they would of also had the funds to bribe any willing scum secret service official that would have the means to do in russia what they did here-- hmm... putin emerged during this time frame didnt he and he had his start in the kgb....coinicidence?? with a nickname like "pootypoot" i dont think so

And Concorde. The Buran Space Shuttle was based on NASA's shuttle. It is even believed by many experts that the Soyuz spacecraft that the Russians are still using today was a design stolen from the Americans. It is alleged that it is based on the rejected design submitted by General Electric. Source: Astronautix

Incidentally, in it's guise as the Zond spacecraft, Soyuz was capable of sending living creatures around the moon and returning them safely the Earth 40 years ago. This is an inconvenient fact which, like so many others, is simply ignored by the hoax believers as it gets in the way of their belief system (see Sunofone's post above).

The fact that there were losing designs of Apollo spacecraft is also an inconvenient truth ignored by the HBs. They would have you believe that Apollo was constructed by NASA, which was so highly compartmentalised that Apollo's inability to get to the moon could be easily covered up. In fact it's design was open to competition. The vehicles were not designed and built by NASA but rather for NASA.

The fact that there were companies that failed to win the contracts and the commercial benefits that go with it would surely give many people in the know incentive to discredit their commercial rivals to line their own pockets (after all the HBs would have us believe that everyone is in the scam for money). In 40 years none of them ever has.

So, no comment at all on my last post? Can I assume this means you're now able to see that the Apollo 12 video clip really does just show the side of the LM?

Thank you for posting sunofone, your "logic" always brings a smile to my face.

Either (as many HBs claim) it is impossible to land a man on the moon, in which case it will still be impossible in 2020, OR it is possible to land a man on the moon in which case it was possible in 1969.

If it impossible why are all the Worlds space agencies about to fake it again?

If it isn't impossible why did NASA fake it in 1969?

The third explanation is the one you seem to be going with, it was not possible with the technology of the 1960s but is possible now. This is another of the HBs arguments, that some how the technology of the 60's was so privative that Apollo was not possible back then.

As usual this tactic ignores inconvenient truths such as the fact that the 60's saw such technological marvels as the 747, Concorde, the mach3 Valkyrie bomber and the Mach 3.2+, SR-71 Blackbird spy plane. (In fact the Valkyrie and Blackbird were conceived in the 1950's and were flying before Apollo).

You say it is nothing that can't be explained easily these days so come on then explain it. What has changed between 1969 and now that means we can now get to the moon but we couldn't back then. What advances in science have occurred to make this feat possible?

What are you rambling about. Do you even understand what you said yourself?

exactly how does that relate to the evidence i provided? i presented obvious hoaxed images and major discrepecies pointed out by turbo as well as a theory on why russia failed to blow the whistle-- reread these posts especially the pysocological reason presented

I am still awaiting evidence from you, Sunofone, that the "hoaxed" photo of Mike Collins was presented by NASA as an actual EVA photo.

your last post was not worth commenting on-- its a ludicrous assumption to believe that your collage can account for the revelations caught in the video of the camera fumble-- rollingstone creates collages all the time of portait likenesses of stars from random images and i just dont see how demonstrating this technique proves anything at all

Well it doesn't because you have presented suppositions and opinions but no evidence for anything.

But in relation to your claim that the technology did not exist at the time of Apollo, the fact that the modified Soyuz was capable of orbiting the Moon with living creatures and returning to the Earth proves that there was no technological barrier to doing the same thing with humans. It also follows that if living creatures could survive in the vacinity of the moon, there is no impediment to them being able to survive on the Moon.

To take the logic one step further, if there was no technological reason why Apollo could not been done then there is no reason for NASA to fake the Moon landings in the first place.

So, apart from invalidating much of your argument, my post has no relevance at all it would seem.

So you are saying that the US goverment bribed the whole KGB, and Russian Space agency into not saying anything about the so called Hoax. Okkkkk right. The US freaking goverment couldnt even fake WMD's really come on.

you misconstrued what i was implying-- my references to advanced technology was refering to digital imagery editing and not whether or not we "could" go-- we didnt go then and we cant go now and we wont be going in the future-- and oxy my comments imply that nasa used the billions stolen to grease putin "or" as bush has so aptly nicknamed him "pooty poot"

no if they found wmd's they would have to admit mission accomplished and leave-- have you not been paying attention to the 9/11 cover-up

If the technicians were scrambling around pulling shades then they knew that they were producing unusable footage. Why then didn't they just reshoot it?

why did they forget to add the stars?

