Not without going through all the thousands of pictures on that site. If you really want to know...

Personally, I don't believe any evidence is going to be taken as conclusive proof by the average hoax believer, any more than you can prove evolution to a creationist and for the same reason. The orbital shots on the "landing sites" page just show the LMs as bright spots casting long shadows, much as the Surveyor probes appear in the Lunar Orbiter pictures. It's possible that the upcoming Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, to be launched next year, will be able to do a little better. The Japanese, Chinese and Indian probes should be able to at least verify that the metric camera results as a whole are not faked, as even if they have lower resolution than LRO or Apollo, they will still be much better than any earth-based telescope could do.

Edit: I should have said that the Apollo hi-res landing site pictures were from the panoramic camera, which had better resolution than the metric camera.

Yea...me too!

Yes.

But what's you're point? Apollo was not, and has of course never been proven to have been a hoax.




Where do you get this kind of information?
Apollo's budget had NO effect on the national debt whatsoever. There was virtually no national debt until 1970...long after the highest congressional funding of Apollo (which was in 1967).


Apollo was irrelevant to an national debt that didn't exist. Besides, NASA's budget has always been a very tiny percentage of the Government's budget. The national debt has come from three primary areas of expense:

Health and Human Services, D.O.D., Social Security, and of course, Treasury (interest on the debt). These three entities cost us 100 times the NASA budget, every single year.

Homeland Security, Energy, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Labor, Treasury, Veteran's Affairs, Personnel Management, and Agriculture are all Governmental departments which are between 2 and 5 times higher in cost than NASA ever was!

You are way off base. NASA has never been a significant cost department, and has never been a significant contributor to the national debt.



I've never defended Apollo. I've always explained what HBs don't understand about it...which of course leads to untenable CTs regarding it.

However, you, and other HBs ACCUSE. What is to be done by the "defendant" other than to defend? That defense comes in the form of explanations which are consistent, logical, and which are based upon an understanding of the sciences and technologies involved, and which is generally designed to show the error of the HB's ways (by hopefully getting him or her to do a little work).


Of course, we know it to be an established fact of history and science. So does anyone who is scientifically literate.


Personally, I think Waspie posed a much more pertinent question:





You do have a profound tendency to do that.

You come with these ideas and you do indeed use them to illustrate a hoax.

You even have made comments such as this:



If you consistently claim that you never said it was evidence (a repeated phrase when your ideas are shot down by thorough explanation), then why do you make statements like this one, where you state that the claimed successes of Apollo were fabricated?


It can only be because you believe your arguments are in fact evidence of a hoax.


If I accept your statements to the effect that you never said any of your arguments were evidence of a hoax in an of itself, I have to ask, what then is evidence of a hoax?

So, I guess the claim is that when we (myself, three other crew in my bird, four in another, and four in another, along with a UDT team) saw the chutes open (three big ones, way, way up), stood off till splashdown, went in, dropped the UDT, saw the capsule (relatively warmed up on the outside), got the crew and went back to the carrier, we imagined it all? Damn!!! I thought we did all that.
Well. Hell.

Seems there's a thing in here about the lagging technology, too.
Let's take a quick look at the electronics stuff.
In some ways, yes, modern technology is better, faster, cheaper, etc. However, think about this: earlier technology, at the time (I know 'cause dammit I was there!!) wasn't so fast in many cases. No, we didn't have terribly fast CPUs and such, and no, the integration was not so compact. But one must remember this: back then, we had brains (which it seems many times are lacking now), we had innovation, we had invention. If something wasn't quite fast enough, we made it faster, didn't we?
Yes, I'm going to rant a little here. Take the transfer of data, for instance. Now, we convert analog instrumentation to digital, and transfer that. Think about it: first, you acquire the data in analog form; next, you convert the data to digital form (involving error); next, you send this to a radio link; next the link sends it to ground station. Kinda roundabout, don't you think? Yes, the puters are faster, the conversions are faster etc etc.
Now look at the way it was done then: acquire the analog data; send it to the rf section; rf section snags a piece and sends it. Short, accurate, to the point, and in the end, faster than digital forms.
Believe me, no one here wants to argue about that with me, cause unless you were there and working on it, you don't know.
It is a plain fact that analog is the way everything works; digital is always an approximation, and only in the last 20 years or so have A2D converters really come into reasonable speed; they still cannot compete with the systems that were being used then. Not only do they require huge computing power (to run the reconstruction of analog), they are limited to the word size in accuracy. You can take a conversion of 16 bits, and no matter how much you manipulate it, it is still 15 +/- 1 bit. Conversion to 32 or 64 is absolutely immaterial, and can gain only 1/2 bit accuracy.
The pulse code modulation scheme used then was deadly accurate, and reconstruction was with hardware, meaning it was incredibly fast, like instantaneous. In other words, now we can fiddle around with GPS and other signals and be more accurate, perhaps. But with the instrumentation, no.

As stated, if anyone wants to try disproving the above, you're welcome to make the attempt. I'll sit back and in my books and materials from then, I'll dig out the exact specified times and carve the digital up into little pieces, fans, make no mistake. I was there then, and I'm here now, doing the same stuff.

Typical GCT nonsense. Maybe some of us don't like to see the truth that mankind's greatest achievement is a hoax continuously denied by those unable to get a grasp on reality. Some of us base our version of the truth on the facts and evidence before us, not on an irrational defending of "the Honest Government".



This is the most commonly used GCT rubbish tactic - pulling out the "experts" card. First, by falsely claiming that there are no "actual experts" who don't support the "official" government story on anything - from JFK, to 9/11, to Apollo, and so on. In fact, there are "actual experts" who are certain that Apollo was a hoax, such as professional photographer David Percy and physicist David Groves. Of course, after pointing out that fact, the GCT's inevitably come back wih unfounded accusations that our "CT" experts are incompetent, or totally mistaken (unlike their "official" GCT experts, who are indisputably correct).

