Top 10 Apollo Hoax Theories

In honor of the anniversary of the moon landing, has an article listing (and debunking) the top 10 Apollo Hoax Theories. Below are the top 10 points raised by those who believe the moon landing was a hoax. You'll have to read the article to get the explanation of why these points DON'T prove that the moon landing was a hoax.

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

Exploration/Travel Science

Posted on Wed Jul 20, 2005


Yeah... this argument is pretty old and boring as there are some that you can NEVER convince, even when presented with facts. But there is going to be definitive proof soon as there is a EU probe on it's way to the moon that will be able to directly image the Apollo landing sites. Not to mention that little laser reflection device left-behind by Apollo astronauts that ANYONE can use if their laser is powerful enough. The one that's used routinely to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon... the one we used to determine that the moon recedes 1/4 inch every year! Just think of all the conspiracy stories when we finally do lose the moon...

Posted by Mark-N-Isa  on  Wed Jul 20, 2005  at  09:45 PM
Argh, you have to do a "count down from ten." That bugs me. I just wanted to go straight to the one about the phantom cameraman.
Posted by Citizen Premier  on  Wed Jul 20, 2005  at  11:20 PM
These debunkings are pretty lightweight, really. There are many better sites out there.
Posted by paul in prague  on  Thu Jul 21, 2005  at  04:27 AM
People seriously believe those myths?? C'mon - they could have at least come up with something convincing.
Posted by Maegan  on  Thu Jul 21, 2005  at  06:37 AM
I still don't believe anyone landed on the moon. Sorry. I watched a movie called "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" and it had some convincing evidence that no one landed on the moon, beyond the evidence they debunked here.
Posted by Gaia  on  Thu Jul 21, 2005  at  09:51 AM
Gaia, what was this 'convincing evidence'?
Posted by Boo  on  Thu Jul 21, 2005  at  09:59 AM
Behind the scenes footage and things like that. You'd have to watch the movie to see what I meant. Even if you don't believe it, it's still interesting. 😉
Posted by Gaia  on  Thu Jul 21, 2005  at  10:31 AM
Gaia, the funny things is that that particularly documentary was made to show how gullible people are. The 'facts' in it are not facts, and part of the shown 'evidence' is fabricated.

Problem is it back-fired. Many people do take it for real, instead of it being a hoax.
Posted by LaMa  on  Thu Jul 21, 2005  at  04:46 PM
Many moons ago (no pun intended) i did believe the conspiracy. i have since totally changed my mind... but to play the devil's advocate for one moment in terms of number 4 there is a second level to the question which is if the dust was blown off the surface by the lem's landing to expose the rock below how did mr. armstrong make a footprint in the little or no dust left around the lander?
Posted by Geekmafia  on  Thu Jul 21, 2005  at  06:43 PM
Mr. Armstrong was still able to leave a footprint behind because he wasn't walking around "under" the lander...
Posted by Mark-N-Isa  on  Thu Jul 21, 2005  at  09:28 PM
Not sure if I got this site from here, but it does a good job of poking in holes in the conspiracy theory.
Posted by Silentz  on  Thu Jul 21, 2005  at  09:31 PM
"Gaia, the funny things is that that particularly documentary was made to show how gullible people are. The 'facts' in it are not facts, and part of the shown 'evidence' is fabricated."

LaMa, where did you find that out at? We watched this movie in school, and I don't think that's what it was. The guy seems serious.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I just want to know your source.
Posted by Bob Orie  on  Fri Jul 22, 2005  at  08:19 AM
Many years ago I was an amateur astronomer, wish I could stay with it still but too many other interests, and experimented with astrophotography. It takes a LONG time for the stars to show up on film, even the electronic sensors astronomers use now, because the number of photons is very small. If I remember right, the best film used takes around twenty minutes for stars to start showing up. CCD's are faster, but were not available to the astronauts. I don't even think the equipment can be made protable.

As for the flag waving, it was designed to look like it was waving. That was something that was widely reported at the time. I seem to remember that there was a big stink about it then, something about it not being natural - I think.

As far as the fried film argument, this would require heat retention. Just as fast as the equipment got hot, the heat radiated away. The equipment would not get very hot on the inside.

As for the footprints, if the dust is fine enough and has enough friction to hold in place, footprints would last for a long time since there is almost no erosion.

