Moon landing in 69? No way!

[stargazer]

Greetings all!

I was a fan of the supposed Apollo moon landings when I was a child -- I watched the first "live" broadcast of the Apollo movie in 69 as a four year old, thanks to Stanley Kubrick -- til my teens when I developed other interests, but I have ever since loved to gaze at the stars.
When I heard about allegations that the moon landings may have been faked several years ago I did not take that seriously and dismissed it out of hand as a crank theory. That changed about two years ago when I read an article on the Internet which aroused my scepticism. I started reading more about the details of the mission and after about half a year I was convinced that it indeed was a giant hoax and nothing will change my mind about this except photographs -- and that is REAL not manipulated or fabricated photographs, I've seen enough of those - - from the remains our astronauts allegedly left behind on the moon, e.g. the descent stages of the 6 LMs. Maybe soon some space agency, preferably not NASA, will manage to finally put a little probe in a lunar orbit with high resolution cameras onboard and show the world what really is on the moon. How about live-feed to the Internet? I'm sure this would be worthwhile scientifically also since the moon has certainly not been exhaustively studied yet.

Now, I don't expect to find many people here who will maintain that they too are convinced it was a fake since this board seems clearly dominated by the so-called hoax debunkers some of whom seem to be doing this "debunking" for a living. Actually it doesn't take much knowledge about space travel or astrophysics -- I have some though -- to soon figure out the Apollo moon landings were a fraud. The simplest refutation was and remains the lack of any photographs of the stars taken on any of the mission, be it from the moon's surface or out of the command module, and even more ridiculous is the fact the astronauts never talked about the stars, the first three didn't "remember seeing any", when the first thing you notice when going to higher altitudes from sea level in the earth's atmosphere is the increasing magnificence of the stars to be beheld in the sky. Also, from watching the three heros in the post-flight press conference of Apollo 11 any sensitive person will see that there is something very fishy with the behavior of those alleged moon travelers who have just accomplished the greatest technological feat in the history of mankind.

So my question to the Apollo moon landing believers is this:
Why is it so important that those alleged moon landings did in fact take place? What would change it were unequivocally proven or better yet officially admitted by NASA (don't believe that will ever happen) that it was a giant scam? Would that be the end of the world? Would there be a revolution tomorrow in America? Or what?

Stargazer

[PeterB]

G’day Stargazer, welcome to the Apollohoax board.

You asked:

Why is it so important that those alleged moon landings did in fact take place?

Because in our opinion that’s what the evidence suggests. There’s also a fair bit of evidence that a number of people who claim the landings were faked have knowingly promoted statements which they know are false. Some have also behaved poorly to astronauts.

What would change it were unequivocally proven or better yet officially admitted by NASA (don't believe that will ever happen) that it was a giant scam?

My respect for the people who managed it would be greatly improved, because they’ll have done what others have failed to do – make a fake look so real that many experts in many fields were convinced it was real, and also kept the secret for over 30 years.

Seriously, though, it would have a serious effect in a number of sciences. For example, a lot of geology is based on the assumption that the Moon rocks brought back by Apollo missions were real. Some other sciences have ideas developed from data produced by experiments allegedly placed by the astronauts. If NASA was to say that the landings were faked, a lot of this data would have to be re-evaluated.

Would that be the end of the world? Would there be a revolution tomorrow in America? Or what?

I suspect a lot of people might be upset that $25 billion of 1960s money was spent on a fake, unless there was a very good explanation for why. After all, if it was physically impossible (space radiation or something like that) then NASA could simply have said back in the early 1960s that it was physically impossible to send people beyond low Earth orbit. If that was so, the USSR could hardly say otherwise. If it was technically impossible at the time, NASA could have asked for an extension, or simply taken longer. If it was always going to be technically impossible (that is, we’ll never be able to travel there), then NASA could again say so, and the USSR wouldn’t be able to gainsay that.

So there probably wouldn’t be a revolution, but probably a few people angry at the deception.

On the positive side, Hollywood could probably learn a lot from the fake – like how to recreate the behaviour of objects in a low gravity vacuum. The dream sequence from “Apollo 13” looks nothing like what NASA showed us.

