Top 10 Apollo Hoax Theories

Alas, you're right Charybdis. I have no proof. Only speculation.

But Charybdis, riddle me this:
Several peculiarities exist for the

ed, von Braun was indeed a Nazi. After WW II the Soviet Union captured many German scientists and began using them to develope their rockets. The U.S. did the same in part to counter the Soviet actions, in part to hot-house our own program. Many Nazi scientists and other Nazis were ignored and not prosecuted in response to the Soviet threat. Look at the numer of former Nazis who ran the Federal German military in the 50's. And as far as Disney and von Braun being a technical consultant, who would they have selected? I know, the teenager selling papers on the street corner! Von Braun was selected not only for his technical expertese but his name recognition as well. It would have been a big publicity bonus to have "the chief NASA rocket scientist" as a technical consultant, even if they completely ignored him. He probably had nothing to do with any aspects of the production except that he answered any technical questions submitted to him. If he had been the producer, or director, then you might have a point to bring up. You didn't think this one through long enough.

This is speculation: "It would have been a big publicity bonus to have "the chief NASA rocket scientist" as a technical consultant, even if they completely ignored him. He probably had nothing to do with any aspects of the production except that he answered any technical questions submitted to him."

Could it have been a boost to have the most advanced, technical film making studio be associated with the NASA program? I mean they could have made the cameras better for lunar surface broadcast. All that darned bright light.

Maybe they could have been able to film the stars that must have been so brilliant on the moon without atmosphere..you know, those same stars that the three astronauts
DIDN'T REMEMBER IF THEY SAW STARS OR DIDN'T SEE STARS ON THE LUNAR SURFACE. They must have been too busy trying to keep the flag from waving around huh?

You know Ed, I often can't see stars from my house. You know why? Light pollution, pure and simple. And I'm not just talking about light reflecting off of atmospheric dust, though that's a major problem. I'm also talking about street lights and car headlights dilating my pupils so they won't register the fainter stars. It happens all the time.

Now, try looking for stars when you're standing in a sea of white and gray rocks and dust with the sun overhead. The lunar landscape could be very bright at times, and even in the darker areas it was still bright enough to ruin night vision, which is required to see all those faint stars.

Yes you could see the stars from the moon, but only if you shielded your eyes from all the brighter objects all around you. It would have required staring straight up for a long enough period to allow your eyes to adjust to the lower light levels. And even then I'm uncertain just what affect reflected light would have had on the astronaut's helmets. Perhaps none, perhaps a lot.


And, once again, your present an argument that in no way supports the idea that the landings were faked. Do you honestly think that NASA (this incredibly manipulative and conniving group, it seems) would have forgotten to add stars to their supposed backdrops? Or that the astronauts, who were presumably complicent in the fraud, wouldn't have lied and claimed they *did* see the stars?

How, in your mind, would such an omission on their part ever make you think the landings were faked?

See quote from your above post concerning viewing stars from telescopes on the moon:
"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."

SO which is it? Too much reflected light to not see the stars from the moon or really bright stars that are well seen due to the lack of atmosphere on the moon? You can't have it both ways.

Stars added to the backdrops would be very difficult to fake, I assume. Astronomers world wide might be able to point out anamolies in constellations, etc. Best way to deal with it is not mention them at all. It would, however, have behooved the astronauts to rehearse the star questions before the press conference.

I can too have it both ways, because you're talking about two different problem, light scattering in the atmospher and light reflecting from the surface.

What happens on earth during the day is that the dust in the air reflects sunlight, causing the sky to basically glow with a soft blue light. This light is easily brighter than the stars shining through it, so the stars disappear. At night this glow disappears, but the atmosphere still has different layers at different temperatures, causing the stars to shimmer, much like when looking out at a low angle across a hot pavement.

On the moon you don't get either of these issues, so you get a much clearer view of the stars.

Now, to the second issue. If bright light is entering your pupils then they will grow smaller to protect your eye from overload. This has the side-affect of limiting your low-light vision, meaning you can't see fainter lights, such as stars. This in no way is negated in a vacuum. The cameras of the time suffered from this affect even more so than the humans. If the cameras were to allow enough light to enter to make the stars show up, then everything else in the image would have appeared more or less solid white due to too much light entering the lense. You see this often on television for dramatic affect, the image starts out very bright and solid, and as the light is filtered the image gets darker and details start appearing.

If you doubt this try some simple experiments. Go outside at night and try to see the stars near a light pole. The closer to the light you get the more the stars grow fainter until you can't see them at all. Imagine the entire landscape lit up in such a manner and it's not hard to see why your pupils wouldn't allow enough light to enter to make the stars visible.

Now try it with a camera. Take a picture of the light and see if any stars are visible in the image. Unless you turn the exposure way up you won't be able to see any, but then the light would be so bright as to cause an annoying glare in the center of your picture.