And space is not filled with super-fast meteorites. The density is something around 1 atom per cubic centimeter or less.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Fri Jul 22, 2005  at  02:49 PM
My dad used to work for NASA and was on the panel of authors that wrote the first "owners/users manual" for the space shuttles. Interestingly enough, after the moon landing! Anyway, yes, they DID land on the moon.
Posted by thephrog  on  Sun Jul 24, 2005  at  10:45 PM
I am quite convinced that the movie "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" was not an exercise in demonstrating the gullibility of people. At the same time I don't believe Bart Sibrel actually believes a word of the conspiratorial horseshit he spews.

If you read his "Top 15 Reasons" at
(I hope this link works) and then read the rebuttal at the Clavius site linked above you have to wonder what kind of conspiracy-kook blinders this guy wears when he does his "research". Even when it is pointed out to him that his conclusions and "proof" are easily debunked and disproven he continues to spew his ridiculous accusations. Is he really that thick? No, he's just selling videos (at least 4 of them so far). He makes plenty of accusations but if you want to see the evidence you have to buy his videos.

As far as I can tell Bart Sibrel is a liar. He knows he's a liar. He knows that most people who stumble across his crap will conclude that he is a lying, opportunistic, bullshit merchant profiting off a pile of unsubstantiated (but cleverly worded) conspiracy fiction but some small percentage will either buy his shtick completely or at least be curious enough to buy his videos. I think he is a sad little parasite.
Posted by Blondin  on  Wed Jul 27, 2005  at  12:24 PM

It's cobblers, basically.
Posted by Rob  on  Fri Jul 29, 2005  at  09:13 AM
The most obvious reason the moon landings had
to be real is the Russians, and what they
didn't do.

At the time, they were *very* capable of sending
a camera to the moon which could have photographed
the sites where the LEM had landed, and sent back
live pictures showing that the place was empty.

Anyone who was alive at that time knows that the
Russians would have done anything to discredit
the US. But they didn't. Therefore, obviously
they knew we *did* land there.
Posted by Irv  on  Sat Jul 30, 2005  at  04:56 PM
Irv you made a very good point. I can remember the early days of the space race if I work to do so - that was what got me interested in astronomy - and I can remember hearing some of the stunts the Russians did to score on the US. Including hiding the deaths of several cosmonauts. If the Russians could have somehow "proven" that we neve got to the Moon, even if they had faked it, they would have done so.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Sat Jul 30, 2005  at  09:15 PM
OTOH, as I understand it one of the claims of the Moon Hoax believers (as in, those who believe it was a hoax, not those who believe the hoax itself, eh) was that the landings were hoaxed precisely *because* of the political situation at the time... The faking of the landings, the hypothesis runs, was actually part of the cold war per se. (In truth, the space race was exactly that - the motivation to fake a moon landing was certainly there.)

All this particular piece of evidence means is thatthe Russians themselves were sufficiently sure that the landings were real to let it go. A conspiracy theorist would no doubt argue that this was a testament to US Intelligence (ha!)...
Posted by paul in prague  on  Mon Aug 01, 2005  at  12:56 AM
hey all
you all argued on and on but no one gave any substance. one question. i am sorry to ,and am bound to hurt the feelings of a particular section who argue in blind faith with no proof.
Posted by Pranay Kumar  on  Sun Aug 28, 2005  at  12:59 PM
If it was true , then how did the flag dont say scientists just discovered atmosphere on moon that little green buddies breathe.
where did those stars go? on a vacation to the bahamas?
haw do you account for the double shadows
if you want to prove me wrong do not shout or give emotional gibberish reply to my questions and make sense
i challenge you all !!
Posted by Pranay Kumar  on  Sun Aug 28, 2005  at  01:07 PM
I guess there are good arguments for both sides. My opinion is that they did make it to the moon and back.

Since gravity is much lower on the moon, it would be possible to position the flag in a horozontal position for a period of time. With no atmosphere, any movement which occured in the flag, when positioned, would remain until the friction of the cloth stopped the movement. A similar effect can be done using a fan, when an atmosphere is present. The movement of the air past the flag causes lift and minimizes the effect of gravity.

