Frenat, they are just saying that, in reality they just dug a hole out back behind mission controll in Houston and collected some rocks, thats truth, I promise

So why are they like nothing found anywhere on Earth? Or are all the world's top geologists in on the conspiracy too?

I began my rebuttal by specifically stating that a 5:1 superiority of the Soviets over the U.S. in the early days of the space age is unquantifiable. I made no comment regarding the fact that their "firsts" were quantifiable in and of themselves. We all knew they were ahead in the early days. It's the fallacious, melodramatic numerical relation that I stated was unquantifiable...that particular relation being thrown out there by a man who has no idea about the space programs of the 1960s. It is a common device used by these schlocky types of producers to dramatize their points. It is based upon nothing (sort of like a silly claim that using a certain toothpaste will make your teeth 5 shades whiter. Given that there are infinite shades of white, there is utterly no factual substantiation for such specific adevertising).

Your question, "how can you eclipse something that is less superior?" is somewhat strange.
This is because you can't, of course. And, we didn't. As I said, we acknowledged Soviet superiority. They launched the first human into space, and into orbit, and they were ahead as of the end of Mercury by virtue of their longer missions.

Our Gemini program began the process of rapidly eclipsing Soviet manned space acchievements. As I indicated, we were first to do all the important things required for the lunar landing missions.

None of what I said has anything to do with hypocracy. Nor does it have anything to do with slander. You improperly utilize these terms. In fact, they are inapplicable and point to a sense of melodrama in your attitude.

To wit, you state that I claimed we were "the bastions of safety". I did no such thing. I stated that we were always more safety conscious than the soviets in the early days (specifically, that the Soviets were less sohisticated, safety-wise, than we were, a fact which is substantiated by the many deaths that occurred in the soviet program as a result of flight and ground operations directly related to space flight. Of course, their overt pressing, often against their scientist's better judgement--because of the obvious American accomplishments and advancements in Gemini--was done in secret. They never let out that a Cosmonaut died in an incident similar to Apollo 1 in 1961, nor that hundreds were killed in several pad explosions. We, on the other hand, did everything in full public view, which of course was one reason why safety was of paramount importance).

I spoke of all the deaths the Soviets experienced. Of course, we had three of our own by January 1967. That of course was nothing, relatively speaking, against the dozens and dozens of Soviets killed in their explosions and such. Read again.
Space flight is a risky business. We managed our risk. In the early days, the Soviets didn't. The pressed for more without adequate testing. They crammed three men into a one man spacecraft, they had serious safety issues in ground operations, they lost the first person in flight in the 1967 Soyuz 1 tragedy because they hadn't fully developed the spacecraft and pressed to manned flight against the wishes of their scientists, and they did this because of pressure to beat the Americans. They were behind then, and that, unfortunately, is what a secretive society does--neglect safety for political position. We didn't do that back in the day.

I also said nothing about an intellectually challenged society. I spoke to a political and social paradigm as the reason why we haven't launched any compelling space efforts in the over three decades since Apollo. I spoke to a society easily jaded, one which quickly loses interest in the extraordinary. I mentioned nothing about the intellect of society. I spoke to short-sighted administrations which cancelled Apollo prematurely and scrapped every advanced plan we had on the boards for Apollo Applications and further space exploration.

And the aspect of space exploration being a private enterprise is another topic altogether. Given government's and NASA's current state, you may well be right, but that's another issue altogether. Besides, if supported adequately, NASA could do exactly what is necessary to advance exploration of space. The fact is, they're not.


As to avoidance, I know what you're talking about, of course; my declination to address the silly so-called footages that Sibrel put on his film regarding "staging" things. I do so because that is a completely washed-out topic, and if one cannot see what's happening there, they may well be beyond hope. I get a little frustrated with dealing with Sibrel's idiotic comments. By the tenth point, I'm just ready for sleep.

I have no intention of addressing such lunacy in any detail. As to an explanation....Sibrel has no documentation to substantiate where these so-called films came from. In one, it is obvious that he has spliced actual Apollo 11 DAC film taken on July 21, 1969 to an intro from some other NASA internal tech film, and sticks a color-bar leader panel dated 10 days earlier than the DAC film to create an impression that you're looking at something faked.

The only faked thing there is Sibrel's creation. Additionally, on July 11, 1969, the flight crew of Apollo 11 spent most all of the day in what were called F minus 5 physical examinations. Any film made that day would've been shots of the crew in crew quarters, candid material, etc. Launch day was 5 days away...any faking would have had to been completed by then. But that's just silly anyway.


However, you certainly appear to be guilty of avoidance...in a somewhat typical manner!

You mention in emotion-laden terms the inapplicable aspects of hypocracy and slander that are not present in my post, and make mis-statements about what I said or implied. You avoid completely the entire content of my 10 points, preferring to dwell on the beginning, and the end. Unfortunately, this is somewhat typical of many hoaxters faced with someone who actually knows something about Apollo, and who clearly explains things to them.

You apparently read my post with far too much emotion, and have not acknowledged any of the content, preferring to address inapplicable things and accusations.

As I said in my post, you've got to address the issues and have your own position. Starting off with a presentation of Sibrel, which isn't really serious stuff at all, is not the place to start.

You snidely say that you resisted as long as you could.
It appears you resisted your emotions as long as you could.
It also seemns obvious that your resisted actually reading what I said as well.

