1. There is no atmosphere on the moon due it its low gravity, so how exactly is the US flag in the picture blowing in the Lunar Wind? You cannot explain this away by saying someone had just moved quickly past the flag because this would have no effect on the flag either with no air to be displaced.

- How can someone who is trying to make the Hoax of the century film on a windy day or have a fan blowing when the setting should be a moon atmosphere?

2. The cameras were fitted with crosshairs to make analysis of the photos easier for NASA, these crosshairs were on the lens of the camera. So they would obviously be in front of everything in the picture, the following photos show this to be untrue.

- Maybe they took photo of both with and witout crosshair, make sense to me.

3. While on the moon, the LM (Lunar Module) did not move at all, the base of it never left the moon, so how can these two pictures, obviously of the same place due to the identical hills in the background, not both show the LM


- How do we know which picture was taken first?

4. Here we have two new pictures, which are like the previous two, but the anomaly lies in the foreground, the story is, the astronauts walk down the hill in the first picture, which is at quite a distinct angle with plenty of distinct rocks on it. Then the astronauts get on the Rover (moon buggy) and travel 2.5 miles away. Then, in true Blair Witch Project style, they walk down the exact same hill, incredible!

- Same, we don't know the sequence of the pictures.

It shows an astronaut on the moon with the sun behind him, which interestingly has a halo, an effect only seen when viewed through an atmosphere, so this picture was obviously not taken on the moon. How, if the sun was the only source of light on the moon, is the front of this astronaut lit up? This again points to the pictures and videos being made on a movie set because they have used many light sources.

- Like a bright full moon, the earth gives the moon some light reflected from the sun.

How can shadows from the sun intercept each other? This again shows that many light sources were used when filing the videos, something which was not available to the astronauts on the moon.

- Same, light from the Earth.

Absolutely correct!
And...it would tend to accelerate the vehicle in a lot of small pieces

Unfortunately, nicole, some people have not paused and reflected on the point you make, nor on any of the other perfectly locigal things which support the actuality of the landings on the moon...

A little clarification...


2. The cameras were fitted with crosshairs to make analysis of the photos easier for NASA, these crosshairs were on the lens of the camera. So they would obviously be in front of everything in the picture, the following photos show this to be untrue.

- Maybe they took photo of both with and witout crosshair, make sense to me.

Actually, they didn't. All of the EVA Hassleblads had Reseau plates in them (the +s, or fiducials were on a plate in front of the film mag...not on the lens). It is common for the fiducials to apparently "disappear" (they don't really, they are simply not visible on the prints generally used to illustrate this phenomena by HBs) when they intersect extremely bright or extremely dark objects. This is a common thing. It's just not understood by many people.

3. While on the moon, the LM (Lunar Module) did not move at all, the base of it never left the moon, so how can these two pictures, obviously of the same place due to the identical hills in the background, not both show the LM


- How do we know which picture was taken first?

In reality, these two pictures were not obviously taken in the same place. One was taken about 6/10 of a mile from the other one. This was explained previously.


4. Here we have two new pictures, which are like the previous two, but the anomaly lies in the foreground, the story is, the astronauts walk down the hill in the first picture, which is at quite a distinct angle with plenty of distinct rocks on it. Then the astronauts get on the Rover (moon buggy) and travel 2.5 miles away. Then, in true Blair Witch Project style, they walk down the exact same hill, incredible!

- Same, we don't know the sequence of the pictures.


Actually, we do!
These two video frames were taken at the same place on the same day during Apollo 16. The fact is, the NASA film which originally was put out with these sequences in it incorrectly described them as being taken at different places. The error was quickly discovered and swiftly corrected. HBs keep using this long ago corrected error in their arguements.

It shows an astronaut on the moon with the sun behind him, which interestingly has a halo, an effect only seen when viewed through an atmosphere, so this picture was obviously not taken on the moon. How, if the sun was the only source of light on the moon, is the front of this astronaut lit up? This again points to the pictures and videos being made on a movie set because they have used many light sources.

- Like a bright full moon, the earth gives the moon some light reflected from the sun.

Correct. It is called backlighting, an effect which is very pronounced on the moon. It also exists on earth (which is why you can see things that are in shadow).

Also, the halo effect had nothing to do with atmosphere (nor does it, for that matter ). It is a photographic effect, produced by light bouncing off of surfaces in the interior of the camera's lens body.


