"You needn't be a rocket scientist to know that a flag doesn't wave in vaccum all by itself. You needn't be in such an environment either to know. You just need common sense"

That goes without saying. But the flag was waving due to the astronaut twisting the pole to keep it in the lunar soil, and in a near vacuum you do not have the wind resistance against the flag to slow its waving, thus continuing to wave long after the astronaut has left it!

*sigh*

Twisting of the pole will not cause the flag to flutter, the way it did in the footage shown by NASA. It's not like the flag will keep on waving; there is no air resistance but then, there is still gravity. The flutter pattern of the flag clearly suggests that the flag was waving due a contineous gush of breeze, not the kind of pattern you would expect when someone is trying to fix a flag.

Bone_Collector, http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm has the scientific explanation if you don't believe me. I suggest you read a little before posting on a subject as it shows you are just throwing out ideas from the top of your head.

To put to an end to your argument, if there was a "continuous gush of breeze" why don't we see topsoil from the lunar surface blowing around in the air?

CASE CLOSED.

Your profile says you are from India.
During the Apollo era the cold war and space race between America and Russia was at one of it's hottest points. If America would have faked any of the evidence Russia would have screamed loud and long.



I got you.

Everyone starts out nice. The key to how a person really feels is how they comport themselves after they are challegened. My statement, while hardly conducive to peace, was nonethelss asked in a polite manner, meaning that it was not so much an agressive attack as it was a note to yourself that your posts were indicating something about yourself that perhaps was not something that was not necessarily correct.



First impressions tend to stick. People assumed that you are a moon conspiracist, as opposed to someone playing the devil's advocate, and you assume they are countering you merely out of patriotism.



Anything could have happened. The question is not about What If? The question is, is there any reason to believe that something did happen? Well, we have quite a few reasons to think that we did actually go to the moon. All the arguments that we have heard to date about having hoaxed it instead have simply generated more questions than answers.



Well, essentially...yes. They didn't go to the moon to photograph stars. They went to the moon to photograph the moon. I am certain that there were quite a few scientists involved that bitched the entire time that the stars were not part of the schedule, but, ultimately, there are priorities, and for the first trip to the moon, the priorities are the moon, not the stars.

Incidentally, don't forget that a great many of the pictures on the moon were taken during the day, when the astronauts were working. Just as on earth, the sun washes out the stars on the moon during the day. The sky still looks black, since it doesn't have our atmosphere, but the stars would certainly be missing.



Same reason. Why would it be any different?



You are asking us all these questions, but you aren't asking any yourself any. Try this one: Why wouldn't a flag wave in a vaccum all by itself? Obviously, the movement didn't come from nowhere; the astronaut was quite viciously trying to dig it into the ground. There is your source of energy. Due to that energy, we would expect the flag to move. That's half the question answered. No, the other part: how would a vaccum affect the movement? Well, the presence of air would act as a dampner, causing the movement to quickly stop, since it would expend its energy pushing the air. In a vaccum, we would not only expect the movement to continue, we would expect it to continue longer.



Certainly. As long as that is what you are trying to do.



Rare, but not unheard of. Don't assume it was a post made either glibly or in anger. It had a specific purpose, which it accomplished.



Then a question that this would generate would be this: Why would there be a gust of wind on the sound stage where they were shooting this?

I'm not a professional photographer, but I'm an amateur running into this issue right now. You do not seem to realize that it takes time for certain amounts of light to enter the lens to get a good picture. Stars, from the moon, do not provide enough light to be seen at the apeture speeds the cameras were using. In a link provided earlier they were running f3.5 and another lens at f5.6. The higher the number, the longer the apeture is open and can gather more light.

The picture you provided of the stars is from a telescope that has an extremely long apeture time, enough time for it to gather that much light from the stars. As some one else pointed out, 28 hours!

Like aquatus said, why would their attention be on the stars? What would be the purpose of taking this into account? To debunk a far-fetched conspiracy that may or may not pop up 30 years into the future?



I've asked for, and not received, any link to a video showing this flag actually fluttering in the "breeze".

Again, there was a steel rod sewn into the top of the flag so it wouldn't hang limply. The wrinkles in the flag are just that - wrinkles from how it was stored.

Please, show me a video that shows the flag actually fluttering back and forth in the "breeze".

Perhaps the same reason why there isn't any dust pattern near the nonexistent blast crater and also probably why there is a lack of the same dust on the support pads of the shuttle.


So...?


Yes, the questions are for NASA to answer, unless they have no answers.

I will not go on the more apparent "beaten to death" issues, but have a look at the attached pic of the moon rock.

Why the C on it? C is the letter commonly used in film props. Ok, they had it to guide the astronaut? Why two C's then(notice one at the bottom)? Why aren't the C's visible on all the pics then, if the same camera is used to take several pics? It clearly suggests that the evidence is tampered with, if not totally artificially produced.


Aww aquatus1, I don't wish to repeat myself but please do put your patriotic cap aside for a moment and think logically like you do most of the time(read a good number of your earlier posts). Are you saying any country would plan a trip to the moon without carefully planning to capture proper evidence and detailed pictures of the moon's environment(environment also includes stars)?