I've had to keep saying it, because it's painfully obvious that EVERYTHING I bring up is twisted into "turbonium claims this is proof that Apollo was a hoax"!!!

But the most ridiculous part of it all, is that it still doesn't matter! Even after I clearly point out to you that your accusation is totally off-base, you simply ignore it, and continue on with your absurd statements.

My "claim" about the footprints - to explain it yet again - was this: I believe that several issues brought up by those questioning the official Apollo record have not been satisfactorily answered by pro-Apollo sources. I noted one such issue - the footprints.

That was it, period. Saying it hasn't been substantiated is NOT the same as saying it's proof of a hoax. It's still entirely valid to question something without having to defend myself against the contortions and spins you put on it.

If there is something I specifically bring up which I consider to be concrete proof, or undeniable evidence, of a hoax, then I'LL CLEARLY SAY SO.

Enough of this tripe, already.

With just a small bit of Web-based research on my part, I've shown you:

1) Photos from three Surveyor missions clearly showing that the Surveyor landers left distinct, detailed tracks and prints in the lunar soil.
2) Photos from both the Soviet Lunokhod-1 and Lunokhod-2 rovers which show the vehicles leaving distinct, detailed tracks in the lunar soil.
3) A NASA report (SP-168) stating that the photos and experiment results returned by the Surveyor landers "indicate that the Moon's surface does indeed have a consistency similar to that of damp, fine-grained terrestrial soil."
4) A summary of two 1971 conference papers presented by the Soviet Union giving results from their Luna-16 sample return mission and their Lunokhod-1 rover mission. The Soviet scientists concluded that "the soil on the route of motion of Lunokhod-1 is fine-grained material possessing some cohesion."
5) A recent (2000) report from the Russian Mobile Vehicle Engineering Institute summarizing data obtained from lunar samples returned by the two Soviet automated landers (Luna-16, Luna-20) and all of the Apollo missions (11-17). The report also summarizes and compares in situ measurements made of lunar soil properties by the Soviet Luna 9 & 13 landers, the U.S. Surveyor landers, the U.S. Apollo missions, and the Soviet Lunokhod 1 & 2 rovers. The report shows that the Soviet lunar samples and in situ measurements have very similar characteristics to the U.S. samples and measurements. The report also presents a table of typical in situ lunar soil properties, including cohesion values.

In answer to your question, I'd say that yes, there IS conclusive evidence which proves that the lunar soil retains tracks and footprints. Photos returned from every program, both U.S. and Soviet, that has ever soft-landed hardware on the moon have shown this. The world's scientists agree that the lunar soil exhibits cohesion. Can you show me any peer-reviewed research that claims the lunar soil CAN'T be cohesive?


The reports I mentioned above in items (3)-(5) aren't discussing results from measurements of simulants. And why do you think the behavior of the lunar soil is not understood? It's already been explained to you that the effects caused by vacuum cleansing and by sharp-edged particles are not mutually exclusive. Do some research.

And yes, we have the photos. Are they ALL faked?



Yes, that's a bit of a dilemma, isn't it? The bottom line is that at least as far back as 1971, in the midst of the Cold War, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union published photos of vehicles leaving tracks on the moon. Either nation would have scored a major propaganda victory if they could show that their adversary was hoaxing a lunar mission, yet both sides agreed that the lunar soil really is cohesive and retains tracks. And by the way, in the reports I've referenced the Russians are NOT basing their research on terrestrial simulants. Please re-read the reports.



You'd like to know if any reports were published prior to 1971 regarding the Apollo soil samples and lunar surface measurements? If you'd done your research, you'd already know the answer, but then you wouldn't be here making this completely unsupported claim. To answer your question, turbonium, here's the result of a search at the NASA Technical Reports Server for the key words "lunar soil Apollo" and publication dates of 1969 and 1970. (To the rest of the forum, please forgive me for this terrible waste of bandwidth, but I'd really like to make a point here).

Published 1969 (After Apollo 11)

Apollo 11 - Preliminary science report

THE FIRST LUNAR EXPEDITION
Abstract: PRAVDA EVALUATION OF APOLLO 11 SPACE FLIGHT

Organic analysis of the returned lunar sample

Preliminary examination of lunar samples from Apollo 11.

Study of effects of lunar materials on botanical systems Apollo 11 Final report, 3 Feb. - 30 Sep. 1969



Published 1970

Ar40 anomaly in lunar samples from Apollo 11

A search for carbon and its compounds in lunar samples from Mare Tranquillitatis

Cosmogenic and primordial radionuclide measurements in Apollo 11 lunar samples by nondestructive analysis

Mineralogy and petrography of some Apollo 12 samples Final report

A126 and Na22 in lunar surface materials - Implications for depth distribution studies

Fluorometric examination of the returned lunar fines from Apollo 11

Elemental abundances in seven fragments from lunar rock 12013

Mineralogy, petrology, and surface features of some Apollo 11 samples

Comparison of lunar rocks with basalts and stony meteorites

Origin of the moon Clarke Memorial Lecture
Abstract: Lunar origin hypothesis, discussing Apollo 11 crystalline rocks nature and basalts petrogenesis

Shock metamorphism of lunar rocks and origin of the regolith at the Apollo 11 landing site

Rare earths and other trace elements in Apollo 11 lunar samples

Apollo 12 seismic signal - Indication of a deep layer of powder

Genesis of lunar soil at Tranquillity Base

Thermal conductivity of fines from Apollo 11

Study of carbon compounds in Apollo 11 lunar samples

Growth and deformational structures in silicates from Mare Tranquillitatis

Lunar petrology of silicate melt inclusions, Apollo 11 rocks

Specific heats of lunar surface materials from 90 to 350 K

Elastic properties of a micro-breccia, igneous rock and lunar fines from Apollo 11 mission