[PhantomWolf]

Did you realise that to take a photo of the stars required either an exposure of at least 30 seconds (not possible with the Haselblad) or a special camera? Did you realise that the only difference between the stars fromn Earth and from the Moon is that on the moon you can get the UV from them as our atmosphere blocks that out? Are you aware that Apollo 16 take with them a special UV camera to do just this? Are you aware that the question you refer too, from Sir Patrick Moore, was one that lead to Armstrong and Colins talking about an experiment they did on the way to the moon where they were taking photos of the Sun's corona? Are you aware that stars would nly be visible to the human eye when standing in shadow and giving time to allow your eyes to adjust? Are you aware that several Astronauts did indeed do this and talk about seeing stars when standing in the shadows, or while in a that darkened LM? Are you aware of Colins talking about seeing stars while in the CSM while out of the sunlight? Are you aware that the biggest Apollo Hoaxer on the planret is not NASA, but is Bart Sibrel?

[PeterB]

Stargazer said:

When I heard about allegations that the moon landings may have been faked several years ago I did not take that seriously and dismissed it out of hand as a crank theory. That changed about two years ago when I read an article on the Internet which aroused my scepticism.

Which article was that? Have you checked out the claims in the article against the Clavius web-site which is attached to this board?

I started reading more about the details of the mission and after about half a year I was convinced that it indeed was a giant hoax and nothing will change my mind about this…

Nothing? Are you that certain?

So if you were to speak to a geologist who studied Apollo rocks, and the geologist said that those rocks definitely came from the Moon, you wouldn’t be swayed?

If an engineer said that there was no way a robot spacecraft collected that rock, you wouldn’t be swayed?

If a radio technician said that the dish he worked at was pointed at the Moon and while it was, it recorded transmissions from astronauts, you wouldn’t be swayed?

…except photographs -- and that is REAL not manipulated or fabricated photographs, I've seen enough of those - - from the remains our astronauts allegedly left behind on the moon, e.g. the descent stages of the 6 LMs. Maybe soon some space agency, preferably not NASA, will manage to finally put a little probe in a lunar orbit with high resolution cameras onboard and show the world what really is on the moon. How about live-feed to the Internet? I'm sure this would be worthwhile scientifically also since the moon has certainly not been exhaustively studied yet.

You’re quite right that the Moon hasn’t been exhaustively studied yet. I’m sure there are a few scientists who’d love to work on a mission studying the Moon. But a live internet feed takes a lot of bandwidth, which would limit the amount of other scientific data which could be transmitted back to Earth.

Anyway, China has announced plans to go to the Moon in the coming years, so their spacecraft may well image the Apollo landing sites.

Now, I don't expect to find many people here who will maintain that they too are convinced it was a fake since this board seems clearly dominated by the so-called hoax debunkers some of whom seem to be doing this "debunking" for a living.

I wish I could do this sort of stuff for a living. I find it fascinating to learn about topics like this and explain them to others. Alas, we all do it for a hobby.

Still, the board does attract people like you who think the Moon landings were faked. Some have changed their minds, and others have left unconvinced. You’re not alone.

But in the meantime, I hope you enjoy your time here.

Actually it doesn't take much knowledge about space travel or astrophysics -- I have some though -- to soon figure out the Apollo moon landings were a fraud. The simplest refutation was and remains the lack of any photographs of the stars taken on any of the mission,

Ah, photos of stars aren’t a matter of space travel or astrophysics. Anyway, carry on…

…be it from the moon's surface or out of the command module,

Okay. The first thing is that the stars are faint. In order to photograph stars when the Sun is shining, you need a long exposure time – like about 30 seconds. Of course, if you jiggle the camera in those 30 seconds, the photo won’t be much good.

Second, the astronauts went to the Moon to study the Moon, not the stars. Their photos were generally of the rocks they picked up, panoramas of the land around where they were standing, or the odd tourist shot.

Third, on one mission, they *did* take photos of the stars. On Apollo 16, the astronauts had a UV telescope and camera with them. On the Moon, the stars are no easier to see than they are on the Earth (except that they don’t twinkle). But the Earth’s atmosphere blocks most UV light, making UV observation of stars almost impossible. On the Moon that isn’t a problem. So the Apollo 16 photos include some photos of stars (and the Earth) taken in UV light.

…and even more ridiculous is the fact the astronauts never talked about the stars, the first three didn't "remember seeing any",

That’s right, they didn’t see much in the way of stars. But the only way to see stars when you’re in space is to be in the shadow of the Sun – that is, on the night side of the Earth or the Moon, or to be in a deep shadow on the surface of the Moon.

astronauts? Where did you get that term from?

Astronauts on later missions who made the effort often saw stars. For example, Apollo 16 Command Module Pilot saw stars on the dark side of the Moon. But to do so, he had to switch off the cabin lights, and let his eyes get used to the dark.

