Orbital Views of the Apollo 16 Landing Site.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo16/A...te_viewsof.html

No worries, and no need to apologize. The Apollo landings touch an emotional chord with some people, and I can understand why - for those who see them as genuine, they are a source of great pride and achievement for the US and for humanity as a whole. They are different than the 9/11, JFK type issues because they were and are seen as very positive events (even aside from the spending money issue). I believed in them and marvelled at their achievements for my entire life, up until about 2 years ago. I don't belittle or think those who believe in them are in any way "dumb" or "naive", or what have you - I don't consider myself as having once been "dumb" or "naive" for believing in Apollo most of my life, nor any smarter for now not believing Apollo was real! It is nothing to take personally or as a question of intelligence or character either way!

The video stills are a point of contention. I remain convinced that they have not been adequately explained by the many replies I have received here and especially on Apollo Hoax, which has many qualified professionals in engineering, photography, etc. It's a site specifically geared to debunking claims that the Apollo landings were faked. But the explanations given really do not provide satisfactory rebuttals to my claims, in my view. There are too many details to get into here.

Since the moon is impossible for 99.999% of us to ever gain access to either physically or through optics, the proof of either claim will likely remain impossible to provide to any great degree, barring some unknown event or other in the near future.

What makes me ever more suspicious are the events that have occurred since Apollo ended. Now, none of this is of course proof of a hoax - I want to make that understood. But it makes me more confident in my belief it was hoaxed. I'm well aware of the many counter arguments, but these examples below remain as facts, nevertheless.

1. No other country, especially Russia, ever attempted to send men even past the Van Allen Belts, let alone to the Moon.

2. The US has never since attempted to send men past the VA Belts, at any time, and the new program will take longer to go to the Moon than the Apollo program did from planning to achieving. This is despite over 35 years of advances in technology and information gained about deep space, the Moon, radiation, etc.

3. The programs which boldly claimed they were going to image the Apollo sites in enough detail to end the "conspiracy" once and for all, have never succeeded in accomplishing their stated goals. At various times, Hubble, the VLT, and the current European SMART-1 probe have all been cited in articles, claiming that "very soon" we will all see for ourselves the Apollo sites in images. We are all still waiting. And there is a very significant silence from these sources after the initial claims are made.

4. The video stills I've posted from the online NASA sites - the DVD version of this footage is very noticeably worse in quality, but only during the footage I see as anomalous. The rest of the footage is better quality, as one would expect from a direct digital transfer from the source videos. This is a huge point raising my suspicions.

You don't need to counter these points - as I said, I know all too well what the arguments are against them. I'm only pointing out a few specific things which have bolstered my view on the subject. Other well debated points (flag waving, etc.) are not my main focus, and there are countless pro and cons I try to avoid for the most part. Instead, Ive tried to focus on the stills and the lack of landing site imaging because they aren't as beaten to death!


Cheers

I don't know that even our best telescopes would be able to see footprints on the moon but, maybe the lower halves of the landers. They are covered in a reflective material right? Wouldn't that be brighter than the grey of the lunar surface? Maybe only a small flash or something. I really don't know if we went or not but, I'd like to think that we did. I remember when they "repaired" Hubble they said that it "would now be albe to see a candle on the surface of the moon". I remember hearing those words on CNN. I'd venture to say that the lander was a wee bit larger than a candle. Of course NASA says that we went, end of story. I must say, they are so resistant to the idea of turning just one telescope towards the moon... that don't look too good for the home team.

The biggest problem with this is that they simply are not powerful enough. The lunar landers are very,very,very small in astronomical terms and they're pretty far away as well. There isn't a telescope in existence that could take a picture of one.

Hubble
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Hubble.htm

Clementine Photos
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Clementine.htm

Spy Satellites
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Spies.htm

SELENE Project
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/SELENE.htm

Unfortunately better pictures won't put an end to the hoax theories, that I can guarantee.

