Dispelling the Moon hoax

[QuintusUnited]

My uncle believes in the Moon hoax. I'm more of sports fan but I routinely exchange views with my uncle about why the Moon hoax would be impossible mainly because how many people would have to keep it a secret. My uncle is a research engineer and has a great deal more knowledge than me. He's now begun to convince my brother and another uncle that there was no Moon landing both have careers in science. My uncle sent this webpage

[quote

15. "Tricky Dick" Richard Nixon was president at the time. He was the king of cover-up, secret tapes and scandal. Think about all of his potential antics that were not discovered.

14. A successful manned mission to the moon offered a wonderful pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the US citizens over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War.

13. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones:

1. First manmade satellite in earth orbit

2. First man in space

3. First man to orbit the earth

4. First woman in space

5. The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft

6. The first space walk

7. The first of two orbiting space craft rendezvousing

This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War.

12. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies." Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone.

11. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?

With Prop ID "C"

After: "C" Removed

10. Rediscovered lost footage shows the American flag blowing in the wind. The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated, space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for earth's six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over.

9. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander's 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere (except for the flag blowing in the wind - see # 10!)

8. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.

7. The moon is 250,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind.

6. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous. The fuel tanks were nowhere near one-sixth the size of those on the space shuttle as one would expect to achieve lunar orbit .

5. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions. How long do you think you could keep your car cool on a hot day running off battery power?

4. Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical shape with a high center of gravity and one big thrust engine at the bottom. Upon just looking at this design, to think it would not immediately pinwheel and crash, as the lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on Earth, is absurd.

3. After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a wrong answer to a question he should not have been answering. The relevant portion of this clip is in my documentary; viewing it with an understanding of the circumstances makes it clear they were lying about having traveled to the moon. I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic. Furthermore, if you obtain a written transcript of the press conference you'll see that the comment is erroneously attributed to Aldrin. Honest mistake or cover-up?http://www.darkgovernment.com/3_15.jpg

2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. How could they have made such a large improvement in "quality control" in such a short period of time.

1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon.

http://www.darkgover...t.com/moon.htmlThose who are knowledgeable about moon landing can you please dispel these lies?

[Davros of Skaro]

Have you seen the "Mythbusters" Moon hoax episode yet?

It dispels several of those points.

[Czero 101]

Start here:

http://www.clavius.org/

Cz

[ShadowSot]

Hm... Bad Astronomy had a pretty hand debunking page. But its down at the moment.

[Gary Meadows]

I'm skeptical of this whole *Uncle* thing...

I smell a rat.

[Space Commander Travis]

I'm wondering why that list goes 15, 14, 13, then 1, 2, 3, and up to 10, then back down to 1. Is there some sort of numerolology going on there?

A cynic might also wonder if this wasn't actually simply a plug for darkgovernment.com, but I wouldn't possibly be that cynical.

[ShadowSot]

15. So what? Nixon was/is famous because of what he wasn't able to cover up, not what he was.

14. Yes, that was part of the reason it got funding, and part of the reason funding dried up as popular opinion fell off.

13. The Russians were close, it's why it was a race. The Russians also tracked the moon missions, if there was something fishy they'd have called foul.

Keep in mind the Moon race steadily drained the Russian gpd. Part of the reason the Russians succeeded in being first was by cutting corners. They were less concerned about loosing Cosmonauts than we were astronauts.

12. Simply not true. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/25/neil-armstrong-last-interview

A quick google turned up a few interviews, Collins published a biohraphy in the 70s.

11. The errors were made from continual retouches and reprints of photographs made for promotional releases following the landings.

10. Rediscovered nothing, thats an old claim. The flag only moves when the astronauts are touching it and stops moving when they aren't. It isn't blowing in wind.

9. Badeskov or someone else will probably comment on this, but in order to dig out a hole you need an atmosphere to push against to drive force. There is none, and the low gravity on the moon meant there was less force needed to land.

8. Nope. Go outside and look around, you'll see shadows that cross.

This is due to one light source (the Sun) reflecting and scattering. The moon is very light and very reflective. Phil Plait has a good explanation of this with pictures.

7. Space Shuttle is a different craft than the Lunar Lander, no point in comparing the two. The shuttle was only meant for LEO missions.

The Van Allen Belt is not a solid band of radiation, and the astronauts spent very little time in it as the shielded LL moved through, passing through the lower energy portions of the belt. You can check their flight plan.

Van Allen himself didn't see this as a problem.

6. Low gravity requires less fuel, being incredulous is not an argument.

5. The Lander rotated.

4. High center of gravity. On Earth.

3. You could see stars from the LL.

Putting aside that was not the only moon landing mission and that they were astronauts and not speakers. Dodnt watch video.

2. Moon race? Much of the technology was built and changed quickly. The burning on the platform was caused by an almost strictly oxygen environment. A relatively easy fix, but they spent two years doubling down on safety. Part of the reason we lagged behind the Russians.

1. Doesn't show the pictures.

[Czero 101]

My uncle believes in the Moon hoax.

Didn't read much past this. Simply put, your Uncle is an idiot.