Most of the the video quality is also poor. Don't you expect NASA to take the state-of-the-art technical equipment available at that time with them to the moon and planned better?What is the first thing that comes to people's minds, when you say space? It's definitely the beauty of it, isn't it? What is the fun in spending billions of dollars and going to the moon and not capture good enough video footage and pictures?

The "they weren't planning to" explanation is ridiculous when you speak of the enormity and the significance of the whole project, to miss out on basic stuff.

A good guess is that NASA had some technical snags like landing problems, camera failures and such due to which they couldn't get good enough footage and other evidence, so they faked it to avoid embarrassment. The bad quality of video and lack of detail suits NASA better to cover up.


For reasons, I gave above.


Well, I have seen it on TV like most people, and I am aware of the steel rod part. I don't have a video link with me right now.


You are forgetting gravity, even 1/6th of that of earth would still be a force to reckon with. Also, consider the fact that the flag will not be feather weight -a flag designed to last for a long long time.


The fake evidence could also have been shot in some dessert terrain on earth.


They had the technology, they had the time and they sure had a reason to capture detailed evidence.

The dust pattern below the lander is nearly invisible because there simple wasn't enough force being generated by the lander's thrusters in a specific direction (down) to move the dust. A wind strong enough to move a flag a good five feet off the ground, on the other hand, would be enough to pick up dust from the surface and blow it around.



Actually, no, the questions that are generated call into doubt the credibility of the reasoning, not the original claims made by NASA.



Because the C is not from a camera fault, but from a processing fault. The C is not on the negative, as has already been pointed out, which is why it only appears on one picture.



A person with no other recourse then to accuse (and from you, it is an accusation) another of hiding behind patriotism rather than addressing the reasning behind an argument has no grounds to ask for a logical argument. What exactly have I said that makes you think I am a patriot?



I am saying that every mission has specific objectives which must be met, and there is simply not enough time to do everything that one wishes to do. Because of that, priorities have to be set. On the first trip to the the moon, the priority is the moon. On subsequent trips, you will have time to take pictures of the stars, when you have the time to set up exposure shots.



They did take state of the art equipment. The difference between their equipment and the stuff you see in Hollywood, however, is that their equipment had to survive the rigours of space travel, which meant that you weren't going to be able to take the same sorts of pictures you could on a sound stage.



Back then, the first thing people though of when they thought of space was that they didn't want to go to sleep under a Communist moon. Going to the moon wasn't about fun, or even about science, when it all comes down to it. Going to the moon was about politics, and the pictures and movies that came back were more than good enough for everyone at the time. By today's standards, they are lacking, but back then, it was the best they had.



They got the basic stuff. They were on the moon, they took pictures. That's pretty basic. Now, if you wanted them to take specialized equipment to conduct astrophotographic experiments, well, that's more advanced stuff. The advanced stuff comes after the basic stuff.



Then we are back to the question of why a wind capable of moving a "heavy duty" flag (why heavy-duty? What on the moon would damage it?) wouldn't also pick up the dust.



They had the technology, which they used on subsequent missions. Time was their biggest obstacle, which is why these things had to be so strictly prioritized. They had their reasons, but you seem to think that your reasons are more important than theirs.

Have you checked to see how your reasons conflict with each other yet?

Why would there be a blast crater? The engine was throttled down so that lunar module landed gently on the moon and so was only providing about 3000lb of thrust. As the landing was in a vacuum there was no air to constrain the engine exhaust into a tight column as would happen on earth so the exhaust was very spread out therefore no blast crater.

As for dust on the support pads a little thought would explain this. It's a vaccuum. There is no air to support the dust above the ground hence the dust particles are blown away.



No it's not. You are the accuser it is for you to prove your case. Having said that there are answers for every single one of the accusations you make. You have been provided with the links to sites with these answers. You have dismissed Bad Astronomy as wrong without providing a single piece of evidence to back up your claim or you level of competence to make this claim. Despite dismissing these claims your last post suggest you did not even read what the site has to say. You are churning out more questions that are answered on that site.

These are questions for you to answer unless you have no answers.



I have no patriotic cap to set aside, I'm British. I'm afraid I'm going to have to keep repeating myself because things do not seem to sink in very quickly with you. Why would NASA waste time photographong stars. Any picture with stars on it would over expose the moon which is what they went to photograph. How many people that have climbed Everest have bothered to stop and photograph the stars on the way up? As for the "C" that has already been explained in this thread. It is an artifact on the photograph and does not appear on the negatives.



This is a half truth. Firstly we are talking about the technology available in the late 60's. Hand held video cameras were very heavy and of much lower quality than is now available (when the shuttle first flew the video cameras in it's payload bay cost $1 million each. With in a few years they were replaced by off the shelf video cameras which were better quality and cost $800 each). The video quality of Apollo 11 is poor. Apollo 12 carried a colour video camera but this was destroyed when it was accidently pointed into the sun. By the next landing, Apollo 14, the video quality was very high. Apollo 11 was intended to spend a very short period on the moon. The moon walk only lasted 2 hours and 40 minutes during which time the astronauts priority was to collect samples and set up scientific equipment.



