Moon Landing hoax?

[Thedirtysailor]

I'm very curious about other peoples opinions and thoughts about the possibility that the lunar landings may not have been everything the American establishment would have people believe... In other words were the landings a hoax? Certain photographs and film clips of the landings and exploration of the lunar surface by astronauts seem to show certain unexplained anomolies...ie) in two seperate film clips from two different landings they show astronauts planting the American flag on the lunar surface where according to the best experts on the subject there is no atmosphere present, both flags appear to be moving as if propelled by a wind, one flag does a 180 and blows in the astronauts face. Another example is a number of photographs show shadow patterns in 3 or 4 different directions or 3 or 4 different light sources to create the shadows. Also personally I find that a lot of the photos are spectacular as you would expect, but I recently watched an interview with the gentleman who created the chest camera's that were mounted on the astronauts space suits. He said that the photographs were so well framed and lighted that it would have been impossible for those cameras to take those pictures. Anyways, like I said, just curious about other peoples opinion on this topic."To cofine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit."- Stephen Hawking

[FrYGuY]

Originally posted by Thedirtysailor
in two seperate film clips from two different landings they show astronauts planting the American flag on the lunar surface where according to the best experts on the subject there is no atmosphere present, both flags appear to be moving as if propelled by a wind, one flag does a 180 and blows in the astronauts face.
This is more than easily explained by the fact that the flag was on a metal pole. The entire time that the flag is moving, it is being touched by an astronaut. It's simple physics. The Astronaut plants the flag, the pole bends, the flag waves. In both videos, if you watch until after the astronauts are done planting them, the flags stop moving completely. Besides, if it was a sound studio, as the conspiracy theorists believe, there wouldn't be any wind there either.

Another example is a number of photographs show shadow patterns in 3 or 4 different directions or 3 or 4 different light sources to create the shadows.
No, the photographs show the shadows going in slightly different directions and/or shadows of the same objects being of varied length. The reason for this is, again, simple. The moon is VERY rugged. The many slopes of the moon creates an interesting set oh shadows.

Also personally I find that a lot of the photos are spectacular as you would expect, but I recently watched an interview with the gentleman who created the chest camera's that were mounted on the astronauts space suits. He said that the photographs were so well framed and lighted that it would have been impossible for those cameras to take those pictures.
Believe it or not, you're absolutely right. It is impossible for those photographs to be that well framed. Fortunately, they're not. If you look at the actual photographs, available to the public from NASA somewhere, The pictures are largely horrible. The thing is:

A) There were hundreds of thousands of photos taken
B) The photographic prints which were used in publicity are cropped to the best possible framing

So, the pictures themselves aren't that good, just the parts of them that is distributed to the public.

Anyways, like I said, just curious about other peoples opinion on this topic.
Just one question.

Nobody, not a single person, is doubting that the astronauts left the earth. There were thousands of people at each launch. However, if they didn't go to the moon, where did they go?

If they went into Low Earth Orbit, as the theorists contend, they would have been easily spotted by even an amateur star gazer with the naked eye. The feat had been done with the basketball sized Sputnik, why couldn't it have been done with the school-bus sized Command and Lunar Excursion Modules?

[Wobbel]

Take a look here (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html), a page dedicated to the whole "we didn't land on the moon" thing.
It'll tell you fact from fiction.

[c0lin]

its a hoax.....

Look (http://www.blogjam.com/neil_armstrong/)

:D

[yousuf]

bits of the cross hairs are missing from the camera shots.

The lower part of the ship was supposedly "left on the moon" when they came back to earth. Why can no one see it from earth?

Russia didn’t send astronauts to the moon because there is too much radiation there. Explain that.

[FrYGuY]

Originally posted by yousuf
bits of the cross hairs are missing from the camera shots.
The moon is extremely bright due to the fact that there is no atmosphere to absorb or refract the sunlight. Because of this, the film tended to bleed the light areas to the dark areas, especially in the places where it was extremely bright.