As you seem to like the beginning and the end, let me say this at the end:

I understand how an entire generation of today's people can be swayed and influenced by this Apollo hoax business. It is no wonder that a few, out to make a buck off of people's ignorance of the actual facts, can manipulate things and influence a generation which has never experienced something as compelling as Apollo.
Thus, I engage these people in discussion. It's a learning process, for me, and them.
Many people have no idea about Apollo, what happened, why, and how. These people seem to be somewhat easily influenced by the prattlings of unknowledgable people like Kaysing and Sibrel.

If you want to discuss your own questions, your own doubts even, this is the place. However, if you want to merely spew out unknowledgable things taken from the mouths of fools, claiming to have absolute knowledge of a hoax in the case of Apollo (which does not exist anywhere in reality), being emotional and mis-quoting, or mis-interpreting, and ignoring specifics as stated to you, then perhaps there's no place on a discussion forum for you.

Discuss. Ask. Don't sit there and get emotional because of facts presented to you that attack your dearest wishes to believe in a conspiracy regarding the most documented accomplishment in human history. All you'll do is ignore things and get yourself in a lather.

Regards.

We went to the moon.

Trust me.

If we had not the russians would have.

MID knows his stuff.

And as you said scoob that discloser project video. Yeah you know. You can't believe that video if you think the moon landing was faked.

I have looked at both sides and it's not even close.

Once again we went to the moon.

-MuddyFrog

Hi Turb!

Nice to hear from you.
You know I couldn't resist this thread


Some comments regarding yours about animal flights.

Your absolutely right about the Soviet doggies. You may know that Laika died in orbit too...actually, that poor dog was sacrificed...there was no recovery system on that flight.

As to the U.S., we actually flew two chimpanzees into space. Ham was the first, who took a sub orbital jaunt, and Enos of course orbited and returned safely.

The U.S. tests were much more sophisticated than the Soviet animal flights, and their purpose was to see how the space environment would affect the chimpanzees...not just physically, but mentally. Chimps are much more intelligent creatures than dogs. These chimps actually had a programmed series of things they were supposed to do (for rewards of bananna pellets!) all throughout their flights, including during the high G re-entries. Both chimpanzees performed extremely well, and showed no ill effects.

We knew that Shepard and Grissom should function OK on their sub-orbital flights because Ham had done so, and we knew that Glenn would be OK because Enos had done so. We knew physically, in terms of coordination, and mental response that the space environment had no real effects. The Soviets only knew that dogs, who did nothing on their rides into space, could survive the environment physically. One chimp launched into orbit was worth more scientifically than any amount of dogs could be, because of the similarity of chimps to humans in so many respects.

But that having been said, these tests were simply to establish a margin of safety for man in space flight...the zero G / artificial environment aloft in a spacecraft. After that was completed with chimps, and we had an adequate baseline of physical and behavioral data from the Mercury orbital flights and the 10 Gemini missions, we had about all we needed from that standpoint to proceed with Apollo.

This is because the space environment is the space environment. There is no difference between earth orbital flight, cis-lunar flight, or lunar orbital flight. It's all the same environment. There was no real reason to send a chimp into cis-lunar space, or to the moon itself. Fundamentally, the environment was the same and two chimps and 29 men had already flown alot in it on 17 manned space flights prior to Apollo 8.

Of course there was the fact that no human had actually passed through the Van Allen belts yet. However, scads of data on the type and intensity of Van Allen radiation were available, and very reasonable estimates of potential exposure to this radiation as an Apollo spacecraft swiftly passed through it during the immediate post TLI and immediate pre-entry period were calculated and deemed to pose no significant threat at all.

Nonetheless, calculation is not real data, and Apollo 8 collected real data. Was it a risk? Yes. Was it deemed acceptible? Also yes.
And the fact is that the total dose of radiation Apollo 8's crewmen received was about that of a typical chest x-ray. So, the data corroborated the calculations pretty closely.

I submit that at the time of Apollo 8, the risks were largely known as pertains to the environment of space, and they were deemed minimal and acceptible. Going to the moon was not significantly different than flying in earth orbit, save the equipment and maneuvers necessary. Physiologically and psychologically, there wasn't alot of risk to the crews from environmental factors. After Apollo 8, whatever doubts that might have been present prior to the flight were put to rest basically (although radiation was always closely monitored through multiple sources on all subsequent missions)...at least in terms of the Apollo mission durations.


Regards.

Yes, all of them, everybody is in on this conspiracy

Hi MID.

I knew you'd reply, and I'm glad you did - you provided details of interest as usual. And as you likely anticipated, I've got some points I'd like to raise.

First, regarding the environment being the same in sub-orbit, orbit, cis-lunar, or lunar orbit. I agree that some conditions are the same, such as zero g. But the radiation environment is quite different, not only within the Van Allen Belts (of course) but also between orbit and cislunar, for example. Anyone who travels beyond Earth's magnetic field would be in an environment exposed to deadly SPE's (solar particle events). As I know you're aware, these solar events can occur anytime, without predictability or avoidability.

I feel that it's very puzzling that NASA would take the precaution of animal test flights in Earth orbit to assess the effects of zero g, for example, but not the effects of radiation through the Van Allen Belts on animals, nor any risk assessment of SPE's on animals, before jumping forward to human flights. As you said, calculation is not real data, and would mean taking great risks.