Halogens, mercury, lithium and osmium in Apollo 11 samples

Preliminary examination of lunar samples from Apollo 12

Microchemical, microphysical and adhesive properties of lunar material

Solar radiation effects on the optical properties of Apollo 11 samples

Comments on lunar surface adhesion

Glassy spherules from the lunar regolith returned by Apollo 11 expedition

Interpretations and speculations on elemental abundances in lunar samples

Petrology, mineralogy and deformation of Apollo 11 samples

Thermoluminescence of lunar samples from Apollo 11

Apollo 11 Lunar Science Conference, Houston, Tex., January 5-8, 1970, Proceedings. Volume 2 - Chemical and isotope analyses

Survey of scientific results from the Apollo 11 and 12 manned lunar landings

Electron microprobe analysis of Apollo 11 lunar samples

Lead and thallium isotopes in Mare Tranquillitatis surface material

Apollo 11 Lunar Science Conference, Houston, Tex., January 5-8, 1970, Proceedings. Volume 3 - Physical properties

Water, hydrogen, deuterium, carbon and C 13 content of selected lunar material

Mineralogical and chemical studies of Apollo 11 lunar fines and selected rocks

Mineralogy of the lunar clinopyroxenes, augite and pigeonite

The concentration and isotopic composition of hydrogen, carbon and silicon in Apollo 11 lunar rocks and minerals

Elemental abundances of lunar soil and rocks

Carbon compounds in lunar fines from Mare Tranquillitatis. III - Organosiloxanes in hydrochloric acid hydrolysates

Apollo 11 Lunar Science Conference, Houston, Tex., January 5-8, 1970, Proceedings. Volume 1 - Mineralogy and petrology

Apollo 11 lunar material - Nuclear magnetic resonance of Al 27 and electron resonance of Fe and Mn

Isotopic abundances of actinide elements in lunar material

The chemistry and age of Apollo 11 lunar material

Solar wind gases, cosmic-ray spallation products and the irradiation history of Apollo 11 samples

Primordial radionuclide abundances, solar proton and cosmic-ray effects and ages of Apollo 11 lunar samples by non-destructive gamma ray spectrometry

Carbon compounds in lunar fines from Mare Tranquillitatis. II - Search for porphyrins

Carbon compounds in lunar fines from Mare Tranquillitatis. I - Search for molecules of biological significance

Chemical composition of Apollo 11 lunar samples 10017, 10020, 10072 and 10084

Inert gases in the fines from the Sea of Tranquillity

Thermal conductivity of lunar fines from Apollo 11

Composition of lunar fines

The particle track record of the Sea of Tranquillity

Microprobe investigations on Apollo 11 samples

Elemental abundances of major, minor and trace elements in Apollo 11 lunar rocks, soil and core samples

Apollo 11 - Exposure of lower animals to lunar material

Carbon and sulfur isotope studies on Apollo 12 lunar samples

Magnetic studies of lunar samples - Breccia and fines

The nature of the moon's surface - Evidence from shock metamorphism in Apollo 11 and 12 samples

Mineralogy and petrology of the Apollo 11 lunar sample

Oxygen, silicon and aluminum in Apollo 11 rocks and fines by 14 MeV neutron activation

Comparative study of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Ca, Sr and Ba abundances in achondrites and in Apollo 11 lunar samples

Search for alkanes of 15-30 carbon atom length in lunar fines

Petrology of the lunar soil and geophysical implications

The nature of the moon's surface - Evidence from shock metamorphism in Apollo 11 and 12 samples

Elemental composition of lunar surface material

Lunar surface closeup stereoscopic photography

Semimicro X-ray fluorescence analysis of lunar samples

Lunar anorthosites - Rare-earth and other elemental abundances

Ga, Ge, In, Ir and Au in lunar, terrestrial and meteoritic basalts

Magnetic properties of Apollo 11 lunar samples

Study of distribution and variations of rare gases in lunar material by a microprobe technique

Carbon and sulfur concentration and isotopic composition in Apollo 11 lunar samples

Analyses for amino acids in lunar fines

Isotopic composition of uranium and thorium in Apollo 11 samples

Cosmic-ray produced radioisotopes in lunar samples from the Sea of Tranquillity

Preliminary geologic investigation of the Apollo 12 landing site. Part C - Mechanical properties of the lunar regolith

Apollo 12 lunar samples - Trace element analysis of a core and the uniformity of the regolith

Rare gases in Apollo 11 lunar material

Glassy particles in lunar fines

Age determinations and isotopic abundance measurements on lunar samples

Magnetic resonance studies of lunar samples

Luminescence, electron paramagnetic resonance and optical properties of lunar material from Apollo 11

Results of Apollo 11 and 12 quarantine studies on plants

A search for viable organisms in a lunar sample

Analysis of Apollo 11 lunar samples by chromatography and mass spectrometry - Pyrolysis products, hydrocarbons, sulfur, amino acids

Mixing of the lunar regolith and cosmic ray spectra - Evidence from particle-track studies

Moessbauer studies of Apollo 11 lunar samples

Major and trace elements in lunar material

Preliminary examination of lunar samples

Apollo 12 - Preliminary science report

Neutron activation analysis of rhenium and osmium in Apollo 11 lunar material

Apollo 11 rocks - Oxygen isotope fractionation between minerals, and an estimate of the temperature of formation

Search for porphyrins in lunar fines from Apollo 11 and 12 Final report

Apollo 11 and 12 close-up photography

Pattern of bombardment-produced radionuclides in rock 10017 and in lunar soil

Nickel-iron in lunar anorthosites

From the papers you listed, this one was most relevant to the issue (lunar soil cohesion)...

