehow deliberately lighting the moon "set" so that shadows go in funny directions), the people making the fake moon landing would have had to be complete and utter morons. I'm not talking about your average Joe Moron here, I'm talking about stupidity on a vast and humungous scale never before encountered outside a school for the mentally handicapped. Forgetting to put in stars?!? They may as well have painted the sky yellow - except that the lack of stars is _correct_!!!

http://www.frabjous.org/writing/moon-hoax.html

6) Inconsistencies in the conspiracy theorists explanations for things...

7) In one of the missions, one of the astronauts dropped a hammer and a feather, and they fell to the ground at the same speed. This only happens in a vacuum. (One of the conspiracy theorists claims that this actually happens in earth atmosphere too, more proof that they don't even take basic steps to actually verify that the crap they're spouting is true - how difficult would it be for the guy to find a hammer and a feather and drop them and observe the effects? Try it yourself. Hell, if you can't find a hammer and a feather, try a remote control and a piece of paper) 1. Reflectors can easily be placed by an unmaned probe, or you just make the probe reflective!

4:
No Stars? Why are there 1, 2, 3 or 4 stars in some photos then?
BTW: NO PHOTOS ARE BLACK AND WHITE!!
Speeding Up: You're forgetting that the dust kicked up by the astronaunts shoes and the buggie falls at the speed it would on earth when the speed is doubled. The dust should still be falling 3 times slower then earth, even in double speed because the moon has 1/6th out gravity.
Scorch mark?!?! Maybe you're refering to the non-existant blast crater. What is interesting is that a flame would not be visible on the moon because it is a vacume. However the Apollo 16 take off - unlike all other apollo take offs - shows us a flame. That is IMPOSIBLE. IMPOSIBLE. There is absolutly NO WAY that could possibly happen!!!!

5. I have made no mention of sketchy information such as cross-hairs or the letter C (it is important to note though that NASA did touch that photo up now and removed the C... why?)

As for your comments on the shadows....

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/goodphoto.gif

EXPLAIN how THAT image came from the moon without any artificial lighting!!

1. I see a spotlight
2. I see shoadows going in to the spotlight

6. You should be more worried about NASA's inconsistancys!

AND NUMBER SEVEN, YOU ARE COMPLEATLY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That feather and hammer experiment HAS been done by an independent group of people ON EARTH WITHOUT A VACUME, AND it was FILMED!!!!!

When I get beleivable explinations for the photos in this post I may give you some credit. But I know you can't offer me them because they are both imposible!

=mek=

*Offensive comment edited out by bgbennyboy*

Drunken_Sailor
09-04-2002, 06:24 AM
Iīm not going deep into this again.

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

http://astronomylinks.com/satellites_and_missions/moon/landing_conspiracy/

http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm

http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/motives.htm

http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/debunking.htm

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

http://www.nasastooge.fsnet.co.uk/

http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/expmoon/apollo_landings.html

http://www.nasm.edu/apollo/apollotop10.htm

http://www.clavius.org/

http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/strangeshadows.html

http://www.the-indigestible.com/specials/moon.htm

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/moon_hoax.html

Alien426
09-04-2002, 08:06 AM
The spot comes from the dish. It's not one made out of plastic like you have at home, it's a foldable reticule and therefore translucent. You can see the tripod legs' shadows go into the spot.

Riffage
09-04-2002, 08:50 AM
aww come on go deeper into the subject and make this the longest thread ever, you know that post from Meksilon is probably the longest post on a forums i have ever seen that isnt spam!

Here have a free atom!


Try looking at the sky on a brightly lit city street and see if you can see stars. It's an issue of contrast, and cameras are much worse than the human eye. this is complete bull, you cant see stars from a lit city because of light pollution, the light from the city illuminates up and blocks out the stars because the lights are brighter than they are.

Swordmaster
09-04-2002, 09:22 AM
Next: a Fox documentary claiming that the alleged holocaust never took place?

Huz
09-04-2002, 10:24 AM
There was a pretty good documentary on Channel 4 last night, about some French bloke who thought that the World Trade Center and Pentagon planes were, respectively, remote controlled and a cunning-disguised cruise missile, all flown by the US government.

Apparently his book is selling rather well. Just goes to show, eh? :)

Alien426
09-04-2002, 11:30 AM
I don't get it. You crash planes into skyscrapers and thereby kill thousands, yet you remote control the plane so no pilot gets killed? What about the cell phone calls from aboard?

That's just about enough conspiracy theories for me, thankyouverymuch.

MrManager
09-04-2002, 11:46 AM
Heh, yes, anybody who takes a Fox "documentary" like this seriously needs to get their head examined. They probably watch "Pulse" also.

ptdc
09-04-2002, 01:39 PM
99.999999... % of conspiracy theories are absolute crap, such as this one. The trouble is that because most of them are crap the one theory that might be true is dismissed as crap.

scabb
09-04-2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by PTDC
99.999999... % of conspiracy theories are absolute crap, such as this one. The trouble is that because most of them are crap the one theory that might be true is dismissed as crap.

So you're conspiring against conspiracy theories?
That means that theory is a conspiracy theory.

* scabb dismisses PTDC's theory as crap.

Drunken_Sailor
09-04-2002, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Riffage
1) The moon has been mapped several times but there is no evidence of thier studies on the moon, eg. the moon buggy was left there, but it cant be seen on any pictures taken.


You must remember those veicles were really cuite small. Youīd need at least resolution with each pixel covering a meter square of ground. Theyīd be invisible on any resolution inferior to that

Originally posted by Riffage
why is it that some of the cameras are in colour and some not, and why are some really grainy and some perfectly clear

They had different cameras, i.e. the handheld ones and some video cameras that had been attached externally so that they could f.e. take external pictures of the Astronautīs initial descend to ground f.e.

Moreover, the quality of the images being transmitted to ground could wary simply because of the variable athmospheric conditions. After all our athmosphere is a dynamic system, not stable, and the planet was also rotating all of the time. Therefore the transmission would be pashing through ahtmospheric conditions that would have waried from minute to minute.

Originally posted by Riffage
3) Apparently due to the physics of the magnetic poles of the earth the radiation produced would virtually kill the astronauts when they returned to earth

Sorry, but actually the radiation inside the Earthīs magnetic field is considerd relativelly benign, i.e. relativelly a low energy particle radiation. Therefore a metal sheat no thicker than a few millimeters actually does usually suffice as a shield. [One consideration is that the radiation inside the Earthīs manetic field does vary from time to time, i.e. a dynamic system. An increased solar activity, i.e. a sun storm f.e., does raise the charge levels. Therefore there can come periods when the radiation becomes a danger for astronauts. However after a while the charge does fade again down to normal. So timing is important. You donīt want to be in space during an active sun cycle. During the 60s and 70s the sun was still in a low activity cycle] A spacecraft inside it doesnīt encounter comsic rayes, as the magnetic field acts as a shield against them. Outside the magnetic field thatīs though a different matter. However, usually an astronaut pashing through space does not even so get a dangerous radiation dosage as long as his spacetrip does not exceed from few weeks to few moths in length. The trips to the Moon and back all were short enough in duration so that the absence of cancer is not a surprice.

Originally posted by Riffage
4) When the landing pod lands on the moon dust is only blown up for about 1/2 second and then everything goes clear, the moon lander is then spotless of dust or any particles

Thatīs exactly how dust behaves on the Moon. Actually this is exactly a proof that these pictures were taken on the Moon and nowere ellse.