With telescopes which can track and see a star light years away, you would think that a modern telescope could lock onto the moon and see some evedence that would provide proof.
Posted by Matt  on  Tue Sep 06, 2005  at  05:21 PM
I personally believe that the moon landing was fake, there's so much damning evidence to show this. And when the Japanese get there next year with their probe we will all find out.
Posted by reQ  on  Thu Oct 20, 2005  at  04:03 PM
How come we are unable to go back again. So far the space shuttle was able to go no farther than 400 miles. The Moon is 240,000 miles. the 400 miles is just below the van Allen belt, and the shuttle caused 14 fatalities while moon travels caused none. What's interesting is that NASA was able to conduct all its calcultions with computers that are, put together, weaker than my laptop. Remember when couple people were stranded in the space station few years back? we couldn't even retrieve them but we landed on the moon and came back...several times.
Lets not forget that gravity on the moon is 1/6 that of earth and in order to take off the moon we would need 1/6 the trust of the rocket that flew from earth...that little LEM just wouldn't cut it.
I understand that as Americans we don't want to be embarrassed for lying to world but truth need to be faced and we should come clean.
Posted by Sam  on  Sat Dec 24, 2005  at  04:13 PM
And yes the Soviets knew about out little dirty secret. If you remember Russia was having a terrible famine during late 60's and 70's and for no apparent reson, we after a longtime trying to strave them to death we suddenly started to export massive amounts of grain to Russia and while the Soviets were supporting the vietcongs.
Russians also had an interest to keep the hoax going. Their philosophy is that man can triumph over nature (the communist Atheist Motto).
Posted by Sam  on  Sat Dec 24, 2005  at  04:30 PM
1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
Posted by sam  on  Sun Dec 25, 2005  at  02:32 PM
11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.
Posted by sam  on  Sun Dec 25, 2005  at  02:34 PM
Part the First.

Um, is anyone going to post who actually has a grasp of basic physics? It's like a convention of Cliff Clavin impersonators in here.

I won't quote the questions as this is a long enough post as it is. I apologise in advance for any errors, I'm not an astrophysicist, astronomer, astronaut, or guy who works for NASA. I'm just someone who managed to retain some knowledge I gained in high school.

1) Any bright light tends to wash out lesser lights. Even today, with my camera that's 35 years more advanced, if I take a picture of the night sky with a bright light in the frame it washes the stars out. Additionally, the star formations would look exactly the same as on Earth because the distortion cause by parallax was too miniscule to even measure. Parallax for nearby stars is usually measured when the Earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, and still only works for nearer stars. My God, this is an easy one people!

2) Sites please. Oxygen doesn't 'melt' things. It does increase the rate of oxidation, oddly enough.

3) The dust was only a few inches thick, on average. The dust was piled up around the LEM. The ladder extended out the side of the LEM, not the bottom.

4) Of course you can produce a flame in a vacuum, or is the sun not all firey and stuff? Ooh, better yet, maybe it has an oxygen atmosphere. I'll be the first to admit that I'm no chemist, but both the ascent and decent propulsion systems used N2O4, which includes oxygen.

5) This is just completely wrong. Even in a vacuum particles have distance between them and if compressed together, electromagnetic force (ie, static) is enough to help them keep their shape.

6) What exactly does this prove? That they invested in improved cameras or transmission systems maybe?

7) There isn't that I can see. I'm afraid you're going to actually have to show us what you're talking about.

8) Any irregular surface will create seemingly nonparallel shadows. Try it. Also, two different light sources will create shadows that fall in different directions unless those light sources are coming from the same point. Have you never been around more than one light at a time?

9) Show us the 'C'.

10) Assuming the antenna survived, it was because the designers had the forethought to install it somewhere other than the bottom of the capsule where the heat shielding was located. The heat around the upper portion of the capsule was nowhere near as great as at the bottom. The capsule was designed that way to prevent the death of the astronauts. Of course, one can also wonder why you brought up Gemini when Gemini never traveled to the moon. That was the Apollo series. Get your capsules straight.

Posted by Charybdis  on  Mon Dec 26, 2005  at  03:07 AM
Part the Second.

11) How do you think the heat got to the capsule from the sun? Magic? Of course heat radiates in a vacuum. Have you ever stood out in the sun before?

12) What? This question doesn't make sense.

13) You're automatically assuming that you are capable of jumping 6 times higher in a gravity 1/6 that of Earth. Even a 200lb astronaut would still weigh in at 33lbs on the moon. Still a fair bit of weight to be throwing 10 feet up when wearing a bulky suit that limits freedom of movement.

14) The astronauts clearly hopped longer distances than is normal on Earth.