To recap.

1) Dust in the air scatters light and outshines the stars. Only objects brighter than the sky (the moon, Venus, and sometimes Jupiter. Maybe Mars as well, in certain circumstances) will show through.

2) Light reflects off objects and terrain, causing your pupils to contract letting in too little light to allow you to see the stars. The affect is the same with cameras, though through mechanical and not biological processes.

Wow, lots of typos. I guess I shouldn't do this just before lunch.

From the Apollo 11 log:
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/apollo11_log/log.htm
1:55 p.m.- Armstrong tells Mission Control: "We're getting this first view of the landing approach. This time we are going over the Taruntius crater and the pictures and maps brought back by Apollos 8 and 10 give us a very good preview of what to look at here. It looks very much like the pictures, but like the difference between watching a real football game and watching it on TV-no substitute for actually being here."

About 15 minutes later he adds: "It gets to be a lighter gray, and as you get closer to the subsolar point, you can definitely see browns and tans on the ground."

And a few moments still later: "When a star sets up here, there's no doubt about it. One instant it's there and the next instant it's just completely gone."(why couldn't he say this during the press conference? No, he has to stumble over his words..I remember something about stars, don't know which ones....and Buzz says "I don't remember seeing any."

I thought you said that the surface of the moon was white and gray rocks...but Neil says it's brown and tan.

Wait, wait...Wait a minute..Aldrin agrees with you and completey disagrees with Neil:
4:18 p.m: Finally, in describing the surface, Aldrin says: "It's pretty much without color. It's gray and it's a very white chalky gray, as you look into the zero phase line, and it's considerably darker gray, more like ashen gray as you look up 9O degrees to the Sun. Some of the surface rocks close in here that have been fractured or disturbed by the rocket engine are coated with this light gray on the outside but when they've been broken they display a dark, very dark gray interior, and it looks like it could be country basalt."

Fractured rocks from the effects of the rocket engine thrust? But no displacement of rocks or moon dust, as would be evidenced by no dust on the landing feet of the LM, underneath the lunar module. I think it produced 10,000 lbs of pressure or something? And no displacement of dust near the landing module as evidenced by the fact of the footprints photographed in the fine dust near the landing site.

Does not Buzz Aldrin recount seeing stars from the surface of the moon in his book written around 1976 entitled 'Return to Earth"? I wish I had the page number. But he didn't remember seeing them during the press conference. This book is something we'd have to read to find out. To the library!

What does this prove? Conflicting answers equals a conflicted story. Details are important. One doesn't remember something here but remembers it at a later date. One sees brown and tan and the other sees white and gray. Just details.

I guess they can't be expected to remember everything that happened on the moon...but it does warrant questioning when they remember different things about the same event.

ed, talk with someone who deals with witnesses as part of their job. Guess what! Witnesses will disagree on what was seen almost all the time. Sometimes quite massively. There is the famous experiment of the psychologist's convention which illustrates this. Perhaps you've heard it, perhaps not. The basics are that one man runs into a convention conference room and goes down the center aisle. A second man chases the first while wavint a gun. A third man enters, knocks the second down and takes the gun away. The three leave. After this the organizers get everyone to write down what they saw. Of the approximatle 100 people in the room almost none got it right. I forget the exact number, but it was no where near even half the people who witnessed the experiment. Try something similar yourself, don't tell them what you are doind, but get several friends to witness some event and then get them to describe it in writing to you. I'll bet the descriptions will vary quite a bit, even to the basics. Human memory is not a photograph.

these were not merely witnesses to the moon landing..these were highly trained astronauts trained in the skills of space exploration, research, and observation. They weren't a bunch of yahoos in a conference.

What about displaced and fractured rocks by the thrust of the engines, but the silt near the landing module was not disturbed and allowed for nicely laid footprints? No dust on the landing feet of the LM, either, from pix I've seen.

I thought you said that the surface of the moon was white and gray rocks...but Neil says it's brown and tan.

From your own post ...you can definitely see browns and tans on the ground.

Neil says he can see browns and tans, not that the entirety of the surface is brown and tan. He also stated this while approaching the landing site. White and gray are the predominant colors at the landing site, but that's not universal across the whole moon. Also, green is the predominant color of a forest, but that doesn't exclude browns and tans from showing through as you pass overhead.

The dust issue has already been raised and explained, I'm not doing so again. It's up there if you care to read it. It's a simple thing, really.

As far as memory goes, Christopher covered it quite nicely. In fact, if everyone agreed on every last detail that would be suspicious, not the other way around.