Originally posted by Riffage
When the moon lander blasts off from the moon there is no dust blown up and no scorch marks are left

No surprice there. You still are descriping it as it ought to be.

You are forgetting that it was only the upper part of the lander, i.e. the ascent stage, which arose. The rocket it was using was small and itīs small blast did not touch the surfece.

Originally posted by Riffage
how does that camera follow it up away from the surface

They had left a camera on the surface to picture the ascent.

Originally posted by Riffage
of which they could not see what they were taking pictures of.

Obviously itīs incorrect that they didnīt see what they were picturing

Originally posted by Riffage
there are no stars.

Exposure time, exposure time. The Moon surface is relativelly bright. Therefore when you are taking pictures of the surface, you choose a short exposure time meaning relativelly faint objects like stars fade into the background and the foreground does not get glaringly bright in the pictures taken.

So if theyīd want to take pictures of stars theyīd have had to have chosen a longer exposure time and to have fased the camera away from the surface altogether.

You can try this your self on your camera here on ground. Try first to take pictures fasing into the sun. Notice how all other objects than the sun in the picture become very dark, because your camera has automaticly chosen a very short exposure time. Now turn your camera away from the sun, take another picture, and notice now how the background objects become so much brighter. The difference with taking pictures of stars is that those objects are much fainter relativelly speaking, so the difference in exposure time alters wether they are seen at all or not.


Originally posted by Riffage
I still have my doubts, I mean there can't be two identical sets of mountains in two different directions, it just doesn't happen..

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/mountns1.jpg

Sorry, LOL, but now your scepticism really has gone into overdrive. Quite obviously the one picture is taken with the lander in the foreground. The second is taken after the astronaut has walked a fair distance and now the lander is invisble for the camea behind his back. Notice that he is standing in the shadow of the lander when he is taking that second picture. The mountains look unchanged as they are still a fair distance away.

Originally posted by Meksilon
but the background is compleatly diffrent!..

No, itīs the very same mountain in both pictures. They simply arenīt taken from preciselly the same spot, i.e. the astronaut took a picture, took a step forward, took another picture.

In [http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/backdrop1.jpg] the astronaut who took the picture is obviously standing at a slightly higher spot and taking the picture at a slightly different angle than when he took picture [http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/backdrop.jpg].

Originally posted by Meksilon
You're forgetting that the dust kicked up by the astronaunts shoes and the buggie falls at the speed it would on earth when the speed is doubled. The dust should still be falling 3 times slower then earth, even in double speed because the moon has 1/6th Earth's gravity!..

Rubbish, you are forgetting that dust actually falls a lot slower on Earth than on the Moon, because the Earth has athmosphere and the Moon has not. The precense of atmosphere quite owerwhelms the difference in theyr behavior that ought to have been caused by gravity. Your statement would be true if the Moon had an athmosphere which moreover would be equally thick as on the Earth. You see dust particles are carried by air. Without air theyīd just fall down immediatelly like a rock like they do on the Moon.

Originally posted by Meksilon
There is absolutly NO WAY that could possibly happen!!..

Depends on the type of rocket fuel. A litle bit of flame might be seen when f.e. using the combination of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen as fuel potentially creating a real fier even in vacume.

Originally posted by Meksilon
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/goodphoto.gif

EXPLAIN how THAT image came from the moon without any artificial lighting!!..

Sorry, but I see nothing out of the ordinary.

There are at least three light sources on the Moon which are of natural origin, i.e. the sun, the Earth and the reflected light from the Moon surface itself. If you think you are seing light from two different directions, then those two light sources are with a high probability the Sun, the brighter one, and the Earth, the less bright light coming from the other direction.

Originally posted by Meksilon
That feather and hammer experiment HAS been done by an independent group of people ON EARTH WITHOUT A VACUME, AND it was FILMED!!!..

Sorry, but in athmosphere a feather and a hammer fall at a very different rate. Thatīs quite elementary.

Anyone claiming different is lying outright, emplying some trick to make it look he is right. However inside a vacume chamber, thatīs a different matter.

Hellbeard
09-04-2002, 05:19 PM
Is the Moon Big!?

The Adventurer
09-04-2002, 05:53 PM
Hellbeard your spaming is not apresiated. *points to the General Discussion hub* Get thee out.

Hellbeard
09-04-2002, 07:14 PM
I'm just showing how much i care!

elTee
09-04-2002, 07:16 PM
Hey, Hellbeard, keep 'em coming!
Drunken_Sailor is absolutely correct. The only reason things fall at different rates on the Earth is because of the atmosphere. The only thing that makes anything fall at all is Gravity, which is at a rate of roughly 9ms on the Earth, and roughly 1.6ms on the moon. This is also known as "acceleration due to gravity" - ie, if you drop an object this is how fast it will fall as a result of the gravitational pull. The gravitational pull is in turn dependant on the mass of the object at the centre of the field - and this also explains the escape velocity. As the moon is smaller in mass than the Earth, and thus has a less powerful gravitational pull, its escape velocity is significantly less than the Earths. Also, a smaller hight is required to achieve orbit. It would be possible to escape the moon with a long ladder, if need be.
Basically, to those who don't study physics this means that the moon is very different to the earth - not that the laws of physics are different, just more... well, pure, if you follow. There is less interference, so although things are different (such as weight) that doesn't mean that they don't obey the laws of physics.
The main reason I think that NASA wouldn't fake the photos is because eventually they will be caught out if they did. I mean, they'd lose a hell of a lot of respect - America would, really.
Try checking out all the films made at the time about the apollo missions. Most of them can be found as extra's on the DVD version of The Dish.
That radiation that riffage mentioned - the Van Allen belt - this is interesting. Check this out:
Van Allen Belt (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970228a.html)

Hellbeard
09-04-2002, 07:29 PM
When I grow up I'm going to blow up the Moon!

*evil laugh*

elTee
09-04-2002, 07:51 PM
Ah, c'mon man! That was piss-poor. I prefered it when you pleaded ignorance to our natural satellite.

Riffage
09-04-2002, 08:45 PM
Hm just had a thought, if it was faked they think it was at Area 51.....

BUT...

what if area 51 was the moon! ahh HA now your stumped..... sort of

Meksilon
09-04-2002, 10:02 PM
Drunken_Sailor. please, please stop you're killing me!
Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor
Rubbish, you are forgetting that dust actually falls a lot slower on Earth than on the Moon, because the Earth has athmosphere and the Moon has not. The precense of atmosphere quite owerwhelms the difference in theyr behavior that ought to have been caused by gravity. Your statement would be true if the Moon had an athmosphere which moreover would be equally thick as on the Earth. You see dust particles are carried by air. Without air theyīd just fall down immediatelly like a rock like they do on the Moon. Complete nonsence - go in the desert and kick up some dust. And then watch it fall. Air resistance makes almost no diffrence except to the small fraction which might be dust dust and carried away. But the rest is there.Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor
Depends on the type of rocket fuel. A litle bit of flame might be seen when f.e. using the combination of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen as fuel potentially creating a real fier even in vacume. what a poor understanding you have.Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor
Sorry, but I see nothing out of the ordinary.

