http://www.lunararcheology.org/station2_taurus.html

That's the guy in the "other" space program. The one that's not for public consumption.

That of course would be Dr. Jack, obviously standing a bit downslope from the boulder at Station 2, EVA 2 at 142:54:53 GET on Apollo 17.

The link is a complete howl

...it is continually amazing to see the lunacy that these people put into their attempts at showing something that they'd like to believe. It's almost laughable...that is, if it wasn't so sad.

Here is something to look at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckr2w5XFJLw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fltlD9YIdyI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfZwgMO-ZWA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgk1TQinLoA


Damn I can't find part 4 right now. This is not concusive but it sure does make you think. What if it was faked. I would have to say wow good job hehe.

It's almost laughable
The evidience showing it was a fake is not however. That is why this keeps comming up. The van alder belt damn I hope thats what it's called could not have been traversed, even with todays tech. How did they do it with gold tinfoil.

Silver...

Yes, the evidence is laughable. This is because it is not evidence. The key to understanding this is knowledge.
You are obviously not familiar with this FOX TV aberration which aired some time ago.
It's pretty common knowledge that this "documentary" has been thoroughly trashed by those who know what happened and precisely how it happened.

You mean, I believe, the van Allen belts...and your arguement is rather silly, suggesting that they did it with gold tin foil. They did not (knowledge, again is the key to understanding this thing).

Forgive me if I've suggested you're silly. I am not. I realize from your comment that you are not versed in the sciences behind manned space flight, and I am stating that the arguement is silly from the perspective of someone who is so versed.

To explain:

"Gold tin foil" was not used on Apollo (what you are referring to was actually a gold leaf mylar material that was used as external insulator on the LM descent stage, and had nothing to do with radiation protection during passage through the van Allen belts).

The fact is that they could, and did pass through the van Allen belts, as every interplanetary spacecraft since has, without any adverse effects from van Allen radiation.

Dr. van Allen himself has stated that the idea that the radiation from the belts he discovered were impossible to pass through without detrimental effects to Apollo crews was a ridiculous notion. I think that rather sums up the arguement, being that Dr. van Allen is the authority on those radiation belts...

The Apollo crews were in the CM during van Allen transit. The CM was well insulated against any major radiation penetration, it's hull being rather thick in the crew-couch region, where the crew remained during this phase of the mission. The transit through the radiation belts was very rapid, minimizing exposure, and you should know that every Apollo lunar mission was monitored by 5 different dosimeter sources in the spacecraft and on the crewmen themselves.

No Apollo crew member ever received a dose of radiation anywhere close to a danger level on any Apollo mission.

The reason this keeps coming up is that people do not take the time to investigate the immense documentation of Apollo and learn the facts of the matter for themselves. Many people prefer the sensationalistic prattlings of the uneducated as they create crafty scenarios designed to prod the gullible into accepting the idea that the most documented scientific and engineering accomplishment in human history was a fake.

That too, is almost laughable...if it wasn't so sad.

Of course, no gulibility exists in what we believe we are told as official fact.

That is a pretty wild picture, of what, I have no clue.
This is for those of you who believe that the lunar landings were faked. The only piece of proof which I can say is this. The Russians, who really disliked America at the time, would have been the first to come forward and say we didn't go there. They had the technology to track any spacecraft and the radio signals sent back. Don't you think they would have shown all the proof they could to discredit the capitalists, the Americans.
The Soviets basically gave up all ideas of a lunar landing after the "race" was lost. Any reason they could have found to disprove an american lunar landing they would have. Try thinking for yourselves for once. Not some information fed to you by smart people who probably have a slight problem with Mommy or Daddy's attention in their youth.

If you "believe" anything, without actually having the experiential knowledge, then the gullibility factor is a player in the equation.

As I said, knowledge is a different thing. Knowledge is the product of experience. If you have that, then you don't any longer "believe". You know.