You may have read this article below, but I thought I'd post part of it here to show what I mean about how the Van Allen Belts have yet to be fully understood as to how hazardous they really are...New Dangers in Belts Found

"We had thought the radiation belts were a slow, lumbering feature of Earth, but in fact they can change on a knife's edge,'' said space physicist Daniel Baker of the University of Colorado.

Detected 40 years ago, the doughnut-shaped particles extending more than 20,000 miles around the planet were thought to be very stable, waxing and waning over a period of months.

New observations by an array of satellites show changes in the planet's own magnetic field can accelerate electrons in the belts to nearly the speed of light, transforming them into what some researchers describe as ``killer electrons.''

Under those conditions, the charged particles can pierce a sheet of aluminum a half-inch thick, possibly resulting in a catastrophic accumulation of particles in the sensitive electronics of hundreds of orbiting satellites.

At any rate, I don't want to make this issue out to be any sort of "proof" of an Apollo hoax. It could be taken as a factor in a larger argument to build a case for it, if there was hard evidence produced. To wit - finding previously suppressed data on radiation indicating that levels are too deadly for the Apollo missions to have been successful. Then, within that context, it would be understood why NASA was willing to risk human lives before animal tests. But by itself, the leap to cislunar human spaceflight is not evidence of any conspiracy of faked missions.

Cheers.

My point was specifically that the US space program did not send animals on test flights past Earth orbit. This means on any mission - through the belts, cislunar, etc. Not necessarily landing on the Moon and back, just past Earth's magnetic field. As I said in my previous post, zero g effects were tested, but not radiation hazards. They certainly could have sent animals past earth orbit to gather important information before sending humans.

I already mentioned the moon rocks. Only 5% have been allocated for study, the rest will never be studied or analyzed. That brings the total available for study down to 42 lbs. for all future study. The total amount of moon rock material studied to date would have to be less than 42 lbs., and independently studied even less than that amount. One moon rock found on Earth weighs 30 lbs. So that one alone would provide enough material for most of the studies, with many smaller ones able to account for a variety of rocks with different chemical composition. Btw, the largest moon rock Apollo is claimed to have brought back from the Moon is a bit less than 26 lbs. (but has been archived untouched for "posterity", along with the other 770 lbs.).

The other points are not "solid proof" in the least. The Soviets "officially" did not say Apollo was a hoax - but as Baku said, newspapers and TV shows did at the time. But even if they didn't, are you asking me to believe the Soviet Government not saying it was a hoax is actual proof? No, that is not evidence that Apollo was genuine. Solid proof means just that - not Joe Shmuck saying he tracked it to the Moon with his ham radio. Or that the newspapers didn't have headlines like "Thousands See Apollo Capsule Orbiting Earth".

MID you serieusly need to know what your saying here, not only are you wrong on some parts (dont wanna get into that to long)
But the way you put your words is like the USA was the almighty and CCCP were just a bunch of farmers who 'tried'.

I only readed a couple of your argument before I knew what the whole thing was about.
And you shouldnt offend laika that way, that little guy is a Russian hero! The reason why the Russians choosed a beagle dog was that they needed a calm and good obeying animal. Cuz nobody knew how space would effect any living things metally and physically. Shortly after Laike the CCCP launched Belka and Strelka which came safely back. And they did metally and physically test on them. And this was before those 2 USA chimps.
You probably know Sputnik 5 right, were they send all kinda of animals (dogs, turle's, rats, mice, plants, etc) to space, so how can you still say the CCCP was way less superior.
And ever heard of Zond 5 the first spacecraft to orbit arround to moon?
Thats all I readed so as you see there are a few mistakes you made.

Also I gotta agree with Pannkakskungen, thats exacly what I wanted to say.

Baku, I hope realize that I was 100% ironic

"Why didn't the soviets notice the unmanned spacecraft that was taking the mirrors to the moon if the mirrors were indeed planted by an unmanned spacecraft, and ask wtf, where is that shuttle going??? Not to mention, THE ENTIRE AMERICAN POPULATION."

This IS proof Turbo.

"4: How was it faked if NORMAL CITIZENS tracked the shuttle on lunar trajectories??? The shuttle DID leave our atmoshpere, so if the space shuttle was simply in orbit, we COULD see it! So why didn't a SINGLE PERSON report seeing any shuttles in their sky?"

This IS proof Turbo. Normal people like you and me tracked the shuttle turbo on its way to the moon. Are they all in on it? The shuttle would have been the second brightest object in the sky, only to the moon. There is NO way that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON WOULD HAVE SEEN THE SHUTTLE IF IT WAS SIMPLY IN ORBIT.

"The Soviets "officially" did not say Apollo was a hoax"

Their ENTIRE GOAL WAS TO BEAT US TO THE MOON! If they thought it was a hoax, surelythey would "officially" declare it to be a one.

"Solid proof means just that - not Joe Shmuck saying he tracked it to the Moon with his ham radio."

How can you even believe the astronauts are real with that kind of thinking, I mean you never saw one, you only heard they were real from the media. These "Joe Shmuck's" as you call them, are average people who simply had astronomy as a hobby. Certainly they were not all affiliated with NASA. Of course, their accounts are nowhere near as reliable as yours, especially when you say you see hands and monitors and men in green sweaters and such... Or like the popular conspiracy theorists claim that NASA spent billions to film this whole thing, and then were careless enough to leave out something like the stars in the footage...

