Top 10 Apollo Hoax Theories

Dear Bananas,

I am heading back to earth and would greatly appreciate some *very* factual information (as opposed to slightly factual) to help me understand that the USA went to the moon.

Please respond to the postings of your choice, if you can make it through the postings without getting a tummy ache from laughing so hard.

Maybe you have the influence to have some astronuts at JSC respond, on their free time. That would be super!

Hey! I have another great idea, maybe you can get some astronuts to go to the moon on their free time and send us all back postcards! If they need help with finances for the journey, I can send some rolls of tinfoil in order that they may re-foil the lunar lander.

Thanking you in advance...

How were all the moon missions, space craft and astronauts, spared from these meteorites that would have ripped through the craft and space- suited astronauts as they reportedly do to the moon rocks? And how could they survive the nuclear reactions from the highest energy cosmic rays?

I suppose bananastand would say this is an extremely dumb and naive question.


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

"Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts," explains McKay. This could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere... like the Moon.

Meteoroids are nearly-microscopic specks of comet dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph -- ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch, but they're also extremely fragile. Meteoroids that strike Earth's atmosphere disintegrate in the rarefied air above our stratosphere. (Every now and then on a dark night you can see one -- they're called meteors.) But the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to protect it. The tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters.

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."

Ed, there is a bit of information you don't have. Meteorites are not a constant threat. In the 4,000,000,000 years (give or take) that havve passed since the formation of the Solar System the planets have cleaned out the vast majority of meteorites so that the density is extremely low and meteorites cluster into predictable groups. The average mass of the Solar System is around 1 gram per cubic centimeter if I remember right. This includes the planets and the Sun. This means that the chance of getting hit by one is extremly slim especially if you schedule around the known clusters. Cosmic rays are also not uniformly constant. There are always some but the amount varies widely. The missions were scheduled for periods when the level was expected to be low. Further information gathered over the decades has improved the prediction level and the protection level against cosmic rays but the pioneers were bombarded and damage was done. If I remember right, it was even reported at the time that the damage done was lower than expected. However, I don't know where anyone could verify that memory.

And, by the way, the Moon does have an atmosphere. It is extremly thin but it does exist.

the 'SLS laser' has my full attention; they use a vacuum chamber to melt titanium & steel. vacuum of space/radiation waves? 😉

I thought some of your answers are funny so I decided to post a bit around here.


Some one said:
"Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts," explains McKay. This could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere... like the Moon."

I say:
No they look that way because of the constant proton bombardment (cosmic ray)
In fact the moon is radioactive it's self, protons
impact the lunar surface causing gamma spray, tehniclay it's a small nuclrear explosion, the particles impacting the lunar surface are high energy particles in the form of electons and protons, particles running here on earth in particle generators are a weak copy of the cosmic ray, when you take an X-ray they put led shielding on you and those particles that are hitting your body for a very short time are nothing compared to the galactic cosimc ray.

Apollo astro-nots did not have proper protection for efective shielding, the main reason I think they never went to the moon is radiation.

Astro-not offers a good observation concerning not having proper protection against the radiation. I mean, are there any blue green planets that we can readily observe nearby? I don't know of any. And that seems to me to be because outerspace is a hostile environment not conducive to support life as we know it. Amazing how this planet can support life. And to think that a man or woman can just jump into a "space" suite and wisk away to the moon and survive the harshest of environments is laughable. "I'll just suite up and get in my tin can and to the moon, Alice!"

And where the heck does Christopher get his information? "Solar system has cleaned out the vast majority of meteorites" and "meteorites cluster in predictable groups"(is he talking about the rings of Saturn?)and "mass of solar system is one gram per cubic centimeter, if I remember right"?

And, Chris, what kind of damage was done to the pioneers, that is, if your memory serves correctly? NASA Science says the moon does not have an atmosphere but Chris says it does, but it's vewy vewy vewy tiny. Are you implying NASA is lying, Chris? Or do just cherry pick the info that best suites your non-arguments? But look at me...I 'm using NASA's own info to disprove themselves. I guess I'm a cherry picker too.