But you can go right ahead and "believe" that you're being gullible in listening to Dr. James van Allen, the foremost authority on the radiation belts that he discovered, when he stated rather clearly that there was no major threat to the astronauts in passing through the belts (perhaps he was threatened with death if he revealed the truth ). You can take the voluminous medical reports, all of which indicate no major radiation exposure to any crewman, as fakes.

You may also take the tens of thousands of pages of scientific and engineeering documentation, the 25,000 photographs, the dozens of hours of TV and 16mm film as gibberish too...if you seriously think that is a realistic point of argument.

What picture is that you're referring to, jgorman?

You make a very good point, and a true one.
I will tell you that the Soviets lost the race to the moon in 1968, and as of July 1969, "gave up" on their effort completely because their capability to even test their lunar package was destroyed in a launch complex explosion on July 4, 1969.

Who are these "smart people" you refer to...who "probably have a slight problem with Mommy or Daddy's attention in their youth" ?

And what does that mean?

Just curious.

how dnow, ow could they have passed in this, when there is no room in the tiny thing to be insulated. how were they insulated?? if you can explain this to me, i would be suprised. how can you explain the footprints on the "moon's surface" when WE were the first on the moon?

and WHY dont we see the stars in the backround?? and im sur the russians would have tracked it, if we didnt SEE the ship go into space, i think what happened is we went into space, orbited the moon for several days, and went back, because how could the have done this correctly when there was footage of Niel armstrong eject the spacecraft right before it explodes at the cause of spinning and crashing? hmmm?


i have another little theory too, "it is called we need a better government because these people lie alot" theory

excellent points! People seem to forget that the astronauts DID recieve exposure to radiation, just not a lethal amount. It would take many hours in the SAME SPOT for radiation to become harmful or lethal.

the pic looks like a shadowed astronaut, nothing more

During the Iranian revolution, the Iranians claimed they could see their presidents face on the moon. I got a laugh out of it

dont you think that someone that has to much time on their hands and doesnt like the government can make a fake moon landing and claim it to be real video?

lol the "aliens" helmet looks like a converted beer keg

the "mysterious" figure are just a astronaut, I can follow the shape of the helmet with my mouse....the strange artifact who appears to be on the helmet are just a background object.
There is no mistery....at least not in that pic.

The picture is available under the topic starter.
Well the poeple who put up reasons that the lunar landings were faked are usually fairly intelleigent poeple. In my opinion, they are just looking for a little attention from the general public. I was probably being a little mean by implying that thier Daddies may have wanted a real man, not some sissy space loving wimp. Daddy didn't love them, now they need attention any way they can get it.

Exactly!
In my opinion, it was real. Its just so sad that some people are set out on ruining what was a momentus part of history, and extra-awesomely-cool!

Thats not to say that some people actually believe it was faked.

In regards to the picture, it is probably a US Astronaut taking a leek . And yes, that goes against the laws of Physics...

But why would another country send up a shuttle at the same time - secretly - and say nothing, allowing America to take the victory? I would imagine it would be documented somewhere if there were other peope up there.


Anyway. It happened. We were on the moon. Perhaps its time to move on and start to say the Hubble Space Telescope photos were done in Photoshop.

This is not 100% correct MID. It is true that the Soviets had already lost the race to the moon in 1968. They already knew by then that they could not land a man on the moon before America as the N1 rocket would not be ready in time. It was believed by NASA that the Soviets would try to gain some glory by sending a cosmonaut around the moon before America. They would have done this using the Proton launcher which was already in service (although suffering a few teething problems of its own) and a Zond capsule (essentally a lunar version of the Soyuz spacecraft). NASA took the risky decision to make the first manned flight of the Saturn V a circumlunar mission. Apollo 8 suceeded in this mission over Christmas 1968.

Although the Soviets were beaten they did not give up straight away. The accident of July 1969 (some sources give this as July 3rd not 4th but I suspect this could depend on time zones, anyway what's a day between friends?) was the second accident involving this rocket, the first had ended in disaster on 21st February 1969. The Soviets rebuilt the launch complex and made another 2 attempts to launch their moon rocket. Both these attempts (27th June 1971 and 23rd November 1972) ended in failure of the first stage. Only in 1972 did the Soviets actually abandon their plans to land men on the moon.