This seems like a very bad guess to me. The Apollo 11 (and all the landings) were live on TV. The launch was seen by hundreds of thousands of people. If there was a technical problem with the landing NASA would have had to have anticipated this and pre-recorded the "fake footage". Whilst this is not impossib;e the question has to be asked why? Your belief is confusing to me as you say that the landings were not impossible but were faked. So was it just Apollo 11 that was faked or all of them. If it was just Apollo 11 then why do the pictures from later Apollo missions have the same features that you wrongly beleive to be a problem. If they were all faked, again, why? You say these missions were possible so is it not reasonable to assume that with the vast resources NASA had at the time they would have eventually succeeded? Why did NASA have the Apollo 13 accident. If this was a fake then why fake a failure? If it was real then why cover up previous failures?



Actually most of the equipment carried to the moon was made as light as possible. I have no doubt that this is true of the flag as well. The curtains in my living roon are not light weight. When they are only partly drawn they show the same sort of creasing that the flags on the moon show. The flags are not waving.

If the "fake evidence" was filmed in a desert why does this wind, which you claim is making the flag wave, not moving any dust around?

I have provided answers for your points here, I have also posed a few questions for you, are you going to answer them in a similar way?

Sorry about the repeat of aquatus1's point. I'm a slow typist and he hadn't posted his reply when I started mine.

I suspect that repetition won't hurt in this particular case.

Well said.

I really am starting to believe that Bone Collector is being intentionally and selectively ignorant on this issue just to play Devil's Advocate. The level to which he's ignoring previous posts in this thread is laughable, especially considering how he insists that we go back and read his previous posts.

I did not mean anything bad by that comment.....but with the cold war (?) you have with Pakistan if India were to "fake a moon landing" would they (Pakistan) scream loud and long?
If Pakistan were to "fake a moon landing" would India scream loud and long?
Russia would have.....after all they did beat us into space.

The irony of this is that the conspiracy theorists miss the real cover up. The real cover up was the Soviet moon programme.

Unlike the American Apollo programme, which was conducted in the glare of openness and publicity, the Soviet space programme was always secretive. As a result the Soviet Union tried to keep secret their failures.

The Russian N1 moon rocket was a disaster. It was born out of arguments and disputes between rival designers and never worked. It failed during the 1st stage phase of the launch 4 times between 1969 and 1972. It was only after the fall of the Soviet Union that the new Russian government admitted the existence of such a rocket.

The big point of all this is that the despite the secrecy the Americans knew what the Russians were up to. Drawings of this rocket exist pre-dating the Russians finally making the programme public.

So the big question remains, if the Americans knew about and publicised the Soviet failures why did the Soviets not know about and/or publicise the American failures? It seems to me the the simplest, most likely explanation is that (excluding Apollo 1 and Apollo 13) there were no American failures.

If you want to know more about the Soviet moon programme I recommend Anatoly Zak's Russian Space Web site.

There you go again, wearing your patriotic American cap....

Too true, "God Save The Queen!" , oops sorry, that should have been "God Bless America!"


Flags courtesy of: webmaster-tool.co.uk

How is that flag waving?

THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE ON A MESSAGEBOARD!!!

HOAX!!!@#

See there you go again, a conspiracy theorist not checking their facts . Not only does this message board have an atmosphere but at times it gets fairly heated .

Hey Wasp lets leave religion out of this OK?

Other wise we will have believers saying we did not go to the moon because it would be blasphemy

Don't give them ideas , that's how these things start.

OOPS

I taught that both America and Brittain was christian countries...

They/we are Christian countries.

See what you got going now Wasp!

LOL

Yes, we did go to the moon. As for proof, when Neal Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed
on the moon they placed there the Lunar Laser Ranger. This is basically a small mirror
placed on the lunar surface. An observatory in New Mexico (I don't remember it's name)
fires a laser at this mirror on the moon to measure it's distance from the Earth at any
given moment. They've been doing this since 1969. If you need more proof you should
consider the fact that the government can't keep a secret like this for a few months let
alone 37 years. If the lunar landings were a hoax, someone would have blown the whistle
by now. As for not going back? We haven't been back since 1972 because of lack of
public interest and congressional budget cuts.

We'll thank you to refrain from posting logic and sense in this thread in the future. I'm sure it was an oversight.

aquatus 1, before I go on with the rest of my post I wish to respond to this particular post of yours. I really find it amazing , how you expect me to respect your opinion and respond in a civilized way when you yourself stoop to a level at which you are totally ok with insulting me in your own "subtle" manner that is. Also, I am amazed by the double standards which your posts seem to reflect; I mean...for you it's perfectly ok, if you or somebody else in this thread go on with your snide remarks, but when I reply in kind you find it totally offensive. Strange, really strange. Now aren't you doing the same thing that you accused me of doing initially- measuring the success of your argument by the extent to which you annoy a person, than by the logical reasoning behind your point?

Remember aquatus1: mutual respect is always give-and-take...always!

Now back on topic...



Not enough thrust? A thrust of 10,000 pounds is not enough? I know NASA says it needed only 3000 pounds thrust because of the low gravity of the moon and that the shuttle hovered and landed softly but they, 3000 pounds of thrust is still a LOT . Also, consider the lack of air resistance which would have obstructed the force of the thrust on the surface soil. The exhaust will head mostly in the downward direction uninterrupted due to the lack of air. I'm not saying a big blast crater, the size of a football field should've been made, all I'm saying is that the thrust, assisted by the lack of air resistance should be more than enough to make a significantly visible dust pattern if not a crater of sorts; a trace however would definitely be visible on the soil. The pattern would be different from the one which would've been created on earth but yet, there will be a pattern.