The next two I will have to reference one of the many websites which disprove the hoax theories, as I can not remember the numbers and names exactly. Sources will be given

The lower part of the ship was supposedly "left on the moon" when they came back to earth. Why can no one see it from earth?
The Hubbel telescope, currently the most powerful telescope accessable to mankind, can resolve up to 87 meters at the distance to the moon. The Lunar modules are less than 10 meters. They are simply too small. There are, however, at least three pieces of hardware on the Moon that is not in dispute. Apollos 11, 14 and 15 erected laser reflectors on the lunar surface. Laser beams are routinely fired at these reflectors through telescopes at McDonald Observatory in Texas and near Grasse in southern France. Timings of these reflected beams are used to measure the Earth-Moon distance to an accuracy of one inch.

Source (http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon)

Russia didn’t send astronauts to the moon because there is too much radiation there. Explain that.
The failure of the Soviet Union to land a man on the moon was due to the failure of their N1 moon rocket, which was the USSR equivalent of the USA Saturn V. The Soviets attempted two test launches of the N1 in 1969, the first on 21-February and the second on 3-July. The July test, which occurred just two weeks before the launch of Apollo 11, was a catastrophic failure as the rocket exploded on the launch pad and destroyed much of the launch complex.

Source (http://www.bestofcolumbus.com/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm)

(Side note: You should check out the spy satelite before and after pictures, if you can find them. I was so blessed once. The N1 was something like 5 times larger than the Saturn V, and if you've ever seen a Saturn V in person, you know that's really friggin' big. As a result, the facility was a black crater in the after picture.)

[c0lin]

FrYGuY do you work for NASA ? :D

you seem to know alot bout this :p

[c0lin]

ok heres some challenges for ya :p

An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.

About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.

[Thedirtysailor]

I too have listened to interviews with scientists that insist that the VanAllen radiation belt would be impassible for humans, without having proper shielding. There are also a large number of photographs of astronauts taken in front of they're lunar lander where the main light source (The Sun) is clearly visible behind the lander and every minute detail on the lander is visible which would be impossible to achieve with an artificial light source. There was also two sets of photographs taken on two seperate landings that NASA insisted were in two seperate locations miles apart where when one photo was superimposed over the other, they matched down to the last pebble. I will concede that certain anomolous occurrences can be explained away, certain others do not warrant an easy explanation. Also only certain shots of the moon landing were apparently shot on sound stages others were assumed to be shot somewhere in the US high desert ie) groom lake area. The retro rockets used on the lunar landers were also proven through recently declassified government documents and film footage to be extremely unstable and unpredictable as close to 3 months prior to the moon shots. Actually showing one of the lunar astronauts ejecting on a test flight of a module testing they're retro rocket technology.
Still curious, and still questioning!"The important thing is not to stop questioning."- Albert Einstein.

[philgorp]

Originally posted by c0lin
ok heres some challenges for ya :p

An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.

About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.


ok
first data transmissions don't crinkle

the van allen is a 'belt' that covers 20 degrees north & south of the equator,, nasa is 30 degrees north of the equator and lauches from there

the space station has been out there for few years and has yet to be hit,,,,
???

[yousuf]

Originally posted by c0lin
FrYGuY do you work for NASA ? :D

you seem to know alot bout this :p
He must do he seems to want to defent them all the way. :p

[Evil_Dweller_01]

Well..I dont really know the answer to this and I dont know what to think...

All I'm wondering is..why dont they visit the moon again? What's stopping them..they have superior technology compared to what they had in 1969 so why not?

I heard a theory that when they landed on the moon they saw a city or town way more complex then anything every on earth..so they chose to film far away from there and never come back because what they saw they dont' want to reveal to the public..

I have no clue if that's true or not..

[yousuf]

This crater that was supposedly photographed on the moon doesnt exist there is one similar to it on earth.
True whay dont they go to the moon again?

[FrYGuY]

No, I don't work for NASA. I'm 19 year old college student, remember?

Okay, some more...

First, the reason the film survived those temperatures was that it was never exposed to those temperatures. NASA chose cameras which had the film pretty well insulated for that reason. The film did not touch the outer wall of the camera at any point.

The reason the Astronauts could pass throught he Van Allen belt without being fried is simply that they weren't in it long enough.During the 10 minute trip through the Van Allen belt, the Astronauts experienced a dose of 2 rads. A very high amount to be exposed to in a 10 minute period, but since you only experience radiation sickness at around 100 rads of exposure, the Astronauts were fine and dandy.