Ah ha ha ha ha! "Hubble Space Telescope photos were done in Photoshop"...hillarious! Nice! well, all kinds of people exist to make life more interesting, including those who believe we didn't go to the moon and those who actually still insist the world is flat. The world would be boring without them woudn't you think?

Yes, it's all rather humorous, some of these ideas are outrageous. The problem is that there are some people who don't find these notions to be humorous at all! There are people who sincerely believe we never went to the moon, that the Earth is the center of the solar system, that the Earth is flat, that there are ancient alien ruins on Mars, and so forth. They simply refuse to look at the direct evidence that contradicts their beliefs. It's this attitude (the dismissal of reasoning and knowledge) that serves to concern me.

A good example can be seen here with the Flat Earth Society.

excellent example lilly. for only a small fee one could become a member of that ancient and all knowing society, the flat earth society!!!... absolutely amazing.

Here are two links to some of the best pages around debunking the silly "faked moonlanding theory".

Every answer to every question.


http://www.clavius.org/index.html

http://www.bautforum.com/index.php

Very true. However, i always thought the Flat Earth Society was nothing more than a spoof?

No haven't you guys heard? Not faked, Real... Times Two

Like that quote: "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? Only, this one can be kept secret."

Nobody's heard that one?

Phil and Jay.W sure knows their stuff.

I strongly recomend this one aswell! The Truth Behind the Moon Landings.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425571/

Well as someone has already said it looks like an Astronaut taking a leak behind a rock.
To me though it looks like theres a slope behind the rock that makes the Astronaut look shorter than he actually is.
No i dont think there's anything to this at all.

The only thing I noticed out of the ordinary about the picture is there is an alien that accidentally jumped into the frame when they took a picture...that's it nothing more than a goof up by the alien.

You're correct Waspie...

They did continue their efforts.
I was referring to this event in the context of the "race" to the moon. In that context, as of July 16, 1969, the U.S. had no competition available, and all they had to do was execute...which we did!

The Soviets just had a hell of a time clustering a bunch of rockets, and had no von Braun to do the job...and no F-1 either...

OK!

I believe in the possibility of the American government staging the moon landing.

i would agree with that theory since all of the pictures submitted by nasa are all undeniably questionable. i dont see anyone scrutnizing the freeze frames but rather more of the same ol' diversion into flat earth or some other off hand topic. Who cares about flat earth, there even some evolutionists today who still believe the earth is flat.

take a look at exhibit a:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

OK, I'll try to address these well articulated thoughts...at least some of them!

There was plenty of room in this "tiny thing" to be protected, and insulated. The CM hull was designed to protect and insulate...otherwise these men would not have survived their journey. It's spacecraft design 101. Thick walls, multi-layered, pressure hull, etc...The CM's walls tapered from around an inch and a half thick to almost 4 inches thick at the base end. There was plenty of insulation, and protection from the short exposure to van Allen radiation that the Apollo crews would endure.

I would explain the footprints on the moon as being the impressions of the treads of the lunar overshoes that the 12 men who landed there wore when they traversed out onto the lunar surface. It's really rather simple, and yes, "we" did this.

We do not see stars in the backgrounds of the lunar photos because of the shutter speeds used when photographing very brightly lit objects as the subjects of our photographs. The exposure time is designed to clearly expose the objects of the pictures, which were exposed to brilliant sunlight in broad daylight. Objects like stars aren't visible because they cannot be seen in the exposures of the relatively high shutter speeds used for daylight photography. The human eye couldn't see them either in that environment. This is basic photography 101.

Your last paragraph, I am afraid, makes no sense whatsoever, so I cannot address it.

"...how could the have done this corrtectly when there was footage of Neil armstrong eject the spacecraft right before it explodes at the cause of spinning and crashing?"