How can shadows from the sun intercept each other? This again shows that many light sources were used when filing the videos, something which was not available to the astronauts on the moon.

- Same, light from the Earth.


Not exactly.
The earth provided no detectable lighting during lunar daytime.
Shadows from the sun do not intersect each other, and none did on the moon, as they do not on the earth. Shadows appear to bend, shrink, etc. due to terrain gradient, or angle of the shadow relative to the camera (as is seen in panoramae). There is nothing un-natural about the shadows seen in Apollo lunar photgraphs. They are represented on the lunar photographs precisely as shadows are represented on photos taken here on earth.

So, you really think Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins plus the whole NASA is behind a big HOAX? And was able to fool the whole world up to now? You really believe that?

Uh, no.

I can only assume that you are replying to me, as mine is the previous post.

As such, what in the name of God would make you think that, based upon my clarifications of your points above...points which support the Apollo program's successful completion of their missions...which they in fact did???

This is partly true, however many images taken by the shuttle astronauts do show stars. In fact the shuttle has carried astronomical telescopes into orbit. However what you will not see is photographs of brightly lit objects (such as the Earth, the ISS or Mir) with stars in the background.

Had the Apollo astronauts wanted to they could have photographed stars from the moon. It would have been a waste of time though. Why go a quater of a million miles to do something they could do at home.

MID, I can only assume that AROCES has misinterped the quotes you placed in bold as being your points rather than quotes (this means that they haven't read your post correctly but only those points in bold).

May I suggest that to prevent another, similar misunderstanding that, rather than placing quotes in bold, you highlight them and then click on the icon that looks like a speech bubble.

MID. My statement is for those who believe we never went to the moon. My apology for not being clear.

we arent advanced enough to land on the moon, but we can somehow produce enough torque to rotate it? Maybe you mean orbit, and you obviously dont know lower division physics. Why dont you get your masters degree before you submit your doctoral thesis.

MID, I've just re-read my message to you above. Please accept my apologies if that came across as a little condescending, that certainly wasn't my intention.

The flag was rotated into the moons surface causing the flag to wobble on its supporting frame. Because there is no atmosphere there is no air to dampen it motion meaning the flag could wobble for hours before its energy finally dicipates. On earth it would be different because of the atmosphere the surrounding air would absorb the energy of the moving flag pole and cause it to stop.

No problem AROCES!

No apologies needed, Waspie.
You were absolutely right.

If I was smart enough, I could've figured out how to stick quotes in messages myself!!!

Thanks for the heads-up.

Who are you addresing?

You think I was clever enough to work things out for myself? I cheated. When SaRuMaN made me a moderator on the now defunked Spaceflight News site I used the edit button to look at how other people had constructed their posts.

This is a reasonably logical notion.
However, in order to clarify this a bit, I should point out that the dampening of the motion of a waving flag, on Earth, or on the Moon, is more a function of gravity and mass.

On Earth, there is of course a small factor of air resistance which will aid in the dampening of a flags waving motion. This is absolutely true. But that is not as significant as the force of gravity at 1g pulling downward on the flag.

On the moon of course, we have no atmosphere, but the motion of a waving flag will not continue for hours. The gravity of moon, acting upon the mass of the flag, will dampen it's motion. It will be a bit slower to dampen, but it will stop shortly, as is seen on the video and films of Apollo EVAs showing the flag being planted.

Ah, the power of a Moderator!

Is there a simple way of copying a couple of jpegs into a post without having them hosted on a website? There have been a few comments about the fiducials, so I was going to show a couple of photographs that I took to demonstrate how emulsion bleed can wipe out part of the fiducial.

For those who want to try, here is a simple experiment. Set up a piece of white cardboard with a thin, black shoelace/thread stretched across it and taped at either end. Set it up on an easel so that the cardboard is in sunlight, but the background is in shadow (say, at the edge of an awning or porch). Photograph the cardboard on the easel a number of times, but increase the exposure time with each photo.

The sequence you get back will show the shoelace, originally sharp and easily seen, fading until it becomes almost invisible. In the background, the objects in shadow will initially appear completely black, but as the exposures increase, will become more visible.

This is a very easy experiment, and can be done by anyone who has a camera where you can adjust shutter speed. The result demonstrates that sometimes to see detail in a photograph, exposure times will need to be of such length that a fiducial superimposed over a light area will become swamped.