…when the first thing you notice when going to higher altitudes from sea level in the earth's atmosphere is the increasing magnificence of the stars to be beheld in the sky.

Have you seen the stars in the sky when the Sun is also in the sky, at any altitude?

Also, from watching the three heros in the post-flight press conference of Apollo 11 any sensitive person will see that there is something very fishy with the behavior of those alleged moon travelers who have just accomplished the greatest technological feat in the history of mankind.

Three men who’ve had little preparation for public relations work, have just spent a fortnight in an isolation chamber, and are then plonked in front of the world’s media. I’d be a bit nervous too. They were astronauts and test pilots, not media stars. Sport stars who regularly front the media get training these days. They didn’t then. The nervousness doesn’t prove anything about the reality of the missions.

The point is that the reality of Apollo doesn’t rely on photos or media conferences. It relies on hard evidence – the rocks the astronauts brought back, the radio transmissions which were monitored in real time, and what we can see on the video footage.

[Count Zero]

stargazer said:

Greetings all!

Welcome to the board.

So my question to the Apollo moon landing believers is this:
Why is it so important that those alleged moon landings did in fact take place?

Putting footprints on the Moon doesn't just say something about America; it speaks to all people. It redefines what is possible. We all want our children to succeed, to be something, to go further and accomplish more. We want the people we work with to be diligent and productive. We try to inspire and motivate them. We explain that study and hard work can pay-off. One photograph of Buzz Aldrin's footprint in the Sea of Tranquility says a lot about what human beings with drive and ingenuity and teamwork can do.

It proves it better than all the late-night, impassioned Internet rants ever written.

The historical record of Apollo is overwhelming - greater than anything you can glean from questions on a bulletin board. That America abandoned Apollo (and the spirit it engendered) is a travesty. To persistently maintain that it never happened in the first place is nothing short of despicable.

Now your turn: Why do you want to believe that Apollo didn't happen?
Why does believing that heroes are actually life-long liars give you more comfort than the achievment of humanity's boldest dreams?

[stargazer]

Now your turn: Why do you want to believe that Apollo didn't happen?
Why does believing that heroes are actually life-long liars give you more comfort than the achievment of humanity's boldest dreams?

This is a misunderstanding and while landing men on the moon would certainly be fascinating I don't think it to comes even close to being one of humanity's boldest dreams. We really do have other, more serious problems on this planet.

It's not that I want to believe Apollo didn't happen, it just so happens that I do not believe it anymore, to be more precise, I KNOW beyond reasonable doubt that it was a hoax.
I'm not going to address all the arguments brought forth above. I am very well aware of them. Just one point: It is nonsense to claim the stars can't be seen unless you are in earth's or the moon's shadow in space. Since there is no atmosphere all you have to do is look in the opposite direction of the sun and you will see trillions of bright stars.
As said, I'm looking forward to pictures from the alleged landing sites, be it by the Chinese, the Europeans, the Japanese or whoever. Hopefully they won't forget to take high resolution cameras with them. Just wondering why NASA has not long ago once and for all refuted all the hoax claims by providing those images themselves. After all they have been sending probes all across the solar system, so why not a stationary one around the moon.
Why does NASA do nothing to prove they were on the moon today? Have they lost technology. And please don't tell me they couldn't finance it. An unmanned probe isn't that expensive compared to the supposed Apollo missions.

[PeterB]

Stargazer said:

…while landing men on the moon would certainly be fascinating I don't think it to comes even close to being one of humanity's boldest dreams.

Out of curiosity, which dreams do you think have been bolder?

We really do have other, more serious problems on this planet.

Now here I think you’re quite right. The point is that Apollo wasn’t intended as a solution to problems on the planet. It was conceived as part of the Cold War, and was, as one author described it, a heap of chips pushed to the centre of the table.

It's not that I want to believe Apollo didn't happen, it just so happens that I do not believe it anymore, to be more precise, I KNOW beyond reasonable doubt that it was a hoax.
I'm not going to address all the arguments brought forth above. I am very well aware of them.

If you know beyond reasonable doubt that the landings were faked, would you care to tell us some of the evidence, please.

And knowing about the arguments we brought forth is one thing. Being able to explain why they’re wrong is another. Could you do that too, please.

Just one point: It is nonsense to claim the stars can't be seen unless you are in earth's or the moon's shadow in space. Since there is no atmosphere all you have to do is look in the opposite direction of the sun and you will see trillions of bright stars.

Well, that may be the case. I don’t know for sure either way. But a statement like that doesn’t really match the concept of talking to a geologist who’s studied Apollo rocks, or a radio tech who worked at a NASA ground station during Apollo.