Don't forget, hazzard, the VLT is capable of imaging the landing sites. I posted details earlier in this thread.

Link please.

Even if the VLT had the capability to see the landing sight, I doubt proving we landed to some conspiracy theorists is very high on NASA's to do list. They know they went to the moon.

If landing on the moon was such an acomplishment,

Then veiwing it with a telescope for the world to see would be a great thing.

It would let us youngsters in on what was a very big deal in 1969.

and wouldn't they want to prove beyond a reasonable doubt their acomplishment?

It might even improve their budget... Re-insighting that awe many must have had on that

historic day. I know I would love to see it.

Ps. I do believe we landed on the moon, Im just saying...

-MuddyFrog

First of all,it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt,and you can be sure that as soon as NASA/ESA has the pictures they will be everywere.

The HB will scream fake as usuall,but the rest of us are going to love it,I know I will.

Wow!
lol

I think the youngsters today, if unable to be impressed by the ample evidence that is already present, including the thousands of photographs taken while right there on the moon's surface (not to mention the video, 16 mm film, and millions of pages of scientific documentation regarding all aspects of the program) would be equally unimpressed with pictures of artifacts taken by a telescope, or an orbiting vehicle in lunar orbit, none of which could come close to what was taken on the surface with Hasselblad cameras.

I also think that none of us feels compelled to prove that this thing happened. The proof is well established. Thus, NASA, nor any other scientific organization, will be likely to spend lots of money trying to establish photographic "evidence" of the moon landing missions via telescopic or sattelite observation. The very idea is somewhat ridiculous, considering the volume of that which is already established.

Regards.

I do think we landed on the moon...

I'm just saying that all those pictures and movie and all that was taken years ago and could not be directly experienced by us young people. I was born about 20 years after all this took place.

With all the mis-info going on these days im not surprised that my generation is jaded, and finds lots of things unbelieveable.

If you are lied to once you start to question. when you are lied to on a regular basis you lose trust.

Showing new info and not the old movies or pictures would revive interest. That was my main point. Could help with their budget as well.

-MuddyFrog

Please explain..

Muddy...

I understand your point.
And I agree completely that for your generation, sullied by so much mis-information or uninformed opinion (even downright fabrication in certain cases), not only is the idea of losing trust tenable, but so is the idea that many will actually believe the hoax theories.

Understanding your generation's position, it is you guys (and/or gals) I like to address. Of course, you're not of the mind to be so completely gullible as to buy into to hoax theories, as you state.
_________________________________________________________________________

I'm not so sure that "new" information would have that great an effect on the majority of people, or the historical interpretations of these events. Moon hoaxters, as I refer to them (uncritically mind you, save in the case of the few who have originated this situation for their personal gain, or who exhibit profound intellectual laziness in their approach to spreading this menagerie of stuff for public consumption), are a minority. And, for the dyed-in-the-wool variety, no additional "proof" is going to make them accept things readily.
As they are a small minority, convincing them will have little or no effect on the majority who already "believe" in this thing we called Apollo.

In fact, even that majority, who accept Apollo as fact, has little effect on the budget of NASA. Americans by and large became jaded about Apollo while it was happening, and budgets for the program were cut beginning as early as 1967. By early 1970, interest from the public had diminished markedly (we're a strange lot), and Apollo 13's crisis was the only thing that rekindled any interest in the program after Apollo 11.

Given today's "space program", and its spectacular failures, public interest in space activity is at an all time low, and even given more plans for future lunar exploration, few are really very interested. A little extra proof of Apollo, in my opinion, will have little or no effect on anything.

Regards.

If you go to the HBs websites you can read more than any brain can handle.

I have read literally dozens of things that "prove'' the landings were faked, and each one is rather easily shown to be wrong by anyone with experience in such things.

I think the problem here is twofold: we tend to want to believe (or at least listen to) conspiracy theories. Also, the evidence is presented in such a way that, if you are unfamiliar with the odd nature of the vacuum of space and of space travel, it may sound reasonable.