In which case I repeat one of the many questions you are ignoring:
And how about furnishing us with some actual evidence, rather than just your opinion.

Simply dismissing questions and evidence presented against you in this manner:is easy to do and very disingenuous. It is also counter-productive to your side of the argument as it makes it appear that you are the one with no answers. Of course if you are the one with no answers it would explain it.

Only someone who is completely ignorant of photography would buy the "no stars" argument; thus, I assume that this reply is a joke you posted while you are formulating your real reply.

Now that that bit of humor is out of the way, I'm sure that you are ready with the real reply to my question:

"If the technicians were scrambling around pulling shades then they knew that they were producing unusable footage. Why then didn't they just reshoot it?"

What the hell does Putin have to do with 1960's moon landing?

garsh!! i aint never seen me no pictures of stars!! ill bet you i can go to my backyard and take a picture of the stars and thats because there is an atmosphere here which the astronauts would not of had to deal with-- did you see this?? by the way --they even admit that the stars would be visible with the sun out during the day if we had the vantage point claimed

Seeing stars and photographing stars are two different things, as you well know. Ready with a reply to this question yet?

"If the technicians were scrambling around pulling shades then they knew that they were producing unusable footage. Why then didn't they just reshoot it?"

At 12 o clock noon tomorrow go outside. Look up. NASA hid the stars!!!

your a joke of a spin artist its not that im ignoring the question its you ignoring the answer-- but ill play your little game and spell it out for you--
M-O-N-E-Y


in all reality the facts are on my side concerning all the discrepencies in relation to current digital editing abilities to self admitted perspectives of the stars that should have been there and the fact that 30 years ago it took eight years to do something that today they admit cant be done for at least 15 years which is just a way of brushing it off

i already answered this remember -- "why did they forget to add the stars?" answer: cuz they are stupid!

So you're really saying that you don't know anything about photography?

dang i didnt know you were gonna break out the big guns!! good show!

are you gonna take my bet??? ill give you two to one odds

Wait a minute. NASA pulls off the greatest special effects feats in history, still unmatched after 40 years, but at the same time they are too stupid to reshoot a muffed take. Hm. okay...<backs away slowly>

sure go ahead rationalize it anyway you like-- my opinion is that it was FAR from the greatest special effect in history and has about as many holes in it as the jfk and 9/11 inside jobs-- im assuming your have taken the time to view the video clip turbo located so im not sure where your going with this-- missing that split second jumble is not something that would of been hard-- but why not! if it stifles the humility of your deflated delusions of granduer

Nope he was serious.


The fact that turbonium used this image as "evidence" and you repeat the claim shows a level of laziness in research only equalled by a lack of understanding of VERY basic photographic principles.

Firstly turbonium claims it is a drawing. It isn't, it is a composite of 3 different photographs, one of the stars at night, one of the sun and one of the sun's corona.

Secondly nowhere does NASA admit anything. Had turbonium quoted the original NASA image of the day text rather than the CT, half truth, text he would have quoted this: Hardly an admission of guilt.

Had he then bothered to take the link to the the web site of the gentleman that made that image, the astrophotographer, Jerry Lodriguss, he would have come across this: and this:
Source: Catching the Light - Solstice

No mention of the atmosphere, why? Because it is irrelevant.

None of this research would have taken any time, all the links were there and just needed to be followed.

Yet again sunofone expects us to believe that NASA are so clever and powerful that they can pull of a huge hoax in front of the whole world and keep the majority of the worlds population ignorant of the fact for 40 years whilst at the same time being so stupid that they print a photograph on their own website that gives the whole game away.

The other option is that turbonium and sunofone don't know what they are talking about.

I know which option I'm going for. You see I'm going to base my decision on the basis of 30 years of taking photographs and an interest in astronomy (which includes many nights of photographing stars) that goes back even further.

Okay. Go get a camera, set it to the same exposures that the Apollo astronauts used, go outside tonight and shoot the stars. Come back and post the photos. The results should be real enlightening.

gosh why would you try and confuse people about the difference between the solstice and an eclipse -- he clearly said this is how it would of looked in the absence of the atmosphere on this particular date --june,21 2007(also my b-day by the way along with prince william) which did NOT coincide with an eclipse-- the quotes you provided are the ones taken out of context as anyone not fooled by your spin would have found out by following the links-- which you so boldy proclaim to do yet you twisted the facts hoping no one would call you out on them-- both quotes you used are refering to the conditions present WITH an atmospere-- people dont take my word --research it your self

Don't worry, I don't take your word...

ahhhh... it sounds like your trying to weasel out-- what now i have to go to nasa and borrow their exact cameras and use film from the 60's?