The oft cited Micrometeorites are usually smaller than a grain of sand. Even at 6,000 MPH, a fleck of dust usually won't pierce metal.

You're actually completely correct, though, that an astronaut (Neil Armtrong, actually) did have to eject from the Lunar Lander Trainer prior to the moon landing. This is, however, easily explained. The Lunar Lander trainer was *very* different from the actual Lunar Lander. Since it operated in 6 times the gravity, it had to have a much more powerful, and finicky, engine. The engine placed on the lunar lander was much more reliable, as it only had to put out a sixth the thrust. The astronauts also later claimed that the Trainer was far more difficult to fly than the real lander, to be expected with the reduced gravity.

As for the reason on why we don't return to the Moon, the answer is simple economics. The Saturn V rockets each cost somewhere on the order of $25,000,000,000. Keep in mind, that's in 1960's money. While the technology keeps on improving, some things don't. IE: Escape velocity. Achieving escape velocity is still only able to be achieved by throwing lots of fuel at it. Lots of fuel equals lots of weight. Lots of weight equals lots more fuel needed. Repeat loop.

The LEM pictures are also fairly easy to explain. While there is no refraction on the moon's surface, there is an over abundance of reflection. A massive vertical surface, like the lunar module, could easily be bright enough to be seen in shadow on camera, as the moon was a VERY bright place due to the lack of an atmosphere.

As far as the photographs from different missions in the same place, I'd have to see them, as I've never seem them before. I have seen badly digitally faked picture made by some of the moon hoaxers before. Such as the imfamous astronaut standing in front of the lander with no shadow on the ground, and shadows on his suit the wrong way.

Keep in mind that
A) No matter how many lights you threw at that problem, you couldn't get that to happen. Period.
B) It would be more effort to get the lighting WRONG (In that manner, at least) to fake a moon misssion.

[Shades Coolray]

Okay FrYGuY, just out of curiousity, what's your major in college, since you seem to be an expert on this?

[yousuf]

Originally posted by Shades Coolray
Okay FrYGuY, just out of curiousity, what's your major in college, since you seem to be an expert on this?
he copied and pasted off of other sites (LoL)

[FrYGuY]

Originally posted by Shades Coolray
Okay FrYGuY, just out of curiousity, what's your major in college, since you seem to be an expert on this?
Business Administration. I'm just an aerospace junkie.

[FrYGuY]

Originally posted by yousuf
he copied and pasted off of other sites (LoL)
Only on the two in which I cited. That was because of:

1) The first cite was so that I could get an accurate resolution for the Hubble Telescope. I couldn't remember the minimum size to resolve for the Hubble at the distance of the moon, so I needed to cite the webpage for the 87 Meter figure. Copy/Paste was simply because he put it so well.

2) I couldn't remember the exact dates of the N1 rocket experiments. I had read about them prior, though, in the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine, which is also where I saw the pictures of the crater. Copy and Paste was again due to the fact that the author had phrased it well himself. Again, the page was cited.

[yousuf]

Originally posted by FrYGuY
Business Administration. I'm just an aerospace junkie.
i allways thought u were a cook or something :p

[c0lin]

Originally posted by yousuf
i allways thought u were a cook or something :p

haha so did i lol..
maybe its ur av :cool:

[Lion7718]

I just watched the video from Fox...Did We Land On The Moon...pretty strong stuff...does make you wonder.

[FrYGuY]

Rather than go over every claim the Fox program made, I'll give you a convenient link which does the job for me.

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

[Thedirtysailor]

Okay, just to be fair about this here's a link that provides some very interesting facts.

http://www.aulis.com/news-archive.htm

One that I thought that was particularly interesting was NASA' success percentage ratio.

Quote;
During Project Apollo, six highly complex manned craft landed on the
Moon, took off and returned to Earth using a relatively low level of
technology. An 86% success rate. Since Apollo, twenty-five simple,
unmanned craft with increasingly higher levels of technology have
attempted to fulfil their missions to Mars. Only seven succeeded.

A mere 28% success rate.

Was Apollo blessed?