As said, I'm looking forward to pictures from the alleged landing sites, be it by the Chinese, the Europeans, the Japanese or whoever. Hopefully they won't forget to take high resolution cameras with them.

I think a lot of people would like to see some photos of the landing sites too.

Just wondering why NASA has not long ago once and for all refuted all the hoax claims by providing those images themselves. After all they have been sending probes all across the solar system, so why not a stationary one around the moon.

So you’re suggesting that to debunk all the hoax claims, NASA should send a spacecraft to the Moon to photograph the landing sites? Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Which mission to which planet should they scrap for that?

Anyway, you’ve already requested “preferably not NASA.” Would you believe a NASA photo of an Apollo landing site?

Why does NASA do nothing to prove they were on the moon today? Have they lost technology. And please don't tell me they couldn't finance it. An unmanned probe isn't that expensive compared to the supposed Apollo missions.

What does a photo prove that a hunk of Moon rock doesn’t prove?

The technology exists to send a spacecraft to the Moon. But I’m sorry to disappoint you when I say that the money isn’t there. Apparently Congress tells NASA how to spend its money. NASA can’t just up and cancel a mission to launch a $100 million mission to the Moon to convince doubters that Apollo really happened.

Also, a couple of years ago, NASA announced plans to fund a book to debunk the Moon hoax. There was a public outcry over the waste of money, and that was less the $50,000. If the public will make a fuss about $50,000, how much fuss do you think they’d make over something costing $100 million?

[stargazer]

Just to give you an idea of what kind of photographs I don't want to see as proof of the Apollo missions.
You probably know this website: users.specdata.com/home/pullo/
What do we see on that page??? ;D hehe, very funny that descent stage.

Have you ever wondered why that page is titled S/CAT, why not simply SAT for 'spacecraft assembly&test'. But no, it was titled S/CAT and I think I know why.
Furthermore the page was made by someone called:

Frank A. Pullo

That is a funny coincidence isn't it. Or is it rather that he is giving us a clue?
Is he being frank about 'pull (a fast one) ?
Could he be trying to tell us that Apollo was S/CAT?
Just wondering.

[politik]

stargazer said:

Why does NASA do nothing to prove they were on the moon today? Have they lost technology. And please don't tell me they couldn't finance it. An unmanned probe isn't that expensive compared to the supposed Apollo missions.

So the hundreds of photos that NASA already has that show we landed on the moon are not good enough, but one more that NASA would take today would then convince you?

NASA should build a multi-million dollar probe with a camera that can take close-up hi-res pictures of the landing sites just to satisfy a few "non-believers"? Why would you trust NASA to be honest now if you already don't trust them?

Yet another contradiction! should be added to the Contradictions thread!

[PhantomWolf]

Since there is no atmosphere all you have to do is look in the opposite direction of the sun and you will see trillions of bright stars.

Sorry, this is totally incorrect. It has nothing to do with an atmosphere, it has to do with our pupils. The eye adjusts to the brightest light source. If you were on the moon and faced away from the sun, the brightest light source is not the stars, but is the light being reflected back from the moon's surface. If your pupil opened enough to see the stars, the surface of the moon would be blinding. Sibrel makes the claim that the stars would be massively bright above the atmospere, this is also untrue. Very, very litle visible light is lost to our atmosphere, the stars as seen from the darker areas of the moon, are little different to the stars as seen from the darker areas of the Earth.

I seriously recommend you go and look at Cavius.org and read up from places such as the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Bart Sibrel is not a reliable source of information. His arguements can be refuted very easily by basic science. That and he's a proven liar. Just some of the claims he makes. 1) At the end of Gemini the USSR had a 5:1 advantage in manned space hours over the US. He has been called on this and shown that it is totally false, but continues to claim it. The US had around a 6:1 advantage, all you need to show him as a lair is a calculator. 2) The Saturn V didn't have enough fuel to get to the moon. Newton derived the formula's to determine this around 400 years ago. Goddard and others were using them long prior to NASA's creation. Bob B. has actually posted them on this very board and they show the Saturn was scertainly powerful enough. Bart uses the eariler ideas of launching a solid rocket to the moon and returning it and compares that with the Saturn know full well that the Saturn was a staged rocket and totally different. he continues to make the claim knowing it is wrong. How is this anything but lying? 3) He claims to be the only source of the Mission Debriefing video. Wrong. It can be bought from NASA themselves. 4) He claims that he has secrect footage which is only availible on his DVD. Wrong, the entrie unedited video can be obtained from Spacecraft Films or NASA. Most of it was also broadcast live at the time of Apollo 11. He knows this, but still contnues to make the claims. I've even heard him tell blatant lies about people on national radio (eg. claiming that a person who opposed him worked for NASA beacause the University he works at was given NASA grants.) Bart Sibrel is a proven lair, how can you possibly unquestionally trust what he tells you?

