i have a special theory on how we faked the moon landing



we launched into space and rotated the moon several days.... we then had several actors on a set in area 51 pretend they were on the moon. we then launched back to earth unharmed......


proof:


the footprints:converse on the moon?
in a still frame from when the first person was getting off the LEM, you can see different footprints from different tennis shoes, i have even identified as some from converse

flagwaving:one of the most convicing evidence
everyone knows flags dont wave on thier own. how do they wave on an airless envirement?

walking: slow-mo?
on a video provided on another thread from a tv show they show how when you speed the video when they were walking by 2x it looks as if they were walking on the earth

the scenes: same sets?
on the same video, it show some different scenes where if sychronized, have the same backround?

niel armstrong says "the moons surface is like the nevada desserts" home of area 51:
now that just seems odd.... i have nothing to say

no crater from engine blast: was the blast fake?
when they landed on the moon a huge blast is seen, but no crater. doesnt that seem wierd

no exhaust plume when the LEM took off. was it lifted by wires?

when you see the LEM leave the moon and take off back to earth. there is no exhaust plume. could this be the effect of it being lifted by wires?


that is all i have to say on the subject, thank you for reading


EDIT: found something even mor interesting

in pictures you can see shadows, which apparrently shouldnt be there since the only light source is the sun millions of miles away, which still can get there because there is now special atmospere thing that earth has, its tough to explain... but anothere thing about the shadows is they go in different directions...!!!!!! if somebody can explain that in a logical way without making something up, i will be suprised!

The flag waving on the moon? Click Here

No crater? It wasn't a 'blast' strong enough to form a crater...it was used for slowing down the speed of the landing module. Conversly (no pun intended) little power was needed to escape the gravity of the moon.

The best evidence of the moon landing having taken place (besides the obvious pictures and clips of the lunar rover) is the unbelievable technology that has trickled down from the entire experience. If you really believe that they faked it...you don't understand the race with the Russians!

Why is it so hard to believe that we actually have done the moon thing?

its odd that site dont have any visual evidece to support their claim that basically would break down the footage and pointers showing cause and affect. If you look on the footage there are no shaking movements done to the flag pole itself. They dont sufficently show cause and effect visually that supports the astronauts as bumping or shaking the flag at all, in fact it looks exactly like the wind is blowing it and that is the cause and effect IMO.

All of your "proofs" are flawed in many ways.

Flag Waving: Sure it does. The flag had a stiffening rod on the upper side so it would stand out from the staff. When the astronauts moved the pole, the free corner lagged behind by simple inertia. The flag actually flops unnaturally quickly because there is no air resistance to impede it.

Armstrong's Description: Yeah It may be a coincidence that Neil Armstrong describes it as the the Nevada Desert. Its called a Simille(check the spelling on that one) In case you didnt know, thats where you describe something using the words "like" or "as".

Same Sets: If NASA was going to fake it, then why wouldnt they use different backrounds to make it seem as real as possable? My opinion on this one is that they messed up the film.

Blast Crater: If you visit the Web pages for the Apollo missions, it's easy to find photographs specifically showing the LEM engine nozzle and the ground beneath. Now why would NASA deliberately take pictures that failed to show a blast crater? Why?
Because there is no fluffy, easily mobilized dust on the Moon.

exaust: The downward traveling exhaust stream would impact the ground and rebound mostly outward and away from the surface. Since there is no atmosphere to interact with, the gas molecules would simply fly off and disperse. The only dust particles that would be displaced would be those directly impacted by the exhaust gas. Since the exhaust stream was concentrated mostly in the area directly beneath the Lunar Module, this zone would experience the greatest disturbance. The area adjacent to the LM would be largely unaffected by the exhaust stream.

well, for the same sets, they would probably think nobody would notice

for flag waving, i think a stiffening rod would be noticeable, which i didnt see

i know what a similie is, i just think it is odd to give an exact location for the desert in a description and if he decribes it like that, since desets have dert under it, it would have a crater!

and the exaust part doesnt even make sense, explain it so a sixth grader can understand



Edit-removed unsuitable content
-UA

they probably cheated in the race, so they could be the top country, thus... faking a moon landing

All you have to do is look closely at any pic of the flags.

How would you describe the surface of the moon if it had those charicteristics?

Well maybe you should have graduated High School and you would then understand it.

all you have to do is to keep your eyes open when watching the footage, how can you not see the obvious?

mabey you need some nodoze.

i have found a website, where they sohw alot of evidence where you can prove the moon landing is a hoax: i will show the facts from the site but all credits go to http://www.alien-ufos.com/govmilapollohoax.shtml

I am now going to detail some of the many inconsistencies in the videos supposedly taken on the Lunar surface:

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.