I find it amazing that the HBs are so willing to scrutinize every available frame of data from the astronauts and NASA, yet miss the most obvious thing right in front of them.

(Waiving flag--no stars--non-parallel shadows--no blast crater--no flame from the lunar launch.)
These question marks from the hoaxbelivers has been straighten out many,many times.

your ignoring the obvious! that nasa could not even keep from killing three astronaut on the launch pad yet we are to accept that every mission from start to finish went without casualty? also the fact that we have not returned should clue you in--it was nothing but a huge and on going mind control pork barrell used by the elite to forment conflict--first you have to accept the reality of a ruling elite to understand how they lie and perpetuate a false dichotomy in borders,politics and religion which ultimately leads to conflict --learn your history and you will find that the federal reserve isnt even associated with our government in any way and to top it off its a private organization AND there is no reserve to back your mortgage if a depression comes

You have no grasp of basic physics, photography or even common sense, are you accusing NASA of killing people to shut them up?If you are,that is a particularly loathsome accusation even by your standards.
The Apollo 1 fire that killed Roger Chaffee, Ed White and Gus Grissom was an accident,space travel is dangerous,hell,you can get killed in your car going to work.



Ohh yea,in what way,you know that the cold war is over right,and with that so is the space race.



NWO nonsense,I was wondering when you would throw the next "theory"into the mix.
Let me ask you this kid,is there a hoax theory that you DONT belive in,you know,one that seems just a little bit too out there?



Why all this hostility/distrust against the government,are the people around you,like your family and friends the same?

well my great grandmother never believed we went to the moon and i guess she insteald that in me to.i guess we will all see when in 2020 we fell to go again.

birth of a straw man!--whack it good boy--harder!

who said anything different?your right it is dangerous unless your going to the moon!

hahalol WAR!! we were at war!! you know when there is ONE financier and ONE supplier of weapons its not war its a game where all the pieces are expendable

its called geopolitics get a grip--sure there is-- i absolutely positively DO NOT believe in RELIGION or ALIENS --jesus did not exist!!! and neither do extra terrstrials--from my perspective your are the one who needs help--you have been fooled by the elite into worshiping a blood thirsty cannibal(eat my fleash and drink my blood) that is to be revered by worshipping a corpse on a stick as well as tricked into the mindless killing of your neighbor by your lords crucifier--and believe me allah or yahwey are no more real than the imaginary lines you have been fooled into murdering for

You are absolutely correct.

Regards

The question begs; how is he ignoring the obvious?

I don't think any of us who were around there in the 1960s for this adventure ignored anything, especially the AS-204 fire. I think the majority opinion among those who were involved was that they actually thought there was a very good chance that some one would "buy it". The only shock about 204 was that it happened on the ground, not in flight.

The obvious thing that perhaps you do not see (I venture that it's due to your abvious adherence to this concept of mind-control / government conspiracy idea, which, mind you, is not an entirely unhealthy idea...when consumed in reasonable, logical doses) is that AS-204 was one of the most profound reasons that Apollo succeeded. It was a vast wake up call to the entire program, and resulted in advancements which allowed the safe completion of the program.

We don't have to believe that every subsequent mission went from start to finish without a casualty. They did. That is not amazing, it is the result of very competent people doing an extremely competent job, something which grows more and more rare as time passes. It is also not to say that the rest of the program was risk-free. It was not. We managed the acceptable risk and took every precaution known to protect the flight crews. And we were rewarded for this diligence with 27 successful missions from MR-3 to AS-17, and no casualties save the three men of Apollo-1. Belive me, that was enough.

I am puzzled as how the ruling elite, false borders, politics, religion, and the Federal Reserve (which is most certainly understood by most people to be unassociated with the Federal Government) have anything to do with the purely scientific and technical accomplishments of Apollo.