That's all you present, your opinion. I've asked before how about some facts, some supporting evidence anything except your opinion. Personal opinion, yours, mine, the Popes counts for nothing, it is evidence that counts.

Not only that but as it is you and turbonium that are proposing the conspiracy you have the burden of proof. We "Apollo defenders" do not have to prove anything, as our side of the argument is the "accepted truth". As far as the world is concerned Apollo is true. The proof is there. If you think that can be changed it is you who must prove it, not keep demanding that which has been prove be proved again.

On the side of Apollo we have recorded history. Physical evidence in the shape of the Apollo hardware and the returned (and independently varified) lunar samples. We have pretty much every expert in a relevant field (astronomy astronomical and aeronautical engineering, physics, geology, photography, etc).

What do you have on your side apart from your opinion?

Let's look shall we:

Personal attack.


Your opinion, no evidence presented to back it up.


I suggest you look the word FACT up in a dictionary.


Opinion, no supporting evidence presented.


Opinion, no supporting evidence presented.


Mostly unsupported opinion punctuated with incorrect information. Try deducting 1969 from 2007 you might find the answer is a lot closer to 40 than 30. It is your opinio that the 15 year target is because it can not be achieved quicker rather than a choice, no evidence is presented to support this

What are the reasons why it is going to take 15 years? Could it possibly have anything to do with the reduced budget, in real terms, that NASA has today? Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that from 1961 NASA's entire manned effort was focused on Apollo whilst today the Constellation programme has to exist while NASA is still flying the shuttle and has yet to complete the ISS? Could it be that Apollo was a race with the Soviet Union where time was an important factor where as now there is no such race?

If you discount all of these explanations please present evidence as to why they are not relevant. If you say yes to just one then that part of your argument dies, it does not constitute evidence of an Apollo fake. Your burden of proof.

Use modern film, if the technology exists now then prove it using the same exposure settings using modern film 800 speed film. Scan the images and show us what you get. Sorry atomic dog, I had to put this out there.

Perfectly okay, I was going to tell him the same thing. The basic principles of photography, which we are testing his knowledge of, have not changed in 40 years.

why should i when i have the added distortion of an atmosphere which apollo wouldnt of had-- but ill run a test with my cell phone camera tonight

It sounds like you're trying to weasel out of it. BTW, even without the atmosphere you would need a longer exposer than 1/36 of a second. You would need at least 5 seconds... probably longer.

all you have is assumed honesty of criminals and their whores because the physical evidence is full of holes and unreconcilable pressumptions

weasel out??! dang it im on my way right now to houston and demand that nasa turn over their cameras and any 1960's film they have lying around or ELSE!!

or i can use my phone camera

If you know anything about astronomy, you know the exposure factor that an atmosphere adds. If you don't know, look it up and increase your exposure accordingly. It won't make any difference.

BTW, you did know that Apollo 16 took star photos from the lunar surface, didn't you? Look up the exposures they used. Then explain to me how that would work with a hand held camera.

and exactly how would you rectify the the added handicap of an atmosphere?

He just said: increase your exposure length accordingly.

. Ok answer a question and you will convince me that the Moonlanding was fake.

1. What was the point of the fake moon landing. If it was to win the Space race why didnt the Soviets Debunk it? If it wasnt to win the Space race what was the reason?

Its not impossible to fake the landing just improbable but those questions I think debunk the Fake landing Theory.

the same reason they created religion-- power -- neoslavery -- combining debt with divide and rule

If the atmosphere is the handicap you are claiming it to be how do you account for the hundreds of thousands of photographs of the stars taken by amateurs from all over the world. You see one of the important things about the human eye is that it has evolved (or if you prefer was designed by God) to use the wavelengths of light which the atmosphere is transparent to.

Now the thing with the atmosphere being transparent to optical wavelengths is that it doesn't offer much of an impediment to seeing the stars at night or to photographing them on film designed to work at optical wavelengths.

The problem with the Apollo photographs is that they did not go there to photograph stars, they went to photograph the lunar surface. It was daytime on the Moon when the Apollo photographs were taken, as a result the cameras were set to take photographs of the surface in day time. The exposure time was simply to short to show up the stars. If they had set the cameras to photograph the stars (which has been pointed out takes an exposure time of several seconds up to many minutes, depending on the lowest magnitude of star you you wish to appear). in such an image not only would the lunar surface be horribly burned out, but unless the camera was mounted on a tripod there would be so much camera shake that it is highly unlikely the star images would be recognisable. I carried out an experiment to demonstra this some time ago. One day I am going to get really bored with repeating this post:

I will point this out for any lurkers and readers of this thread: those of us that defend Apollo against hoax believers don't do so because we think we change their minds. Most of them are lost causes. They have a conclusion and will simply ignore or dismiss any evidence that shows them to be wrong. My evidence for this, well if you have read this thread you will have seen the behaviour I'm describing.They will counter with supposition and opinion but almost NEVER with evidence. We know we can not change the mind of these people.