The footage that I remember seeing doesn't really cover a considerable portion of free ground, so you cannot really say the dust didn't rise -just the camera wasn't positioned to capture it properly. Also, if it was a semi-open set on earth then no question of dust, a stay breeze however might have crept in, which caused the flag to flutter.


Funny how the C is exactly at the center of the pic just as it would be the case with hollywood movie props. The evidence is tampered. They forgot to edit the C out. NASA has a good long history of manipulating evidence which it does to make itself look smart and unerring. Seems like NASA is so obsessed with the idea of projecting itself as "technically perfect" that it can even go to the length of tampering with the evidence.


When I said that patriotism seems to cloud your insight, I didn't mean to be offensive or something. Come on, patriotism is not a swear word.

I felt it was only understandable for you to refuse to see the apparent; and the apparent is not that US never went to the moon, it is that NASA tampered and even faked some of the evidence.


Your refusal in this particular topic to see more reason.


To capture detailed footage and evidence of the moon's environment strikes to most people as one of the major priorities considering that it was the very first manned mission to the moon. It's common sense to expect good video and pictorial evidence.

See, the results of a special mission need to be just that: special, not substandard or even ordinary and all the advanced stuff just becomes this: mandatory, though I think capturing proper photographs and video footage can be hardly termed "advanced." It's more likely that the intentional lack of detail in the evidence is incorporated to assist the cover up. If the total evidence was filmed on earth then you wouldn't really expect them to show stars, because if they did , they'd easily be found out by looking at the star positioning and calculating the distances.


Heat, cold & radiation, don't you think?


Where?

The dust particles will get blown straight up and come straight down, also the dust particles will collide within themselves and move around a bit. So, there's a good chance you will get to see at least a little bit of dust on the pads.


I have gone through the site and it is clear that all your replies reflect what is on that site, and I'm discussing the alternatives here anyways, so what's your point?


Personal attacks hardly reflect maturity. Why is it that you find it so difficult to digest the fact that people can have different opinions? I don't go calling people dumb for believing in something that I don't. The evidence is debatable and there will be some people who agree with it and there will be people who don't: accept it or not.

I answered some of your questions already in this post and in some of my earlier ones but since things do not see to sink in with you either, I will answer them separately.


Pictures showing moon's crystal clear sky with the beauty of space in all it's splendour is not waste of time as you think. It is one of the major motives of any space program: to capture clear pictures and video of explored territory.


It is easily possible to easily capture stars on film. It doesn't take days and days to
get a decent picture. If not a deataaaaaaaailed picture, at least a few pictures showing the stars could've been captured with very less exposure time. It doesn't need rocket science to get a few stars on film, does it?


How do you know nobody has? Do you have access to all the photographs taken on Everest by all the people who ever climbed to its top?

Also, we see stars on earth, they have been captured on film millions of times but we don't know how the view would be from the moon. Just imagine how breathtaking the view would be from the moon- a view never ever captured on film. With the lack of atmosphere, the stars would be so much brighter making the view absolutely breathtaking.


The technology was far better than what the apollo 11 mission suggested. Also, it is selectively bad.


Ever heard what some of what the Australian viewers saw?
Read up...

Source


It is not possible that they maintained the similarities and slowly improved the quality of evidence strategically to avoid exposure? I've answered why they faked it and you just said it's a bad guess. However, you're welcome to form your own beliefs.

It is possible to succeed, I never doubted it, however, mistakes can happen, and sometimes when they happen: they are covered up to avoid embarrassment.


Possibly to say hey, we at the NASA are honest people, and to add more credibility to the Apollo 11 landings.


This mission may be to better the earlier Apollo 11 attempt and get REAL and complete evidence and correct previous mistakes. But since it failed,Apollo 11 attempt would still have to be good enough. Just discussing the possibilities.


The flag specifications are not released by NASA, they say they are from several sources. So all we can do is speculate.


I repeat what I said to acuatus 1...

The footage that I remember seeing doesn't really cover a considerable portion of free ground, so you cannot really say the dust didn't rise -just the camera wasn't positioned to capture it properly. Also, if it was a semi-open set on earth then no question of dust, a stay breeze however might have crept in, which caused the flag to flutter.

I'm not a conspiracy buff, nor does the Apollo mission really bother me. It is clear that NASA doctored evidence. It's not liked I said they failed totally. Why is so difficult for you to accept something so apparent?

What exactly do you find so strange about it? You insult, I insult, he insults, she insults...I personally believe that my insults are of a bit higher caliber than yours, but they are insults nonetheless. In fact, If you feel that you have been overly insulted, perhaps you should bring in a mod and point out how unfairly you are being treated. After all, being insulted in return for an insult by someone who claims never to insult people (I did make that claim, didn't I?), well, that just isn't fair, is it?