They are at least as reliable as you are, (more in my opinion) and they tracked the shuttle on its way to the moon.

"Or that the newspapers didn't have headlines like "Thousands See Apollo Capsule Orbiting Earth""

I challenge you to show me just ONE account of someone spotting the shuttle, in Earth's orbit, when it was supposed to be orbiting the moon.

Your evidence is just pathetic when compared to the evidence supporting the official story. And your little theories like, (well, they must have sent an unmanned spacecraft and like, planted the mirrors, and then like, for some reason no one ever found out about it) are just as weak.

First - Apollo missions didn't have "space shuttles", they used modules - command and service modules (CSM) and lunar modules (LM), together within a multistage Saturn rocket for propulsion.

As for 'seeing' the Apollo craft in orbit, there were already many satellites orbiting Earth, which would appear as lights in the sky like any craft would, including an Apollo craft. What would even make somebody think one of them was Apollo, and then try to tell the New York Times to publish his shocking story?

And NASA launched the TETR-A satellite to the moon just a while before Apollo 11 launched, and telemetry from the satellite would have appeared to come from the Apollo craft. Other methods could also have been used to make signals appear to come from Apollo.

It just isn't proof that they went to the moon - it's not in any way verifiable. And, there's no need to get upset about the fact I disagree with your belief in Apollo as genuine. I don't get emotional about those who disagree with my viewpoint. I urge you to follow MID's example of how to argue and present your views without taking it personally.

"As for 'seeing' the Apollo craft in orbit, there were already many satellites orbiting Earth, which would appear as lights in the sky like any craft would, including an Apollo craft. What would even make somebody think one of them was Apollo, and then try to tell the New York Times to publish his shocking story?"

No satellite would have been as bright as the shuttle. At least, that is what the professionals say. But I know you will disagree just to avoid admitting you are wrong. Not only that, people tracked the shuttle on its path to the moon, they didn't get it mixed up with a satellite somehow. They collected moon rocks that couldn't have possibly come from Antarctica, such as samples of the moons core.

"The 841 pounds of rocks aren't just basic rocks either. Included are dust, core samples, rocks specifically picked out by a geologist and rocks collected while on tv. Furthermore, rocks collected at Antarctica would show signs of atmospheric reentry. None of the Apollo rocks do."

What is your answer to this question:

"So if american scientist did search Antartica for moonrocks to claim as rocks retrieved from the moon then how come the soviet scientists on Antartica didn't notice them and asked what the heck they were doing interrupting soviet experiments?"

Or this one:

"So why are they like nothing found anywhere on Earth? Or are all the world's top geologists in on the conspiracy too?"

Like he said, the top geologists find the rocks to be genuinely from the moon. Do you really consider yourself smarter than them?

Do you purposely avoid reading posts like these that you can't answer? Or is it subconscious?

"It just isn't proof that they went to the moon - it's not in any way verifiable."

How do you believe in anything that you have not personally experienced with this thought process?

P.S.
How do you figure I am taking it personally? Because I use capital letters alot to distinguish crucial factors in my arguments???

BAKU:

I will say that I seriously do know what I'm saying here. I was fairly clear in what I was saying, I thought. I do however, seriously doubt that your read all of what I wrote.

You, of course, have every right to attach anything you'd like to my statements, and also to state I am wrong. If you do so, however, it is also common practice to make an arguement, rather than to simply state it.

The idea that the USSR was "a bunch of farmers who 'tried'" is your statement, certainly not mine. I completely acknowledge the brilliance of the Soviet rocket pioneers, as I acknowledged the clear successes and firsts that the USSR had in the early days of the space race. What I also clearly stated, for the benefit of another poster, was that the Soviet superiority in manned space flight was short-lived, and eclipsed by the U.S. efforts in the Gemini and Apollo programs. This is common knowledge, at least I should think.

The Soviet manned space program fell behind the American effort in the mid-1960s, both in operational space-flight accomplishments and in booster technology. I pointed out that the USSR had serious pressure form the government to move forward, often at the expense of safety and often against the better judgement of their own scientists. This too is obvious, given the level of disaster that the USSR experienced in manned space flight, especially in the area of catastrophic and fatal booster failure.

At the same time, I will say that if left to a completely scientific program of development and testing, without overt government influence, the Soviets would likely have posed much more of a challenge to the U.S. than they ultimately did in the 1960s. To wit, they have indeed perfected their earth orbital space flight capabilities with very reliable workhorse spacecraft today.

I am also somewhat confused at your atatement that I 'offended' Laika. Laika was a dog. I cannot offend a dog, and the fact that "the little guy" is a Russian hero is irrelevant, although I am aware that Laika is venerated as a hero...very likely rightly so, even though SHE had no say in the matter whatsoever, and, as I also pointed out, was sent on a one-way mission, because the Soviets had no recovery capability yet--a rather heinous thing to do to an animal in my view...yet, certainly not incomprehensible given what we still to this day do to animals in the way of testing products and so forth.

Oh and yes, Laika was in fact a she, not a "guy". She was also not a "beagle dog". She was a gentle and well-behaved mut, mostly Siberian Husky, who was picked up as a stray and conditioned to take a space ride in a rocket. I am also well aware why they launched her, as I am aware that they launched at least a dozen dogs into space, along with other creatures. I am also well aware that at least 5 of those dogs perished on their flights, including Laika of course, who was sent up there with no intention of having her come back.