15) According to the NTSA ,the gross operation Earth weight of the Lunar Rover was 1535lbs with crew, equipment, and payload. Dividing by 1/6 gives us a Lunar weight of 256lbs. That's plenty of weight to keep it from flipping over at the speeds it was moving. Again, try it if you don't believe it.

16) Um, because there wasn't a solar flare at the time? If a severe solar flare had occured when the capsule wasn't in the shadow of the Earth or Moon then the astronauts would have died. Solar flares aren't continuous. An interesting report on a new solar flare imager

Posted by Charybdis  on  Mon Dec 26, 2005  at  03:09 AM
Part the Third.

17) The spacesuits are multi layer suits. The inner layer was the one providing a contained atmosphere for the astronaut. The outer layer protected the inner layer. The buckels and such were for snugging it down after donning. From Wikipedia's article on Space Suits.

All space suit designs try to minimize or eliminate this(see question #18) problem. The most common solution is to form the suit out of multiple layers. The bladder layer is a rubbery, airtight layer much like a balloon. The restraint layer goes outside the bladder, and provides a specific shape for the suit. Since the bladder layer is larger than the restraint layer, the restraint takes all of the stresses caused by the pressure of the suit. Since the bladder is not under pressure, it will not "pop" like a balloon, even if punctured. The restraint layer is shaped in such a way that bending a joint will cause pockets of fabric, called gores, to open up on the outside of the joint. This makes up for the volume lost on the inside of the joint, and keeps the suit at a constant volume. However, once the gores are opened all the way, the joint cannot be bent anymore without a considerable amount of work.

Additionally, this image of a spacesuit from Apollo 15 clearly shows no zipper from crotch to shoulder, though the earlier suits would probably have been different.

18) See #17 and accompanying link.

19) This is not proof. This is, at best, evidence. Take the measurements yourself. Three non-used LEMs are on display, LM-2 (National Air and Space Museum), LM-9 (Kennedy Space Center), and LM-13 (Cradle of Aviate, Long Island). These are production units and not 'replicas'.

20) Why should they? Please cite your reasoning.

Posted by Charybdis  on  Mon Dec 26, 2005  at  03:09 AM
Oh, and the flag appears to wave because it was made that way. It was considered to be more visually appealing than a limp flag. Go figure.
Posted by Charybdis  on  Mon Dec 26, 2005  at  03:11 AM
In 1969 the Americans first landed men on the moon. Now some people have made names for themselves by saying that this and subsequent landings never happened. Their position is that NASA faked them in order to save face and fool the public. To prove their point they rely on explanations of the reported events using dubious science and lay explanations that any first year science major would and does, laugh at.

However, they always miss or purposely avoid the the one piece of irrefutable proof that it did in fact happen. That is that the Soviet government never refuted the American claims and they were in a unique position to do so. For even after the Americans landed on the moon the Soviets still continued to send orbiters, landers and rovers to the moon.

Now if they wanted to get the goods on the Americans all they had to do was to land, photograph or explore with a rover the American landing sights. Just imagine the embarrassment not to mention the the damage to American credibility, at the height of the cold war no less, that such information would generate. Records even show that they never landed or even explored that areas that that American landings happened. So they did not even go and look to make sure because they knew it really happened.

The next question then is even if they did know they were faked why did they never use the information. They did not use it to pressure the Americans to stop bombing North Vietnam and Cambodia where Soviet military advisers were being killed as a result. They did not use it to
pressure the United States to stop sending military advisers to and providing Stinger missiles to the Afghan fighters during the Soviet occupation. They did not use it to stop the Star Wars program of the
Regan administration.

In fact they did not even use it to turn the West's attention away from the Soviet Union during the Soviet Coup of 1991 when members of the Soviet government briefly deposed Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev and attempted to take control of the country.

Which every body knew was the last death throws of the Soviet empire. If they did not use the information then to turn the attention of the American, and world public, inward to their own governments lies and thus corruption and force it to ignore the events in the Soviet Union
in order to deal with a damaging domestic and international issue. Then the proof of faked moon landings did not and never existed.