There are at least three light sources on the Moon which are of natural origin, i.e. the sun, the Earth and the reflected light from the Moon surface itself. If you think you are seing light from two different directions, then those two light sources are with a high probability the Sun, the brighter one, and the Earth, the less bright light coming from the other direction. If anything that makes TWO light sources - the Sun and the Earth. However if this wall really the case all the objects would have 2 shaddows, each going in parallel to the other shadows. OR the earth's shadows would be washed out by the sun's light. In this case everyone has one shadow which is in parallel.Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor
Sorry, but in athmosphere a feather and a hammer fall at a very different rate. Thatīs quite elementary.

Anyone claiming different is lying outright, emplying some trick to make it look he is right. However inside a vacume chamber, thatīs a different matter. Oh really, you think it can't be done... Click Here (http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/feather.rm) or buy the 'What happened on our Moon?' video.

I will also repeate this point: The Van Allen radiation belt was told to be much smaller then previously thought when NASA's Apollo spacecraft went through. A few years later CNN reports that it has been discovered the Van Allen Radiation belts are much thicker then previously thought. Moreso no spacecraft (except the Apollos) has ever "gone through" these belts. The crew of a Space Shuttle who approached the belt but remained a very fair distance away reported that they could see the radiation with their eyes closed. Now we sent 6 apollo missions to the moon (and apollo 13 went through the belt too) - but none of the crew bothered reporting about how they could see the radiation with their eyes closed, in fact they couldn't even tell it's thickness even though they were proceeding through it.

=mek=

mercatfat
09-04-2002, 10:29 PM
Soak your head, dammit. The moon's physics are way different.

Hellbeard
09-04-2002, 10:39 PM
I a tree falls on the moon and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound!?

mercatfat
09-04-2002, 11:03 PM
If someone punched you in the nose really, really hard, would anyone care?

Alien426
09-05-2002, 03:07 AM
Hellbeard: You don't happen to be dry or melon from the older LucasFans forum? Thanks for the loosening remarks between those long, long, long posts. They are appreciated.

No, the tree (imported from earth) doesn't make a sound. Even if there was someone there, they wouldn't hear it because Houston is babbling on the radio. Ha!

Quotes: Puhleaze don't over-use them! scabb is one of the persons who is known to quote his predecessors regularly. That's not necessary! Just POST REPLY!

Drunken_Sailor
09-05-2002, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Meksilon
Complete nonsence - go in the desert and kick up some dust. And then watch it fall. Air resistance makes almost no diffrence except to the small fraction which might be dust dust and carried away. But the rest is there

Ow, ow, ow...not really. Moon dust is very fine grained, so it will not behave like sand particles but like dust particles in the air. On the Moon particles fall right down no matter how small because there is no air. You can see that when you watch the Moon rover roving about :)


Originally posted by Meksilon
what a poor understanding you have

Well, oxygen in our athmosphere is what causes things to burn, i.e. to combine with oxygen. As there is no air in vacume things canīt burn unless you bring oxygen with you. If your rocket is using the combination of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen there might conceivably be a litle flame in the exhaust in case the burn was imperfect and there is a litle bit of oxygen and hydrogen mixed with the exhaust particles. Anyhow, any rocket exhaust will seem to glow a litle in vacume simply because itīs hot, not that there is any flame probably in most cases.

Originally posted by Meksilon
If anything that makes TWO light sources - the Sun and the Earth. However if this was really the case all the objects would have 2 shadows, each going in parallel to the other shadows. OR the earth's shadows would be washed out by the sun's light. In this case everyone has one shadow which is in parallel

One light source can be directly overhead so that the shadow is constantly under your feet. Earth light is much fainter, but the Earth is much closer.

What it probably means is that youīll not seing double shadows, as Earth light is not strong but still everyhere. What it will mean is that the shadows will be lit by Earth light and therefore not very dark like they ellse ought to be if the Sun were the only light source.

Originally posted by Meksilon
In this case everyone has one shadow which is in parallel

Incorrect. Thatīs only true if the ground is completelly level and all the objects are fairly close by. On uneven ground and given different distances, well see:

http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/strangeshadows.html

http://www.the-indigestible.com/specials/moon.htm

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth....If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don't take my word for it, go out and try!

Originally posted by Meksilon
Oh really, you think it can't be done... Click Here or buy the 'What happened on our Moon?' video

Sorry, had difficulty with your file. But it could really only be done through some trickery.

Originally posted by Meksilon
A few years later CNN reports that it has been discovered the Van Allen Radiation belts are much thicker then previously thought

See, Van Allen Belts:
http://www.lbl.gov/Education/CSEE/cup/Su00/Bailey/radeffectswebpage1.html

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wenpart1.html

10-100 Mev
Typical proton energies in the inner radiation belt."

"10-15,000 Mev [mega electron volt]
Range of energies in solar outbursts (see Sun)."

"1-100,000,000,000 Gev [giga electron volt]
Range of energies among cosmic ray ions. However as their energy goes up, their intensity goes way down, so that ions at the high energy end are quite rare."

As you can see, radiation inside the so called radiation belt is a lot more benign than radiation coming from cosmic rays and the sun during a stormy period.

http://srhp.jsc.nasa.gov/Newsletter/Volume1-2/Index.html
[you can read here about radiation risk projections for a trip to the Mars]


Originally posted by Meksilon
none of the crew bothered reporting about how they could see the radiation with their eyes closed

Ha, well you think so:
http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/30may01/pdf/ast30may_1.pdf
[When Apollo astronauts were traveling
to the Moon, they occasionally saw flashes of light inside their eyes . ... ]

http://www.geocities.com/beyondearth2/view38.htm
[When Apollo astronauts were traveling to the Moon, they occasionally saw flashes of light inside their eyes. It was a sign that high-energy cosmic rays were coursing through their bodies. Fortunately, the dose of such radiation during a round trip to the Moon was not enough to cause health problems. No one was harmed.]

Originally posted by Meksilon
in fact they couldn't even tell it's thickness even though they were proceeding through it..

What do you think it is, a clout of thick gue?

Its quite invisible thank you.

Hellbeard
09-05-2002, 04:52 PM
How many roles of toilet paper would it take to go across the moon!?

Drunken_Sailor
09-05-2002, 05:21 PM
The only mystery about the Moon landings is why these people believe it was a hoax, but I really shouldn't be so surprised, some people even believe the Earth is flat. I can only assume though it is because they saw the TV program "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" It was shown In the States in February 2001 and later in the UK. The program points out 'errors' in the photographs, that there are no stars visible, that the flag waves in the 'breeze', and a host of other detail.

However, the manner in which the so called 'facts' were presented by the programme to support the hoax theory were so biased, unscientific and totally inaccurate, as to be laughable, and believing them makes as much sense as reading a comic to gain information on D.I.Y. brain surgery. This was just a run -of- the -mill sensationalist TV entertainment programme, the sort of programme that refuses to let the truth get in the way of a good story. Unfortunately though, some people will believe anything that involves a wacky conspiracy theory.

For a full scientific explanation of every so called error claimed by the program, visit the following excellent site:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Photographic evidence.

Let's just take a look at three photographs that demonstrate how these errors arise. I cannot include them all, otherwise this page would take a week to load, but these three silly claims come up time after time.

1) NASA forgot to paint the stars in the sky.

This is a classic, my all time favourite. It is very popular with the hoax believers, but I can't understand why though, it's so easy to prove for yourself. I think it tells us something very important about the way they think.