The moon does have an atmosphere created by humans (exhaust, escaped gases, ect), but it's so thin as to be negligable. The moon does not have its own atmosphere because the surface gravity is too low to retain one for a cosmic length of time.

Humans suit up and survive the harsh environment of space all the time. Hundred of people have been in space. Are they all part of the coverup? How come not one of those hundreds of people has ever 'broken the coverup'?

Ed, I had to reread my post to understand the "pioneers" bit. I was, at to my mind, obviously talking about the pioneers in space and the comment was inclusive of the humans and their equipment. As far as the atmosphere of the Moon, it is extremely thin and was only discovered years after the Appollo missions by measuring the minute refractions it causes to the stars in the background. It is so slight and thin that it could reasonably be called thin or non-existant, just like a soda that has only half a calorie a serving can be said to have "no calories".

Charybdis says that humans created the moon's atmosphere.

How long is a "cosmic length of time"? Is it less than a nanosecond or less than the amount of time it took me to laugh at the thought of humans affecting the moon with escaped SUV gasses?

I suppose you think global warming is caused by humans also? hahahahahah

Humans suite up and survive the thin atmosphere in orbit, 300 miles up. Not 150,000 miles up on the moon.

So, Chris, what damage was done to the pioneers? I know the first Apollo mission exploded on the launch pad. But what of the others?
AND, NASA Science says the moon has no atmosphere. What's your source for claiming it does (the SUV that Charybdis drives and that contributes to the moon's atmosphere ?)

Gosh, I've missed you guys:)!

Charybdis says that humans created the moon's atmosphere.

Why, yes I did. Thanks for paying attention.

I'm not sure how long the atmosphere will last, but it won't be on the order of millions of years. Any natural atmosphere the moon ever possessed has long since dissapated into space.

You're making some outlandish claims here, Ed. Have you any evidence to support them at all? Please cite specifics on why you believe humans cannot survive a trip to the moon.

Oh, and Apollo 1 didn't explode, it caught fire and burned. You had the right idea, though, the capsule and crew were lost. Not sure what this has to do with a moon landing, though.

The moon has no meaningful atmosphere. The vacuum is greater than that reproducible on Earth, meaning it's pretty darn scarce. It is not, however, a greater vacuum than interplanetary space. Close, but not exactly. The fact of the matter is that even a single small rocket landing on the moon releases gases that will constitute an atmosphere, however nebulous. To all intents and purposes this is ignored because it's just that thin, so NASA is perfectly justified in saying the moon has no atmosphere. Of course I'm not sure why you value their opinion so highly since you seem to believe they never actually checked, but logic doesn't seem to be playing a part here.

Please explain why you believe I drive an SUV? Is this more of your shoddy 'proof'?

Ed, I was referring to the damage to the pioneering equipment. I don't remember the details, hell's teeth and pogo sticks, this was almost four decades ago, but I think the reference is to damage to the equipment such as the capsule.
And Ed, while my personal library is around four thousand books (ten full bookcases and overflowing) I have also read probably another thousand or so books I got from libraries. I have also read, and sometimes subscribed to, vvarious scientific magazines such as Discover, Scientific American, Astronomy, etc. If you expect me to remember the exact date I read a specific item of information, get a life. I do not have room tostore every magazine I have ever owned. I barely have room for my books. So, I remember reading that there is an extremely slight atmosphere on the Moon, Charybdis may be right in that it is leftover from the exhausts from our missions there, I don't remember reading one way or another on that detail.

Show us the flag! Google the Hubble telescope with the coordinates of the first moon landing and show us the flag. case closed.

RE: Different Shadow Angles In Photos
There is a photo of the moon

Maybe they did land on the moon and cleverly made it look like a fake because what they really found there they don't want anyone to know about.