And so there was. Not one visible to the camera, not without a great deal of attention, due to the technological limitations of the time, but definitely there nonetheless. You are playing a bit fast and loose with physics here. 3000 pounds of thrust is not a LOT of thrust simply because it is a big number. You seem to be under the impression that 3000 pounds of thrust means that there is a weight of 3000 pounds being applied to the ground. This is not the case. Thrust has nothing to do with what is outside the thrust nozzle. The moon could have been a few feet away, or it could have been two miles away, and the three thousand pounds of thrust would have done the exact same thing. You say that the thrust would have been in the downward direction, but as has been pointed out before (hence the need for repetition), that is not the case. The only reason you say that is because you are accustomed to seeing rockets on TV with the flames all jetting out in a line behind them. That doesn't happen that way in space. In an atmosphere, with the weight of the air pushing against the rocket exhaust, it stays in a straight line. In a vacuum, it doesn't have any air pushing against it, so it radiates out in all directions. This doesn't affect the force of the thrust. Merely the exhaust, which is largely irrelevant to the thrust.



The footage I remember seeing includes the astronaut, the flag, part of the lander, and a good portion of background. At the very least, a good fifteen feet of cover. A stray breeze? One that can move over fifteen feet and only affect one single part of the picture? In slow motion?

And what do you mean that there would be no question of dust in a semi-open set? Wouldn't a semi-open set be more conducive to dust?



The picture that I saw has no C in the middle. The C is on a rock towards the bottom. Why anyone would bother to edit this is beyond me. They took thousands of pictures of the moon. If I was faking a moon landing and I had a picture with a prop number on it, I would toss the picture and pick another of the thousands on my desk.

But the question remains: Why is there a C one only one picture, and no C on any of the subsequent ones, or on the negative? I cna understand tampering to remove a C, but why would they tamper to place the C in the picture?



You are using patriotism as something that blinds people to facts, that causes people to ignore what is in front of them. Essentially, you are using the patriotism in the same way you would use cowardice. And what is your justification for this? That people disagree with you. You are accusing people of hiding from you because they disagree with you, and refer to that hiding as patriotism. Yes. I take offense to that.



It would only be apparent if there was something unexplainable about it. So far, you have offered nothing that hasn't indicated a lack of knowledge on you part, rather than something unexplainable about the event, i.e., your interpretation of thrust and your lack of knowledge concerning photography.



Reason begins with reasoned arguments. You think you are providing them, but you are not, because of your limits in understanding the relevant science. You can think (justifiably so), that you are providing a reasoned argument against physics by claiming that a theory is wrong because 2+2 does not equal 5, however the argument would be invalid because, due to your level of knowledge, you are unaware that there are situations in which 2+2 does equal five.



Most people consider what was brought back from Apollo 11 to be a resounding success. The footage, the samples, mission, all went perfectly. If you believe that it should have looked better, well, you are certainly entitled to that opinion, however NASA was not hiring film makers. It was hiring rocket scientists. They were not interested in looking pretty. They wanted results, which the got.



Not particularly. Again, ask yourself, why would this things be a problem? Sure, on Earth, yes, but why on the moon?



You know, in all honesty, I am not entirely sure if you are honestly trying to play the devil's advocate, and are simply unaware of some of the errors you are making, or if you are being willfully stubborn. I am willing to give you the benefit, in the case of the former. If you are truly interested, I will point out some of the logical errors you have made. Note that this would become more a matter of your method of presenting arguments, rather than the argument itself, but I would be willing to do that, if anf only if you are willing to listen to the reasoning behind it.

The Russins had their own moon mission failure to hide from the world. Not all evidence given by NASA is totally fake, so challenging the whole mission in public would've only shown them in poor light as sore loosers.


Good one!


The remarks are fine but do make a post which holds value once in a while, it'd be nice to see.

Heck yes I do! Do a search for my posts and be prepared for some shock and awe!

I just don't feel the need to in this particular instance because I think you've just decided to take an opposing viewpoint in this thread just for goofs.

My hat's off to those who are still trying to fight this battle with you.

Here's something you don't see too often ... a detailed picture of the full Moon surrounded by a rich field of background stars. It's true that bright moonlight scattered by the atmosphere tends to mask faint stars, but pictures of the sunlit portion of the Moon made with earthbound telescopes or even with cameras on the lunar surface often fail to show any background stars at all. Why? Because the exposure times are too short. Very short exposures, lasting fractions of a second, are required to accurately record an image of the bright lunar surface. But the background stars (and galaxies!) such as those visible above are much fainter and need exposures lasting minutes to hours which would seriously overexpose the surface of the Moon.




http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010906.html

This topic just cracks me up. Interesting though. It's like a study in human nature as related to truth.

The fact is unless you were on the moon or directly invloved in the missions, or observed same, you don't have enough facts to be 100% certain. For everyone else all the information is second hand. So in absolute terms we don't know.

If I was forced to bet on it, I'd bet man has walked on the moon. Just an opinion of course. lol

People quit wasting your time with this guy, we have answered all his questions factually and that's all we can hope to do. No matter what we say it won't be good enough.

Ignorance is bliss for some it seems.

UMM BC I think you should look at you comment again.
There is no air on the moon.

Why don't Harrier jump jets leave big craters in the ground every time they take off?



Nonsense the Americans were making public the Soviet failures so what did the USSR have to gain from keeping the American failures quiet.