Look mum! No stars, NASA forgot to paint them in!



http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Buzz%20Aldrin

The real reason is that when contrasted with the brightness of the astronauts and the lunar surface, the stars are just too dim to register on the photographic emulsion of the camera film. If the camera shutter were held open long enough for the stars to register, everything else would be over-exposed into a white featureless glare. You cannot have both visible on the one photograph, so the camera was set for the correct exposure for Buzz Aldrin and the lunar surface, not the stars. When standing on the lunar surface the astronauts could visually observe the stars in the dark sky, just as we can here on Earth. By the same token, if we take a photograph outdoors at night of a brightly illuminated object, our photograph also would not show any stars in the sky.

If it is so easy for hoax believers to spot this 'glaring error' - and let's face it, to forget to put the stars in would have been an incredibly stupid mistake to make - do you honestly believe that not one single person involved in the 'hoax' wouldn't have noticed it either? Or is it just that hoax believers are all just so much smarter then all of them?

Anyway, no need to take my word for it is there, I could be part of the conspiracy according to your way of thinking. Just pop outside one night and try to photograph the stars with a brightly illuminated person in the foreground. Try it, its easy enough to prove without the need of a massive conspiracy theory, just you and a camera is all that is required.

Case closed.

2) The Great Flag Waving in the Breeze hoax.

I just love this one, very nearly as much as the 'no stars ' one. Below is one of the pictures in question.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Moon%20Flag

The flag is held out in the unfurled position by an extendable rod running through the top of the flag, so that it can be viewed unfurled, and you can see the unnatural rigidity this gives to the top of the flag in the picture. The rod creates the effect of a breeze blowing the flag into that position. Without the supporting rod the flag would just hang limply down and would not reveal the stars and stripes. Flags are designed to be blown into position by the wind on Earth, so the support was added to replicate this, as there is no atmosphere on the Moon. The rod is not extended the full width of the flag and it looks like a breeze is causing a ripple in the flag.

It has also been claimed that some video clips show the flag waving in the breeze when it was planted. Not so. The movement of the flag is because when astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil. Without an atmosphere it takes a while for this movement to damp down.

Do you really think that an errant breeze blowing through the set causing the flag to wave in what was supposed to be a total vacuum would not have been noticed? Such an obvious fact could not escape the notice of an entire film crew, besides which they would surely have called upon the services of experts to oversee operations to guard against this very sort of 'error'. They would simply have done another take.

Case closed.

3) The cross hairs have been added after and go behind some objects

I must admit to being rather fond of this one as well, as it is such a totally pointless 'hoax' that I fail to understand why anyone can believe it was actually done. The most foolish aspect of this claim is that if the cross hairs were added after, how can they possibly be overlaid on the photo and appear behind some of the objects in the photo? Hoax believers are defeating their own argument with this one!

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Cross%20Hairs

The explanation:Extract from Moon Hoax Under the section 'Photography and Film'.

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

"The cross hairs on this photograph appear to go behind the objects in the photograph. Does this suggest that the photograph is a faked 'pasted-together' image? (The cross hairs are included as an aid to judging scale.)"

The cross hairs on the photographs were produced by a glass plate within the camera, between the lens and film. They result in a black cross on the film because they block the light from reaching the film directly below them. If, however, you are taking a photograph of a really bright white object, the over-exposed part of the film 'bleeds' into other parts of the film. This is particularly the case if the adjacent part of the film is black. This is exactly what is happening where the cross hair meets a bright, reflective part of the photograph. It occurs in a number of the Apollo photographs, but you only see it where the cross hairs seem to disappear behind a bright white part. You never see it happening anywhere else."

Why do you think NASA would want to add the cross hairs after? If they had somehow changed cameras and forgot to insert the etched glass plate that produces the cross hairs, they would have just ditched the photographs, not gone to the trouble of faking them in afterwards. It would be a hell of a lot easier just to do a re-take if the photographs were considered to be important enough. The photograph shown here can hardly be considered to be in that category, its about as mundane as they come, so why fake it?

Case closed.

'Wrong' shadows. "

This is a general category and covers many photographs based on the shadows being 'wrong'.

This is a good one as well. It shows how easy it is to make wrong assumptions when looking at a 'problem' with tunnel vision instead of trying to understand what is really going on from a scientific point of view. This I feel is a concept that must be alien to Moon hoax believers.

Lots of the hoax claims rest on the belief that the shadows shown in the photographs are somehow wrong, that they indicate more than one light source because the object shown is illuminated from the front and the sides, and so on. This leads them to believe it is due to lighting mistakes on a film set.

The simple fact is that there IS more than one light source. The light does not come directly from the Sun and illuminate only the one object in question, as a narrow beam spotlight would in a dark room. It shines on the entire 'daytime' surface, just as it does here on Earth. Therefore it also illuminates the surface, the astronauts themselves, rocks, mountains, the Lander and all the other objects on the surface. The reflections from these various objects is why there is more than one light source, it is not because there was more than one spotlight used on a film set. It is also worth noting that on the lunar surface the reflected sunlight from the Earth is 68% brighter than that of the full Moon as seen from Earth.

You must visit this site, its very good:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm

It shows some of the photos in question with alongside little models of the scene appropriately illuminated. It is an ingenious and foolproof way of silencing the critics. Do check it out, its great, and worth a visit just to see the little models. Here is a sample from the site.


http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Moon%20shadows

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Moon%20shadows

The model on the left replicates a photo that hoax believers show how NASA got it wrong. They claim the astronaut standing in the shadow of the lander should not be illuminated, but should also be in shadow. The model on the right shows that it is the reflected light from the surface that is illuminating the astronaut, by placing a dark sheet of paper over the surface to reduce the reflection. There is nothing wrong with the photo, its just showing it how it is, the astronaut being lit by surface reflection, which is a lot brighter than the surface of the Earth. It is not because they used too many spotlights in a film set.

Case closed.

So there you have it, the most commonly believed hoaxes shown not to be.

Personally I find the most surprising thing about the whole business is that hoax believers think that NASA, armed with a budget of billions of dollars and the best experts in the world, could make so many incredibly stupid errors that even the most novice, untrained, inexperienced amateur can spot them easily.

I think that basically, this is what this is all about. Hoax believers consider themselves to be very smart and all the experts at NASA incredibly stupid. This is the same hoax believers that didn't even think to try to photograph the stars themselves, because they just know its a hoax, no need to test it, they saw it on the internet. Oh yes, very smart.

All the other 'fake' photographs are explained just as easily with a little knowledge, and an understanding of how conditions on the Moon are very different to those here. With no atmosphere to scatter the light, things look a little odd on the Moon, we have a very black sky and a very bright surface. We see strong shadows everywhere, and our sense of distance is also fooled because there is no atmosphere to produce the familiar atmospheric haze that creates a distance perspective on Earth. Furthermore, with the gravity being only a sixth of Earth's gravity, things move and behave differently as well. It's hard to make straight comparisons, because we cannot, the Moon is just not like the Earth. We have to think differently when interpreting the images from the Moon, and that's what causes the problems, people are not allowing for those differences when looking at the lunar photographs. They are looking at them as if they were taken under normal Earth conditions, and concluding wrongly that there must be something wrong with the photographs. There isn't!

Scientific Errors

It isn't just the photographs that have misled the hoax believers either, it's also a lack of scientific knowledge. It's difficult to select a favourite hoax that makes the most ridiculous claim, because there are so many to choose from, but personally I think this has to be number one, its a beaut! I just love it to pieces.

The Moon rocks are just Earth rocks.