One final thought. After the fall of the Soviet Union the Russian economy tanked. People were selling all kinds of stuff owed by the crumbling state, ships, weapons, artworks and knowledge but nobody ever approached any Western news agency or tabloid to sell them this information. And to say that one would buy it but not publish is foolish. The seller could just keep peddling it until someone would.
Posted by Arthur Paliden  on  Tue Dec 26, 2006  at  09:13 PM
In 1964 America went about 120 miles into the atmosphere for the first time and broadcast it world wide. 5 years later America landed on the moon after the first attempt. The space shuttle orbits at 300 miles above the earth. Wake up. Do you seriously believe this. Oh, and 235,000 miles away and the radio reception was instantaneous...give me a break. hoax. I wonder why people believe this. I have a feeling its the same numbskulls that support the war and whatever America does. What America does is deceive. Landed on the that's rich.
Posted by Ed  on  Fri Apr 13, 2007  at  08:17 AM
Yes Ed, I do believe it. Why? Because it's well within the limits of the available technology. And your grasp of physics seems a tad lacking.

Oh, and 235,000 miles away and the radio reception was instantaneous...give me a break.

Let's see, radio waves travel at the speed of light. That's 186,282 miles per second. I'm not sure how far away the moon was at the time of the landings, but I'll just use the average distance of 238,857 miles. That means it took only 1.28 seconds for the signals to reach the moon and another 1.28 seconds for the response to arrive back on earth. Hell man, modern radio communication has gaps that long.

So while the communication gap wasn't instantaneous (no communication is), it was easily short enough to allow for a normal flow of conversation.

Any other questions?
Posted by Charybdis  on  Fri Apr 13, 2007  at  10:23 AM
And because I can't leave well enough alone -

In 1964 America went about 120 miles into the atmosphere for the first time and broadcast it world wide.

It was 115 miles on May 5, 1961. Alan Shepard became the first American in space. The moon landing came over eight years later, not five.

You're actually pretty right about the space shuttle. Not that I can see what your point is.
Posted by Charybdis  on  Fri Apr 13, 2007  at  10:42 AM
Charybdis, the Moon is normally about 8 light-seconds away. And, being old enough to remember, it was mentioned quite often during the TV broadcasts that what we were seeing was sent 8 seconds ago from the Moon. Sam, the reason the astronaughts didn't jump very high was safety. Even with the lesser gravity a fall from a great height, especially in rough ground, can be dangerous. It could have been deadly there. Also, the amount of heat provided by the Solar radiation would not have been enough to counteract the radiation losses in the shadow of the Sun. The capsule would have absorbed heat where the Sun struck it, this heat would have conducted through the capsule slowly due to the conductivity of the material that the capsule was made of (which was chosen to minimize such conductivity) but where the Sun did not strike, the capsule would have radiated the heat away. A much greater area would have been radiating heat away than absorbing it. And, about the stars, read my earlier post about how long it takes film to register stars. No film or technological device yet invented can equal our eyes and brain for discerning light sources.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Fri Apr 13, 2007  at  10:48 AM
The moon is on avarage 385,000 km from the earth. Electromagnetic radiation (light/radio.etc...) travels at about 300,000 km in a vacume. So round trip to the moon is about 2.5 seconds. Not 8. The reason why it took 8 seconds is be cause the signal had to be processed on the earth and turned into a tv signal and then retransmitted to tv stations for retransmition

Please do some research be for you start to spout.
Posted by Arthur Paliden  on  Fri Apr 13, 2007  at  11:02 AM
Arthur, I may have confused the number with the number of light-minutes the Sun is from Earth. However, my point that it wasn't instantanious and was acknowledged as such back then still stands.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Fri Apr 13, 2007  at  11:13 AM
Hmm, I wasn't aware of the processing time delay, probably due to being born 11 months after the fact. 😉

Still, it doesn't alter the fact that the moon's distance from the earth isn't anywhere near great enough to have caused an appreciable delay in communication on its own. With current technology I would expect the delay to be just over the 2.5 second turn-around.
Posted by Charybdis  on  Fri Apr 13, 2007  at  02:58 PM
Yes, I am wrong, it was 1961 the US went 115 miles into orbit.

Even with our communication advances, isn't there a time delay from live feeds from the US to Australia? Even if it is just a matter of seconds or nanoseconds or whatever?
Back then I don't believe there was anywhere near the communication ability as there is today. Ok, radio waves haven't changed in speed, I suppose, but it had to go through a satellite and then transmitted to the earth. It seemed to me odd that there was hardly any appreciable delay in communication.

Why was the transmission controlled entirely by the government? Months before, a satellite was put into orbit to broadcast to the control room simulated flight data for practice. The control room could never discern the difference between test flight data and the real flight data. The CONTROL room(funny name don't you think? It was a room controlled by the government...ok, you say it was controlling the Eagle)

THe television broadcast of the events was a recording from the video monitor in the control room.