Christopher Cole:
"As far as the atmosphere of the Moon, it is extremely thin and was only discovered years after the Appollo missions by measuring the minute refractions it causes to the stars in the background."

oh, yes, thank you for mentioning the stars...when none of the astronuts did. As a matter of fact, when asked about the star question in the press conference upon Apollo 11's 'return' to planet earth, the astronauts said they did not remember seeing any stars. Man, that's a huge fudge-up on their part to miss the brighter than life stars. But, I guess they were too busy hitting golfballs around on the lunar 19th crater-hole...or was that another mission with Arnold Palmer?

It wasn't a fudge, it was exactly what you would expect. Full daylight on the surface of the moon - their pupils were too contracted to allow much starlight in. It's exactly the same reason the photos don't show any stars, the brighter objects around them wash the faint stars out. It is perfectly normal and is to be expected, and anything otherwise would be out of place.

Your (presumed) assumption that the stars would be clearly visible while on the surface of the moon is just wrong.

Oh, and welcome back Ed, assuming you're the same Ed from before. 😊

And if you are the same Ed you should remember that we've already done the 'I don't recall any stars' argument on this thread. But then I guess it's been long enough that we can start over from the beginning and pretend that we haven't already debunked your claims and arguments. That's how these things go -

Claim
Evidence explaining/debunking claim
Ignore evidence/throw new claim out there
Evidence explaining/debunking new claim
Ignore evidence and start all over with first claim

Christopher brought the star subject in light again. But Chary said:

"It's exactly the same reason the photos don't show any stars, the brighter objects around them wash the faint stars out."

However, Chris says, " As far as the atmosphere of the Moon, it is extremely thin and was only discovered years after the Appollo missions by measuring the minute refractions it causes to the stars in the background."

YOu can't have it both ways. Either there were stars in the pictures or not. AND, if you say, 'well, they adjusted the cameras to capture the light of the stars,' then why didn't the crew say they saw stars on the moon?

YOu and Chris really cancel each other out sometimes. But I'm over the stars and ready to start a new discussion...

Moon could hold water for lunar base?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3816674/Moon-could-hold-water-for-lunar-base-say-scientists.html


Gosh golly! I sure wish that NASA had the foresight to look ahead into the future as to what new discoveries could be made on the moon. I guess they thought it was just a big rock and they didn't want to travel another 320,000 miles roundtrip again. Afterall, they had done it..what 6 times successfully before and what's the use of continuing going back to that big ole mysterious rock full of unkown possibilities after going there safely 6 times already?

Instead, in NASA's infinite wisdom, the space program focused on earth's orbit. Travelling 300 miles above earth is much better than travelling that nasty, boring journey to the moon and back.

So NASA proves they can go to the moon, an accomplishment that Nixon claimed to be the most brilliant since the dawn of man, but decides it won't do it anymore...even they have never lost a man in space. They're just going to focus on filtering water on the space shuttle in earth's orbit.

But we did go to the moon right?!!! NASA says so! And besides, we have all that tv footage! It was on tv! It must be real! TV always broadcasts real images right?! The government would have no reason of keeping anything from us, right? It was on tv and in tv we trust!!!!!!!!!!! If it's on tv it must be real....except for the special effects on the science fiction stations. duh! those aren't real! anyone would know how to differientiate between special effects on tv and real images on tv! If it's on a sci-fi station it is fake and if it is on the abc-nbc-cbs-cnn-fox news channels it's real. Right?



Oh, but wait! wait! Americans are going back to the moon! Probably not before 2020. um...i guess they lost their navigation maps or the formula for space exploration got misplaced?

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/americans-find.html

Operation Paperclip

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4443934.stm

Oh, here's the reason to believe NASA! Welcome, reader, to the world of NAZI NASA! Just because the Nazis were the enemy of the USA doesn't mean they didn't do what they claimed, right? um, so an enemy of a nation is put in charge of that nation's space program...probably the most important program in the USA's history! It's tantamount to having the North Koreans 'fix' our economy!