Cz

Edited December 13, 2015 by Czero 101

[Davros of Skaro]

Mythbusters Moon flag waving hoax - YouTube

http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2m7k1z

Edited December 13, 2015 by davros of skaro

[ShadowSot]

Bad Astronomy is back up, better to look to an astronomer than myself:

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

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

[Davros of Skaro]

Didn't read much past this. Simply put, your Uncle is an idiot.

Cz

Flat Earth next.

[toast]

Didn't read much past this. Simply put, your Uncle is an idiot.

Cz

Yeah, without any doubt because ppl who swallow such nonsense have no other choice:

6. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard,

entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have

actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous. The fuel tanks were nowhere near one-sixth the size of those on the space shuttle

as one would expect to achieve lunar orbit .

So the author of this BS is in the opinion that it would require 283 tons of propellant to lift a spacecraft of 4,5 tons into Moons orbit,

from the Moons surface. Yeah, idiots.

Edited December 13, 2015 by toast

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

15. "Tricky Dick" Richard Nixon was president at the time. He was the king of cover-up, secret tapes and scandal. Think about all of his potential antics that were not discovered.

Nixxon wasn't president when the programme started, that was Kennedy. Most of the Apollo programme was in Johnsons presidency and Nixxon was only president for about 6 months when the landing occured. Its a non issue.

14. A successful manned mission to the moon offered a wonderful pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the US citizens over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War.

Again the programme stated well before the Vietnam War.

13. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones:[/size]

1. First manmade satellite in earth orbit

2. First man in space

3. First man to orbit the earth

4. First woman in space

5. The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft

6. The first space walk

7. The first of two orbiting space craft rendezvousing

This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War.

Just because the Soviets were first with those accomplishments doesn't mean that they would be first forever.

12. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies." Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone.

Simply not true.

11. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?

With Prop ID "C"

After: "C" Removed

Any evidence for that ?

10. Rediscovered lost footage shows the American flag blowing in the wind. The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated, space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for earth's six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over.

Come on this has been debunked so many time allready. Whats next "where are the stars ?"

9. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander's 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere (except for the flag blowing in the wind - see # 10!)

They allready landed several unmanned crafts on the Lunar surface, so they knew what to expect.

8. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.

Again debunked so many times. Look it up !

7. The moon is 250,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind.

The shuttle was never designed to go higher, so why should it ?

Ah yes the Van Allen belt. It is much exaggerated and they went through as fast as they could and they chose a path that took them through some of the weaker parts of the belt.

6. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous. The fuel tanks were nowhere near one-sixth the size of those on the space shuttle as one would expect to achieve lunar orbit .

But the space shuttle was never intended to go to the Moon , so why keep using that comparison. They obviously made the ascent vehicle as light as they could and they were helped in that by the fact that it didn't have to fly in an atmosphere, unlike the shuttle.

5. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions. How long do you think you could keep your car cool on a hot day running off battery power?

So how do they do it on satelittes or the International Space Station ? Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean that others don't !

4. Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical shape with a high center of gravity and one big thrust engine at the bottom. Upon just looking at this design, to think it would not immediately pinwheel and crash, as the lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on Earth, is absurd.

Like I said previously it wasn't intended to fly in an atmosphere so why continue to use that comparison ? Many rockets have only one engine, so are they impossible too ?

3. After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a wrong answer to a question he should not have been answering. The relevant portion of this clip is in my documentary; viewing it with an understanding of the circumstances makes it clear they were lying about having traveled to the moon. I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic. Furthermore, if you obtain a written transcript of the press conference you'll see that the comment is erroneously attributed to Aldrin. Honest mistake or cover-up?http://www.darkgovernment.com/3_15.jpg

And there it is. See #10

2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. How could they have made such a large improvement in "quality control" in such a short period of time.

Because they knew what they were doing ? And they were prepared to take more risks than would be allowed today ?

1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon.

Oh please show this mislabeled, unedited behind-the-scene footage !

Edited December 13, 2015 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[psyche101]

My uncle believes in the Moon hoax. I'm more of sports fan but I routinely exchange views with my uncle about why the Moon hoax would be impossible mainly because how many people would have to keep it a secret. My uncle is a research engineer and has a great deal more knowledge than me. He's now begun to convince my brother and another uncle that there was no Moon landing both have careers in science. My uncle sent this webpage

Those who are knowledgeable about moon landing can you please dispel these lies?

What field does your Uncle do research engineering for?

It is hard to believe anyone with a working knowledge capable of the intricacies of engineering would fall for such a ridiculous claim? Several here dispelled the myths without batting an eye, how would one become an engineer and still be so dim? Are you sure this is not for another forum and you want to destroy the opposition, or shoring up defences for your own claims?

[flyingswan]

11. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?

With Prop ID "C"

After: "C" Removed

Not true, a contemporary magazine cover had the picture without the "C" in 1971. It's obviously something that happened in a later scan.

[Emma_Acid]

My uncle believes in the Moon hoax. I'm more of sports fan but I routinely exchange views with my uncle about why the Moon hoax would be impossible mainly because how many people would have to keep it a secret. My uncle is a research engineer and has a great deal more knowledge than me. He's now begun to convince my brother and another uncle that there was no Moon landing both have careers in science. My uncle sent this webpage

Those who are knowledgeable about moon landing can you please dispel these lies?