Clear, color broadcasts from inside the Eagle and craptackular video from the moon's surface. Ok, techies, explain that one to me.

Why hasn't the US gone to the moon since then? Is it because Nixon isn't president anymore? The Apollo missions started and ended with Nixon, right?

Why didn't they put powerful telescopes on the moon instead of wasting their time driving around in dune buggies?

The questions can continue...
Posted by ed  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  08:51 AM
So why, at the hight of the cold war, did the USSR not call the American on it if it was all faked..see my original post about it.
Posted by Arthur Paliden  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  10:06 AM
There is a delay in transmitting images around the earth, it's just so short as to be negligable. Radio waves travel fast, very fast. There's is an entirely noticable delay when transmitting as far as the moon and back, but even then it's not that great. The distance may seem staggering to us, but it's miniscule when you're dealing in something that travels 186,300 miles in one second.

As far as the government controlling things - well, it was a government project. Did you expect them to set up telemetry computers in people's garages?

THe television broadcast of the events was a recording from the video monitor in the control room.

Well, the video monitors in the control room would have been the only ones picking up the live feed. As for being a recording, that's pure speculation with no evidence to back it up.

Clear, color broadcasts from inside the Eagle and craptackular video from the moon's surface. Ok, techies, explain that one to me.

I've seen lots of color video from the surface. You have to remember, the surface of the moon is very stark. Not a lot of color out there, but what there was came through. Also, inside the capsule you didn't have the contrast issue you had on the surface. All that white/light grey rock and dust reflected a lot of light back into the camera, tending to wash out less bright images.

In fact, if the whole thing were staged wouldn't you expect them to do a better job of it? If the images were perfect you'd be using that as an example of how it wasn't real.

Why hasn't the US gone to the moon since then? Is it because Nixon isn't president anymore? The Apollo missions started and ended with Nixon, right?

$$$$$. That and a lack of public interest pushing it through. With no obvious returns (the Soviets having already been beaten) why bother anymore.

Kennedy started the Moon Project. A rather famous speach of his, in fact.

Why didn't they put powerful telescopes on the moon instead of wasting their time driving around in dune buggies?

Why would they? Any telescope they could have brought with them wouldn't have been any better than the far bigger telescopes on earth, though they would have had the benefit of not dealing with an atmosphere. And who would adjust them? Batteries would only last a short while then fail, rendering the telescope useless. Plus, they would have had the same issue as earthside ones in that the planet they were on kept moving all the damn time. That's why so many telescopes are being put into orbit.
Posted by Charybdis  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  10:52 AM
Don't be naive! The whole so-called 'cold war' was as fake as the moon landings - each side's 'achievements' (moon landings, cuban missile bases, you name it) HAD to go unchallenged to keep up the facade which was so profitble to the entrenchment of both power bases.

You're such a gull!! Next you'll be claiming the Kennedy 'assassination' and Twin Towers 'terrorist attacks' were not set up and faked:) God, I can't believe there are still people who cannot see through this CHARADE!!!!!
Posted by outeast  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  10:52 AM
PS /irony (for those whose Irony Meters when bust long ago...)
Posted by outeast  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  10:53 AM
Oh Arthur, don't you know that the USSR was secretely controlled by the US at the time? We were all working toward the same goal. That's why we didn't call them on the whole Vladimir Ilyushin debacle.

Posted by Charybdis  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  10:57 AM
Posted by outeast  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  10:58 AM
See, outeast knows the truth. :lol:
Posted by Charybdis  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  10:58 AM
Charybdis, I appreciate this civil discourse. I started out on a bad foot by calling believers "numbskulls" and I apologize.

Certainly other countries would have continued to the moon, if it was possible at the time. A matter of pride? A matter of obtaining hugely significant scientific data? A matter of being the second country to do this. Nothing to snub one's nose at.China wants to do this by 2015.Not to mention Russia was far advanced in their space program. The first man in space, the first synchronous orbital flight, etc.

A telescope satellite could have possibly been jettisoned out into space further than ever at the time, right? I know, my scientific knowledge is lacking.

The video from the first landing was horrible on the surface of the moon. But the interior shots were great.

I wasn't talking about the moon mission including the Gemini, Mercury and others. The Apollo mission was during Nixon and ended with Nixon, I believe. Not saying he had anything to do with it.