You'll have to translate that one for me

Really?

How are they questionable? They all show precisely what one would expect them to show.

do you know anything about creating shadows from light sources? or do you just spout off uncontrollably? precisely is correct if they were to mean in a tv studio. Can you recreate a scenario where a flag will take on charicteristics of blowing around as if the flag itself is in an oxygen rich envirenment? Your statement doesnt show an obvious counter to the argument but rather more towards pointing at something only you've seen and stating there, you see? your wrong in ever detail.

It would be a sign that the moon landings were faked if that happened. The fact is that the flag never blows around as if it is in any sort of atmosphere (what the oxygen content has to do with anything I don't know). This point has been answered over and over again in the many MANY topics about the moon landing on this site. The Flag is held out by a wire to prevent it hanging limply (there being no air on the moon) When the flag was placed in the ground the flag pole and hence the wire holding the flag up vibrated. Simple.

As for shadows that has been explained in several of the other threads as well. I can't be bothered to repeat it all again, but is you want to read the correct explaination go to the Space & Astronomy forum. There you will finded a pinned topic marked (if my memory serves me right) Moon Landing conspiracies - please read before posting, there you will find links to 6 threads on this subject. As MID said,

Edit: The pinned post now his links to 7 threads on the moon landing conspiracies, I've now included this one.

The fact of the matter is that the flag DOES blow around as a gust of wind has somehow managed to find its way on the alleged moon's surface. The fact of the matter is that the idiots back then who didnt take into consideration the blatant mistakes made while portraying a fake as being valid. You cant change the images submitted from Nasa with just words and stories, it must be scrutnized and show for what it is, a grand fake. Nice job on the commentary, xfile's skinner.

Never let minor inconvieniences such as evidence, facts, truth or logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

never let the freeze frames and still photo's speak for themselves, who can resist topping it off with paragraphs full of stories.

I suspect this is referrence to the LLRV's and LLTV's from another thread, but with a major slice of confusion between those craft and the LEM.

I suspect that the lack of the F-1 was the key. Every thing I have read suggests that Korolev was at least von Braun's equal.

What machines they could have designed if only politics had allowed them to work together...

well most of their ideas come from underwater simulations and perhaps they would adopt dive bells as templates in like manner. The Solviets at one time had the biggest navy if not currently, they would certainly join together in this area.

I'm a bit confused as to what dive bells and the Soviet Navy have to do with large rocket boosters.

i was referring to a combination between the moon landing and underwater simulations but as for the rockets i would read up on Robert Goddard.

lol well if you conspiracy buffs REALLY want to prove you are right, see if you can obtain your own pictures of the regions where the flags are planted. if there are no flags then you have evidence that someone may be lieing. have this cross referenced by other reliable sources, and bam!!! you have yourself something to argue with. sure it may take a lot of money, time, and effort......but hey, its worth it. if you are right.....think of it.

is this possible?

I'm well aware of the works of Goddard, Tsiolkovsky, von Braun, Oberth, Tsander, Glushko, Korolev et al, but thanks for the tip

No it isn't possible. Not even Hubble has that kind of resolution.

If it were possible then there would be no moon conspiracy theories because it would be provable one way or another.

It is possible and when they confronted nasa about it, nasa only one answer: deny, deny, deny while being general and never specifying how something so precise could be blatantly misconstrued by people on the same "team".

You have left the realms of conspiracy theory and entered the world of pure fantasy. This has nothing to do with NASA, it has every thing to do with optics.

There is no telescope yet built that has the angular resolution to image an object a few feet across a quater of a million miles away.

The best earth observation satellites could probably resolve such objects on earth (spy satellites certainly could) but they orbit just a few hundred miles up. They could not do it from 250,000 miles away.

When the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is launched in 2008 it should have the ability to observe the landing sites. Of course as it is a NASA mission the conspiracy nuts will not be silenced even by this.

From the Hubble Site, Frequently Asked Questions