Face it, you simply don't want to believe the landings occurred, and you're willing to latch on to any perceived 'irregularity' as proof you are correct. You still have yet to provide a single example of any real evidence beyond your feelings.

these were highly trained astronauts trained in the skills of space exploration, research, and observation. They weren't a bunch of yahoos in a conference.

No they weren't. They were mostly pilots with the determination (and luck) to have made it into space. There was no space exploration to speak of, everyone was learning as the went along. Yes they were highly trained - to operate the crafts they rode in. There was very little research done at first, and what was done was at the direction of earthside scientists.

They weren't yahoos, but there wasn't much room for niceties when your sole goal is to get there and return alive.

ed, I forget exactly how quickly the press conference was held after splashdown but those men had not had the time to recover from days of bad sleep and off-and-on adrenaline rushes. Which is a much more likely explanation for what you think of as suspicious events in the press conference than any conspiracy. No one has a prefect memory. Several months ago a couple of police officers came to my door and asked for one of my neighbors. Even though they explained who they wanted very well and even though I know the person fairly well, it still took me several minutes to put the data together and direct them to my next-door neighbor.
You called my explanation of von Braun's being used as a technical consultant for Disney "speculation", not really since this sort of thing still goes on all the time. Except now it is more likely to be a rock or movie star or athlete or out-of-office politician than a engineer or other technical person.

"You still have yet to provide a single example of any real evidence beyond your feelings."

You're right. None of these observations must make any sense at all to you.

Von Braun worked in the film industry. Accept it. He either knew how to make movies or he knew people who knew how to make movies. A rocket scientist plus a film producer equals the ability to produce a movie that appears to be filmed on in space or on the moon.

The van Allen Radiation belts.

Charybdis is very good at debating. He/she/it says the dust issue has been resolved from this post "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."

The dust was only a few inches thick...exactly...it should have been blown away from the LM and then no footprints would have been left. It's simple really.

Those astronauts look nervous as hell during the press conference.

This has been hilarious. But now it bores me.

Von Braun worked in the film industry. Accept it. He either knew how to make movies or he knew people who knew how to make movies. A rocket scientist plus a film producer equals the ability to produce a movie that appears to be filmed on in space or on the moon.

And yet, this in no way is any kind of evidence such an event occurred. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it happened.

As for the dust, try it some time with a sandbox and a can of compressed air. The sand immediately below the air stream will be blown out of the way, but it will pile up around the center. The exhaust wouldn't have simply turned 90

Assuming you aren't leaving us because we're pointing out how all of your arguments are incorrect, I suppose you'll switch to another false premise.

How about the waving flag? I haven't argued that one is a long time. Or how about the melting film since I haven't addressed that one before?

They weren't actors, you're right. That's why they couldn't act confident and proud that they had done something no one had done in the history of the world. They all just stared at their pens as they fidgeted.

As for the dust...try it in a sandbox with a fire extinguisher. The surface area that would be affected by the descending lunar module with its rocket jets would be larger than the craft itself.

You'd think they'd hire actors if they were going to fake something. It argues against your position, not for it.

No, the surface area affected would have been larger than the nozzle, but not necessarily larger than the lander. This picture gives a good shot of the lander and the ground beneath it. The nozzle itself looks to be roughly 1/4 the width of the entire lander assembly. It shows that the dust has been blown from directly beneath the nozzle and surrounding area, but not as far as the lander legs. Which is what you should expect with no air displacement.

Thank you for the picture. It argues against your position and not for it.

So you admit the dust would have been blown in all directions, especially upward.

The dust is blown upward, hits the underneath of the LM, is deflected back to the ground,... and none of it lands on the landing feet?

Ed, the primary reason why exhaust spreads is atmosphere. Without the air to deflect the exhaust, it will travel in a straight line. Dust blown up will fall straight down with displacement only due to the lunar rotation. The bottom of the lander was quite flat, it didn't need to worry about drag so the bottom didn't need the more expensive drag reducing curves and so forth. As for why the astronaughts looked and acted they way they did, you see how you act after weeks of bad sleep. No one has ever gotten a good nights sleep in space, primarily due to the gravity difference. It probably took months for them to recover. And while professional observatories were discussed, amatures weren't. There were thousnads of amatures back then with telescopes powerfull enough to notice that the asttronauts weren't flying to the Moon. Unless you are going to argue that the Lunar Lander was sent empty, thousands of people had the ability to follow the Apollo astronaughts as they travelled to the Moon.

Ed, I just remembered someting else. There is a lasar reflector on hte Moon that is used by scientists not only in this country but others as well. Primarily to measure the speed at which the Moon is receeding from the Earth, but other experiments as well if I remember right. If Apollo was a hoax, how did it get there?

I was watching a NASA film about the space shuttle. In the film they described the booster rockets as being 40 feet wide( I don't remember exactly.)