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.


This picture shows part of a crosshair to be behind a piece of equipment.

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




This suggests the use of a film studio with set backgrounds being used.

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!




5. There are many examples of this and I could flood you with pictures, but I think this is one of the best ones on the subject


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.

6. This is another topic for which I could provide many images, but this one has notation and makes the point very clear

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.

Facts


Bill Kaysing, head of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963 estimated that there is a 0.0017% chance of surviving a trip to the moon, there are many things which can kill you: radiation, solar flares and meteorites.
On pictures taken by a Russian spy satellite of Groom Lake Military Base (AREA51), you can clearly see a section of the desert which is totally clear of any plants. This area of land has craters on it, and it looks exactly like the surface of the moon. On closer inspection, one of the craters is identical to a crater supposedly seen by the crew of the Apollo 12 mission from their LM as it landed. The picture also shows hangers which look similar to the kind of buildings you would find at Hollywood, the whole set up looks like a movie studio.
As the LM landed with the astronauts in it, you could clearly hear the voices of the men, but there was no other sound, surly the engines of the LM would be heard firing as it approached the lunar surface.
When the LM left the moons surface it looked like very old-fashioned movie special effects. It jumped of the base as though a cable had hoisted it up suddenly and there was no exhaust ploom as the engines fired.
The cameras used to take all of the pictures were on the front of the astronauts suits, they had no view finder, all they could do was point themselves at what they wished to take a pictures of and hope. So, how were thousands of amazingly lined up, almost 'posed' pictures taken? This is another piece of evidence, which points towards a film crew making the videos. The bulky design of the spacesuits only made taking a decent picture more difficult.
On the moon, if you are stood in sunshine, it is 250 degrees above, if you are in any shadow, such as that of the LM, the temperature is 250 degrees below. The spacesuits were well designed with layers of different material each doing their own job, but the fact that no Apollo astronaut ever suffered serious illness is incredible.
The Russians have revealed that they never thought about going to the moon because they had no idea what the radiation would do.
Russia have never sent their cosmonauts to the moon and NASA have no plans to send astronauts there (again?).
The moon landing, if it is a movie, would be the most expensive movie ever made.
The most powerful telescope in the world does not have the power to see if remnants of the lunar missions are still on the moons surface as they should be. However in 2 years time the Japanese are sending an orbiter to the moon to take close up photos of the entire surface, this should prove whether NASA went to the moon, or would NASA let the Japanese tell the world of their findings, would NASA send up empty LMs and robots to make footprints and place flags, or is this the reason President Bush wants a missile defence system?
Just months before the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong can bee seen testing the Lander at an air base, he crashes it after never really being in full control of the craft, ejecting at the last moment. He was never going to be able to fly the Lander successfully or safely on the mission.
This is quoted form the National Geographic Magazine in their Q+A section.
Q When Alan Shepard hit a golf ball on the moon, did it come back to the surface, or was the moon's gravity too weak?
A In 1971, astronaut Alan Shepard, an avid golfer, hit two golf balls with a makeshift six iron he smuggled aboard the Apollo 14 mission. He joked that the ball flew 'miles and miles and miles' in the moon's low gravity, one-sixth that of the Earth. Actually both shots landed in the moon dust less than a hundred yards away.

The moon has low gravity and no atmosphere, so if someone who was an avid golfer hit a ball on the moon it would literally go for miles. The only possible suggestion I have for a golfer not being able to make a 2000yard drive is the spacesuit getting in his way or the low gravity conditions making things difficult. I still believe that this does point towards the footage being filmed on Earth, though, hence the golf shot being just pretty average with the spacesuit obstructing his swing.
Gravity


One of the things which tripped NASA up the most was how they replicated 1/6 of Earth's Gravity. The way NASA tried to achieve this effect was by taking footage on the Earth's surface and then halving the speed of the videos. This does, at first sight, look like low gravity conditions, however what this does not change is the stride (or hop) length, or the height the astronauts jump to, because the footage is slow, they appear to be jumping far and high for their speed. If you double the speed of the moon footage, everything looks like it is in a 10 Newtons/Kilogram gravitational field strength, i.e. on Earth. To give the astronauts that extra bit of bounce NASA used cables to hold them up, if you look very closely at some of the footage you can see the cables. Its like pausing The Matrix so you can see the few frames where the camera crew are reflected in Neo's sunglasses. However, slightly more convincing than seeing the cables is seeing their effects. One astronaut falls over, then, without either help from his colleague or using his arms to push himself back up, he returns to an upright position.