Here's the explanation of why they can't be Earth rocks. Extract taken from The Great Moon Hoax:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

"Moon rocks are absolutely unique," says Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). McKay is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "They differ from Earth rocks in many respects," he added. Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. "There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don't normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays," says McKay. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere.

Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies. Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one."

"I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."

Another popular hoax theory, this time sounding more plausible than usual because it is difficult to verify without a very good understanding of the nature of particles and their effect on the human body.

Astronauts could not survive passage through the Van Allen radiation belt.

As this is a very complex subject I have wisely decided against attempting to summarise it here. You can either take my word for it that all the astronauts travelled through it with no apparent ill effects, or go to this site and study the full technical and scientific explanation yourself.

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

It explains in great detail why the hoax believers have got it all wrong (as usual) and shows scientifically calculated radiation dosage levels that the crews would have been exposed to. If you happen to be smart enough you can check the figures yourself. The site explains that it is possible that some of the astronauts may possibly develop cancer because of this exposure, but so far the group have not developed cancer at any significant level different to that of any other group of normal Earth-bound people. They certainly managed to survive the round trip to the Moon in good health. The Moon hoax believers however, believe that in order to survive, the astronauts would have required lead shielding ranging from 4 to 6 feet thick depending on which hoax site you happen to prefer.

As this is a hard one to prove or disprove because of the mathematics and knowledge of particle physics involved, most of us are at the mercy of others. So do your own research if you are unhappy about this issue, but just be careful to ensure that the source is acknowledged as a creditable. Select your sources carefully! For example, having to decide which view is correct here, would it be from someone who makes a living selling second hand cars, or an acknowledged expert in the field of astro-physics? Who's opinion would you logically accept? We do accept things on trust, we do it all the time. Do you not accept the fact that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth? Why do you accept it?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Why doesn't the Hubble Space Telescope provide proof?

This argument runs along the lines that as the HST can provide images of galaxies millions of light years away, why can't it provide images of a lander on the Moon, which is on our door step?

Bit of a funny question really, anyone with normal eyesight can see the Andromeda Spiral Galaxy easily with the naked eye, and that's over 2 million light years away! As an amateur astronomer of some 4 years standing I have always understood why the HST could not provide images of the lunar landers on the surface of the Moon, but to get the correct figures I checked out the HST site at Hubble Space Telescope

http://hubble.stsci.edu/

Its all down to the size of Hubble's main mirror, which is 2.4 metres. One of the factors of the worth of a telescope is its resolution, the smallest amount of detail it can see, and this depends on the size and quality of the mirror. Hubble's resolution is an amazing 0.05 arc seconds. This is how I calculate the minimum size object that HST can image on the Moon, in as simple a way as I could devise.

Visual maximum diameter of full Moon = 31'40" = 1900 arc seconds (a fraction over 1/2 a degree)

HST resolution = 0.05 arc seconds

Therefore HST can resolve an object on the Moon of (1900 divided by 0.05 ) = 1/38,000th of the Moon's diameter

Actual diameter of Moon = 3476 km

Therefore resolvable object size = 3476 km divided by 38,000 = 91 metres

As the landers can only be around 10 metres across at the very most, it is not possible for the HST to resolve them, they just wouldn't show up on any image of the area under examination. I emailed the HST site to make sure I had got my sums right, explaining why I needed it for this site, and their reply was as follows:

"You are correct. Hubble's resolution is good and can resolve objects and areas as small as 280 feet, (86 meters) which rules out the Apollo debris on the moon. Hope this helps!"

Yes it does! Thanks to the HST Office of Public Outreach.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Copernicus

HST maximum detail image of the 58 mile wide crater Copernicus. Imagine trying to see a lander!

Anyway, what would be the point even if the HST were able to image the landers? The good old Moon hoax believers would only claim the images were faked.

Enough of scientific errors, I cannot answer them all here, it would take a book, but a little research will always reveal that the hoaxers have got it wrong every time.

If you wish to check out further sites that debunk the Moon hoax theory, this one is very good on facts, with clear easy to follow explanations, with a host of photographs, and offers a good choice of further sites.The Moon landings were not faked

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked

I think that's enough for now. It's all down to a poor understanding of physics, photography and science, sounding just plausible enough to convince others who also have only a limited knowledge in these subjects. Ask any photographer about photographing the stars, they will understand at once why they do not appear in the dark sky. Look back through any old photographs you have taken outdoors at night, you will not see a single star in any of them. It would only take a few seconds for you pop outdoors one night and prove it for yourself.

What do I think?

The Apollo missions landed 12 men on the Moon, no doubt about it. The so called 'fake' photographs are not fakes, it's just some people's mistaken interpretation of them that is the problem, the photographs themselves contain no problems. The Apollo crews did leave Earth orbit and did survive the Van Allen radiation belt. If you think you still have any problems remaining, then a visit to the sites I have put in links to should dispel them.

As a matter of interest, if you believe otherwise, how do you explain the Moon rock samples held in laboratories throughout the world? As explained above, they REALLY ARE Moon rocks, and cannot possibly be Earth rocks that have been faked.

You could, I suppose, argue that every laboratory, university, research centre, geological institution, professional scientist, etc, throughout the world that has examined the Moon rocks, are so incredibly stupid that they have failed to spot that they are really only faked up Earth rocks? (This is ignoring the fact that they cannot be faked anyway). Or perhaps you prefer the good old standby that it is all part of a world wide conspiracy. (No, you're not paranoid, they really are all conspiring against you).

Or perhaps instead you think that a probe was sent to the Moon to bring back the Moon rocks? Well yes, that is possible, sort of, but not on this scale. Three robotic Soviet Lunar probes returned a total of about 3/4 lb. (301 grams) from three lunar sites in the 1970's. However, the Apollo crews from 1969 to 1972 collected a total 840 lbs, (382 kgs.) of rock and other surface material. One rock alone weighed 25 lbs. (11.7 kgs.) In comparison to the Apollo total of 840 lbs. the Soviet total of 3/4 lbs. is miniscule. Probes simply could not have returned that much material, (especially a single rock weighing 25 lbs.) and if they could have, it would have been the Soviets that achieved it as they were always way ahead in the field of robotic probes.

Do you really think that all those people spread across the globe and tuning into the broadcasts from the Moon, both professional and amateur alike, were unable to tell the difference in the signal from one based in Earth orbit to one 240,000 miles away? The transmissions could not be 'altered' to give that effect. I have received emails suggesting that this was if fact what happened, that the signals were 'faked' to make it appear that they came from the Moon. However, this could not be accomplished even today, let alone back in 1969.

Do you think Apollo 13 was just for fun, why fake that? You think every single one of the thousands of photographs was faked? All the video was faked? Think just how many people would have to be involved in the cover-up, and they all kept quiet? Really!

Whatever arguments are presented claiming the Moon landings never happened, the fact is they did.

I have even been emailed to have it pointed out to me that as the 'Apollo 13' film was made in Hollywood, so could the Moon landings have been made in the Nevada Desert. This theory also clearly demonstrates that the 'Titanic' may not really have sunk either! Just how bad can some people's reasoning get? How on Earth do you begin to reply to this type of nonsense? I sometimes just despair at some people's mentality.

However, in reply to the person who emailed me to ask why I am so sure that the Earth is not flat, the answer is very simple. If it were flat then I'm sure that you would have been the first to fall off.

bgbennyboy
09-05-2002, 07:48 PM
Thats the second biggest.........no wait that IS the biggest post ive ever seen.