This is covered here.

[QuintusUnited]

Have you seen the "Mythbusters" Moon hoax episode yet?

It dispels several of those points.

I'm aware of the show but not the episode. I'll watch that episode.

[QuintusUnited]

I'm skeptical of this whole *Uncle* thing...

I smell a rat.

Why try to discredit me if you are unable to answer the questions?

[AtomicDog]

Why try to discredit me if you are unable to answer the questions?

So, what do you say to the several people who have answered the questions?

[ChrLzs]

Why try to discredit me if you are unable to answer the questions?

Perhaps because if you answer like that, rather than address all those who HAVE answered your questions and shown your list to be full of bull excrement - it makes it seem very very likely you have no such uncle, and frankly, anyone who is a genuine 'research engineer' would not post a list containing so many ridiculous logical fallacies. Why are you afraid to admit that it is you that has this belief?

Anyway, let's assume that your uncle really believes this - why is HE afraid to come to this type of forum? In what field is he a 'research engineer'?

And rather than waste our time with a ridiculous Gish Gallop, ask him to nominate the BEST evidence he has. If we can completely and utterly disprove that 'best' evidence, will you and he concede that he is wrong?

If he WON'T nominate the best evidence, then it is clear you/he are trolling.

In the meantime, how about you address the responses you have been given?

[aquatus1]

Alright, let's tone it down, people.

Quintus...yeah, I understand that it feels like a way to avoid "attack the person" sort of arguments, but the problem is (at least, on this forum), that if you get caught, you have torpedoed your own credibility anyway, basically setting yourself up to be attacked. While I can't honestly claim that certain people around here will act in moderation until they have determined your intent beyond a mere gut feeling, what I can do is promise you that the discussion will be as fair and balanced as the moderating team can make it, leaving it up to you to present your arguments, their support, and either ask questions or learn something new, depending on how you choose to approach it.

Edited December 15, 2015 by aquatus1

[psyche101]

Why try to discredit me if you are unable to answer the questions?

Several did, what would be the point in repeating them?

[alibongo]

The saddest thing about the moon hoax theorists, is that they have missed one of the greatest moments in history.

It is like not being present at your wedding, or funeral. It happened, we saw it, it was great, you were in the bar getting p***ed.

[ChrLzs]

Quintus, I'd just (politely) ask that when you return (after speaking in detail to your uncle and inviting him to attend here)... please don't come back with a new list.

Out of all those questions/claims you/your unkle proposed, tell us, with reasons, which one is the very best remaining evidence, and is unanswered to your/his satisfaction.

Given that several posters have gone to quite a bit of effort to answer the questions (all of which are very adequately covered elsewhere), I think that request is pretty reasonable.. and as a research engineer, he should know that you should break the problem down into manageable parts and then start addressing them in order of importance. So, most important one first, please - and if that best one doesn't pass muster, then we can avoid wasting too much time on this.

[frenat]

I'll only touch on a few as they've been covered fairly well already.

13. The Russian superiority in hours was ONLY until the Gemini program started. During Gemini and Apollo the US got ahead and stayed ahead. Further, some of the Russian firsts are suspect.

-first woman in space. So what? They did it as a publicity stunt. There is nothing harder about sending a woman to space than a man

-first crew of three astronauts. They did so only by taking a two man capsule and jamming three seats in it. These cosmonauts could not wear their spacesuits on the launch. The Russians sacrificed safety for this first.

-first rendezvous of two spacecraft. The Russians launched two spacecraft on intersecting orbits and they didn't have to maneuver. Hardly an accomplishment. When the US did their rendezvous they changed orbits manually and actually gained necessary experience for the moon landings.

12. A complete lie.

9. It is a lie that the ground underneath was untouched. You can see that the loose dust was blown away in a radial scouring pattern. The expectation that there should be a crater is a fantasy. Helicopters and the Harrier land vertically with far more thrust and they don't dig craters.

8. None of the shadows actually intersect. Perspective and terrain make them look like they are converging or diverging but the same can be seen in sunlit photos on Earth. Multiple lights would have resulted in multiple shadows on each object.

6. Ignorance about the LM and its fuel capacity and capabilities is not proof. It had enough fuel to get to Lunar orbit. The math works whether Sibrel believes it or not.

5. Heating objects takes time. Especially when the only method of heating available is through radiation. Cars heat up quickly due to conduction and convection.

4. Rockets are also top heavy. They still work. Sibrel's ignorance of engineering, balance and gyroscopes proves only his ignorance.

3. The actual question was "Do you remember seeing stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare". This was referring to a specific experiment done on the way there in the command module so it was perfectly normal for Collins to answer.

2. Engineers aren't as stupid as Sibrel thinks they are. Flaws can be corrected for. People learn from mistakes.

1. Sibrel's footage was partly broadcast live at the time and he deliberately and deceptively edits out the parts that prove him wrong.

Discussed here

http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html

and here

http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html

and here

and here