Donald Rumsfeild, Henry Kissinger, and a former cia director have a few good things to state on this documentary in regards to this topic:

java script:popUpVid('http://www.thothweb.com/modules.php?name=Google_Videos&vid_watch=65')

Ah, bless ya, boggle!

The 'documentary' you are referring to is a satire, taking the p**s out of the Hoax Believers. It starts off quite plausibly, but gets more and more ridiculous as it goes on until by the end, it is quite clear that the 'doco' is a joke.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0344160/

The film makers drop clues all the way through that it is a send up (the names of many of the interviewees are taken from science fiction stories, the 'CIA Director' doesn't know how to speak English, etc) and most people have twigged by the time they talk about sending the entire 6th Fleet and 500,000 troops in search of 3 film crew. If that doesn't convince you, watch the closing credits where the various participants joke about the filming.

Hook, line & sinker.....

they had 2 cia directors- one former and one then current so you are wrong in that regard, you are also wrong in that other part since that former cia was in fact killed and the newspaper report is true, look it up.

hook, line and your battleship is sunk.

the following documentary is 2 part england's findings:

java script:popUpVid('http://www.thothweb.com/modules.php?name=Google_Videos&vid_watch=42')

java script:popUpVid('http://www.thothweb.com/modules.php?name=Google_Videos&vid_watch=43')

The british did an excellent job to say the least, very thorough and undisputed. Their expert analysis by their physicist was the best. Btw, if you are still confused as whether or not the first documentary was in fact a documentary read this:

http://www.sbs.com.au/whatson/index.php3?id=326

that former cia director who could speak 7 languages, they have his cause of death as unspecified:

http://www.nndb.com/people/155/000058978/

If you had done a little more research boggle then you would have found this (It took me less than 30 seconds to find).



Source: Wikipedia

This is a reasonably logical notion.
However, in order to clarify this a bit, I should point out that the dampening of the motion of a waving flag, on Earth, or on the Moon, is more a function of gravity and mass.

On Earth, there is of course a small factor of air resistance which will aid in the dampening of a flags waving motion. This is absolutely true. But that is not as significant as the force of gravity at 1g pulling downward on the flag.

On the moon of course, we have no atmosphere, but the motion of a waving flag will not continue for hours. The gravity of moon, acting upon the mass of the flag, will dampen it's motion. It will be a bit slower to dampen, but it will stop shortly, as is seen on the video and films of Apollo EVAs showing the flag being planted.



thanks for the help MID

I saw a bit of this on another site...it was hilarious!

To quote my Dad, "It's a joke, son".

Other recommended documentaries:

For an in depth look at the world of rock music - This is Spinal Tap

And of course that excellent documentary about the founding of Christianity - Monty Python's Life of Brian

mixing photos of the flag waving and stiffining by using apollo 11 mission and 16 dont help you waspie.

What are you refering to boggle?

I suspect that boggle was refering to this post:



which does indeed include photographs fron Apollo 11 and 16. However, with his usual attention to detail, what boggle failed to spot was that this post had nothing to do with me.

The apollo 11 flag being put on the moon initially doesnt have a twisted pole and the pictures being shown here trying to portray apollo 11 with a twisted flag pole is false. The evidence speaks for itself and its ashame that you must be blind to it. While the documentaries keeps rolling out in colleges and on the net so that more and more people will know the truth, a small minority such as the clique found here will be the only ignorant ones remaining.

You can tell nothing about the motion of the flag from a still photograph.

I see you are slipping back into throwing insults around boggle.

what insult are you referring to? im telling what is gonna happen, i can tell you one thing for sure.... the answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.

Hardly a compliment is it?

you regard that as an insult? i was stating was is going to happen. The evidence speaks for itself and while the british and french are showing their findings other will come along as well.

Wait, we're being ignorant?

Oh, the supreme irony of it all!

actually neither the command module nor the lunar 'lem' had suffient shielding for any radiation according to Bill Wood who worked for the US Air Force during 1964-68 on ICBMs and on top secret rocket programs from 1977-93. He has a BSc in Aerospace Engineering and an MSc in Mechanical Engineering. According to him the Saturn V launch footage appears to show an exhaust trail that is ‘not consistent with that of a rocket engine utilising these propellants’ (Hypergolic engine fuel). In other words, the Saturn V rocket was using a fuel whose SPI was insufficient for an escape launch with the necessary payload for a manned space flight to the moon. That is why Von Braun specifically created the saturn V rocket used for the apollo missions to be as light as possible, this would include the command module and the lem.