Sending all sorts of animals into space has no bearing on eaither country's "superiority" in space. Tangible accomplishments reflect that sort of distinction. The Soviets held that edge until the Gemini Program of the U.S. began in 1965. Then, the Americans held the edge, and kept it.

I am aware of Zond 5 as well. However, a little research will show you that Zond-5 was a circumlunar flight, not an orbital mission. The first spacecraft to actually orbit the moon was Luna 10 in 1966.

But I ask, what does that have to do with manned space program accomplishment?

Quite frankly, you seem to have made a few mistakes.

Regards.

TURB:

Yep...I knew you'd reply as well, with you're typically eloquent rebuttal!

Actually, I agreed with you on that point...the radiation environment above LEO was in fact an unknown quantity basically. We calculated the probable dosages of radiation in various phases of a lunar mission. But had no particular hard data to back it up vis-a-vis sending animals into space through the Van Allen Belts or on a trans-lunar mission.

It should be noted, however, that the Soviets announced that their Zond-5 probe of September 1968, a trans-lunar flight which had a couple of turtles aboard, had successfully returned to earth and the biological payload suffered virtually no ill effects (about a 10% weight loss was it, but they recovered it). This of course lent a little comfort (physiology-wise) to the attempt to orbit Apollo 8 around the moon some three months later.

I also agree that the nature of space is yet to be fully understood (vis-a-vis, the article you quoted), and much more study will have to be done for more extensive lunar and planetary missions, should they ever really come about in the foreseeable future--especially given the current unstable nature of the solar max cycles (which are much more unpredicatable than they used to be).

I will say this:

Radiation was a high area of concentration for Apollo planners. Van Allen radiation, cosmic rays due to transient solar events (the BIG one...that's where the real risks lay), high energy sub-atomic particles created by high-energy collisions of primary particles with spacecraft materials, neutrons produced by cosmic ray collisions with lunar-surface materials and even radiations of man-made origins (like leakage of radiation within the spacecraft from radioluminescent switches, soft X-rays from radioluminescent displays aboard the Apollo spacecraft, and even radiation from the radioisotope thermal generator used to power the ALSEP packages on the lunar surface.


All of this was adressed as completely as it could be at the time, based upon a 14 day mission into space above earth orbit and below the Van Allen belts. Fortunately, all Apollo missions were launched outside the solar max cycle peak, and no major solar events occurred during any mission, and indeed, exposures to crews, as measured by five (I think) independent continuous sources for each man, indicated little more than a typical x-ray's worth of radiation, far below any threshhold of harm.

In the future, however, much more will be needed.

The LM itself was a crap-shoot in the event of a directional solar transient. The shielding provided by the LM was likely relatively minimal against high solar flux. It would've been a problem to be addressed immediately, and likely would've required early termination of lunar activity and re-uniting with the CSM. The CSM, of course, was built to withstand quite a bit of radiation. It's cabin wall thickness (both inner and outer walls, plus the Phenolic heat shielding and insulation), depending on where one was in the spacecraft, was between 1.25 and 6 inches thick, which was deemed more than adequate for the probable exposures to all forms of external radiation during a typical Apollo profile.

Nonetheless, I agree completely that this was an unknown in reality. It turned out that it wasn't too far off from the calculations, but we flew 9 times to the moon in a matter of 4 years. Did we get lucky, radiation-wise?

I would say, especially given today's unpredicability--probably; although it was a calculated (i.e., managed)risk, similar to everything else that was done. It was deemed adequate for the potential rewards involved, by both mission planners and flight crews. Solar activity was also constantly monitored, not only through the dosimeterrs on the crewmen and in the spacecraft, but through a network of solar monitoring which was continuous throughout Apollo flights, which included satellite data and solar observatory data.

But, we cannot be relying on luck in future long-term missions. We have a much more unstable solar cycle than in the late 1960s and 1970s. We have to be prepared for adequate protection on an extended lunar mission, or a planetary exploration where men and women are involved.

I agree that this aspect really isn't anything significant vis-a-vis arguing for the hoax.


Good to hear from you again!

Regards.

"And NASA launched the TETR-A satellite to the moon just a while before Apollo 11 launched, and telemetry from the satellite would have appeared to come from the Apollo craft. Other methods could also have been used to make signals appear to come from Apollo."


Turb:

Just a quick piece of info regarding the TETRs (TEst and TRaining satellites).

TETR 1 (TETR-A)was launched in December 1967, and was burned up in the atmosphere in April 1968 (it did provide 4 successful MSFN sims, although it's orbit didn't allow it to stay up as long as planned), 8 months before any manned Apollo lunar mission had flown. The satellites were equipped with a 9.5 watt s-band transponder and were used to test data-transmission procedures throughout the manned spaceflight network as they would have to be executed for lunar flights. Very small, low powered little guys about the size of a basketball.

None of the TETRs (there were 4 of them...one of which, TETR-3 (TETR-C), never made it into orbit) were sent to the moon. They were all very small earth orbiting sattelites used for training purposes for MSFN. They were all launched on Delta rockets with other high-profile satellites (Pioneer 8 and 9 and the OSO-1 orbital solar observatory, specifically).