I grew up during that time period and watched the moon landings on television, and even then I had questions about that particular aspect of them. Technology then was very primitive in comparison to todays marvels and this particular magic feat was performed only about a decade after the first successful earth orbit. At this point in time I think that there are far to many unanswered questions about this to come to any firm conclusion, and before I bow my head and nod to any governmental body or government funded agency I'm going to ask WHY!!!

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."-George Washington

[FrYGuY]

The average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 238,900 miles.

This year, Mars is the closest it's been in something like 65,000 years at 34.65 million miles.

That's a little over 145 times farther.

Now, I ask you, is it really that hard to believe that the Moon is that much easier to reach?

And, to make things more fun, at least two of the missions were explicitly BECAUSE of the advanced technology. Remember the probe which crashed into mars because a programmer forgot to convert metric Newtons to Empirical Pound/Feet? That was great fun.

I've still yet to see a plausible theory as to where the people in the Saturn V's went if they didn't go to the moon.

[Thedirtysailor]

Let's see....1969???? Yeah I think they're asking way too much for me to believe that. Like I said , I think there are far to many unanswered questions and photographic anomilies to be brushed aside as easily as you seem to think they should.

"Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education." -Bertrand Russell

[FrYGuY]

Originally posted by Thedirtysailor
Let's see....1969???? Yeah I think they're asking way too much for me to believe that. Like I said , I think there are far to many unanswered questions and photographic anomilies to be brushed aside as easily as you seem to think they should.
I've yet to see a 'photographic anomaly' that I haven't been able to figure out in the span of, oh, 5 seconds. The most perplexing was the infamous 'C rock', which turned out to be a hair on the film during the print process (Only one print had the C markings. The raw film itself was sans-C). Other than that, I'd gladly explain any oddities which you may encounter.

And the first step in making a credible claim that the astronauts didn't go to the moon is to explain where the astronauts did go instead. The Saturn V's *were* launched. There *were* people in them. Eventually, the capsules did fall from the sky with the same people in them. They were not in orbit, otherwise they would have been seen. So, again, where did they go?

[blackspawn]

LOLOL sorry but when I see ppl actually wondering if it really was a hoax... :rolleyes:

Common!!! take a step back and realise what you are saying... a HUMOUNGOUS conspiracy theory that was meant to fool billions of ppl (millions of those whatch it live on tv and/or telescopes). They had to rig thousands of instruments, fool hundreds of NASA technicians (or were they ALL in it???), fool the Soviet government and cientists (you really think if it was the most impossible hoax ever made the soviets wouldn't figure it out?), forge hundreds of fotos, build sets and shoot the films... and so on and so on.
ALL this just to say "hey we got there first, we're the best!" sorry but: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Every single point made on those sites that say the moonlanding was a hoax can be 100% disproven.
Why haven't we gone there again? well why would we want to go there? yes because you just don't spend millions and millions of dollars just for the sheer fun of it...
oh and more/better techology doesn't mean better chances of acomplishing something. In my book the more complex a thing is the more prone it is to errors and glitches (a good example it the one Fryguy gave about the pounds/newton fiasco...)

Yeah Yeah I know some site that claim it was a hoax are convincing but so is any good magician when doing is tricks, and do I really believe they make cars and planes dissapear, or that they have super-human abilities and can guess the card you chose or even that they can dissapear into thin air?? I certainly do not!

[FrYGuY]

The most damning evidence is the dirt itself.

It goes in a parabolic path. It *CAN NOT DO THAT* in an atmosphere.

Thus, if it *was* shot on earth, it was shot in a vacuum. We still don't have the technology to evacuate the air for an entire studio. But, okay. The air was removed. Then how is the dirt flying in a path which is indicative of the Moon's gravity? Was there anti-gravity technology in the 60's too that we've forgotten about?

Somehow, I find it less implausible that we landed on the moon.

[philgorp]

quote blackspawn,
"oh and more/better techology doesn't mean better chances of acomplishing something. In my book the more complex a thing is the more prone it is to errors and glitches (a good example it the one Fryguy gave about the pounds/newton fiasco...) "quote

i agree totaly ,,

i work on commercial marine autopilots and i see pilots that were made in the fiftys that work as well and in some cases better than some new "high tech"pilots sold today.
we even sell one model thats basic design hasn't changed since 1921.

the average joe that has opened the hood on his car in the last 25 years usually closed it in about 12 to 18 seconds