Microchemical, microphysical and adhesive properties of lunar material

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin...-iarticle_query



The "experimental apparatus" used to measure cohesion (although even they noted that lunar soil was not cohesive in two of the samples), if it assumed a DVLO-based approach, would have "severely overstimated the actual adhesion force"...

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1...002171.000.html

The lecture will discuss several recent techniques and developments allowing us to study such aggregation and deposition processes experimentally, and the possibility to quantify those processes with the theory of Derjaguin, Landau, Verwey and Overbeek (DLVO).

Interaction and adhesion forces between 1.0-mm carboxylate-modified polystyrene latex microspheres and a glass surface were measured directly with an atomic force microscope using the colloidal probe technique. Measurements were conducted as a function of ionic strength in two different electrolytes, NaCl and MOPS (3-(N-morpholino)-propanesulfonic acid) buffer, at pH 6.8-6.9. AFM approach curves were fitted to theoretical DLVO force curves by varying the surface potential of the microspheres. The depths of the primary minima of the fitted theoretical DLVO curves were used to estimate theoretical adhesion forces, and were compared to the pull-off forces measured by AFM. Pull-off forces measured by AFM in both electrolytes were consistently a factor of 5 to 10 lower than the pull-off forces estimated from theoretical adhesion forces obtained from DLVO curves. AFM-measured pull-off forces decreased with increasing the ionic strength in both electrolytes, whereas the adhesion forces calculated from DLVO showed either no change or an increase with increasing the ionic strength. These observations indicate that the DLVO-based approach for determining adhesion force severely overestimates the actual adhesion force.

http://www.clarkson.edu/camp/acs/docs/Sess...20Elimelech.doc

I'll look into the issue further in the next few days, and get back to it here. So far, I haven't found proof for the authenticity of lunar soil footprints.

Showing your true CT colours here... your either for "them" or against them". Stop seeing the world in black and white.

I neither support the Bush Government (I can't it's not even my Government but I would not have voted for him if I was American. In fact I have a 100% record of never having voted for the party that has won the UK election. I go further, I have never voted for the candidate that has become my local MP.) I also do not believe that Governments are particularly honest, however I am not so blinded by hatred that I don't realise that sometimes they tell the truth.



And this differs from you rejecting TENS OF THOUSANDS of experts and believing ONLY TWO that agree with you how?

Oh yes, your way is illogical and irrational. The fact remains that ALMOST to a man the experts agree with pretty much every claim that Apollo made. Percy, like Sibrel, of course has only pure intentions when claiming Apollo is false. The fact that, like Sibrel, he makes his living selling books and videos about his moronic claims is, I'm sure, totally coincidental.



No, the point is that you have posted pages and pages of absolute tripe and then always said "well it isn't evidence" SO WHAT IS?



It would make a pleasent change. YOU claimed you base your beliefs on the evidence. So far you have posted pages and pages of nonsense and then denied you are claiming it is evidence.
If it isn't evidence what is the point of posting it?
If you actually have evidence why are you avoiding posting it?

You are beginning to sound like a kid in the play ground saying "I know a secret but I'm not telling you".


Why are you going to stop posting?


Who cares whether you have found proof. You aren't really looking for it, you are looking for ways to fit the facts into your belief.Unless you are a qualified geologist your opinion means next to nothing. Those that are experts in this field are satisfied. They have found the proof that satisfies them.

And yes I am playing the expert card again. Why? Because I happen to think that education and expertise are worth something. I am not so arrogant as to believe my opinion is more relevant than that of someone who has studied a subject for years. I understand that not all opinions are equal and I know my place in the scheme of things, thus I will always defer to those better qualified to make these judgements than I. That is why I believe 100% in Apollo, because the REAL experts believe 100% in Apollo.

No, of course you didn't do all that!
You're a liar just like Neil Armstrong!




...I don't know, Cat, I think alot of the hoax contentions don't include recovery operations. Quite a few say they just faked it but did send crews into Earth orbit, so that would imply that they did indeed have to be recovered.


There was one I recall that implied that the CM was just hauled aloft and dropped from an aircraft at the apropriate time, so there was a faked recovery as well...but that's all idiocy as well.

Somehow, Cat, I am thinking your not going to receive a challenge !

P H O T O S...taken by U.S. and Soviet craft on the lunar surface, all show the same thing.
That, is proof...unless of course, you're prepapred to show that those photos are fake...

There is no truth to mankind's greatest accomplishment being a hoax.
Turb, you are burying yourself.

You have sat there and gotten adamant about the idea that you're not declaring that your points are proof of a hoax, but still you speak of things like the "truth" of the hoax. Above, you have just declared that YOU don't like to see the truth of the hoax continuously denied! Further, you have implicitly stated that those of us who know something about this thing are UNABLE TO GET A GRASP ON REALITY.

You are declaring a hoax, yet again, in no uncertain terms, yet, you have provided nothing but a group of untenable ideas that have all been shot down. You have also repeatedly denied that you were presenting evidence of a hoax when these ideas were fully contradicted in scientific and rational terms.




Jesus...

You're going to cite David Percy as an expert?
David Groves?

Yes, sure, our contentions about these two media hounds are unfounded....???


Please...



What is the proof of a hoax?

No forgiveness necessary!

That was a hell of an effort on your part.


Just a smattering of the voluminous documentation of Apollo.

What's that, about 100 papers written about variuous aspects of Apollo lunar samples...all of them done prior to the rerturn of the vast bulk of samples returned by Apollo?


And Turb says:




As if he read them all?
Hell, even I never read them all...!




It'll take more than a few days, I'm afraid.
Then, there's all the papers that have been published since 1970...