You obviously "believe" in a vast conspiracy. Indeed, it would have to be vast, in fact, much larger than anything we've ever seen, to fake Apollo with the incredibly voluminous amount of scientific documentation that exists, all of which is consistent, and all of which is uncontestable...by any save those who do not understand the science.

You make outlandish claims, but do not address any specific questions you may have.

Proof, or at least something you see as askew regarding Apollo, would probably serve this discussion better than simply issuing a tirade regarding a vast conspiracy and covert mind-control.

Regards.

"jesus did not exist!!! and neither do extra terrstrials--from my perspective your are the one who needs help--you have been fooled by the elite into worshiping a blood thirsty cannibal(eat my fleash and drink my blood) that is to be revered by worshipping a corpse on a stick as well as tricked into the mindless killing of your neighbor by your lords crucifier--and believe me allah or yahwey are no more real than the imaginary lines you have been fooled into murdering for"

Nice job pissing all over multiple religions in a single post. More people might believe the trash you dish out over and over again if you were more polite about it.

the funny thing is that it doesnt matter how scientific you claim to be the proof is just that uncontestable--in the sense that it cannot be verified other than on paper and faked video--its pathetic really the level of complete control some people are willing to relinquish--this is ridiculous if it was that easy we suerly would have colonized just for the right to claim it--wouldnt you think? or can you?

there must be some kind of way out of here--the joker said to the thief

Yes we would have, if the public had not lost interest early on in Apollo, the last two missions had not been canceled by Congress, NASA had not gone with the shuttle which ended up being extremely expensive. But the biggest reason is the public lost interest and as a result, space in general lost funding.

The proof that we went to the moon is in the palm of your right hand *right click*

You cannot 'fake' technology...it either works or it doesn't...if it works, it works. And if it works, it trickles down to the private sector. You can't fool Mother Technology!

Sunofone,you never answered my question,is there a conspirasy theory or a hoax that you dont belive in.
You know,one that seems just a little bit tooo out there,even by your standards.

I think that perhaps, hidden somewhere in your continuing emotional diatribe, there is a small hint that you just might want to address some specific issues.

I should correct you, however.
How 'scientific one claims to be' is not a criteria for critical examination of submitted work or proof. Anything so submitted can be contestable, after scrutiny reveals some lack someplace in it.
The criteria is in the critical examination of one's submission, not in someone's claim to be scientific.

Many a proposal or piece of scientific work has been put forth by scientists that have failed scrutiny. In the case of the Apollo program, the things published, the millions of pages of written reports, tens of thousands of photographs, and hours and hours of 16mm film, as well as the sample returns, have passed such scrutiny. Thus they have been deemed scientifically uncontestable. I did not deem them so. I simply agree, based upon critical examination.

As I have pointed out before, there is of course contention regarding these things Apollo, but that comes from people who largely do not understand any of it, nor have the appropriate scientific grounding to make such a contest.

To wit, you say it cannot be verified "other than on paper and on faked video" that we went to the moon. This is not a contest, it is a statement which has no basis (being that you do not present one). You have obviously done no critical examination of the many documents published (most of them never even known about by the general public (who wouldn't have likely been interested anyway)), and of course, you present nothing substantiating your claim of faked video.

This is lazy, and very convenient for you. But this is reliquishing your control, for everyone has the capability of making inquiry regarding something they don't understand. That is freedom. You have relinquished that in favor of emotional diatribes, snide comments, and silliness...especially the statement you made thus:

"...if it was that easy we suerly (sic) would have colonized just for the right to claim it--wouldn't you think? or can you?"

Now, firstly, it has never been stated anywhere, by anyone who knows anything about it, that it was "easy". It most certainly was not. The Apollo program was the product of roughly a decade of research, experimentation, design, testing, re-design, re-testing, some disasters, some failures, a few deaths, alot of successes--and a paradigm of continuous improvement, teamwork, personal responsibility, and toughness which culminated in the far-less-than-easy execution of Apollos 11, 12, 13 (arguably the greatest accomplishment of the program), 14, 15, 16, and 17. It should also be noted that all of these flights had their problems. None were seamless, trouble free, or in any way easy.