Are the booster rockets similar to the exhaust system in cars? I'm under the impression that the rockets channel the exhaust and explosive powers of the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as they combine and ignite. Is this assumption correct?

Booster rockets are nothing like the exhaust system of a car. On a car the system is designed to vent waste gases left over from the internal cumbustion of the fuel. All the motive power is created within the engine to power a drive train, which turns the wheels.

In a rocket, the exhaust system is the thrust system. It's the gases being expelled that cause the rocket to move.

The rocket boosters used to launch the shuttle, as well as the rockets actually on the shuttle itself, are far, far bigger than on the lunar lander. The lander didn't have to fight the earth's gravity, only the moon's. And the lander was far less massive that the shuttle.

The space shuttle at liftoff weighs in at around 4,500,000 lbs.

The lunar lander weighed around 5400 lbs as it descended to the lunar surface (lunar weight), and only 1700 lbs lifted off again.

So the fire we see exiting the rocket boosters is the gas that is being expelled and ignited?

How many pounds of pressure do you suppose comes out of those rockets? And how hot do you think those expelled gasses get?

Once I have these answers, then I have a follow up question and a point to make.

Ed, you do not see fire coming from a rocket except in bad sci-fi shows. The fire is inside the engine and what you see is hot gas. The hot gas needs to expand, to occupy more volume, than the cold gas and the engine and exhaust tubes are designed to channel that expansion to best use. Therefore, the exhaust coming from a rocket, or a jet, is designed to flow out as straight as possible as any side expansion reduces the thrust available to actually push the craft. An old rule of thumb for rockets was that the payload was 10% of the total weight of the rocket. Since rockets have to depart going basically straight up, thrust would have been some bit larger than total weight. The rocket would accelerate as fuel was used up and as gravity lessened. The shuttle booster rockets are thrown away as fast as possible in order to lessen the weight. The design of the shuttle rocket exhausts are different from the ones on the Lunar Lander, many years of further research the ones on the Lander were quite small.

Actually, the gases that escape from the shuttle rockets are flaming, they're that hot.

However, the first-stage rockets on the shuttle are solid-fuel rockets, much like in model rocket engines - they are not liquid fueled.

The reason for this is because solid-fuel rockets provide much more thrust per volume of weight. The systems are also far less complicated, so they save money and get greater initial thrust right where it counts the most.

The problem with solid-fuel rockets is that once ignited, you can't turn them off again. This makes fine tuning impossible, so the the shuttle finishes its launch on it's own liquid-fuel thrusters. Once the solid rocket boosters have burned out and dropped away the shuttle draws its liquid fuel from the external fuel tank, and when that's empty it's jettisoned as well. This leaves the shuttle with just enough fuel in its own tanks to maneuver in space and fall out of orbit again.

So no, the thrusters on the lunar lander operated nothing like the shuttle at lift-off. As far as how hot the lander's thrusters burned, and how far away those gases retained heat in a vacuum, I have no idea. I also have no idea how hot you wuld have to get the lunar dush to melt it, if that's what you're aiming at. I would imagine that by the time the gasses first reached the surface and blew the dust away they were cool and diffuse enough to have no affect on the dust. Remember, heat is lost very, quickly in a vacuum since there is not atmosphere to absorb the heat and re-radiate it back at you.


And always, always, ALWAYS copy your post before submitting. 😠

How hot do you think those gasses get...hotter than an office or home fire?
There's tens of thousands of lbs of pressure that is exited by the booster rockets and the external fuel tank/rocket, I'm sure.

Does NASA gather and reuse those rocket boosters after they are jettisoned?

What do you mean "copy your post"?

Ed, the boosters are recovered and reused, the external fuel tank is not. And the exhaust is not hot enough to melt rock, if it were, the exhaust nozzels would melt.

It makes sense the flaming exhaust is hotter than an office fire (goes to figure since the fuel is made to be highly combustible), but not hot enough to weaken the exhaust nozzels on the booster rockets that they reuse. Plus, those exhaust nozzels are then channeling the tens of thousands of lbs of pressure in as straight a line as possible, so they would have to be very sturdy. Sound right?

The comment about copying posts is to remind myself. The system has a habit of losing my post, and if I don't copy it first I have to retype the whole thing.

I'm not sure how hot they get, easily hotter than anything in most homes outside of welding equipment. Still not hot enough to melt the launchpad during the short time it's exposed to it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they replace the nozzles and many other parts of the rockets before reusing them. There's always going to be some damage or stress weakening of them, and these are (relatively) cheap and easy to replace. It's the delivery and structural systems that probably cost the most money, and are the parts they most desire to reuse.

And once again, the space shuttle launch rockets are many factors more powerful than that used on the lunar landers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/01/wmoon01.xml

"Mankind's second race for the moon took on a distinctly Cold War feel yesterday when the Russian space agency accused its old rival Nasa of rejecting a proposal for joint lunar exploration.