The reason we keep repeating ourselves is because you don't listen. We have never said that it is not easy to photograph stars, just that you can not get the exposure correct for the bright lunar surface and the stars. This is basic photography. NASA did not go to the moon to take pretty picures of the stars, they could do that from earth orbit at a fraction of the cost.



Yes, the explored territory being THE MOON!!!

You fail to either understand and / or read correctly the evidence you provide yourself. For example in post #182 where you are claiming that Bad Astronomy presents bad science you give this quote:



Your reply:



Now where does it say that stars can't be registered on film? It says that with the settings used stars can't be registered on film. That is entirely different. Are you deliberately mis-representing what was written, lacking in even a basic understanding of photography or just so set in your belief that you are failing to read the arguments correctly?

Your story on the Australian village I can not comment too much on as I haven't heard it before. It is interesting to see that someone who claims not to be a conspiracy theorist is putting forward evidence from a UFO conspiracy site. Because of it's source so I have my doubts as to it's authenticity. However let's assume the story is true, which is more likely one third of the worlds population (you see non-Americans did care about the moon landing) saw the fake film and one small village in Australia saw the truth or one third of the worlds population saw the truth film and one small village in Australia was the victim of a pratical joke?



Fair enough but that makes my speculation as valid as yours.



No it doesn't take days but it does take minutes. The cameras were hand held. It is not possible to get detailed pictures of stars unless you use a tripod.

I've never been to Washington DC either but I've seen some strong evidence that it exists.

That is true of everything we experience. Can you really be sure that there is actually someone on the end of the telephone line, after all you can't see them? How can you be sure that you are not insane and that everything you think you see is not a figment of your deranged mind? We have to make assumptions to form any sort of picture of reality in our minds.

Incidently with the picture of the moon that you included in your post you gave a direct quote from the NASA site explainong exposure times but missed off one very important piece of information, that it is a composite picture, in otherwords the background and foreground were added together at a later date. I don't want give our conspiracy believers any false ideas.

Thanks, I missed that. My bad. The object was to point out that stars won't show in a picture with a bright foreground.

My other point is that people tend to believe much more than they know, which is necessary as you point out, but many don't recognize the difference.

People ... just look at the attached pic from the Apollo landings.

You can clearly see that the shadows are not parallel. Now, before you cry wolf, just take a closer look. I'm not saying there are two light sources, just one. You don't need eagle vision to see that the shadow of the shuttle is not coming in front of it(as it should) to parallely match the angle of shadows of the rocks, visible in the picture. In fact, you would be having serious problems with your eye sight if you cannot see that the shuttle's shadow is slightly pointing backwards, not even lying exactly adjacent to the shuttle. Also, observe that the power of lighting is not consistent throughout the pic. This can happen(as I said before) if the source is an artificial one, closer to both the shadow producing objects, in-line with the shuttle in the direction pointed out by the white arrow on the pic. This is practically impossible, since NASA itself stated that it took NO artificial lighting to the moon.
Since the artificial source of light is close by, almost adjacently in-line with the shuttle and at approximately around 45 degrees angle to the rocks, the shadows are not parallel explaining why the shuttle shadow is straightish and the rock's shadow inclined at angle.

I know some people will quickly point me to the Bad Astronomy site for an explanation. So, before anybody does, I'll discuss it myself. Attached is a pic from a site linked from Bad Astronomy that tries to offer a so-called explanation to this. Just look at the pic...I'm not going to say it's fake but just look at it. The shadow of the vehicle or the horse is hardly visible because of the angle from which it's taken, we can hardly conclude anything from it, unlike the Apollo pic in which we can clearly see the shadows pointing in different directions.

Unless you dish up some 2+2=5 kinda logic, rewrite basic laws of physics, we can safely say that light travels in straight lines. It is crystal clear that the Apollo pic is a fake one and the source is not the Sun as stated by NASA but an artificial one, used for illuminating the objects.

Just one more thing: huge natural sources of light like the Sun span millions of miles(needless to say) and always make close by objects produce parallel shadows. Distortion is not a case in this particular pic as it is pretty clear and you cannot say, it only appears as though the shadows are not parallel.

This is how shadows produced by the sun should look like: parallel.

Hey bone collector, how ya been. I have to agree with most of your post. The horse wagon picture is worthless and I can't see why anyone would think that is an example of anything pertinent. Shadows from a distant light source should appear basically parallel, but sometimes the perspective can alter the perception a bit.

The moon photo you included looks very fishy at first. Now I admit I'm trying to find an explanation for how it could be genuine. What I notice is the lander shadow appears very narrow compared to the craft itself. It could be there is a slight rise in the terrain in front of the shadow. That rise could be blocking the view of part of the shadow making it look too narrow because we can't see all of it. That could also add to the effect of the shadow being at the wrong angle.

I have no proof either way.

aquatus1, I'd like to remind you that you were the one who started it in the first place. I never made any comment against you, however, the comments that I made later were only in response to what you said, not the other way round. By the way, what I found strange with you was that you insult people, then preach to others, but when you receive what you dish out, you find it offensive. If you notice, I did not go hard against one single person in this thread, unless provoked by the usage of unacceptable language. Higher caliber insults, huh? Is is possible that you're able to calibrate and say this because of your experience in insulting people? And, no, I won't be needing a mod to assist me here, I can pretty much defend myself.


