New member here, hello everyone

[67champ]

Just stumbled upon this site today. I had an idea to get some good info/facts on Apollo for a friend of mine that isn't sure if we really went to the moon or not. (duh) After an simple internet search I "landed" here. I'm really glad someone has took the time, energy and $$$ to show the facts on this subject, and counteract the conspiracy sites! Nice!

dt

[LunarOrbit]

Welcome to the forum, 67champ.

[Kiwi]

Welcome, 67champ. Don't miss two of the recommended websites, at the bottom of the page, which are run by two of our regulars: Clavius by JayUtah and Rocket & Space Technology by Bob B.

Bob has done a single-page debunking of the moonlanding hoax claims, and Jay has done some of the most detailed answers you will ever see. For instance, his description and illustrations of why the TV from the lunar surface during Apollo 11 was so bad, is very understandable. Of course, some hoax believers claim (without evidence, naturally) that Jay MUST be paid by NASA to spread disinformation.

[hplasm]

Hi 67Champ, welcome to the board.

Dont forget to check out the lists of regular Hoax Believer questions, which arise time after time- you can probably find enough convincing testimony on just the sites Kiwi listed above.


But for the more unusual, or if you fancy a chuckle...

tada! the Moon Man chronicles..

seaofcrisis.com/ext/babb/moonman.htm

a tribute to an enlightened opponent of the lunar landing history enjoy...

[Bob B.]

Hi 67champ, welcome to the forum.

kiwi said:

Bob has done a single-page debunking of the moonlanding hoax claims

That page has a couple minor errors that require tweaking, but I'd say its 98% correct. Clavius is definitely more authoritative then my page.

[sts60]

I really liked MoonMan's 11/11/2005 comment
The temp in a vaccuum don't slowly decrease or increase. It's +250 in the sun and -250 in the shade.

I was just looking at some engineering data on how New Horizons' F8 generator was performing (it's putting out close to the nominal 250 watts). On day 24, two external temperature readings were about 1 degree C apart, when the vehicle's attitude to the Sun changed, and one sensor had a better view of the Sun while the other had a better view of deep space. The temperature readings quickly (20 seconds or so) diverged to about 6 degrees C apart. On day 27 another attitude change, and the temperature spread increased over a minute or so to about 11 degrees C apart.

The changes were not instantaneous, and the temperatures (which get smeared out due to the spacecraft's thermal control roll) are not the same, and they are not simply 250C in the Sun and 250 C in the shade.

[67champ]

Thanks everyone, I'll check those sites out. That link was great. Boy, those people sure do have a problem with vacuums and a lot of other things it looks like! :-)

That was funny (sad and funny at the same time)...

I've always had an interest in astronomy, and last March I kind of got back into amateur astronomy again with my primary focus on the moon; and photographing the moon near first and last quarter when there are several different interesting reflections, rays, etc. using my 127mm MAk-Cas and our Fuji S5000 digital camera. Here lately I've also got more interest in the Apollo Missions and have been starting to read up on some of that stuff and look at photos, etc. That was a really neat time in ours lives, but as a pre teen, I didn't always pay as much attention to it as I should have and I was one of the neighborhood "space kids". As I think back about it now, I just think "WOW"! I can wait until we someday return to the moon, as there are still things yet to be done. I won't treat it so nonchalantly this time around. And, I will make sure my son appreciates the endevor as well, as he likes this stuff too.

dt

[Kiwi]

Being into photography, you're possibly interested in the claims that the lunar surface photos were faked. People like Stargazer just cannot get it into their heads that stars are about 1/10,000 as bright as a sunlit scene and therefore both cannot be photographed or seen together at the same time. I had no trouble with the idea back in 1969. I'd only been using a 126 Instamatic since January 1968, but I still understood the exposure problem.

Anyway, don't miss Thomas Bohn's wonderful website, where he shows how to reproduce many of the so-called anomalies yourself, thereby proving that they aren't actually anomalies at all:
www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm

[67champ]

Turns out I know two people that think it could be faked... I've converted one already, the other is a "dead head" and will be a little tougher, I think... LOL