The data transmitted from TETR was supposed to mimic the data transmission rate, strength, and frequency of that which would be coming from Apollo spacecraft in order to test the network's procedures for receiving and exchanging data with Houston in that format. They were rehearsal satellites, basically.


Regards.

Thanks for the replies, MID. Good, in-depth points made, as I've come to expect from you. We are much in agreement on the radiation and the hazards it presented. Thanks for the info on the satellites - I wasn't aware of the progression of launches as you detailed.

It will be interesting to see how the new program develops regarding radiation testing. I, of course, see it as the first actual full bore study of all the potential hazards for a "first time" manned mission to land on the Moon, and yourself as a more rigorous study for the second series of Moon landings, for a longer stay and potential launching point for Mars missions!

Nice to have another positive discussion on the topic. I'm sure we'll have more to talk about on other issues regarding Apollo in the near future. Out of interest, what is your background regarding the space program and/ or NASA specifically? You have quite a wealth of knowledge on the subject.

Cheers.

That one is simple - the US had its own bases built in Antarctica. From 1957-58, the American effort, termed “Operation Deep Freeze,” concentrated on the building of McMurdo Station, a major base of operations, on Ross Island; five other U.S. stations were established, including one at the South Pole. The Russians concentrated on E Antarctica in building their bases. So there was no chance that either the US or USSR were aware of what the other nation was doing during their field missions or scientific studies. Your source for this question should have been aware of these well known facts about studies by the US and USSR in Antarctica.



Again, they are trying to imply that there needs to be a vast conspiracy involving many independent researchers to pull off a hoax. But as I said, the total samples actually made available for analysis is a very small percentage of the total amount of material claimed to have been brought back by Apollo. The samples found on Earth are indeed uniquely identified as lunites.



No, I never claimed to be "smarter" than the geologists. And as I said, the lunites on Earth are indeed "genuinely from the Moon". So there is no discrepancy in what they claim from what I claim.



I haven't avoided your posts, and I have also answered them. I don't know what you think I'm avoiding.



???



No, because you have been getting increasingly more emotional in your replies to my posts, while insisting I must be denying your "proof" for some illogical reason. I am only pointing out that your posts have not provided any proof of genuine manned moon landings. Retorts such as "THIS IS SOLID PROOF" do not make your argument any more convincing, nor any more valid. It's like if I were to reply with "The lack of any animal tests done past Earth orbit are SOLID PROOF OF A HOAX!" It's not based on evidence, it's an emotional plea to try and convince you my view is correct.

I think the problem here is twofold: we tend to want to believe (or at least listen to) conspiracy theories, and this one(the moonhoax) is a whopper.

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 sounds reasonable.

But it isn't reasonable. The hoax belivers evidence is actually as tenuous as the vacuum of space itself. I find it amazing that so many are so willing to scrutinize every available frame of data from the astronauts, yet miss the most obvious thing right in front of them.

Here is everything you whant to know about the Apollo missions.

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

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

Not doubting the moon landing or anything.. because I have NO idea about it..

But i nthe photo here: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Shadow_Lengths.htm

Who took the photo? Both astronaughts are in the photo

Ever heard of remotely operated cameras, they had those in the 1960s too, or a camera with a timer. You set it up, move away and jump around in front of it, nothing special about that.

Oh right, I thought it'd be hard to set up a timer in space
And I've never seen a remote controlled camera.. didn't know they existed

I believe that is a frame from a TV camera that they brought with them. Pan and zoom control were operated remotely from Earth.

Yup, just how they filmed the launches off the moon, by remote from Earth.

Replacement...
Just to concur with another comment,

That's not actually a photo, per-se. It's a frame of video taken by a TV camera. Hard to tell what mission that's from but given the terrain, I'd say it's from one of the J-Missions (Apollo 15-17). The TV camera was mounting on the LRV, which was controlled by mission control.

Regards.

I think it was fake. Look at the video of the moon landing; the flag was moving, and the gravity on the moon wouldn't allow that would it?

And who was video taping the moon 'walk'? I'm guessin' robotic devices could do that, though.

Regarding the flag, quote from this here site - http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Wow, remotes can get that powerful?
Now my TV seems sucky

Oy. My government class had a debate on this the other day. Personally, I find it a little pointless.

I find it strange that the same questions about the Apollo missions to the moon pop up,and on the same thread.

All the answers to all the hoaxtheorists questions are here on this site.

I suggest that you read them.

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


I'll end this on one more bit the HBs don't talk about. When Jim Lovell, two time Apollo astronaut and commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, was told about Kaysing's claims, Lovell called him a kook(woo woo).

Kaysing, ever the rational thinker, sued Lovell for slander. Imagine: Kaysing, who says that NASA murdered three men outright and arranged for the murders of others, sued Commander James Lovell for slander! After some time, a judge wisely threw the case out of court.

There's still hope.

Yup, it was huge, roughly the size of a WWII aircraft carrier, and this being the 60s it didnt have them easy touch buttons that remotes have today, nope, it had big buttons you really had to push down, to do that job NASA had trained a bunch of elephants imported from Thailand. So now you know

I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard this one. Please read this from Clavius. In fact, it's a good idea to take the time to read all of Jay's website...it's well worth it.

Pretty much what Pannkakskungen said regarding the flag moving.