It is rather a well understood phenomenon. It was shown to be the case before these papers above were written.
It is very difficult to contemplate that we're actually spending so much time on an observed phenomenon that's been completely documented by many direct experiential means, from Soviet to U.S. lander cameras, to manned observations and photography.

It's all consistent, and all accurate.

Oh really? Personally, I would have chosen these two as a starting point:

Apollo 11 - Preliminary Science Report
Chapter 4, "Apollo 11 Soil Mechanics Investigation," pg. 106 - Cohesion

Apollo 12 - Preliminary Science Report
Chapter 10, Part C, "Mechanical Properties of the Lunar Regolith," pg. 170 - Cohesion

Regarding the paper you've referenced, Turb, the "vacuum adhesion" section of the report is talking about a lunar rock, not a soil sample. The experiment involved breaking the rock in half and then measuring the adhesion forces occurring when the two pieces are put back together. The rock they used was a small portion of the fist-sized Apollo 11 rock sample 10065:

QUOTE(Apollo 11 Sample Catalog)

Sample 10065 is an irregular, medium dark grey, microbreccia. This sample originally weighed 347gm and measured 8.2x7.8x5.8 cm. Sample was originally returned in ALSRC #1004 (Documented Sample Container).

This experiment has nothing to do with the in situ cohesiveness of bulk lunar soil. I did notice, however, this quote from the very same paper:

QUOTE(Microchemical, microphysical and adhesive properties of lunar material, pg. 2179)

We have also observed adhesion of the lunar soil sample. Vertical walls produced by indentations in the soil persisted in vacuum, in dry N₂, and when exposed to air (these findings are in accord with those reported by COSTES et al., 1969). Air exposure seemed to decrease this cohesiveness with time.

Basically, you've misinterpreted the vacuum adhesion experiment and have either missed or chosen not to quote the portion of the paper which notes that an actual lunar soil sample used for a separate experiment does indeed exhibit cohesiveness. Contrary to your claim, this paper actually SUPPORTS the multitude of other observations showing that the lunar soil is cohesive.




Ok, I've read the McDonnell Douglas paper at least three times now, and I still have no idea what you're talking about here. Did I miss something, or are you just pulling up random references? I'm not a chemist, so I'm not familiar with the DLVO theory, but from the sources I found on the Web, it appears to deal with forces between particles in SUSPENDED IN A LIQUID:

QUOTE(Wikipedia DLVO Theory)

The DLVO theory is named after Derjaguin, Landau, Verwey and Overbeek who developed it in the 1940s. The theory describes the force between charged surfaces interacting through a liquid medium. It combines the effects of the van der Waals attraction and the electrostatic repulsion due to the so called double-layer of counterions.

Since neither one of us is a geology expert, it's neither useful nor appropriate to get into this level of detail here. More importantly, it's not at all necessary. You want to know if it's possible for Apollo astronauts to leave footprints on the moon, but you ignore the basic photographic observations which clearly show that pretty much everything that has landed there has left tracks and prints. I don't need to have an expert understanding of Rayleigh scattering to observe that the sky is blue. I don't need to know the intricate details of stellar fusion to observe that the sun is bright and warm. If I want to know the color of the sky, I just have to go outside and look at it. If I want to know if it's possible to leave tracks and prints in the lunar soil, what better way to test this than to land on object on the moon, move it around, and take some pictures?

We have pre-Apollo photos from the Surveyor landers that show clearly-defined track and prints. You've stated that you believe Surveyor was real, so this ought to be a good source of data. We also have independent confirmation from the Soviet Union, in the middle of the Cold War, which shows Lunokhod rovers leaving long trails of clearly-defined wheel tracks. These basic observations of tracks in the lunar soil are valid regardless of our understanding of the detailed soil mechanics.

So, please tell me why the U.S. Surveyor photos and the Soviet Luna/Lunokhod photos can't be considered as conclusive, independent confirmation of the Apollo photo record, showing that it is indeed possible to leave tracks and prints on the surface of the moon. Are they ALL fake? If so, why haven't the world's geology experts come forward to prove that such tracks are impossible? Until you address these photographs, I'm not terribly interested in spending any more time digging through technical reports from which you appear to have cherry-picked a few phrases that fit your preconceived ideas.


Try this:
Lunar Sourcebook: A User's Guide to the Moon, Cambridge University Press, 1991

Thanks, but it really wasn't that much work ... just a bit of cutting and pasting.


Yep, I think I counted 102. And that's just one quick search. I'm sure I could pull up quite a few more if I expanded my search terms and checked other document archives. Like you said, it's just the tip of the iceberg ... well before the J missions where you guys got down to some really serious lunar science.


For my own amusement, I made the same search on NTRS using the keywords "lunar soil Apollo" and came up with about 850 papers published between 1971 and 1980, and another 270 or so post-1980. Even assuming that some of these aren't relevant, we're still talking about more than 1000 total reports and papers from just one quick search of a single document library.


Most definitely.

All it takes is a staged set and some stupid suits...

Crap. I thought we were having a great time, and being a small (very) part of history. And, man, those chutes were a helluva long way up there. Wonder what they dropped them from. Must have been a shuttle.
Crap. Well, somebody told me once that I didn't go to Vietnam three times, either. My whole life must be a fake.
Crap.

I expect not. But it would be fun. I just don't get this whole thing. ??!!

Just what I said - that it would be considered a massive crime if it were publicly exposed as a hoax. Which was in reply to the question about why people think it's relevant to discuss the hoax.



Excuse me, but where did you come up with that information? No national debt until 1970?!?