It is for the open minded doubters we post. those that might have seen a conspiracy theory web site ans thought, "that's interesting I wonder if it's true". These are the people that will look at the evidence and decide based on that. These are the people we post for. It is for this reason that I repeat the above photographic evidence for the third time in 13 months.

Gee, 1960's had a larger relative budget, public and political support, and singularity of purpose. Now there is a smaller budget, less public and political support, and NASA has to spend part of their budget on other projects. Where's the problem here?


A joke huh? How about this pic then?

The above image is a part of this photo
AS15-88-11863
Notice the crosshairs only disappear on the bright white objects? Or do you really think that the white stripes on the flag were pasted in and the red stripes were not? What a joke.

The above issue is explained in detail here
http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html

First of all...


Nice job folks on dealing with these various issues in such a thorough fashion!







To you sun...

You really should've been around for the grand old Apollo thread.
Your "questions", or should I say, your contentions, were all addressed there.

As to the Mike Collins pictures:
Yes, that photo was taken in the "vomit comet"...during training, of course. All three of those are of the same picture, two of them reversed, one with the background blacked out, for use as the front page of Mike Collins' book, "Carrying the Fire" (You really ought to read it...). In fact, the original of this picture was published as one of the photos in the photo section of that book.

The problem with your contention is that NASA released several pictures of him doing his actual spacewalk on Gemini 10.
They may well have published this photo as an illustration of what he was trying to on orbit during the 10 mission, but there were no pictures taken of Mike during his Gemini 10 EVA. John Young was mighty busy during that EVA, translating the spacecraft. He didn't even see Mike at all for most of the EVA, and grabbing a camera during that difficult 25 minutes of EVA was likely the last thing on his mind.

...We also lost Mike's own pictures, since he lost his camera during that 25 minute mess.


As to the second shot, there are no blind faithers here...only a few who actually know what we're looking at...a typical photographic effect when a very bright white happens to intersect a Resseau mark on a camera plate. The bright overcomes the microfine hair that makes the + on the plate. This is a typical, common pohotgraphic effect that any photographer knows about.

It is not a mystery, and is in fact a confirmation of the fact that a Hasselblad with Resseau plates was used to photograph the exceedingly brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon. It shows an effect common on lunar photos, and on Earth photos where these plates are used.

You were actually serious about this, weren't you?

I rather thought the same thing. It was abovious what we were looking at, when it originally happened back in 1969! RCS plume deflector and associated struts, gold foil insulation, etc...all distorted of course by a quick back and forth pan by a primitive 1969 color-wheel video camera that went back and forth across about 8 feet of the LM ascent / descent stage interface...

It is amazing what sort of interpreations can be gleaned from what is so obvious, by those who simply want to believe something was amiss.


And, of course, something was amiss! All pointed the damned camera right at the sun!


...I hope he's never seen any of these threads!




This actually cuts to the crux of the matter...

One of the strange things about this whole contention is that this EVA-1 camera incident was takling place at about 7 am Eastern time on Wednesday, November 19, 1969. Most of the country was still in bed when this was happening, and it wasn't exactly a prime time audience watching this stuff happen. Live, or video taped and delayed (as many an HB contends), very few saw this stuff happen, or even cared, save those of us who were in fact paying attention at the time.

It was a non-event for most of America, as odd as that may seem! The lunar landing took place at about 1:30 am that day....who do you think was actually watching?

Why would they plan things to happen at such wierd hours when they were perpetrating a hoax? Like anyone actually was wathcing this stuff happen on AS-12?!

The sad fact of the matter is, not too many people even cared. They had to go to work and school the next day, and weren't about to stay up to watch this stuff...

If it was delayed, they certainly could've edited things.
But the fact is, everything was live, few people actually saw what happened live, and they could've cared less, for the most part!

Oh, well, in that case, I can see what we're dealing with here...




Yes, we could.
Yes, we did;
and yes, we will.

Science is a wondrous thing. You really ought to learn something about it...


It might be rocket science, but it's really not that difficult to understand.