3000 pounds of thrust is not a LOT of thrust simply because it is a big number. You seem to be under the impression that 3000 pounds of thrust means that there is a weight of 3000 pounds being applied to the ground. This is not the case. Thrust has nothing to do with what is outside the thrust nozzle. The moon could have been a few feet away, or it could have been two miles away, and the three thousand pounds of thrust would have done the exact same thing. You say that the thrust would have been in the downward direction, but as has been pointed out before (hence the need for repetition), that is not the case.

Thrust in whichever direction would surely have been focussed at some points just around the landing site for quite some time. Though the mass and gravity of moon are much lesser than that of earth, the thrust would be enough to leave at a decent identifiable signature on the ground, if not a big blast crater. No dust pattern at all was visible on the NASA evidence.


A stray breeze? One that can move over fifteen feet and only affect one single part of the picture? In slow motion?

Imagine if the ground was artificial with no dust, what other part of the picture is susceptible to movement but for the flag? Also, the breeze might have been more stiffer than seen on the evidence which may have caused the flag to flutter even faster. The film may have been slowed down later. Just discussing the possibilities.


And what do you mean that there would be no question of dust in a semi-open set? .
Wouldn't a semi-open set be more conducive to dust?

Can't an artificial base devoid of any dust be arranged on a set?


If I was faking a moon landing and I had a picture with a prop number on it, I would toss the picture and pick another of the thousands on my desk

Yes, you would, anybody would, but the thing is that you will do it only if you notice it. There's a good chance that NASA missed to edit this picture as it crept in with several others released to the press.


But the question remains: Why is there a C one only one picture, and no C on any of the subsequent ones, or on the negative? I cna understand tampering to remove a C, but why would they tamper to place the C in the picture?

Why don't you look at it this way: all pics had prop numbers on it which got edited and this could be the only pc which they missed to edit.


You are using patriotism as something that blinds people to facts, that causes people to ignore what is in front of them.

Yes.


Essentially, you are using the patriotism in the same way you would use cowardice.
And what is your justification for this? That people disagree with you.
You are accusing people of hiding from you because they disagree with you, and refer to that hiding as patriotism.

No.


It would only be apparent if there was something unexplainable about it. So far, you have offered nothing that hasn't indicated a lack of knowledge on you part, rather than something unexplainable about the event, i.e., your interpretation of thrust and your lack of knowledge concerning photography.

Again, you need to understand that if you believe in something ever so pationately, then it would be hard for you to at least look into alternative possibilities. Dismissing some argument saying it is the lack of knowledge on somebody else's part isn't necessarily the brightest thing one could say. You know, you needn't be an expert photographer to say that stars can be captured on film. I believe, the absence of stars is intentional, and I also find your reasoning ridiculous when you say that NONE of the pics were taken to actually include stars; It doesn't take that much effort nor the time to capture at least one decent image of stars on film. You think the reason wasn't strong enough, and I find that almost laughable. Anyways, you are entitled to your opinion, so am I.


Most people consider what was brought back from Apollo 11 to be a resounding success. The footage, the samples, mission, all went perfectly. If you believe that it should have looked better, well, you are certainly entitled to that opinion, however NASA was not hiring film makers. It was hiring rocket scientists. They were not interested in looking pretty. They wanted results, which the got.

The NASA trip was just about politics, nothing else. The footage samples and other stuff could still have been got without needing a man to step on the moon. The money would've been spent on much better things, but that's another story altogether.


Reason begins with reasoned arguments. You think you are providing them, but you are not, because of your limits in understanding the relevant science. You can think (justifiably so), that you are providing a reasoned argument against physics by claiming that a theory is wrong because 2+2 does not equal 5, however the argument would be invalid because, due to your level of knowledge, you are unaware that there are situations in which 2+2 does equal five.

Yes, reason begins with reason. You too like everybody else, repeat what is written on several sites, so, nothing's new. You too with your own limited open-mindedness might be thinking(understandably so) that all your arguments are perfectly valid and acceptable to everybody else, and everybody doesn't mean a group of people posting on this thread, but the fact is that it doesn't convince everybody. There will always be some people who agree with you and some that don't. The world would be a pretty boring place if everybody would agree with everything, don't you think?

According to science, any theory is assumed to be correct until proven false.
Also, you can disprove one wrongly raised anomaly but you cannot hold it to be true for everything else. Just like you can disprove the statement that "all boys in a class are tall" by proving that one guy in the class is short, but cannot disprove a statement like" all NASA evidence is not true" by proving that one of the NASA evidences is true. However, I am correct in saying that all NASA evidence is not true, by proving a single evidence fake(check my previous post).

It isn't that hard for anybody to imagine that a highly reputed organization liked NASA would fake some evidence because their recorded evidence could not be recovered; something you'd expect them to do to avoid embarrassment. It is my belief that a considerable amount of evidence provided by NASA is fake. It is also possible that some of the good evidence provided by NASA is also challenged by a few people because people think if one pic can be faked, so can everything, so they suspect almost everything. So, even if one alleged anomaly is disproved, it doesn't necessarily make the rest of them original. Most other topics are still open for debate. There are several anomalies which have raised several eyebrows all around the world. If a bunch of people on a site believe all the evidence is true, it doesn't change a thing. Similarly, if a single person on a site believes that the evidence is fake also, doesn't change a thing. The key is to be open-minded.