Yesterday Anatoly Perminov, the head of Russia's Federal Space Agency Roscosmos, said: "We are ready to co-operate but for some reason the United States has announced that it will carry out the programme itself. Strange as it is, the United States is short of experts to implement the programme."

"A non-radioactive isotope of helium, helium-3 is a proven and potent fuel for nuclear fusion - so potent that just six metric tons would supply Britain with enough energy for a year.

The plot, says Erik Galimov, an academic with the Russian Academy of Sciences, would "enable the US to establish its control of the energy market 20 years from now and put the rest of the world on its knees as hydrocarbons run out."

If only America could have realized the significance of landing on the moon at the time. But the public was far more interested in watching reruns of I Love Lucy. If only the NASA scientists and engineers could have convinced congress that something, anything, could have potentially been used from the moon for mankind's advantage...then we wouldn't have articles like this one to read today.

Why does this have to be, Christopher and Chary?!!! why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We were there once, right?! Oh why were they so short-sited?!!!!!!

Has anyone seen Warner von Braun's, the Father of the United States Space Program, made for tv space exploration movies? excellent work!

Ed, it takes a certain mind-set to plan for the distant future. This mind-set was more common before the baby-boomer generation since instant gratification was unusual. Sadly, my generation grew up on instant gratification and never grew up enough to get past it. So, we drown in debt because we have to have the whatever today instead of next week or next month, companys no longer plan for the long term because investors demand return on investment tomorrow (if that far into the future) instead of five years from now. Congress has, for decades, found it easier to spend money buying votes than building for a future, and so on. And the baby-boomers have taught these values of me-ism to the succeeding generations. I read once that the space program failed because we didn't bump into Klingons. There was no challenge to present to the public that could catch their interest. It wasn't just I Love Lucy reruns, it was absorbtion in self-interest.

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 can see stars.

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.

Thanks to Eric.

NASA is planning to send astronauts to the moon by the year 2020. However, before they send people to the moon, they want to measure the radiation levels on the moon with an unmanned probe named CRaTER:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08sep_radioactivemoon.htm

Didn't NASA measure radiation levels in the 1960s?

NASA sent several Surveyor probes to the moon during the 1960s before sending the Apollo astronauts:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html

NASA claims the purpose of the probes was to analyze the moon's surface. At the time those probes landed on the moon, nobody knew whether the moon's surface was hard enough for people to walk on. Some people wondered if areas on the moon were covered with such a thick layer of powder that the Apollo spacecraft would sink into it.

The surveyor probes showed that it was possible to land a spacecraft on the moon because the surface was crushed rocks, not deep, soft powder.

NASA admits that the Surveyor 6 measured solar protons and cosmic rays:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1967-112A&ex=2

What did the probe determine? Were the solar protons and cosmic rays at such a low level that the astronauts would be safe? Why is NASA so secretive about radiation levels in outer space?

After discovering that the moon was safe to walk on, NASA claims to have sent six teams of astronauts to the moon. They landed in six different locations. However, none of them bothered to measure the radiation.

NASA claims that the Apollo astronauts never bothered to measure radiation levels because they were on the moon for only a couple days. A more likely explanation for why the astronauts never measured radiation levels on the moon is because they never went to the moon.


In April 2006 NASA announced a plan to send a probe to the moon in 2008 to determine if there is water on the moon.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/464883/nasa_chooses_new_spacecraft_to_search_for_water_on_moon/index.html?source=r_space

Didn't NASA already analyze the 400 kilograms of moon rocks that 6 teams of astronauts brought back to the earth from 6 different locations on the moon?


Furthermore, this latest probe will crash
into the moon, not land gently!

NASA claims to have the technology to put men on the moon, and bring them home again, so why are they planning a primitive, destructive crash?

In this amazing report, we discover that NASA is using the Hubble telescope to look at ultraviolet light reflected from moon in order to determine what type of minerals are on the surface of the moon.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html

Didn't NASA already analyze the 400 kilograms of moon rocks that 6 teams of astronauts brought back to the earth from 6 different locations on the moon?

Thanks to Eric H. and this website for a refreshingly truthful view of the Apollo mission. http://www.australiafreepress.org/articles/Apollo/apollo.htm

Did you bother actually reading any of the posts that came before, or did you just jump in thinking you had new information?

Standing on the moon, with the lunar surface surrounding you, is completely different from looking at it in space. The cameras of the day washed out more easily than they do today. The SOHO cameras were specifically designed for viewing the sun's corona, the cameras on the lunar missions weren't. Nor are your eyes meant for such descrimination - your pupils will dilate letting in less light. If the sun is in your field of view, even in space, your pupils won't let in enough light to see the stars. And as dark as the lunar surface is, it's still many, many factors brighter than the brightest star.