Monkeysee
09-05-2002, 10:48 PM
Does it really matter I mean nowadays people are like "...oh wow it's... it's the moon. pretty cool that's neat. Hey look they are seving Tacos at lunch today All Right!

(hellbeard is that single or double ply?)

Hellbeard
09-05-2002, 11:10 PM
Single Ply!

(Does he really expect us to read all of that!?)

Meksilon
09-06-2002, 03:16 AM
Okay, number 1 Drunken_Sailor, this has nothing to do with the TV program. We have in fact discussed further evidence and taken a deeper look rather then cry about crosshairs (which can disappear).1) NASA forgot to paint the stars in the sky.

The real reason is that when contrasted with the brightness of the astronauts and the lunar surface, the stars are just too dim to register on the photographic emulsion of the camera film. If the camera shutter were held open long enough for the stars to register, everything else would be over-exposed into a white featureless glare. You cannot have both visible on the one photograph, so the camera was set for the correct exposure for Buzz Aldrin and the lunar surface, not the stars.You have forgotten that SOME photos taken on the moon have one, two or even three stars in them (never any more then 4). How is THAT possible? Case closed? HAHAHAHA.2) The Great Flag Waving in the Breeze hoax.

I just love this one, very nearly as much as the 'no stars ' one. Below is one of the pictures in question.

...

Case closed.Perhapps you haven't seen how much it flutters? It is questionable.3) The cross hairs have been added after and go behind some objects

I must admit to being rather fond of this one as well, as it is such a totally pointless 'hoax' that I fail to understand why anyone can believe it was actually done. The most foolish aspect of this claim is that if the cross hairs were added after, how can they possibly be overlaid on the photo and appear behind some of the objects in the photo? Hoax believers are defeating their own argument with this one!

...

Case closed.Again, you have a poor understanding. Yes crosshairs can disappear behind bright objects and I don't see any need to prusue the matter. BUT if a crosshair is behind an object it is possilbe the the photo was airbrushed (not that it was "added in later").'Wrong' shadows. "

This is a general category and covers many photographs based on the shadows being 'wrong'.

This is a good one as well. It shows how easy it is to make wrong assumptions when looking at a 'problem' with tunnel vision instead of trying to understand what is really going on from a scientific point of view. This I feel is a concept that must be alien to Moon hoax believers.

Lots of the hoax claims rest on the belief that the shadows shown in the photographs are somehow wrong, that they indicate more than one light source because the object shown is illuminated from the front and the sides, and so on. This leads them to believe it is due to lighting mistakes on a film set.

The simple fact is that there IS more than one light source. The light does not come directly from the Sun and illuminate only the one object in question, as a narrow beam spotlight would in a dark room. It shines on the entire 'daytime' surface, just as it does here on Earth. Therefore it also illuminates the surface, the astronauts themselves, rocks, mountains, the Lander and all the other objects on the surface. The reflections from these various objects is why there is more than one light source, it is not because there was more than one spotlight used on a film set. It is also worth noting that on the lunar surface the reflected sunlight from the Earth is 68% brighter than that of the full Moon as seen from Earth.

...

Case closed.You have a VERY poor understanding of this too. Two distant light sources would give every object on the moon two shadows - or if the sun is so bright it may wash out the shadows the eath make. So either every object has one set of shadows, from the sun's rays and all run parallel with each other - OR every object has two shadows each one being from the sun's light and running parallel with the other shadows from the suns light, the other being from the eath and also running parallel. However each object does not have two shadows so we assume that the earth's light is not bright enough to make a shadow.

Therefore there should be one shaddow per object which runs parallel with all the other shadows of every other object. But this is not the case, NASA said they didn't use any lighting, and in some pictures (eg see below) the shaddows are as if they are on a sound stage with many overhead lights (ie capricorn one). This is also what produces the spotlight.So there you have it, the most commonly believed hoaxes shown not to be.

Personally I find the most surprising thing about the whole business is that hoax believers think that NASA, armed with a budget of billions of dollars and the best experts in the world, could make so many incredibly stupid errors that even the most novice, untrained, inexperienced amateur can spot them easily.NASA had to make SOME mistakes. For instance the film Buz shot of the distant eath (showing no signs of van allen) and both the earth and the window frame being in focus at the same time.I think that basically, this is what this is all about. Hoax believers consider themselves to be very smart and all the experts at NASA incredibly stupid. This is the same hoax believers that didn't even think to try to photograph the stars themselves, because they just know its a hoax, no need to test it, they saw it on the internet. Oh yes, very smart.It is a lot harder to pghotograph stars on earth then it is on the moon for the following reasons: 1. The Earth has an atmosphere, 2. The earth is more reflective then the moon (the moon's surface is about as reflective as ashphelt).

***

Look, when I first heard of the idea that the moon was a hoax all those years ago I thought "what rubbish" and swa plenty of evidence to prove the hoax-theory wrong. However I later discovered that this so called "evidence" was not nrealy proved conclusivly. The explinations are short and don't touch on the major details.

There are also major ponits these people "forgot" to explain, for instance there's no explination on why we see dust being blown away by the LEM and then foot prints where the dust has just been blown away. There's no explination of why up to 4 stars are in photos taken on the moon. That is counter-argumentative - if no stars can be photographed because of the contrast to the moon, where did they come from?

There are compleatly stupid explinations for shadows, such as "two light sources" which don't bother to mention that they are two DISTANT light sources and can't possibly simulate a sound stage with MANY close light sources.

They don't explain why Apollo didn't know how thick the Van Allen radiation belts were even though they went through them 14 times. They don't explain why Apollo 16's take off shows a flame. They don't explainwhy doubleing the speed of the films makes the dust kicked up fall at earth speed.

They don't explain how the camera film survied (and the manufacturer dosen't know either). They don't explain why The US government felt they had to go to the moon, not once - but SIX times. They don't explain the Apollo One fire - the cause of which was never made public and the capsule still being locked away. They don't explain why NASA "lost" the blueprints for Apollo!!

They don't explain why Thomas Baron and his family died after receiving threats from NASA when their car was hit by a train (seems like a fishy accident to me) or why his 500 page report on why 'it is impossible we could get to the moon' was never seen again.

NASA dosen't explain any of it either. And neither does the US government. I'm sorry but there is too much evidence to ignore.

CASE CLOSED.

=mek=

raVen_image
09-06-2002, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by Hellbeard
Does he really expect us to read all of that!?
I don't see why not. It can't be more than 4000 words ... perhaps 5 minutes time is spent reading Drunken_Sailor's post with understanding.

Aside from his argumentative flaw of repeating "Case Closed", it is the most thoughtful post (indeed, the most thoughtful thread) I've seen on mojo in quite some time. Compare this to the typical "Look at my avatar" and "See how many posts I have now" and "Chain games of spam" threads, and you can see the inherent possiblilities of a message board that is so often denied.

It is one of the few threads that is worth spending your valuable time reading. This is the kind of thread that enhances mojo--the kind that speaks well of its members.

Jake
09-06-2002, 05:15 AM
Yeah, repeated "case closed"'s aside (though re-using them in the rebuttle was even lamer) it would be hard to claim in here that the moon landings were faked. Of course, thinking they're faked is a stupid idea to begin with. Thousands of people were involved and they havent talked or mysteriously been killed or something.

Also, you'd better check out my avatar, bitch. I made it for you.