It is apparent that you have done little research into Apollo. If you had, the idea of colonizing the moon would not have appeared in your statement. This is because colonizing the moon was never in anyone's mind. No, we surely wouldn't have cliamed the moon, and it was resolved long long ago that we would not claim the moon. The American flag was certainly planted at all of the Apollo sites, just as a Soviet flag would've been planted there if the Soviets had landed there. Neither country would have claimed the moon as theirs. The moon belongs to no nation, and indeed, the plaques left on the LM descent stage of all the Apollo landing missions states that we came in peace for all mankind.

Please note that "in peace" and "for all mankind" are not the statements of a militaristic or territorial intent. There was no intent to "claim" the moon as a United States possession, then, or now.

So, we would not have claimed the moon. The idea is both untenable and un-enforcable anyway, as well as being pointless and contrary to the spirit of peaceful exploration and discovery.
__________________________________________________________________________

I mentioned that you had left a small hint regarding an issue to discuss.

It would seem you claim the videos (and perhaps by extension, the photos and films?) are faked.

Well, that's a start. Yet, you could refine that simple statement for the sake of discussion.
I shall assume that you have a reason for thinking that (hopefully, a reason other than just reading what some people are putting forth and buying into it hook, line, and sinker without doing some research on the matter yourself).

If so, might I suggest that rather than indulging in emotionalism, you put forth some things you question regarding these visual records in the spirit of discussion?

Regards.

As I pointed out to Sunofone, there is nothing to indicate that we would've claimed the moon. Sunofone's statement seems to indicate that we could've colonized the moon in order to claim it.

Apollo's mission had nothing to do with either claiming or colonizing the moon. Apollo was an initital exploration of the lunar environment, and there was never any intent to claim the moon as a U.S. territory.

As to colonizing it, yes, plans that existed at the time regarding Apollo applications and advanced explorations involved the establishment of bases on the moon, and if they had been carried through, today, we would likely have an established presence on the lunar surface. That presence would likely be international in nature today, much as the ISS is international, and not the territory of any political entity.


However, I will also say that your basic idea is correct. The public lost interest in Apollo quickly, which of course added to the Nixon administration's resolve to get on with other things. They actually cancelled the last 3 Apollo missions. The Shuttle was funded, albeit in a much more meager fashion than was actually required to produce the fully re-usable vehicle that was on the boards originally. The compromises necessitated from that resulted in the dangerous, flawed, and very expensive shuttle we see today.

Regards.

I meant only colonizing, not claiming.

wrong

Understood, frenat.
Thank you for clarifying...

Regards.

How can I be wrong when Im asking a question.

you repeated a question that had been previosly asked and were wrong about me never answering it as demonstrated--now how do i rank considering i have not been scammed by the two biggest hoaxes of all time?

They did keep from killing three astronauts. Remember Apollo 2 and every other Apollo mission and Apollo 13? After the fire they changed the atmosphere to an earthlike atmosphere rather than a high oxygen environment. This is why the Russians never lost any men in the same fashion NASA did, earthlike environments in the capsule.

Q: Did we land on the moon?

A: Yes.

Well then it is settled...

Frosty,

For the sake of accuracy...

There was no mission officially designated Apollo 2 or Apollo 3. Apollo 4 was the first "Apollo" designated mission after Apollo 1. Apollo 4, 5, and 6 were Apollo/Saturn V test flights, un-manned.

In speaking of "killing astronauts", Apollos 7 through 17 would be the applicable flights.