The Saturn V rocket, which is alleged to have launched the Apollo 11 crew on their way to the moon, was the culmination of years of development of the original V-2 harbinger of death.

What does sound engineering have to do with all of this, you may ask…..

The engines, which powered the V-2 missiles, which evolved into the Saturn V rocket, were by design destined to be hindered by the humble sound wave. The propellant used in early US Nazi designed military rocket engines was the Hypergolic system. This is a combination of hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, which ignites on contact producing Specific Impulse (SPI) values of thrust of beyond 300 SPI. This is significantly more powerful than liquid propellants such as kerosene and oxygen which can deliver values of up to 250 SPI.

Using a Hypergolic or liquid system is seriously unstable during combustion, producing a continuous explosion of deafening magnitude. These explosions have the effect of creating powerful resonances called ‘acoustic transients’ which produce noise levels of around 150 decibels. The relatively thin casing walls of the rocket chamber are pummeled by standing waves, which concentrate extremely high temperatures at certain points within the chamber eventually causing total capitulation of the structure. This is known as the ‘pogo effect’.

Hitler’s finest were incapable of building a rocket powerful enough to take man to the moon and back. The Apollo spacecraft had suffered 20,000 system failures by 1967 including the death of three astronauts on the launch pad.

In the aftermath of the Columbia disaster it is still apparent that NASA is taking uneccesary risks with human life. NASA continues to launch rockets powered by combustion, which in simple terms is like sitting on top of a firework. NASA is obviously aware of the dangers of this obsolete technology (remember Challenger?), but continues to sacrifice astronauts rather than publicly reveal their true technological capability. Such knowledge is reserved for the US military-industrial complex.

What do you expect from the engineers of the holocaust? using a modified v-2 rocket system, lets see what nasa institute for advanced concepts is now considering:

http://www.niac.usra.edu/

Hitler's finest weren't trying to go to the moon. They were trying to bomb the people next door. The V2 rockets were modified for spaceflight. They had the potential but since the object was to bomb the same continent rather than break through the earth's gravity, it wasn't necessary. It's like my TV. It has the potential to record DVDs from the movie channels, but in order to do so, I have to modify it a bit and add a satellite receiver and DVD burner.

By the way boggle, did you find out who I was yet? I know you must have been searching hard to PM me random names that are supposed to be me. The first time you identified me as a man, so I'm assuming now you "found out" I was a 53 year-old hairdresser from Kansas.

it would help if you would research first before asserting something you dont know anything about:

General Dornberger cried, "Today the spaceship is born!" and von Braun replied, "Oh yes, we shall go to the moon, but of course I dare not tell Hitler yet!" ---1942

Am i part of a clique? i have never been part of one of those before i feel..so..so happy


come on folks lets debate but lets not let it break into a argument lol this is all good fun.

Sorry, I should have said Hitler wasn't trying to go to the moon, he was trying to conquer the world. Whatever Hitler's finest did in research was used by Hitler for warfare, not space travel. Leaps in science and technology come from war. They start out trying to bomb someone and end up mapping the ocean floor for geologists.

Don't forget a documentary on law enforcement in the US - Reno 911

You're more than welcome, chao...

boggle, a polite request; when cutting and pasting from other sites please give a source (and preferably a link to the source). Failure to do see may be considered plagiarism which is against the site rules:



Thank you.

Source of boggles quote above: CONTRARIANTHINKER, from a piece written by David Lees.

???

I wonder how these pictures...which are like all the other pictures of Apollo flags in that they show straight flag poles, illustrate someone trying to portray a "twisted" flag pole"?

(...strictly a rhetorical question.)

Are we still talking about flags moving on the moon? Drop it. It's been explained ad- nauseam, and is nothing but natural motion caused by someone manipulating the pole.

The evidence does speak for itself.

And so does this poster.

The "small minority" here ( ), and the hundreds of thousands of knowledgable people who worked this project, as well as the vast majority of intelligent people in America, and across the world, know that the evidence speaks for itself.

Sometimes, it is amazing how true ignorance is invisible to the ignorant.