Again also, raVen, I agree that the quality of the posts in this place is, well, not so good. For instance this post here. For instance posts about toilet paper to the moon and the like. That is classified as spam as its poster is classified as a spammer.

At least I'm typing about something, maybe? And I tried to stay mildly self-aware of my lameness in that "check my avatar" post, by referencing the lame "how many posts do I have [from spamming]" threads.


However, all of that aside, forums exist to share thoughts and information, and to entertain. If you get nothing out of these forums but a desire to complain about them, perhaps you should find another forum?

Alien426
09-06-2002, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Hellbeard
How many roles of toilet paper would it take to go across the moon!?
About 5730!

Riffage
09-06-2002, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by raVen_image

It is the most thoughtful post (indeed, the most thoughtful thread) I've seen on mojo in quite some time. Compare this to the typical "Look at my avatar" and "See how many posts I have now" and "Chain games of spam" threads, and you can see the inherent possiblilities of a message board that is so often denied.

It is one of the few threads that is worth spending your valuable time reading. This is the kind of thread that enhances mojo--the kind that speaks well of its members. Wow,. didnt think of it like that, well at least i can say i started one of the more interesting threads that has become succsesseccessful, (and the thread with some of the longest posts ever). :)

Hellbeard
09-06-2002, 05:08 PM
This is a message board, and I'm not going to read a bloody 4000 page essay on "why man actually went to the moon!". Other people might, but that in my mind is a complete waste of time!


btw, do not post something like "you spam, and in my oppinion that is a waste of time"

Riffage
09-06-2002, 05:14 PM
Theres a simple solution, dont read it. You also have posted a few times which is complete crap, and your probably just trying to increase your post count

Drunken_Sailor
09-06-2002, 06:42 PM
You are starting to become boringly repeatitive.

Most of what you are mentioning has already been explaned to you.


Originally posted by Meksilon
You have forgotten that SOME photos taken on the moon have one, two or even three stars in them

Exposure time again as well as relative brightness.

Originally posted by Meksilon
According the flag: Perhapps you haven't seen how much it flutters? It is questionable

Easy to explain.


Originally posted by Meksilon
showing no signs of van allen

Itīs invisible to normal eye sight.

Originally posted by Meksilon
The earth is more reflective

Earth reflectivity varies greatly according to surface type.

Originally posted by Meksilon
NASA dosen't explain any of it either. And neither does the US government. I'm sorry but there is too much evidence to ignore

Sorry, most of this is a pure figment of imagination.

See:
[]

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

http://astronomylinks.com/satellites_and_missions/moon/landing_conspiracy/

http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm

http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/motives.htm

http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/debunking.htm

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

http://www.nasastooge.fsnet.co.uk/

http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/expmoon/apollo_landings.html

http://www.nasm.edu/apollo/apollotop10.htm

http://www.clavius.org/

http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/strangeshadows.html

http://www.the-indigestible.com/specials/moon.htm

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/moon_hoax.html

Also, I think you might find this interesting as well, mek:

HERE YOU GO!

space.com report dated April 27,2001 2:11PM EST
Lenord David reporting

To start off> By line Washington.

Space Scientist Misha Kreslavsky Dept. Geological
Sciences at Brown University, found while
going over Clementine images. < Just so you know sir, Clementine was a spacecraft that photographed the back, So.Pole, and large areas of the Earth facing side of the moon. I wonder if you believe in that either.---After all the
Clementine spacecraft did detect and photograph what was water ice in a crater at the South Lunar Pole.)
Marks from the Appolo 15 takeoff on the moons surface.
In case you did not know Apollo 15 carried enlarged fuel tanks to support the weight of its
extra cargo the Lunar electric powered car.

It does seem that Astronauts Scott and Irwin
scuffed up the moon a bit.
Actually those scuff marks will outlast mankind on this planet.

I really am tired of hearing people like yourself babbleing about things they know nothing
about. So believe what you want and if you want truth, please check out the post from space.com.
I doubt that you will as you seem the type to be too intensely radical to do any research that will prove you incorrect.
I would have posted the whole article if it were
not for copywrites.

Hellbeard
09-06-2002, 07:25 PM
I'm sorry, I just like being to take part in popular threads:(

mercatfat
09-06-2002, 08:05 PM
Then you'd think you'd put some effort into making your posts worthwhile.

Hellbeard
09-06-2002, 08:09 PM
You seem very upset with me!

Wossname
09-06-2002, 10:36 PM
You have forgotten that SOME photos taken on the moon have one, two or even three stars in them (never any more then 4). How is THAT possible? Case closed? HAHAHAHA.

The exact same explanation. The exposure time on the camera was too short for all but the few brightest stars (Or planets) to show up.

What's the hoax explanation for this phenomenon? They only had time to paint in 4 stars?

Perhapps you haven't seen how much it flutters? It is questionable.

I've seen. Remember the low gravity of the moon. The small force used by the astronaut to jiggle the flag caused a seemingly violent movement because the gravity keeping it hanging flat is so low.

The movement itself looks nothing like a flutter to me. The flag is swinging, like a pendulum, not like something that is having its movement disrupted by breeze.

And if the supposed gust of wind is so strong, why isn't a cloud of dust kicked up on the dusty 'set'.

Again, you have a poor understanding. Yes crosshairs can disappear behind bright objects and I don't see any need to prusue the matter. BUT if a crosshair is behind an object it is possilbe the the photo was airbrushed (not that it was "added in later").

Okay, so you admit the standard NASA explanation is sufficient to explain the phenomenon. Unless, that is, you can find a supposedly airbrushed picture which is not bright enough to cause the bleeding effect. Strangely enough, every airbrushed picture has an area of bright white just around the crosshairs. (Crappy airbrushing? They must have only had one colour of paint)

Therefore there should be one shaddow per object which runs parallel with all the other shadows of every other object. But this is not the case, NASA said they didn't use any lighting, and in some pictures (eg see below) the shaddows are as if they are on a sound stage with many overhead lights (ie capricorn one). This is also what produces the spotlight.

Shadows from a point light source don't always run parallel with each other. That's only true on a flat surface. The moon is most assuredly not flat. Most of the shadow anomalies can be explained by slopes and bumps in the ground.

As for that picture you posted earlier in the thread, would you not say that is an unusual shape for a NASA moon photo. No camera I know of takes pictures of that shape - not even Panavision cameras for widescreen movies make pictures that wide.

The most reasonable explanation for that picture, then, is that it is simply several normal-shaped pictures stitched together (By NASA, quite legitimately), to create a panoramic view.

The way you take such pictures is you stand at a point. Take a picture, turn a little, take another picture, and so on. Because each picture is taken at a different angle, the shadows will not line up.

Take a look at http://www.remarkable.co.nz/experiments/akl360a.htm

See how the shadows fail to line up, for the exact same reason.

(Edit)
Alternatively, it's just a very wide-angle shot, with the distortion that creates.

And then of course there's the fact that perspective will cause parallel lines to converge towards a vanishing point. This effect may well be exaggerated in this picture because of the type of lens used.

Possibly the true answer is a combination of these explanations.
(End edit)

It is a lot harder to pghotograph stars on earth then it is on the moon for the following reasons: 1. The Earth has an atmosphere, 2. The earth is more reflective then the moon (the moon's surface is about as reflective as ashphelt).