For a brief period in the mid-1830's the public debt was virtually zero. At the start of World War I in 1916, the public debt was $1 billion. It then rose to a peak of $26 billion in 1919 to finance the war. The debt declined for the next decade. During the Great Depression of the 1930's, however, the debt increased from $16 billion to $42 billion. During the Second World War the public debt rose sharply to a peak of $279 billion in 1946. From its postwar low in 1949, the outstanding public debt grew gradually for nearly the next two decades. Then, beginning at the time of the Vietnam War in the mid-1960's, the rate of the debt's increase accelerated sharply.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/T...tionalDebt.html

As for the Apollo budget, it peaked in 1966, not 1967. At its peak, Apollo accounted for about 4% of the entire national budget.....

..NASA's budget peaked in 1966, during the height of construction efforts leading up to the first moon landing under Project Apollo. At its peak, the Apollo program involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors. Roughly two to four cents out of every U.S. tax dollar (or 4% of the total federal budget -- adjusted for inflation in today's dollars) was being devoted to the space program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

Hardly "irrelevant" - to an national debt that most certainly did exist at the time.



I never claimed that NASA's budget was greater than all other sectors. The Defense budget is obviously much higher than NASA's budget is each year. But the space programs (especially Apollo) also share in the responsiblity for increasing our national debt over the past 40+ years.



As I pointed out to Waspie, that argument is pure nonsense. I can bring up issues I find to be worth scrutinizing without you twisting each and every one of those issues into my "claim that this is proof of a hoax"!!

I'll again turn your argument around, so (hopefully) this time you'll understand how utterly ridiculous it is. What if I picked through all of the hoax issues you've defended against in your posts over the past months (and years) on Apollo. Then, for each one of those issues, I'll ask you "How can claim that ____ is proof that Apollo was authentic?"

If you believe that I am claiming the footprints are proof that Apollo was a hoax (even though I never said that), then you are claiming that the footprints are proof that Apollo was genuine!

So how are the footprints proof that Apollo was genuine? Since you always make statements that Apollo was genuine, that it's an indisputable fact, then every issue you discuss about Apollo has to be considered as something that you claim - just in itself - proves Apollo was genuine!

It should be clear to you that this is purely a smear tactic. I could just as easily pick apart your posts, and twist them around, one by one, with each one being "your claim of Apollo's authenticity."

When you reply with "I never said ____ proves Apollo in itself", I will come back with "If you consistently claim that you never said it was evidence (a repeated phrase when your ideas are shot down by thorough explanation), then why do you make statements like this one, where you state that the claimed successes of Apollo were a proven fact?"

Smear tactic completed.

Get it?



The numerous anomalies in photos and videos (such as the Apollo 12 clip) are prime evidence. And there are many supporting points for a hoax beyond that, some of which have already been discussed, and others which have yet to be mentioned here.

That's true.

Unfortunately, we couldn't find any staged sets and stupid suits. All we had were real suits, and the real Moon.
Thus, we had no choice but to do it for real.

Yes, I'm sure you were having a great time. But do not discount that "small part" of history! I've always viewed everyone in the program as equal parts of a huge whole. If it wasn't for the folks out there on the ocean...history would've consisted of a bunch of guys in a lousy boat who perished at sea!

...someone actually told you that you didn't go to Viet Nam three times?
Did you pound any sense into him?





That's pretty much the crux of the matter isn't it?
You did something. It's established, concurred with, and substantiated in every way possible, and someone tells you you're a liar...and wants you to prove it!

You're right. I can't even understand where I get the patience to deal with it...


We're all fakes!

i for one would love to hear about the "others"(anomalies that is) that have yet to be mentioned here and believe me they will be received with the credulty they deserve-- that camera jumble where you exposed the arm and stagehands will always be classic!! what else am i missing?

Yes, 1967 was the first year of cutbacks. Big deal. You do understand that the 4% of the budget which was given to NASA produced incredible advances and economic growth, no (your writing on a computer that came out of that 4%)? You must also realize that this attempt to argue about this stuff is inconsequential to the issue at hand.

Apollo and the space program as a whole never has constituted a major part of the national debt. There's always been some national debt. 1969 ewas the last time this country had a balanced budget, and its debt was miniscule and managable. Since then it has grown astronomically, and none of that has to do with the miniscule, and often underfunded NASA budget.



Bull. Every program the government has shared in the debt. NASA's budget was claimed by you to be a significant contributor. It is not, and it never was.






You have done so in the past. It is an HB tactic that is repeated ad-nauseam. You have also repeated asked for proof of Apollo's authenticity, and that is not relevant, or necessary. It's your job to prove it was a fake.





See? Nothing I "claim" is designed to prove anything. It is designed to tell you what happened and how, in order to allow you the opportunity to look into the matter for yourself and learn about what you don't know. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. Every HB, barring none, doesn't know.
This thread is here so that knowledge can happen.

Conspiracy theories, are, by-and-large, imaginative creations, despite the fact that some conspiracies have indeed occurred in history (and of course, haven't worked, since we know about them). Apollo could not have possibly been faked, and the overwhelming information available about every single aspect prohibits anyone rational from discounting it. It's impossible to have faked all that.

Christ, Turb, Peri has cited over 100 pre-J mission reports about the lunar soil, and has discovered 800+ more since! These are reports about dirt! Just a fraction of Apollo.

Why is it that none of you ever respond about this immense quantity of information?
Why would it be necessary to fake hundreds of scientific reports from scientists all over the world regarding lunar samples? And why are studies still being done on this material, 35 years after the last ones were returned to Earth?




Now you're being overtly defensive. Smear tactics? No smear tactics are necessary in Apollo hoax matters. The arguments smear themselves. You do exactly what you say you could do. And you want us to prove authenticity. That's the wrong tack. Get it? The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Thus, I consistently press for some proof. And you offer:




It's now becoming silly, Turb.
Apollo 12? Prime evidence?