2+2 is still 4 by the way.


Again, ask yourself, why would this things be a problem? Sure, on Earth, yes, but why on the moon?

Changes in temperature and radiation will surely affect the texture and colour of the flag, won't they?


You know, in all honesty, I am not entirely sure if you are honestly trying to play the devil's advocate, and are simply unaware of some of the errors you are making, or if you are being willfully stubborn. I am willing to give you the benefit, in the case of the former. If you are truly interested, I will point out some of the logical errors you have made. Note that this would become more a matter of your method of presenting arguments, rather than the argument itself, but I would be willing to do that, if anf only if you are willing to listen to the reasoning behind it.

Do what you think is best for you. I see errors in your thinking too, especially in your refusal to accept other possibilities.Yes, as an argument progresses, it is more likely that a point comes where the way of presenting an argument tends to become more important than the argument itself. It happens with everybody, even you.

Hi there ImOne! Nice to see you again.

If the rise in the ground was small then the shadow would still be seen on it, though bent at an angle, this is not the case as you can clearly see in the pic. Also, why would they risk landing the shuttle so close to an uneven surface?

If you zoom the pic and look, you will find that there is really no significant rise in the ground. If there had to be a rise then it had to be big enough and a lot in front of the shadow of the shuttle, to actually cover a portion of the shadow from the angle from which the pic was taken; you can clearly see that this also is not the case.


Yeah, no air. Sometimes, some things that we use commonly creep in unintentionally. I've edited my post now. Thanks for pointing it out.

Look again at the 2 photographs provided by Bone Collector in post # 240. In one there is a distant truck and horse box seemingly producing shadows that are non-parallel to the person in the foreground. In the other we have a distant lunar module this is producing a shadow seemingly non-parallel to rocks in the foreground.

Despite the fact that it clear these photographs are showing identical effect Bone Collector tells us that one presents proof that man did not go to the moon whilst the other offers no evidence of any thing at all, and this from someone complaining about 2+2=5 logic from others.

Take a closer look at the Apollo picture. It is clearly far from flat terrain, thus exaggerating the effect even more than on the flat terrain on which the terrestrial picture is taken.

Take a closer look at the shadow of the lunar module and you will notice that the shadow is partly obscured by a raised crater edge between the shadow and the photographer. This means that the full shadow of the lunar module is not actually fully visible. There is no such obstruction of shadow edges in the terrestrial picture.

Hence with a small bit of open-eyed observation (and an ability to count to 4) it is easy to conclude that the photo which offers us little or no evidence is the lunar picture.

Bone Collector, you keep throwing the accusation at those that believe in the moon landings that they are not looking at the evidence and are blind to the truth and yet you have continuously repeated the same arguments over and over again even when it is clear that you are talking non-sense. Your latest piece of "logic" is that, despite the fact you claim NASA has published no specifications for it" the flag would have been heavy duty to protect it from radiation? Why, is it going to develop cancer or something? What is this radiation that destroys flag material and why would having a heavier material protect it. Besides which why bother if, as you claim, the pictures are fake anyway.

You also waffle on about the lack of dust on the artificial ground. Take a look at any video of the astronauts walking and you will see that their feet kick up dust.



Bone Collector keeps saying this over and over again (and then he wonders why I say things don't sink in easily with him). It does take time and effort to take pictures of stars (if you had ever tried you will know this). It requires long exposure times (minutes) and a tripod. The moon walks only lasted a few hours each. Time was precious why waste a long period of time to photograph stars? The pictures would have been of no scientific value. They would also have proved nothing. If they had contained the lunar foreground then it would have been so washed out that it would have been un-recognisable. If it didn't contain the lunar forground it would have produced a picture that could just have easily been taken on a dark night on earth.



That is assuming that the lunar modules came staight down and hovered for a long period of time. In fact they came in at an angle, moving accross the terrain. They hovered only at the last moment before landing. I ask again if the lunar module would have had to have left a blast crater why don't Harrier jump jets?

I don't mean to be offensive but you indeed seem to have problems with your vision or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Show the picture to your kids or probably some other people outside this thread and ask them for an opinion based on the argument I presented and almost everybody will be inclined to believe that the NASA pic is fake and also that the truck pic is a load of crap. The shadow of the truck and horse are haaardly visible to make out anything; I'm not even saying it is doctored. The only thing clear in the pic is the guy's shadow, whereas, the NASA pic I've shown is very clear and full of detail.


Bone Collector tells us that one presents proof that man did not go to the moon

Correction: I just said NASA faked some evidence because they had some technical failures. You're putting words into my mouth here.


You also waffle on about the lack of dust on the artificial ground. Take a look at any video of the astronauts walking and you will see that their feet kick up dust.

It is very easy to misinterpret, isn't it? Is is so difficult for you to imagine that NASA might have used different sets to shoot different location shots? Christ!


The pictures would have been of no scientific value.
They would also have proved nothing.
If it didn't contain the lunar forground it would have produced a picture that could just have easily been taken on a dark night on earth.

Sure dude, sure, nothing is of any value. Why even bother sending man to the moon then? The rocks samples could've still be got without taking such a lot of pain. One more thing: they could've taken pictures without the lunar surface, they didn't beca