It would be easy to photograph stars on the moon, and if that's what the astronauts wanted to do, they could have done so easily. But what they were doing was taking photographs of the surface of the moon during the moon's daytime. In those conditions, the camera simply couldn't register the relatively dim stars (Except for a few of the brightest), because it was set to a short exposure to capture the daylit surface.

There are also major ponits these people "forgot" to explain, for instance there's no explination on why we see dust being blown away by the LEM and then foot prints where the dust has just been blown away. There's no explination of why up to 4 stars are in photos taken on the moon. That is counter-argumentative - if no stars can be photographed because of the contrast to the moon, where did they come from?

I don't know what you mean about the dust, could you elaborate? The 4-stars is explained above.

There are compleatly stupid explinations for shadows, such as "two light sources" which don't bother to mention that they are two DISTANT light sources and can't possibly simulate a sound stage with MANY close light sources.

You're right there. That's really a response to a different hoax objection (There are so many you never quite know which 'shadow' objection you're responding to) - that shadows on the moon should be pitch black and you shouldn't be able to see anything in them. It's the reflected light from the moon's surface, and from the earth that makes the shadows less than pitch black.

The explanation for the diverging shadows is sloping ground as explained above.

They don't explain why Apollo didn't know how thick the Van Allen radiation belts were even though they went through them 14 times.

I'll have to take your word on that one. Why do you think they didn't know, given that apparently the hoaxers believe several real probes were sent to the moon (To fool the russians, to place the reflector, etc.)?

They don't explain why Apollo 16's take off shows a flame. They don't explainwhy doubleing the speed of the films makes the dust kicked up fall at earth speed.

Perhaps your information that no flame should be visible is incorrect. If NASA were hoaxing it, why would the flame only be visible on one occasion, rather than them all. Surely consistency is paramount when one is performing a hoax.

And as for the dust, again I'll have to take your word on that. My own feeling is that on earth the dust would form a cloud that would not settle for some time.

They don't explain how the camera film survied (and the manufacturer dosen't know either).

Couldn't make a comment about that. Perhaps your information that the film shouldn't have survived is wrong.

They don't explain why The US government felt they had to go to the moon, not once - but SIX times.

Why not? You expect them to only go once? The moon is an enormous body. Imagine someone landing on earth, in the middle of the sahara desert. If they never landed anywhere else, they might form very incorrect opinions about what the earth is like.

What's the hoax explanation for this? It seems only fair that if you demand an explanation from others, you provide an explanation of why it is more plausible that there be six faked moon missions rather than six real ones.

They don't explain the Apollo One fire - the cause of which was never made public and the capsule still being locked away.

The cause of the Apollo 1 fire, as I understand it, was a 100% oxygen atmosphere being used at high pressure for a test on earth, rather than the relatively low pressure it would be at in space.

They don't explain why NASA "lost" the blueprints for Apollo!!

Explain why anyone loses anything.

The culture was different back then - for example around the same time period a large number of episodes of Dr. Who were destroyed by the BBC to create space in their vaults. In this day and age we would not think of permanently destroying such things, and it's hard for us to understand why this would have been done. Now of course Dr. Who is not as important as Apollo Schematics. My point is merely to demonstrate the difference in thinking at the time.

Is it the hoax-theorists position that this stuff never existed at all?

The Saturn 5 rocket most certainly existed. Thousands of people watched the launches of the rocket in person. It would be a very strange thing to create the largest rocket ever made just to provide a little extra believeability for a hoax. Surely existing rockets would have been sufficient to convince 99.999% of the public.

The Command, Service, and Lunar modules, also most certainly existed. As I said before, hundreds of thousands of people were involved in designing and building them. If they were never made, that's hundreds of thousands of people who would have to be in on the hoax. Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead... 400 thousand people? Never.

Okay, but maybe, they were made, but they didn't work - well, that's still a huge number of designers who would have had to be in on it.

So, having established that the hardware existed, along with a rocket large enough to send it to the moon, what's stopping NASA from actually doing it?

It sounds to me like this hoax business would have been a stupendous waste of money. It would have cost just as much to actually do it.

They don't explain why Thomas Baron and his family died after receiving threats from NASA when their car was hit by a train (seems like a fishy accident to me) or why his 500 page report on why 'it is impossible we could get to the moon' was never seen again.

Well, at worst, maybe NASA did bury the report to prevent bad publicity. It's still no proof that the moon landings were fake.

And people die. Cars do get hit by trains (Surprisinly and tragically often, it seems to me). If I say that's pure coincidence, hoax theorists will prick up their ears and say 'Aha!'.

But think of this. Around the world every day, thousands, even millions of people are speaking out against one thing or another. The simple laws of probability mean that some of them will die. Dying after speaking out against something is not sufficient to prove they were killed because they spoke out.

NASA dosen't explain any of it either. And neither does the US government. I'm sorry but there is too much evidence to ignore.

I've explained all but about two or three of your points with very little difficulty, and I'm just an interested layman.

Riffage
09-07-2002, 02:37 PM
possibly the modules and everything were made and that they could work, but infact the designers thought that thier modules had been to the moon, but in fact just circled the earth for a few days, just a thought.

Also the thing about it costing too much money to be a hoax, if your country (USA) is shown to be less technically advanced than russia your gonna have a few problems, "USA less advanced than Russia" nice newspaper headline isnt it

elTee
09-07-2002, 05:03 PM
The thing you must remember about the van allen belt is that it is just that - a belt. Spend too long in it, you're history. Pass through it quickly in a rocket - don't be too worried. Its the same as on Earth. Hang around uranium all day you're in the ****. Run past a piece one time and you needn't have tests for cancer.

Riffage
09-08-2002, 08:41 PM
but but i wanna have cancer, means time off work and school

Hellbeard
09-08-2002, 09:01 PM
So far who is winning? Man has gone to the Moon, or Man Hasn't gone to the Moon?

Personaly, I think man has gone to the Moon. I don't care how much proof there is against it, I just don't think the government would lie about something like that! As for aliens, that is a different story!

Drunken_Sailor
09-09-2002, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by Riffage
possibly the modules and everything were made and that they could work, but infact the designers thought that thier modules had been to the moon, but in fact just circled the earth for a few days, just a thought.

Also the thing about it costing too much money to be a hoax, if your country (USA) is shown to be less technically advanced than russia your gonna have a few problems, "USA less advanced than Russia" nice newspaper headline isnt it

You should not forget that this was during the Cold War, and USSR would have loved nothing else than to be able to demonstrate such a fraught to the world to see.

After all in that time they had already varyous satellites in Earth orbit as well as all sorts of listening stations on their wast territory.

I think they would have noticed if the broadcasts were not coming from the Moon.


I will also like to point out:


Is it a national thing? Is it political? Or is it religious? Or is it just plain gullibility to
detractors of the U.S.?

By the way I would put some Russians in the caliber with Hawking, Einstein, Wheeler and others of the West. This is not an USA superiority thing. It is about reality. And not
about Paranoia, and fear.

And note the proof of the landing did not come from the first landing. It came from Apollo 15 much later.

By the way have you ever seen a moon Rock?
Sealed in its vacuum tight cubicle it is notably different from anything on Earth. I am sure it walked here.

elTee
09-09-2002, 06:51 AM
I'm not sure who's winning, but I have to agree with Hellbeard - we went. We were there.

Riffage
09-09-2002, 10:22 AM
bit of a bugger we cant add a poll now, ill go start another poll thread

Riffage
09-09-2002, 10:27 AM
Poll: The Moon! (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77987)