Your interpretation of Apollo 12's video is prime evidence of pareidolia, and little else. In 15 seconds of blurry TV, you see things that cannot be there and insist that what you see is evidence. It is not (save to you). It is an illusion that you wish to see, and frankly, any one with imagination can visualize what you're looking at. The difference is that the rational person with knowledge realizes that it's just imagination. A minute fraction of the Apollo video (perhaps 5/1000% of the total Apollo video record), almost completely nondescript save to the educated observer, and you find evidence of things that are impossible?


The issue has been described and explained in vast detail by people who actually know what they're seeing. There's nothing in the Apollo 12 surface video but clear evidence of exactly what happened...a moving camera flashing across the LM, showing specific structures, and then pointed into the sun, and subsequently killed. The issue is dead.


There has never been an "anomaly" in an Apollo surface photograph. The photographs show precisely what photgraphs show on Earth! It's been shown clearly time and time again.

There's no evidence there...save evidence of a lack of knowledge about what a camera actually records, on the Moon, and on the Earth, and how it presents three dimensional scenes on a two-dimensional representation.


There has never been any supporting evidence discussed regarding a hoax that's not been completely explained.


You have mentioned many times "other things which have yet to be mentioned".


What could they be?

You, and the rest of us would love to hear about those un-named things.

You're also correct in that they will indeed be received with the credulity they deserve.

However, the "classic" nature of the imagination that saw arms and hands is something that perhaps only you would accept as being tenable....

What you are missing is obviously knowledge of the subject matter.

?!?! MID, the whole point of a conspiracy is that the perpetrators (conspirators) are able to pull off their plan without being found out! Conspiracies are clandestine operations by their very nature.

Are you suggesting that no historical conspiracy has ever worked, because we have found out about all of them? I hope not, because that's ridiculous.



Nothing is impossible, including the Apollo hoax. The "overwhelming information" you speak of can't be verified in many cases, because we have no basis for making comparisons on Earth.



Pareidolia is when someone sees the shape of something, like an elephant in a cloud, or a human face in billowing smoke (ie: within a photo of smoke).

That is not the case with the Apollo 12 stills. First of all - unlike the shapes seen in clouds or smoke - the human shapes in the still below are perfectly matched with the correct colors. If we removed all the color from the still, it would appear like this..



In the grayscale version above, you would have a valid argument that seeing the shapes of two people within the image is a case of pareidolia. Not that you would necessarily be right, but at least you'd have a decent argument. Unlike true pareidolia, where we know for a fact that there cannot be a real elephant in the clouds!

But in the actual still, the shapes do have color, as seen below...



Now in a cropped closeup..



I have never seen any examples of pareidolia in which the shapes are perfectly color-indexed. Start with the flesh tones. What are the chances that the only flesh colors we see in the still are located precisely on the 'hands and faces' of the 'people' shapes? Then we have a blue-green color. What are the chances that this color would only be located precisely as a 'shirt' for one of the 'people' shapes? Now look at the white color. Again, what are the odds that it would be located exactly where the 'shirt' of the second 'person' shape is? In fact, the white shirt and flesh hand of the second 'person' shape are distinctly defined by those colors.

Consider another facet - the 'people' shapes are three-dimensional, They have depth. Especially the man on the left, with his arms forward, bent up at the elbows.
3-dimensional, perfectly color-indexed shapes are not the product of one's imagination in this still. They are clearly there for everyone to see. You're going to dispute seeing the same colors and shapes that I do?

What else supports my position? Other stills...



The man on the left is now standing, although it's hard to discern. The same 'loops' he is pulling on can be seen, as in the first still of this post. But the second man is much easier to see. He is sitting down, like he was in the first still I posted. Same white shirt, same flesh toned hands and face. And he is in a different position in each still. His face can be seen in one still, while his head has moved forward in the other still.

Now, consider the exponential odds of all these aspects occurring together by pure chance - if they are not real people, but merely something I'm "imagining".

Flesh tones, an inexplicable color to even see in itself, on "gold mylar". Then, even if this color occurs by way of your argument, it would have to appear randomly on the image - a splotch here, a squiggle there, etc. This completely random phenomenon was quite amazing, however. The randomly occurring flesh tones somehow ended up in the exact shape, and in the exact location, for hands and faces of the 'people' shapes, and appeared nowhere else!!

So did the totally "random" blue-green and white colors!

Three different colors, which - completely by random - occur in the exact shape and position they should be on the 'people' shapes!

Your explanation for this goes far beyond the odds of an 'illusion' created purely by random chance.

In other words, the evidence fully supports my argument. If it looks like a 3-dimensional duck , and it moves like a duck, and it's colored exactly like a duck, more than likely it is a duck. And not an illusion created by the 'amazing' gold mylar - which, besides perfectly shaped and color-indexed 3-dimensional people, allegedly can create perfectly shaped 3-dimensional chairs. Yes, the amazing gold mylar! - is there nothing it can't do?

Good lord! Turb, my friend, I must be going blind. I've looked at your stills for quite a while now and at best all I can make out are some shapes that I would call "Lego men". I honestly can't see the people you're referring to.

In the last set of pics I do notice what looks like a shadow that has suddenly appeared in the left hand side, but without clear reference that could be anything.

I would love to see a clear shot of a hand holding onto a rope or bit of equipment, but unfortunately that's not what I see in your pics.

Sorry.

All i see are pixilated images?

I can't see it.

i see nothing in those photos that you speak of... what a wild imagination you must have turb

You're telling me.

That's "evidence"?? good lord, i've seen clearer evidence that it was Apollo 20 that crashed at Roswell...

???
Why do we need to make comparisons to the Apollo lunar surface experience, i.e., actions taken in a 1/6 g vacuum on another world, on Earth?
WE CAN'T. This is a different planet!

Please don't tell me you're going back to that independent observer thing....