People Against NASA


NASA did have its critics around the time of the moon landing, there were people who said NASA was unsafe and people who knew too much in relationship to the size of their mouth. So plenty of people died, maybe god wanted the achievement of his achievement to remain plausible. Gus Grissom was a veteran space traveller, he frequently spoke out about NASA, he criticized them and infamously said 'Someone is going to get killed', that someone was him. He was inside the capsule, which caught fire just before take-off, communication had failed and the whole crew perished. The families of the men think the fire was not an accident, Bethy Grissom, Gus's widow, wants NASA to come forward and tell the truth about the Apollo missions. The capsule remains locked away at a military base.

Charles Barrent submitted a 500 page report to NASA about their safety, he said such things as: 'The Apollo program is in a huge mess, they will never make it to the moon'. One week later a train hit his car killing him, his wife and his stepdaughter, the report disappeared.

Between 1964 and 1967, 10 astronauts lost their lives in freak accidents. It is believed that very few people at NASA know the whole picture of what happened, this minimises the chances of a leak. A rocket engineer, who worked for the company producing the rocket engines for the Apollo program reported many problems and unreliability issues prior to the mission.



Radiation


Around our planet are huge radiation bands, it is up for debate how thick they are, but estimations show that the Apollo astronauts would spend approximately four hours in the radiation. This is possibly the strongest proof we have against the moon landings ever taking place. There are two natural bands of radiation called the Van Allen belt, the first being just under 300 miles from Earth. No other space projects have ever gone into these deadly areas apart from the Apollo missions. In 1962, the US government implemented Operation Starfish Prime, they tried to use a megaton nuclear bomb to blast a hole in the radiation, in their infinite wisdom they made the radiation worse, by 2002 this third band will still have 25 times the amount of radiation than the natural bands.

There is no way for astronauts to get through this radiation without having at least: hair loss, severe sickness, vomiting and diarrhoea, impaired vision, and death within a two month period, however no Apollo astronauts ever suffered illness from travelling through the radiation.

Sunspot activity follows an 11 year cycle, every 11 years there is a the greatest amount of radiation, one of these peaks was between 1969 and 1970, there is no way men stood that radiation and made it to the moon. Between the Apollo 16 and 17 mission, one of the worst solar flares on record occurred, this would have given enough radiation to instantly kill any astronaut, however the astronauts were fine, they were safely away in AREA51.



What Happened


On July 16th 1969, Apollo 11 set off on a 250,000 mile, 8-day voyage to the moon. So, everyone saw the astronauts take off, that was not fake, however, they never went to the moon, they simply orbited for 8 days and then rentered the Earth's atmosphere 8 days later. The satellites were not there back then for the rocket to be detected, so the astronauts were safe, up in their low orbit, while back on Earth the world watches previously recorded videos of the astronauts on the moon. These videos had been filmed at AREA51 and were broadcast to the TV stations around the world. The world watched Neil Armstrong descend the ladder of a Lander he couldn't fly properly, onto the desert in AREA51.

Of course the whole USSR (which was another member in the race) did not have anyone intelligent enough to see your "proof"

Firstly.....if you want to be taken seriously, don't resort to childish name-calling.





In much the same way as the moon is a source of reflected light from the sun to us here on Earth, viewed from the moon the Earth also reflects some sunlight back at the moon. Therefore, there are two light sources, albeit, one much brighter than the other.




When viewed or filmed through a camera lense you would also get a halo effect.......the lense acting in a similar way to the Earth's atmosphere.

Again, the hoax, if true, is fooling a vast cadre of experts world-wide, yet ineptly unable to pull the wool over the eyes of a few ideologues on some fringe web sites!?

I dont think so.

I may be wrong, but why do we never see images of the flag on the moon?

Dunno about you, but if I was to head to space or run a mission to the moon..... I would want to feel that proud feeling of seeing a landmark.

We have pretty much learned what we want from the moon, so there are other fish to fry out there.
It is often forgotten we know more about the moon than we do the bottom of the oceans and seas of Earth.

I would say I most interested in Europa than any other location in the solar system at present.

I guess there really won't be any rock solid proof till telescopes can take a clear picture of the lander frame that is still there. Even then sceptics will say that they are fakes.

I heard once that the Russians did get to the moon, but only with an unmanned craft that tossed out some small flags onto the surface.

I believe that right now the best cameras that can take pictures of the moon show the first lander frame as only a single pixel. When resolution improves in the coming years we will finally be able to see.