Why the astronauts never mentioned stars, if in fact they didn't, I don't know. It hardly proves anything one way or the other though.

As for radiation levels, technology has advanced significantly in the past 40 years, as has medical understanding of the affects of prolonged exposure to radiation. The fact that they want to gather more information on it should come as no surprise. Who knows, levels might even have changed over the course of 40 years for some unknown reason. We won't know unless we check, though.

[qoute]A more likely explanation for why the astronauts never measured radiation levels on the moon is because they never went to the moon. [/quote]

No, a more likely explanation is that the equipment was considered unnecessary due to weight considerations since - by your own admission - probes had already measured the radiation levels.


Lastly, a small sampling of rocks was brought back from the moon. These were from select areas, mostly similar because they were deemed safer landing sites. This is representative of just a fraction of a percentage of the total surface area of the moon. Rocks from different areas would possible be very different from the ones returned, and might show signes of water that the others didn't. And again, technology has advanced an awful lot - things that are possible now weren't possible then.

I'm sorry, every point you raise is either misinformation or has a mundane explanation which is far likelier than a conspiracy theory, though nowhere near as fun.

And I'll state it one more time - if it was faked why didn't the Soviets (Our #1 enemy) ever point this out? They were in a position to do so yet never did.

QUOTE:Why the astronauts never mentioned stars, if in fact they didn't, I don't know. It hardly proves anything one way or the other though.

Charybdis, haven't you bothered to investigate whether the astronauts said they saw stars or not? If you would take the time to research, you would know that during the press conference upon their return, they could not remember if they saw stars or not. I mean, puhleaze! Couldn't remember...absolutely laughable.

QUOTE:Standing on the moon, with the lunar surface surrounding you, is completely different from looking at it in space.

What does this have to do with your argument? We're not talking about those cameras that were attached to the chests of the suits. According to NASA, stars would be brilliantly visible during the daylight hours. Please read carefully my post.

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

How much do you consider a small sampling?
The total mass was 381.69 kilograms or 841.6 pounds. It was delivered in 2196 original samples at a cost for the Apollo program of 24 billion dollars or 28,500 dollars per pound. I guess this is small conpared to the entire moon's weight. But, you present it in a disinformational way by saying nearly half a ton is a small sample. YOu are full of disinformation.


Why did't we hear the jet engines as the module was landing? huh? is it because they were in a vacuum and it wouldn't make noise? huh? why?

QUOTE:And I'll state it one more time - if it was faked why didn't the Soviets (Our #1 enemy) ever point this out? They were in a position to do so yet never did.

Wow, this tremendous observation of yours must really prove the Apollo missions were real. Why don't you offer anything to prove it? Instead, you attack my mesage by saying I have not read the previous posts, as if they answered all those questions which they do not. When you have no proof to the contrary, you attack the person offering legitimate questions and presenting research by NASA itself that contradicts their story.

Offer some info that proves they did it. Any 'proof' offered is debatable. Proof should be beyond debate, but nothing that has been offered by you is beyond debate. THe only 'proof' you can offer is what the media said and continues to say.

QUOTE:And I'll state it one more time - if it was faked why didn't the Soviets (Our #1 enemy) ever point this out? They were in a position to do so yet never did.

This question is best answered by Eric Hufschmid:

"If you think the Russians would love to expose scams, here are just four of many questions you should answer:

Are the Russians smart enough to know whether Building 7 was destroyed with explosives, and would they take the opportunity to make the Americans look like frauds and idiots?

Are the Russians smart enough to know whether 9-11 was a scam, and would they take the opportunity to expose the American government as liars, murderers, and con- artists?

Are the Russians smart enough to know whether the killing of President Kennedy was a scam, and would they take the opportunity to make the Americans look like frauds and idiots?

Are the Russians smart enough to know whether the Oklahoma City bombing was a scam, and would they take the opportunity to make the Americans look like frauds and idiots?

I think the answer to such questions is: all nation's have corrupt governments, and all commit scams. None of them want to get into a scam-exposing fight."

I bet you think, Charybdis, that normal temperature office fires could weaken industrial grade steel and cause two 110 story buildings to fall at free fall speed...at 10 floors a second, which completely ignores Newton's Law of the COnservation of Momentum and ignores the 100's of tonnes of steel and concrete that remained as support for the towers. And fire pulverizes concrete? Explosives can bring down a building in it's own footprint and pulverize concrete and send steel flying out hundreds of yards and bring a building down at free fall speed.

Plus the oldest fire engineering magazine in this country 'Fire Engineering' called the NIST and FEMA reports a 'half-baked farce.'

Didn't mean to change the subject, but it answers your question of why CCCP didn't call the USA to task on its Apollo missions. Every corrupt government has something to hide.