As a correction, the Soviets did lose a man in horrible fashion during a test session in 1961 (of course, keeping that fact hidden from all). A 100% oxygen atmosphere contributed to a fire in the chamber which did in fact burn the poor cosmonaut to death. This no doubt contributed to their awareness of that particular hazard and all of the Soviet spacecraft had an 02/N2 atmosphere. Thus, the Soviets never lost anyone due to fire in their spacecraft (they lost their 4 men in-flight due to parachute failure and an atmospheric leak).

The Apollo spacecraft atmosphere was changed to O2/N2 after Apollo 1, but that was only for the intitial launch phase. During boost to orbit, the atmosphere was bled down to a 100% O2 atmosphere at approximately 5 psi, which is where it stayed at for the duration of the mission.


Regards.

Well, that was relatively easy.

Regards.

holy f***ing sh**, do we really need to continue arguing this, its a THIRTY YEAR OLD ARGUMENT. we need to move on, i recommend we immediatly close any and all posts on, or pertaining to, or in any way related to 1969, and/or moon landings/missions to space involving the moon or other celestial bodies in witch claims of landing and or sending a man-made object to are being debated by anyone. -_-

Now, now. Let us watch our language .

I should point out that this is not a "thrirty year old argument". In actuallity, the argument, as you put it, is about 10 years old. Prior to that time, the idea of Apollo being faked was not really entertained by anyone, for somewhat logical reasons.

However, as I've pointed out, there was the impetus put forth for this by a select few people, with very precise motives. That initial lunacy has spawned doubt in a portion of the generation that has come of age since Apollo, and given that impetus, I quite frankly understand where some people question these things...after all, it is a complex topic, filled with things that the general public does not understand.

Thus, these threads have developed...hopefully, with an eye toward discussion and information gain. I think people's questions are legitimate, and deserve a knowledgable answer. Of course, many of these threads are populated by people who come forth with the foregone conclusion that the whole thing was a hoax--an untenable position, of course--and they persist in arguing their case as fact without stopping to hear the truth. This is generally unfortunate and largely a waste of everyone's time, but it's also human nature that has to be endured, for better or worse.

Thus, I think these threads needn't be discontinued until people are satisfied.

Regards.

There is no more reason to ban this type of thread than there is a reason to ban a thread on the Kennedy assassination. And this is speaking from one who thinks that the Moon hoax is total BS.

as far as i know its impossible to make any kind of footprint on the moon, due to gravity[the astronauts would also be leaping huge dstances by the way] and the sand is finer than that of any desert on earth. And if it was possible why didnt the Russians go too?, probably becuase they couldnt and they were far ahead of america at the time and still a lot further ahead now than america in terms of ballistic research. Theres a good chilli peppers song about this being all a load of nonesense, not saying you should take what they say is true, but really, it is pretty unbeleivable.

My reason for this is not evidence against but evidence for, which is non existent, oh yes apart from a very dubious looking film, with no stars in the background[it'd be lit up like a fireworks displays having no atmosphere and all] and the camera that films the landing is already on the ground, BEFORE armstrong walks off. Who put that there?

i'd also like to find the testimony of amatuer astronomers who witnessed them itself, a very easy thign to do. You could also see a magnesium flare very clearly from the surface of the moon, why didnt they light any to show the people of earth they were there. Oh right, they werent.

Wow, there are so many things wrong with that it is hard to know where to start. First, start here
http://www.clavius.org/
Every argument against going to the moon is debunked there.
Second, the stars. There is no camera that can expose both bright sunlit objects and dim stars in the same exposure. It is impossible. The atmosphere doesn't dim them nearly as much as you think.
As for the camera filming Armstrong's first steps, check here
http://www.clavius.org/mesacam.html
From that site,


Of course this is all also explained in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ), a detailed account of nearly everything that happened during the missions. It really should be the first place you should start your research.

While it is already clear you haven't researched this at all, I will continue. The Russians didn't go because they had serious problems with their heavy launch rocket. They were in the race for most of the 60's. When it became clear that they couldn't fix the problems with their rocket in time to beat the US, they gave up and congratulated the US. And of course there is no evidence for them them being ahead now in ballistics research.