The Ruskies actually brought back moon dust/rocks, a perfect match to the stuff the Apollo team brought back.

....and are we also faking all the pictures of Saturn, etc by the SpaceBot Voyager?

...are we also faking the technology that I am using right now? Did we in fact fake the entire space program and that the real truth is that man has never even ventured into space?

To say we faked the moon Landing is very disapointing to me as i am an american. I've seen the videos, I've read the conspiracy, and I believe we landed on the moon. Not ONCE, but we've landed 11 or 13 people on the moon if my memory serves me correctly. So why is it hard to believe that neil armstrong was the first human on the moon? If he wasn't the first then another one of NASA's astronauts was the first to be on the moon. I guess people have forgotten about all the other astronaughts who have been to the moon.

I guess all the astronauts got PUNK'D...

Here are 2 sites debunking the silly moonhoax theory.
http://www.clavius.org/

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Part from the scientific evidence that we went to the moon, here are two more things the hoaxbeliever never think about.

1# Given the lack of supporting evidence from any Communist bloc countries since the openness and revelations following the collapse of the Soviet Union, this is seen by many as a strong argument against such a hoax.

2# If a moon landing was impossible, then it would be impossible for the Soviets as well. Why take the risk of faking a moon landing if there was no risk of the Russians getting to the moon first?

I've always wondered if the people that believe the moon landing was faked are the same ones that believe mankind is limited in what it can accomplish.
My theory on the moon landing: We did it because we wanted to and set our minds and energies to it.

no just the apollo missions

well here is the thing...no amtter what we've been to the moon with like 12-14 astronauts so even if the apollo mission was hoaxed we still have the leverage of saying we have had more than just 2 men on the moon. So what is the big deal?

I can see how it would be dificult for someone to tell the difference between moon and nevada craters on TV


Nevada>>>Moon>>>

I can understand how it could have been filmed in the nevada desert. There is also another theory that we did go to the moon but found "visitors" so they came back to Earth and shot in on Earth. If it was a fake shooting, I think one of the most logical places would be the nevada desert

Wether or not the moon landing is real or fake has been argued for as long as I can remember.
Yes, there is good evidence that it was faked, but, there is also good evidence that it was real and if someone has set there mind on the fact that it is real/fake, then I doubt that anything anyone says or does will sway there opinion on the matter.

If it was faked, I must admit that it was a very good fake to have fooled millions of people worldwide.
I personally, hope that it is real, as it makes me feel better knowing that we are capable of such wonderfull things.

Do not let it be disappointing to you, xstortionist. We did do this thing.
Actually, it was 12 of us Americans who landed there.
It's only hard to believe that Neil Armstrong was the first human on the moon because people are looking at theories, have no knowledge regarding their subject matter, and are likely separated by over a generation from the events of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Some people have forgotten about all the other guys who actually landed on the moon. Most people who subscribe to such theories have no idea about Pete (deceased), the two Alans (either of whom would likely give one the business if one suggested to them that they didn't do this thing (although one of them is now also gone, and couldn't do such a thing)), Ed, Dave, Jim (also gone now), John, Charlie, Gene and Jack.

A pity, really.

Yes, they were all there, recognized completely in the most documented technical accomplishment in man's history.

punkmonkey,

You have for some reason found Cosmic Conspiracies, a page that has been completely shattered. It doesn't prove anything. It merely shows a bunch of conjecture based upon an utter lack of knowledge.

You appear to have questions!

But your post is far to long, and contains too many points to address at once (you're going to have to read some length and do some self-investigation perhaps to understand what exactly you're looking at).

If you'd like an explanation to any of this, or all of it, you'll have to pick a point at a time, not a whole laundry list. In lieu of investigating some of the adequate links that have been given you, ask one...but don't get into the flag waving business. That's already been completely explained in another thread in this topic area ( "Hey what's that on the moon?") which is now dominated by a troller.

And please, resist the temptation to copy Cosmic Dave's dissertation. Those aren't facts. I see where such a crafty construction could make you doubt, but don't accept that as fact and quote it, as it's been torn down point by point already. Phrase your questions yourself. I'll be glad to help you understand. Also, identify your photos if you want to question them...it makes it alot easier than searching through all the archives (there are around 6000 photos taken on the surface of the moon) to see if the picture actually exists or was cropped, etc. (mission certainly, magazine and number if possible).

I think your correct in your conjecture about those that believe the moon landings were faked.
That theory of yours would be correct as well.
It was something characteristic of the generation of people who participated in this effort.