This is about the Apollo moon landings, not 9/11. There are plenty of other threads to argue about that one.

Didn't mean to change the subject, but it answers your question of why CCCP didn't call the USA to task on its Apollo missions. Every corrupt government has something to hide.

This isn't an answer. Yes ever nation has something to hide. No other nations don't keep such things to themselves to avoid their own secrets being 'outted' when those nations are engaged in a war, even a cold one.

The Soviet Union and the US went to extremes to make the other look bad and themselves look superiour. And even if the Soviets hadn't done so, the Chinese certainly would have. They had the technology to monitor the radio transmissions to and from the moon, and were far less friendly to us than even the Soviets. And many other nations also had the capability, friendly and not so friendly.

Your 'conspiracy' requires too many people, too many governments to keep mum about it to work. US Presidents can't even keep their affairs secret, how are we to expect they could keep something of this magnitude a secret for almost 40 years? And yet not one shred of evidence has come forth, just lots of people pointing out 'odd' things about the program, most of which have boring old mundane answers that you refuse to accept.

We have repeatedly refuted all of these claims, yet you refuse to acknowledge this. You, and everyone else on your side of the argument, simply keep going in a circular motion moving from one claim to another, finally coming back to your original arguments as if we'd forgotten them.

How about you point out the error in any of my arguments as I've been pointing out the errors in yours?

Note - restating your argument isn't pointing out the error in mine, it's simply dodging the issue.

QUOTE: Your 'conspiracy' requires too many people, too many governments to keep mum about it to work.

That's your opinion.

Talk about dodging the issue, why don't you address why the astronauts said they didn't remember seeing stars (when NASA clearly states that a celestial body devoid of an atmosphere will reveal stars upon stars from the surface of the body even during daylight hours), why you believe nearly half a ton is a small amount especially considering your statement that the astronauts didn't bring radiation detection devices due to 'weight constraints', and why no jet engines were heard during the eagle's landing or during any of the communication with ground control.

Apollo truthseekers do not need to answer the question of why a nation did this or that to prove anything. HOw could we or even you know that answer.

We point to inconsistencies in the story and compare it with science and common sense, i.e., the temperatures of the surface of the moon and the effects of temperature and radiation on film, the fact that there is clear evidence of the flag waving when no one is around it, the discrepencies of the shadows, no sound from the engines even tho there was hardly much separating the astronauts from the intense heat and noise from the jet engines, the lethal power of the Van Allen Radiation belts.

THen you cvome along with 'well, they didn't stay long enough in the radiation belt to affect themselves or the film.' THen I point out that it doesn't matter how long they were subject to the radiation, the intensity of the radiation would be enough for complications to occur. Neither one of us can prove our 'points.'

YOu say the light from the sun would reflect from the surface of the moon and make the stars unobservable, yet 7 percent of the light the moon reflects, according to NASA, would be reflected in straight lines and would not interfere with an observer's vision who would be looking upwards.

And finally, I don't get paid to respond on this forum, unlike yourself who has to keep up the conspiracy theory. I am hypothesizing you work for this website, and you are no doubt located somewhere on the dark side of the moon.

I have addressed your comment about the stars. I don't know if they mentioned them or not, I haven't gone through the transcripts of their interviews. However, even if they never mentioned stars at any point that hardly counts as evidence of a hoax. It would be odd yes, but far from damning.

I'm unsure what your 'half ton' remark refers to, I can't remember everything I've ever said. Possibly about weight on the moon. Regardless, I wasn't the one making the decisions on what was important to the mission and what wasn't. I simply stated that radiation detecting equipment might not have been considered important. Space, and weight, were both very precious commodities on the landers. Little things add up quickly, which is why they had to itemize everything they took with them. Of course they did smuggle some personal things such as a collapsible golf club and balls, but that's a far cry from radiation detecting gear.

Apollo truthseekers do not need to answer the question of why a nation did this or that to prove anything. HOw could we or even you know that answer.

You do if you want anyone to take you credibly. You're the ones making the argument, you have to support it with facts. If we refute those facts then it's your responsibility to refute our refutation.

We point to inconsistencies in the story and compare it with science and common sense, i.e., the temperatures of the surface of the moon and the effects of temperature and radiation on film...

Refuted.

... the fact that there is clear evidence of the flag waving when no one is around it...

Refuted.

...the discrepencies of the shadows...

Not refuted because you've yet to point these discrepancies, if they exist, out.

...no sound from the engines even tho there was hardly much separating the astronauts from the intense heat and noise from the jet engines...

Cites please? I know of no such issue, though I do know that the engines only ran for extremely short periods of time.

...the lethal power of the Van Allen Radiation belts.