Regarding "who was videotaping the moon walk", no one really was The camera was on, sitting there in the distance. Didn't need an operator, just a little guidance on where to put it from mission control. On later missions the camera was attached to the LRV, and was remotely controlled by mission control, who could pan it and raise and lower it's elevation by simple commands.

Regards.

Hey Turb, you're welcome.
Yes, it will be interesting to see how the new radiation studies progress. I confess to being a little skeptical, however. Not that I don't want them to be doing these things. It's just the reality that many a program of manned space exploration has been proposed and scrapped-up in the beurocratic wasteland of budgetary consideration and less than far-sighted government for three decades now. It's wait and see for me...and I give it about 20% odds of panning out (I keep thinking of how the shuttle, a vehicle which has no real mission, isn't fixed yet, and then I extrapolate to a manned lunar landing vehicle that must be right for a much more compelling and dangerous mission, and I wonder...).

Oh me? I'm just one of those nut-cases who had a pilot's license before he could drive a car, studied aerospace engineering in college, participated in many an Air Force and or NASA sponsored program on space flight or aviation, and wound up abandoning the manned space program because the exploration had left it. I was about a half generation too late to do what I really wanted to do.

But Apollo (and Mercury and Gemini) were very influential on me....just a little. I took models from it for other endeavors...sucessfully.

I think something the experience has done for me, in light especially of the three decades that have passed since Apollo, is to make me open to what some people call stupid questions.

For instance, if, in say, 1975 someone was talking about a lunar landing hoax, I'd have probably told them to make an appointment with a shrink, and quickly. But today, someone can say to me, "Hey, if we can't get a shuttle to fly in earth orbit without blowing up or burning up, how do you expect me to believe we went to the moon in 1969?" , and...


I actually understand the question, based upon where society is nowadays. There's a complete generation plus who haven't been exposed to anything nearly as compelling as Apollo, and the relative absence of education in today's schools regarding such things (historically or scientifically) is apparent to me. I find it interesting and somewhat understandable, not offensive, that people have these questions.

I can certainly see where someone like Buzz Aldrin would swat someone like Bart Sibrel across the noggin for his harrasment, and I am not averse to telling someone like Bill Kaysing that he's a complete joke.

However, I am completely averse to retorting after a legitimate inquiry in a negative fashion (although I confess to having to bite Cosmic Conspiracy's head off to get their attention...which worked and an in depth discussion ensued---resulting in modifications of their web page, appeals from readers to get rid of the apollo hoax page and concentrate on their real emphasis (U.F.O.s), and apparently, their abandonment of further discussion (I may have bored them to death...)). Inquiries like yours, for instance, which are presented voluminously and with intelligence, deserve discussion, not going nowhere comments or complete ridicule.

And so, I look forward to more discussions on the matter, as they present themselves!

Regards.

First post, please excuse anything that may have been represented on earlier threads.

I have substantial work experience with satellite and aerial photography.

One thing about using remote sensing systems to identify lunar equipment has three challenges:

- yes, the resolution on these telescopes can identify the equipment, but in order to identify it, the whole field of view of the system should be down to about 50 by 50 metres. This is fine if you know "exactly" where to look. The moon in the late 60s and early 70s did not have highly accurate lunar surveys completed where precise locations were recorded. So as far as knowing where the lunar rover is, if it is known within a 5 km radius, it would take about 32 000 separate images that would have to be interpreted, to what end. If one wanted, you could pan out and do an area search, but by panning out you are reducing the amount of detail available and risking the chance of overlooking the very objects you are trying to identify.

- telescopes like the VLT are geared to tracking distant starfields rather than near lunar surfaces. I am a surveyor, and I would prefer to track a star with my theodolite than the moon. The moon moves so fast that keeping it within view is a challenge. The VLT would have a considerable time keeping the same 50x50 metre view stabilised in the image.

- someone also mentioned this one, but I think it bears repeating. Telescopes like Hubble and VLT are in high demand. By training these resources onto a task to conduct a survey of the lunar surface to detect and identify the lunar rover or the LEM base would be a waste. Afterall, what would be the scientific dividend by investing some telescope time to this task? Their lifespans are finite, and if we are to learn about the wonderful universe in which we live, these systems will have to stay focussed on these tasks.

In the quote above, it is mentioned that they did try to find the equipment. I suspect that what occurred is that they tried an area survey and did not detect any site that warranted a more detailed survey. After all, a 0.01% location error from earth puts it within a 40 km radius. Absolutley precise locations were not necessary at the time of the missions, I am led to believe, because the program did not rely upon huge amounts of computerised flight, but upon human reaction. They also had directed radio links between the different modules to assist in linking.

Thanks for the conversation.

Edited: Should have read more of the threads before posting.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=52449

Fists step.
There was a video camera mounted and extended from the side of the landing module especially for this purpose. NASA anticipated that the moment that Armstrong stepped onto the Moon would be thought as being particularly significant and something everyone would want to see.

As Armstrong started down the ladder he remotely deployed it, swinging it out from its storage position in the side of the module. Note how the left hand side of the video image is obscured by both the side of the Lunar Module and the arm of the storage compartment that lowered it.

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

Filming The Take Off.
This often shown footage was taken by a remotely controlled camera, mounted on the lunar rover which was left behind. They knew exactly how fast the lander would ascend, so knew how fast it had to pan up.