We did it, we documented it, we brought back the goodies, we left the experiments, and we filmed and photographed the whole thing in exquisite detail.
Are we supposed to duplicate everything that happened in an environment completely unlike Earth...on Earth? Why?






Those are examples of the phenomenon.
Properly put, pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and often random stimulus which is perceived as significant.



The "human shapes" are vague and completely unclear. Color has nothing to do with it.
A real human arm or hand, unprotected, cannot possibly be appearing in a vacuum.







I think this is a classic example. There is absolutely nothing clear about what is represented above, save to those of us who know what we're looking at...and that has been clearly explained in exquisite detail before. There are no men. There are no people, there are no arms. They cannot be seen, because they are not there. You're looking at piece of LM structure, and the reflection of a color wheel spinning through a rapidly panning and out of focus shot of the LM descent stage/ascent stage inteface. The colors are rapidly panned gold foil, as represented by the frozen frame of a spinning color wheel. Bright light being reflected off a shiny surface is composed of all wavelengths. The rapidly panning camera is picking them up. This is not a mystery.

If they are clearly there for everyone to see, then why is it that no one seems to see it? See above.

We know what this is. It's already been resolved.





It's hard to discern because it's not there.
There is no more a man apearing in these frames then there are actual elephants or faces in the clouds...color or not.




My explanation refers to a psychological phenomenon where things are "seen" in random obscure images. The illusion is created by a complex psychological process. The odds of someone being able to do that are rather high. It's something that alot of people can do.

However, the odds of using this particular example of already thoroughly explained obscurity as some sort of evidenciary proof of an Apollo hoax is not so ordininary...




And if it looks like what it is...it likely is that.
And it is the descent/descent stage interface of a LM, on the Moon, several feet above the camera, being swept rapidly with a color wheel TV camera for a mere fraction of a second. It shows nothing intelligible whatsoever, unless you happen to know where the camera was, and what it was looking at. We do know this, and we know precisely what we're looking at, and it is not men.
It's a piece of a highly complex machine.



This argument was put to bed long ago.

I asked you what else you had. You said there were things not previously presented. This is old stuff. There's no point in getting involved in the obscure Apollo 12 seconds of video again.


Again, I repeat...

You have mentioned many times "other things which have yet to be mentioned".


What could they be?
This certainly isn't it.

Turbonium, you know perfectly well that your imaginative interpretation of the Apollo 12 clip has been compared with what the camera was actually doing at the time, ie panning unsteadily over the side of the LM, and that a montage of stills has been produced which clearly corresponds to the features of the LM that were there. Apart from Sunophone, who clearly does not believe anything that doesn't have a conspiracy label, can you produce one person who has seen both your interpretation and the montage and takes your side in this?

Those are exactly the people I'm seeing and referring to, SOURCE. The "Lego men", as you call them, is due to pixelation....

In this case, pixelation describes the blocky effect that occurs when an image is magnified to the point that the curves and overall picture of an image begins to give way to the pixels that make up the image.

http://www.windowsphotostory.com/Guides/NoPixelZoom/

This "blocky" effect can be seen in the blue-green shirt of the man on the left, in the close-up below....



You might find this is a sharper, more defined image - this time, of the man on the right, from the still below...



In a cropped close-up..




The first problem is that the stills are from a low resolution online video clip. The second problem is that in the DVD version, these stills are even worse quality than the online version!!

In a review of the Apollo DVD's, they noted the work done by Spacecraft Films (the company which produced the DVD's)....

Working closely with NASA and other individuals around the country, the company has poured through literally every last bit of historical film and video footage recording the events of the Apollo missions, transferring it all to digital videotape using state-of-the-art telecine and mastering techniques... With all of these collections, great care has been taken to present the original film and video in quality that is as good as (or better than) the original film and video masters as possible.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews2/scfapollopart1.html

Spacecraft Films own website has posted a comparison of two stills, which show how much better in quality their DVD versions are compared to the best previous version available.

And certainly, the Apollo 12 DVD's are vastly improved over the online versions, throughout......except for the segment of the clip with the (supposedly imagined) people and arms!

Example 1:



Example 2:



I am absolutely convinced that the poor quality of this very small segment in the DVD version is no accident. The remaining 99.99% of the material in the 3 DVD set of Apollo 12 is at least as good, and usually much better quality, than the online versions.

And yes, I've heard all the pro-Apollo responses to this. I don't find them the least bit convincing.

Personally, I think the DVD images in that comparison look to have higher resolution. Perhaps you are confusing "improved" and "what you'd like them to be in order to support your theory."

No, although that may help to explain why you think widescale pixelation artifacts and/or other distortions denote higher resolution, better quality images.

The DVD stills look better to me. You still can't see anything in either one though.

um....

Unlike these pictures, of course...

Why didn't they just edit out this fraction-of-a-second bit, if it was the "smoking gun" that showsm the whole thing was a fake? Why go to all the trouble of pixellating this tiny little clip?

What men???
I don't see any.

I think this pertinent question was asked before...several times.
There was never an answer.

When one wants to believe, any rational argument is swept under the rug as irrelevant.
A few seconds of the many hours of Apollo video, and we would bother with all this just to cover up an arm...or something?

When I was younger I used to look at the sky and the clouds would form shapes and faces, I remember when I was really little I got scared when I thought there was a "monster" in the old oak tree opposite my bedroom window but it was just a gnarly bit of wood catching the moonlight.

There is no discernable human shape in any of the pictures.

Did we not bring back some moon rock, was not this moon rock sent to laboratories all over the world and they were all like "yep this moon rock all right", is not some of this moon rock what was given away by the USA government floating around on the Black Market being sold for Millions of dollars?

Mankind has walked on the big round Object we see in the night’s sky, end of!

Had that section been edited out, anyone who had previously seen it would have wondered