And we should expect to believe them due to the grainy, suspect, film footage? That's really the only evidence we have...the moon rocks were said to be from Antartica where Von Braun went on an expidition before Apollo 11. The rest of the evidence basically rests on pure, naive belief that the government would not lie to hide things. I digress...

from the article:

"Sixty years ago the US hired Nazi scientists to lead pioneering projects, such as the race to conquer space. These men provided the US with cutting-edge technology which still leads the way today, but at a cost.

Thus began Project Paperclip, the US operation which saw von Braun and more than 700 others spirited out of Germany from under the noses of the US's allies. Its aim was simple: "To exploit German scientists for American research and to deny these intellectual resources to the Soviet Union."


Arthur Rudolph: "100% Nazi"

Events moved rapidly. President Truman authorised Paperclip in August 1945 and, on 18 November, the first Germans reached America.

There was, though, one major problem. Truman had expressly ordered that anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi party and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazism militarism" would be excluded.

Under this criterion even von Braun himself, the man who masterminded the Moon shots, would have been ineligible to serve the US. A member of numerous Nazi organisations, he also held rank in the SS. His initial intelligence file described him as "a security risk".

And von Braun's associates included:


Arthur Rudolph, chief operations director at Nordhausen, where 20,000 slave labourers died producing V-2 missiles. Led the team which built the Saturn V rocket. Described as "100 per cent Nazi, dangerous type".

Kurt Debus, rocket launch specialist, another SS officer. His report stated: "He should be interned as a menace to the security of the Allied Forces."

Hubertus Strughold, later called "the father of space medicine", designed Nasa's on-board life-support systems. Some of his subordinates conducted human "experiments" at Dachau and Auschwitz, where inmates were frozen and put into low-pressure chambers, often dying in the process.
All of these men were cleared to work for the US, their alleged crimes covered up and their backgrounds bleached by a military which saw winning the Cold War, and not upholding justice, as its first priority."

Chary-be-dissed said,

"Your (presumed) assumption that the stars would be clearly visible while on the surface of the moon is just wrong."

"And if you are the same Ed you should remember that we've already done the 'I don't recall any stars' argument on this thread. But then I guess it's been long enough that we can start over from the beginning and pretend that we haven't already debunked your claims and arguments."

Oh, Chary, not only is it my assumption that stars would be visible on the surface of the moon during daylight hours, but it is also NASA's assumption.
And please notate where you have debunked me and the scientists of NASA on the star issue, please.
Never mind, I'm just giving you a hard time. YOu haven't debunked that one or anything else I've been writing...except where I got some dates wrong.

The next posting will be a cut and paste of my previous post about the stars...taken from NASA's own words.

NASA's recent articles belies its' own Apollo missions.

According to NASA:
If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. See Illustration here:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

View photos of stars visible behind the sun's corona made by SOHO telescope photographs. Obviously, the sun didn't block out these stars.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-eit_284-1024.html

When asked why none of the astronauts talked about the stars, NASA scientists respond with remarks such as:
"stars are not readily seen in the daylight lunar sky by either the human eye or a camera because of the brightness of the sunlight surface"
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/images13.html

The reflected sunlight travels in straight lines. There is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight, so when an astronaut (or camera) looks up at the stars, how could the reflected light from the lunar surface get into his eyes?


It is easy to measure the level of reflected light from the moon, and from that you can determine what percentage of the sunlight the moon is reflecting. The moon does not reflect very much sunlight.

This is a very simple description of the moon from NASA:
"...the moon is about the poorest reflector in the solar system. The amount of light reflected by a celestial object is called the albedo (Latin: albus, white). The moon reflects only 7% of the sunlight that falls upon it, so the albedo is 0.07"
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/moon.html

This means that astronauts on the moon would not be overwhelmed with the brightness of the lunar surface. Rather, they would be amazed at how dark the surface is.

U2 pilots say that when they climb to high altitudes the sky becomes dark, the stars become brighter, and more stars become visible:
"The air is so much clearer up there; you can see what seems to be 10 times more stars. They just carpet the sky."

http://web.archive.org/web/20030620084228/http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/jan98/980025.html

A U2 pilot says stars "just carpet the sky", but not one Apollo astronaut talks about seeing stars.