October 11, 1968 Apollo 7 First Apollo mission to fly. Made 163 orbits around earth. 9 months later they broke free of the orbit and landed with no problems on the moon. Yes, Apollo 13 was made dangerous, probably to garner more public support for the missions(I mean, getting money.)

The space program lands on the moon in the time frame given by Kennedy in which Nixon calls the greatest event in creation...and they run out of $$$? Makes no sense. It makes more sense that this was a propaganda piece that NASA thought dangerous to continue. Or, NASA was completely successful in learning how to launch huge, far-reaching rockets that could have intercontinental ballistic missiles attached. Mission accomplished and instead of continuing the lie, they stopped.

US and Russia could have been in cahoots. Russia receives aid from US in return they don't blow the whistle. Speculation.

Do you know and can you provide info/sources on any observatories that kept track of the Apollo mission as it ascended in the direction of the moon? I would love an answer to this question.

Collins, Buzz, and Neil look extremely uncomfortable during the press conference after they returned. They didn't remember seeing stars on the surface of the moon either.Only question they did not have an answer for. All three retired after their mission. I've heard the top director of Apollo retired weeks before the missions for no given reason...forgot the name at this time(how convenient right?)
Posted by Ed  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  12:28 PM
Most other countries didn't have the resources and capital to attempt a lunar landing until recently. Even the USSR couldn't afford it at the time, they ended up bankrupting the nation because of their attempts to keep up with the US.

I'm unsure about your telescope comment. There's no reason to send most telescopes outside of earth's orbit. As long as they're in a location free from atmospheric pollution and can stay pointing at one part of the sky for extended lengths of time they do just fine. The only reason to send one further into space is to get close-up images of the other planets and misc, and we've been doing that with probes for 40 years.

The images from the surface would have been washed out. They improved in later missions. They also would have required far different cameras than interior cameras, ones intended to operate in a vacuum.

Again, how is this evidence the landing was staged? Do you think NASA would have used substandard cameras for their faked 'lunar surface' footage than for their interior shots? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just use the same cameras?

Mercury was the program to get Americans into space. Gemini was the program to develop the skills and technology to produce the Apollo program, operating from 1963-66. Gemini was the 'testing ground', so to speak, where we learned what it would take to get a manned capsule to the moon. The Apollo Program was the actual lunar program. Nixon was elected in '68.

The images from the surface would have been washed out. They improved in later missions. They also would have required far different cameras than interior cameras, ones intended to operate in a vacuum.

Again, how is this evidence the landing was staged? Do you think NASA would have used substandard cameras for their faked 'lunar surface' footage than for their interior shots? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just use the same cameras?

You're correct about Apollo 7. Your comment on Apollo 13 is pure speculation with no evidence to back it up.

The space program didn't 'run out of money', the government stopped funding it as much. Public opinion waned after the first landing. Subsequent landing barely rated television time, except on the news. Nobody wanted to pay for it anymore when the Soviets had already been beat. If another 'threat' had surfaced then perhaps the interest and funding would have come, but none did. By your own argument some threat should have been 'manufactured' at this time to keep interest and funding up, yet none came. You can't have it both ways. No government agency willingly stops accepting money.
Posted by Charybdis  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  04:05 PM
I don't know of any record of observatories that tracked the missions, but it should be easy to find something. Any large telescope or radio antenna would have been able to track the capsule on its way to and from the moon. Well within the capabilities of many countries. Yet none, even the ones that hated us (such as China), stood up and said "This was faked, and we have telemetric proof the capsule never left the earth." Why not?

Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin were not celebrities. They were people assigned a dangerous job who managed to pull it off, with the help of thousands of people supporting them. Of course they were uncomfortable being in the limelight.

And as for retiring, they had done something no other person had ever done before. It's hard to top that. And Armstrong in particular hated the attention and hounding the press gave him. Paparazzi isn't a modern phenomenon.

As for the top director of Apollo retiring, I have no info on that. Even so, what does it prove?

You keep making comments without any reasoning to back them up. You say "this is suspicious", but you don't follow through and state why, or why it would matter. You point out what you perceive as anomalous 'facts' as if that proved your case, yet you don't ever state why this should be so. You seem to be making huge leaps to your conclusions, leaps other people can't understand.

For instance, the camera quality issue. Even if the images from the surface are of less quality than the interior shots, how does this support your position? What reasoning are you making that would link this with the landings being faked?
Posted by Charybdis  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  04:06 PM
Comments: Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.