The Van Allen belts aren't lethal. I'm unaware of anyone, other than hoax conspiracists, who states otherwise. Even Van Allen himself discounted this hypothesis.

YOu say the light from the sun would reflect from the surface of the moon and make the stars unobservable, yet 7 percent of the light the moon reflects, according to NASA, would be reflected in straight lines and would not interfere with an observer's vision who would be looking upwards.

Um, I never said an astronaut looking up from the lunar surface would not see stars. I said that an astronaut who had the lunar surface, the sun, or possibly the earth in their field of view at the same time would have their pupils dilate because of the light. This would limit low-light vision enough that stars wouldn't necessarily be visible. Cameras of the day would have had a similar issue, though because of exposure time rather than pupil dilation.

And finally, I don't get paid to respond on this forum, unlike yourself who has to keep up the conspiracy theory. I am hypothesizing you work for this website, and you are no doubt located somewhere on the dark side of the moon.

This is simply a stupid last-ditch ad-hominem attack because you have no real argument and are afraid to admit it, even to yourself.

Ahh, I seem to have skipped a post. I now understand the half-ton reference.

Of course, this half-ton occurred over several different mission, not all at once. It also would have replaced items taken to the moon and left there, like the lunar rover.

As for being a small sampling, compared to the trillions of tons of rock on the moon I'd have to say half a ton is pretty small indeed.

Wow, this tremendous observation of yours must really prove the Apollo missions were real. Why don't you offer anything to prove it? Instead, you attack my mesage by saying I have not read the previous posts, as if they answered all those questions which they do not. When you have no proof to the contrary, you attack the person offering legitimate questions and presenting research by NASA itself that contradicts their story.

And yet you never point out the error in my statement. Is this because you're unable to? Your conspiracy theory falls apart without concocting another one to support it. Then you concoct a third one about me because you're unable to actually attack my argument itself.

Provide one, just one, bit of REAL evidence for your theory. Just one person who undeniably worked on the lunar landings who can show them to be a hoax.

Ed, every one of your points has been dealt with previously. If you don't want to accept them, I nor anyone else can't make you. There are sites that have been referenced that disprove every one of your claims. Disprove - period. Your entire argument - it isn't a real theory since that requires facts - is based upon misunderstanding and ignorance, willful ignorance.

QUOTE:Your conspiracy theory falls apart without concocting another one to support it. Then you concoct a third one about me because you're unable to actually attack my argument itself.


So you are telling us you do not work for this website?

I volunteer my time as a mod on this website. This is an unpaid position - I didn't even receive free copies of Alex's books, I purchased them myself.

But without even garnering this little bit of information you have accused me of taking money specifically to counter your claims. This is a big website with many other topics being discussed here. This thread and your claims are simply a very small part of that whole. To assume that you and your claims are important enough to warrant somebody here being paid to counter you is the height of arrogance. It would be much easier to simply delete this thread and not allow you to post at all, yet you are given free reign to post your misinformation so long as you remain within the bounds of decent and acceptable behaviour.

So you might want to rethink your little persecution complex a bit. It belittles you and your argument when your only recourse is to resort to personal attacks.

Chary, I was only curious. Since you are the only one to challenge the claims, Christopher every once in awhile will, but since you respond every time, then one may wonder if this person or persons is being paid to keep the topic(s) going. Reasonable and responsible of me to uncover that unknown.

I just don't understand your pity party you have going on.

Charybdis,

Listen to the subtext in Ed's post: Let It Go. Ed's an Unsinkable Rubber Ducky on this issue, as conspiracy theorists tend to be. You've put the data out there for anyone who wants it; stop wasting your time pushing the ducky to the bottom of the bathtub again... and again... and again.

Maybe you get a kick out of it, of course, but to switch metaphors in midstream my impression is you're more scratching an itch - and trust me, that won't make it better!

Wow! Some truly stupid questions in here. I couldn't read through all of the comments because they were so absurd! Some people really need a crash course in what lies beyond the earth's atmosphere, the brightness of the sun when taking photgraphs in space, and the (OH MY GOD) radical idea of ground-based (that is - earth-based) motion-controlled camera photography! This is one of the most laughable web sites I've ever stumbled across! I want to read each individual post - and respond accordingly. This is my first time here, but it's obvious-as-hell that we have some totally clueless people posting in here!! Good for some real belly laughs! I'll check back in, later......
*snork* *guffaw* *snicker*

These are some of the most naive, the most incredibly funny, the most unbelieveably dumb comments I have ever read! It's one goddamn laugh riot after another! I have to read them all, individually - on my time - to respond with some very factual information for you poor lost little lambs who never believed that we went to the moon! But this sampling of comments....this is priceless!! A true joy! This needs to be seen by everyone in the astronaut office at JSC! I hope that it has already made it there.