YOu can't have it both ways. Either there were stars in the pictures or not. AND, if you say, 'well, they adjusted the cameras to capture the light of the stars,' then why didn't the crew say they saw stars on the moon?

YOu and Chris really cancel each other out sometimes. But I'm over the stars and ready to start a new discussion...

No we don't. If you point a camera straight up you can capture stars. If you point it across the surface of the moon then you don't get stars because the brightness of the moon washes them out.

Once again you're posting arguments as absolutes without providing the rest of the story. The parts you willingly leave out answer the very questions you're raising.

Did you know that the overall albedo of the earth is only about .30? The moon's albedo isn't all that low, especially when it's the only light source in your field of vision.

The light reflected from the moon can easily cast a shadow on the Earth! That's pretty darn impressive. Now imagine that from the surface! Wow, really bright. When looking across the surface of the moon the human pupil will iris to allow less light in. Stars are far, far less apparently bright than the lunar surface, so they tend to disappear from your vision. The cameras used on the lunar missions had a similar problem.

If you point a camera straight up from the moon and away from the sun/Earth then you can see stars because the moon/sun/Earth isn't in your field of view.

Atmosphere isn't a problem so you don't get twinkling or scattered light causing problems. You are correct about that one, but I'm not sure how often the astronauts walked around looking straight up at a portion of the sky that didn't contain the sun or the Earth. Keep in mind that the trips were always planned to take place during the lunar day so the astronauts could see what they were doing, so you always had the sun and the Earth in the sky. Considering how bubble-like the helmets were I'm not sure how easy it would have been to point your head in a direction that didn't include one of these three bright objects in your field of view. A camera is easier because its field of view is narrower than a human's, so a human might have had to cup their hands to do it. I'm not sure how well that would work using a helmet, and I've already stated before that I'm not sure how much glare might come from the helmet itself.

As for the SOHO telescope photos...

Guess what Ed, they didn't use the same cameras. They used cameras specifically designed to address the washout problem. Cameras that weren't available during the lunar landing.

It's like arguing that Columbus couldn't have discovered the New World because dugout canoes couldn't have carried enough food and water for his crew to survive the trip. You seem unable to see the disconnect here.

Hey, Chary,

I'm not the one saying the moon is a poor reflector of light. NASA is...hence the links I supply from NASA. Why don't you provide documented support for your statements?

What I've done is to take information supplied by NASA and show how it contradicts the supposed ability of the Apollo missions to reach the moon. Read previous posts of mine to find those articles. I am sure more will surface and I'll post as I see them.

Since you believe that astronauts could not see the stars on the moon(remember, the cosmonauts could see 'millions of stars brighter than they had ever seen only 350 miles, give or take, from the surface of the much larger and more brightly-lit earth), what do you think the astronauts saw?

What did they see in the sky?

Well, I can tell you that the astronauts did not remember seeing stars. And I get that from the astronauts mouth, during their press conference.

Lastly, a small sampling of rocks was brought back from the moon.

Despite the vehemence with which you claim some kind of knowledge of what it is you are speaking, I tend to doubt everything you say based on this statement alone, because, in fact, the actual claim is that all six Apollo missions brought back a total of 842 pounds of rock. Hardly a small sampling.


http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/caltechnews/articles/v33/n3.moon.html

842 pounds is large compared to what? 5 pounds? 10 pounds? It's all relative, Joshy.

So each lunar mission brought back 140 lbs of rock? oooooooooo, big schmeal. Apparently, they learned nada from it.

Because they really didn't go to the moon and obtain any moon rocks, they are set to make an explosion on the moon in order to search the debris for signs of water. But surely they could ascertain if water existed on the moon from the biggy wiggy amount of rocks they 'brought back' with them. All of the evidence supports no moon landing.