Your statements about the footprints is just ludicrous. The sand is fine (most of it) but it is also not round like sand on earth. Sand on earth has been subjected to hundreds of years of erosion wearing down any rough edges. Moon dust has not. It has very rough edges and will cling to itself very easily. As far as leaping large distances, the astronauts first had a lot of extra weight in the suit weighting them down. Second as explained in the ALSJ, the suit also made them top heavy and they tended to tip over if they made large jumps. They did try them, they just didn't do them all the time. Would you want to constantly have the chance you would tip over, fall, and damage the suit that is keeping you alive or would you be more careful most of the time?

Do you have any calculations about seeing a magnesium flare from the moon or is that just more conjecture? Frankly I think it's unlikely. Would you be able to see one on earth from earth orbit? No and it's much closer.

Do a little of your own research before regurgitating the same claims that were easily debunked years ago by people that know what they are talking about.

The lunar surface is predominately composed of materials that fall under the general category of silicates. Silica has a natural tendency to bond with other silica, forming large molecular chains. When a meteoroid impacts the Moon, much of the energy goes into fracturing the surrounding structure causing breaks in the molecular bonds. On Earth, these "exposed" bonds quickly fill with oxygen in a process called oxidation or weathering. On the Moon, with a total lack of oxygen, these bonds have nothing to attach to until an event occurs that aligns the molecules. When an object, such as an astronaut's boot, disturbs lunar dust new molecular bonds are created. The new bonds enable the dust to hold its shape, forming an impression of the deforming object. Thus, footprints can form



This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.




The TV camera was stowed in an instrument pallet in the LM descent stage. When Armstrong was at the top of the ladder, he pulled a lanyard to swing open the pallet, which was hinged at the bottom. The TV camera, which was attached to it, also swung down. Buzz Aldrin then switched on the camera from the LM cabin. The camera was pointing at the ladder of the LM so that TV pictures of Armstrong's initial steps on the Moon could be relayed to the world. The camera was later removed from its mounting and placed on a tripod some 30 feet from the LM, where it was left unattended to cover the remainder of the moonwalk.



There are at least three pieces of hardware on the Moon that are not in dispute. Apollos 11, 14 and 15 erected laser reflectors on the lunar surface. Laser beams are routinely fired at these reflectors (270 times every year I think)through telescopes at McDonald Observatory in Texas and near Grasse in southern France. Timings of these reflected beams are used to measure the Earth-Moon distance to an accuracy of one inch.

Wow! Nice job. Perhaps it's with individuals like you who describe the actual facts of the situation that the Moon hoax scenario can be put to rest, or at least help those who are still wondering.

Sorry for the delay, I've been away. This is a link explaining that the VLT can in fact image objects such as the lunar rover.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/VLT.html

"This gives the VLT a maximum angular resolution of about 0.001 arc-second at 1 micron wavelength (in the near-infrared), which is equivalent to about 2 meters at the distance of the Moon."

I was actually the one responsible for Dr. David Darling updating his website to include this information. I previously had communicated with Dr. Henri Boffin of the ESO, who emailed me this information, which I then relayed to Dr. Darling.

Anybody know if the Apollo equipment would be visible in the near infrared? How much would you see with a resolution of 2 meters anyway. Doesn't sound too good.

Did we land on the moon? NO! Its all a lie the world doesnt exist and this is all a dream

This is from the link you posted.

"The VLT is only sensitive to objects with a high surface brightness, such as stars and the nuclei of active galaxies. This makes it unsuitable for observing most objects in the Solar System apart from the Sun."

When the hoax advocates make claims that are based on flimsy evidence, sloppy research, and a poor understanding of the sciences, it does not take a PhD to figure out they are wrong, all it takes really, is a keen eye, good sense and the power of reason.