"...what is going to happen..."

Indeed. The French and British are going to show us something about a thing that we did...we, who know how it was done, and who actually did it, shall be taught that we really didn't, I suppose, by people from countries who weren't involved in the project whatsoever?

OK...

I think anyone with a MS Eng, and who had anything to do with Apollo would be interested to know that he had said such a silly thing.

Both vehicles had sufficent shielding for particle radiation.
I bet the poster doesn't realize that the best shielding for particle radiation is not metal (although they can be used, but is often counterproductive due to the bremsstrahlung (q.v.) effect), but fibrous substances (today, we use polyethylene), which were used between the inner and outer aluminum hulls of the CM and LM. In fact, aluminum is better at enhancing protection against particle radiation than many other metals (oddly enough, we used aluminum too!).



The saturn V launch footage shows an exhaust trail which was expected when using RP-1 kerosene and LOX as propellants. Hypergolics were not used on the SV. Sorry. This is completely silly, and renders whoever said it to the realm of the uneducated. The Saturn V used Cryogenic fuels. Except for the RP-1 (S-1-C fuel), which could be stored at room temperature.

What one saw on S1C ignition was the common combustion results of highly refined kerosene and liquid oxygen...a real mess.





"Hitler's finest" rocket engineeers would never have been permitted to waste their energies on space exploration initiatives. They were, additionally, not too keen on building rockets to kill people...which is why "Hitler's finest" defected by surrendered to American forces. Once they did this, their talents were put to use...in precisely the way which the visionary von Braun had hoped.

The results of that were obvious.
But that was in the 1960s when he accomplished the Saturn V success. When he was working under the close scrutiny of Hitler's fellas in the 1940s, space exploration was von Braun's dream. Hitler, I am quite sure, never thought about it. He was too busy attempting to destroy an entire race and take over the planet.



In the aftermath of Columbia I'd say whoever wrote the statement about un-necessary risks is somewhat correct (although it's a complex topic). But that has nothing to do with cryogenic engines, like the SSMEs, which are highly efficient, and highly reliable. Challenger had nothing to do with those engines either. These events were about a complete paradigm shift in NASA management, not about "obsolete technology". There is no obsolete technology being utilized on the shuttle today, nor has there been on any rocket launched in the history of space flight.


Additionally, the Saturn V, and the Shuttle, are about as related to the V-2 as modern day human beings are to Cro-Magnon. Evolutionary anscestors, yes. But similar, no.

And above all, von Braun's team were not "the engineeers of the holocaust". (quite frankly, how dare you say something like that). Hitler, and his group of idiots, claim that title.

On the contrary...it would help if YOU researched things before asserting something you don't know anything about!

Now, why do you think von Braun said such a thing? Why would he dare not tell Hitler?

Because...he'd have been punished for wasting his energies on such a thing (even talking about it), when he was put to work to build rockets to carry a couple thousands pounds of TNT to England! Duh....

...meanwhile, the flag if it were in a vacuum will not produce spontaneous movements on the flag itself especially if their isnt an action like say a bump to initiate that motion. The evidence shows at times spontaneous movement on the flag itself as if gusts of wind are creating that movement even when astronauts try and "calm" the flag down.

Just because a few Brits and French believe these things don't think we all do. In all probabillity more Americans believe the Moon Landings were hoaxed then here in Britain. The French just make a joke out of the whole thing (a point that still doesn't seem to have sunk in with boggle)

In fact I watched a very good documentary British documentary on TV a few months ago which went through the HBs arguments one by one and demolished them completely. If I had known that I was going to get involved in this debate I would have kept the video.

Once again you fail to show what the command module or the lunar lem even had to sustain any type of radiation level, i have given the strength of the penatrating ions; of energetic charged particles (i.e. a plasma) around Earth, trapped by Earth's magnetic field. The command module itself for apollo 11 having thin windows as well as thin steel casing walls could not have prevented radiation levels that have been brought to everyone's attention (skepticRus) and the threat as well as the lethal conditions they can inflict. Trying to promote an idea that the apollo missions must have slingshotted through the 'thinniest' portions also fails since they would have had to slingshot to the southpole region initially which incedentally would have lost most of the slingshot effect as it would change course trying to avoid the heavier concentration of the radiation belt themselves. To top this off, the apollo missions were during the height of geomagnetic storms... but nice try on your counter.