Here's the article on how they intend on searching for water:

"The cloud from the Centaur rocket booster will kick up 350 metric tons of debris that should spread six miles above the surface of the moon..
the spacecraft will train its instruments and cameras on the debris cloud, searching it for the chemical signature of water."
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1556254/NASA-To-Trigger-Massive-Explosion-On-the-Moon-In-Search-of-Ice

Gee, surely if the technology existed to reach the moon in the late 60s, then I'm sure the technology existed to confirm the presence of water.

Hey, Joshy, please explain to me your reasoning why they haven't gone back, since apparently there are HUGE reasons and HUGE dollars/profits and HUGE benefits for mankind's knowledge for doing so. Thanks 😊

men

Ja, al hierdie dinge is baie waar, maar die hoofrede hoekom ek weet die maanlandingstorie is twak, is die rooi Mini wat in die agtergrond verbyry.

I do not wonder at the people who come out of the woodwork, as it were, to go out of their way to support Government Conspiracies telling us that there is no conspiracy, and that we are all fools for using our brains.

I have recently acquired Mr. Bart Sibrel's documentary, A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON, and I did not find it funny.

I find it chilling that people can look at hard evidence, and dismiss it with an airy wave of their hands! The journalist was accidentally sent a reel of the unedited film of Neil Armstrong pretending to be 100,000 miles away!

For the benefit of those who haven't seen it- and don't intend to, because they have been told it was "rubbish," by people they trusted:

The astronauts turned out all their lights, and extinguished every blinking panel, then shot the Earth from the back wall of their capsule, so that it would look like they were 100,000 miles out, when they weren't! At some points, the camera moves around- when Neil Armstrong SAYS that the lens is pressed up against the window!
Then an arm of an astronaut intrudes at right field! The most shameless lying you ever saw!

I was totally convinced by this- but then I saw ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD. I was bored by watching the same clip again, but then I was jolted by seeing the lights come on, and we could plainly see the astronauts in the foreground, and that the camera was in the back of the cabin, away from the window. I felt sick! I feel sick! This is horrible!

I fully understand the need to have intimidated the Soviet Union. The American Government did a very noble thing, using utterly ignoble means.
They had no choice, because this is the sort of corner you get painted into, when you resort to the unholiest weapons, such as H-Bombs to solve your political problems.

The Soviet Scientists had the choice between exposing the myriad technical impossibilities NASA would have had to overcome, telling their ignorant and immoral leaders, whom they thoroughly despised, and would brave dogs and minefields to escape, that "USA Tech is no better than our own: You can go to war at any time!" or striking the Fear of God into their Atheistic leaders, making them think that there was no hope of besting America in a Nuclear War.

If any Western nations pretended to have tracked the Apollo module to the Moon. Soviet spies could have verified that they had not- for what?
So they could help initiate World War III?
The KGB must have helped keep this from their leadership. To paraphrase Josef Stalin, "Those who gather data determine nothing; Those who Interpret data determine nothing; Those who tell the Chairman what the data and interpretations were determine everything."

In ANY event, every astronaut who participated in this subterfuge is a hero. That can never be taken away from them. I was appalled at Bart Sibrel's behavior in ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD. THAT is why NASA still can't tell anyone what really happened. Neither those who disbelieve the evidence presented (some of which is untenable- the shadow stuff, crosshairs, and crap like that,) nor those who believe every "proof" (an honest and intelligent person should not support proofs presented just because they support their side- some of them are definitely not right!) have shown any sign of maturity in this matter.

On the one hand you have blind support for the integrity of government, and on the other, a blind determination that every fact and secret must come out, so that people know- WHAT?

That the Soviets should not have given up, and that no enemy nation should succumb to American Technological bluff ever again. What is this now, the third of fourth time America has gotten away with "Making the Other Guy blink first?"

Brilliant article here, Top 10 apollo hoax theories are your another wonderful articles. Thanks.😉

The best proof is seeing the WIRES ON THE ASTRO-NOTS.
*******************************************

http://www.youtube.com/user/sergemck#p/a/f/1/23_QdAz2tfY

*******************************************
I don't need much more than that. What's NASA's phony-physics answer to this one? Moon Webs? String Lightning?