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

of course it was real ......... those off you who say we have never landed on the moon have just got to much time on your hands. after all the RUSSIAN never argued that it was a fake. the whole world viewd this historic moment and it was accepted.

i was watching the news the other night and they said that another launch to the moon is already planned. some where around 2015 i think

UEL:
Substantial points.
Thanks for the contribution!

Regards

More precisely (for those of you with a penchant for detail), the TV camera was mounted on a bracket inside the MESA (Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly). At the top of the ladder, the astronaut (Armstrong, in the case of Apollo 11) pulled a D-ring like device which released the MESA table. When deployed, the TV camera lens was pointing at the ladder of the LM. The LM pilot, Aldrin still inside the LM, switched a circuit breaker to power the camera, thus, turning it on.


On the lunar liftoff videos, not only was the rate of ascent known, but also the camera's field of view, and its distance from the LM (both of which were used to calculate the pitch rate of the camera in order to follow the LM). An additional consideration was the time delay in transmitting a command to the camera to pitch up at a rate to keep the ascent stage in the field of view.

A single flight controller (Ed Fendell, a.k.a. "Captian Video") in the MOCR in Houston controlled this process for the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 mission's lunar launches, leading the actual time of lunar liftoff by an interval of some 1.2-1.5 seconds with his command.

He got pretty darn good at it!

Regards.

Well...
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions, I should think.
But, as someone who realizes that the Apollo program was real, simply telling folks they're all wet, vis-a-vis saying people 'who say we never landed on the moon have too much time on their hands', doesn't really do much to discuss their doubts, or their ideas. Such a comment may be perceived as a wee bit abrasive, or even aggressive to some, which does nothing for the cause of discussion.

Indeed, the skeptic might look at your statements and argue that just because the whole world accepts what the media presents them doesn't mean that what they present is the truth.

They might also say that another lunar landing program in the planning phase for the future has no bearing on what happened in the 1960s and early 1970s.

It's better in the long run to make a contribution to the discussion than just tell folks they're wasting their time...

Regards.

And we do know "exactly" where to look - if NASA is correct. Apollo 11, 14 and 15 placed reflector arrays at a measured distance from the lem bases. These could be used to zero in on the lem, and with the Apollo journals, also locate the rovers.

The reflectors are there to measure the distance between the Eart and the moon and to calculate the Earts location in space, and are used about 270 times every year.


Hubble
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.

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. Here's what the theories will be in a couple of years time. Yes, they're that predictable.

--The Japanese have been paid off by NASA to fake their photos. Well, we all know they're shifty foreigners with no morals, don't we? They'll do anything for the mighty dollar.

--NASA sneaked faked landers up there during the last five years in preparation for the Japanese photos. Don't bother asking about where the money came from to do this, or how they managed it all in total secrecy.

--What we can see aren't the Apollo sites, but alien bases that NASA are pretending are theirs. And if you join up all the dots on the photos it spells out a Masonic chant in ancient Greek.

Absolute proof that they did infact go to moon comes from the fact that if the shuttle was just in orbit, it would have been completely noticable to practically everyone looking at the sky. It would have been much bigger than any satellite, infact, it would have been the second largest object only to the moon in the sky.

For accuracy's sake it should be pointed out that shuttle's didn't exist in the Apollo years. Besides that fact, the idea that a spacecraft in earth orbit, say an Apollo CSM, would be the "second largest object in the sky next to the moon" is somewhat untenable, as largely, spacecraft in earth orbit are almost always invisible to anyone on the ground.

That it would be "completely noticable" is patently false. The shuttle itself, and the ISS are both significantly larger than the Apollo CSM, and neither of those are readily visible or at all conspicuous to the eye, even when they are in a very brief position to be viewed by someone in a certain location on the ground. Such sighting opportunities occur for only minutes at a time, and at specific times of the day (generally pre-dawn and post-sunset), and only when their orbits converge with sunlight in such a way as to provide a reflection to the ground. They are fleeting, and one would not be able to readily know that they were seeing a glimpse of either unless they were told where to look and when, and of course were doing so.

If an Apollo CSM was in orbit during say, Apollo 11, no one would've noticed, save the American and Soviet tracking stations that were keeping track of things in orbit (and I recall absolutely no reports by anyone saying that they saw Apollo 7 or Apollo 9 in orbit during those two mission's earth orbital forays, nor one during Gemini or Mercury, when those 16 spacecraft all flew missions exclusively in earth orbit).

Thus, this idea is hardly absolute proof of the fact that Apollo actually went to the moon. The fact is that the 25000+ photographs, the hours of video and 16 mm film taken, and the millions of pages of incredibly detailed scientific documentation produced in the program constitute much better "proof" of the events...inasmuch as "proof" of such a thing is required at all.

Regards.

Good points, again, MID. It's good to see your pro-Apollo stance never takes precedent over your objectivity.

I agree,its a rare thing and not only on on sites like this.
I myself has to keep reminding my self to stay objective and not to let personal feelings get in the way of my objectivity.

I suggest we all try to do the same.

I thank you both (Turb and Hazzard).

I guess it's my way of saying, "Let's keep it real."

Regards.

lol , yeah i think we all need to keep it real

Turbonium, I am sorry that I get defensive when I read these forums. I'll try to be more civilized. I am just curoius what evidence leads you to believe that the moon landings are fake, other than those pictures you posted.

Because you have to admit, those pictures are not exactly proof...