Just wondering why NASA has not long ago once and for all refuted all the hoax claims by providing those images themselves.

Why do they need to spend a heap of money proving something to a small number of people who won't accept it anyways? The science, records, materials, equipment, eyewitness accounts shuld be evidence enough.

Why does NASA do nothing to prove they were on the moon today?

Again, why should they have too? They have provided a totally open program. 380 kg of pristine moon rock including samples of dirt, 2 metre long core samples, soil, and rock chips. They have provided thusands of photos, hours of vide and film. They have provided the equipment and plans od the equipment. They have provides hundreds of thousands of documentation. There are even photos from Clemintine of the landing sites showing disturbances exactly where they say they landed. What else do you need?

[bazbear]

stargazer said:

It's not that I want to believe Apollo didn't happen, it just so happens that I do not believe it anymore, to be more precise, I KNOW beyond reasonable doubt that it was a hoax.

Well where is your evidence, man? There's mountains of evidence the landings were real. I've yet to see any credible evidence of a hoax from anyone.

I'm not going to address all the arguments brought forth above. I am very well aware of them. Just one point: It is nonsense to claim the stars can't be seen unless you are in earth's or the moon's shadow in space. Since there is no atmosphere all you have to do is look in the opposite direction of the sun and you will see trillions of bright stars.

If you are in bright sunlight, your eyes will be adjusted for bright sunlight, and the stars are simply too faint to see. Here's a simple experiment for you to try; wait for a nice clear stary evening, but before you go outside stare at a bright light source for a minute or two. Then go outside, look up, and see how many stars you can see.

As said, I'm looking forward to pictures from the alleged landing sites, be it by the Chinese, the Europeans, the Japanese or whoever. Hopefully they won't forget to take high resolution cameras with them. Just wondering why NASA has not long ago once and for all refuted all the hoax claims by providing those images themselves. After all they have been sending probes all across the solar system, so why not a stationary one around the moon.
Why does NASA do nothing to prove they were on the moon today? Have they lost technology. And please don't tell me they couldn't finance it. An unmanned probe isn't that expensive compared to the supposed Apollo missions.

Because they have better things to spend their limited budget on. Why should they have to prove anything to you? I suspect you'd just dismiss their evidence as more fraud, anyway.

[PhantomWolf]

What do we see on that page??? hehe, very funny that descent stage.

Why is it funny? It's apperas to have been taken from the TV footage which was shot remotely by the rover camera after the ascent stage had lifted off. Though, parts do appear to have been edited a little, such as the earth.

[scooter]

The astronauts used stars for navigation (attitude checks), Aldrin made some mention of his ability to make out stars when in the LM shadow.
But cameras and eyeballs are different in their function. When on a brightly lit lunar surface, the astronaut has a choice...set the camera exposure (f-stop and exposure duration) for photographing stars, or set it for photographing the surface. They cannot have both. They chose the latter, as the surface was their reason for being there. Aside from the UV, the stars are the same as we see them from here (minus the "twinkle" as well).
Had they set the camera with sensitivity to capture the stars, the bright landscape would have overpowered the film and rendered the photos useless.
Call it "light pollution" if you will. Much as the neighbors porchlight ruins my ability to see many stars, the surface brightness made it difficult to visually see stars, and impossible to photograph when using exposure settings for the surface photography.
It's quite simple.
However, if it was faked, it was ALL faked. This said, you have labelled 100s of thousands of workers as duped fools, if not outright liars. Some folks take great exception to this. You certainly must have other evidence of this great fraud aside from your misunderstanding of photograhic exposure...?

Dave...school bus driver

[PhantomWolf]

you will see trillions of bright stars

Even under the best circumstances, there are only a few thousand stars which are visible to the naked human eye.

[PhantomWolf]

That is a funny coincidence isn't it. Or is it rather that he is giving us a clue?
Is he being frank about 'pull (a fast one) ?
Could he be trying to tell us that Apollo was S/CAT?
Just wondering.

@@ your evidence is getting remarkably weak. Next you'll be claiming that Clavius is in on it and is sceretly admiting it because it is named after the moon base in 2001 which was directed by Kubrick and many hoax claiments claim Kubrick was the director of the Apollo films.