This makes me sad, very sad. To have accomplished so much, to have done such a historic thing, only to have others discount, deny, and flat out lie about it! Those who do this nonsense for personal gain disgust me. Not only do the lies of the conspiracy theorists serve to perpetuate ignorance, they are darn right insulting to the people who gave this task their all. For some "their all" meant giving up their lives.

Apollo 1 Grissom, White, Chaffee

link to information

Add me to that list. I feel it is shameful to even suggest these fellows did not say what they did. Some crackpot conspiracy theorist comes up with a bunch of crazy ideas and so many jump on the bandwagon.
At least to thinking people these conspiracy theorists are seen for what they really are, shame they have the opportunity to propgate their ridiculous daydreams to people wihtout knowledge on the subject and gain support in this fashion.
Such allegations should be regarded as treason.

MID, please excuse my ignorance, I take it you were invloved in the Appollo mission - did you go to the Moon?

It also saddens me to see these outrageous claims. To take away from the beautiful accomplishments of those brave men...I condemn those who say such treasonous things!

well, there is the fact those two brothers (cant remember thier names at the moment) foold millions of people saying that they saw dragons n the SF bay, LOL

There is NO good evidence that it was faked though...all these ridiculous claims can be disproved EASILY.

I am an American and I am old enough to remember watching many of the Apollo missions on TV - but I was quite young watching all this with my parents and family. Back then, so many believed anything, and often never questioned things..

But, as I grew older, and not seeing a whole lot further gained regarding "out there" well that REALLY bothered me- and still does. And many, as well as myself, have seen strange things over the years out there..
Well, I began to wonder if we really did make it to the moon and who's lying and who's telling the truth.

However, from this forum, and after reading many excellent, outstanding, and thorough posts written by MID.. well, my thoughts have been assured that we HAVE been to the moon. I am relieved and greatful.

AND MID has gained my respect by being "truthful" about other things as well. I trust him.

Sometimes it's not what we know, but WHO we know.. and I really appreciate MID and a few others on this terrific forum for helping me along.

*cheers!*

A happy ending

MID, i never said it was fact, it is just what i believe as proof to my opinion and theory that we faked the moon landing... i believe we could have because in that time we wanted to be the greatest, no matter how we got there, plus... the reason i believe we didnt land is because we didnt have technology to do so, or else there would have been a giant crater, caust by 6,000 (or more) pounds of thrust we used to "land" and yeat still no crater.....

i have also noticed some wierd stuff in many pictures, even though the side we came out of the LEM was covered in shadow, we werent. (odd...)

as for the flag waving, i really dont thin there is a possible wat some rod was holding it up, because you would see the eledged "supporter rod"

even though people think they debunked the shadows thery, there is still the fack that shadows were pointing in different direction, which is obvious proof of multiple light sources and the only light source available was the sun, no lamps or anything else....

lilly, i am american, and i am proud of our country, but there is sometime, where you have to belive what YOU think and not what the government makes you, me telling my mind on how i think the moon landing is fake is not insulluting them, but is showing my beliefs and what i think is evidence to what i belive was the greatest cover up in american history,

take roswell, (2nd on my list) as an example, first they said it was supposed to be the remains of a weather baloon, but since since ruber is not mettalic, they changed there story to " they were testing a ne spy baloon" LMAO!!!!!!! why would intelligent people like us make a spy device that we cannot control? (able to be proven)

Did you not even bother to read my earlier post on that?

how could we get source from a second sun or star or whatever like... alot of light yaers away?


i dont think it is possible

I am not American, and even I am proud of the achievement these fellows made. Your beliefs are insulting to these fellows because they were there Like so many others you put much more faith in goverment than it deserves. It is an organisation like any other, run by a multitude of people with it's problems. I really do not think there is a government organisation capable of pulling of such a hoax. They are just not competent enough. This is an idea you are playing with for personal gratification. You are saying to those men that they are liars. You wouldnt like that would you? This is why you are seen as offensive. We are pretty lucky to have someone who has been involved come here and share their experiences of what is a massive human achievment first hand with us.

Roswell, how about this for the other side of the coin. How on earth did the recovered "unbreakable" material break on impact? I think both sides are a little guilty on this one.

To big of an operation and too many people involved for it to be a hoax.
Would not have taken long before someone with a high position from NASA, Pentagon or Capitol to come out, write a book about it and cash in if it was a hoax.

That isn't at all what I said, so I guess you didn't read it. This is what I said:



Google the word "earthshine". When on the moon, the Earth would be the second source of light.

MID is without a doubt the undisputed Apollo expert on this forum. Listen and learn people.

Good Grief! The government doesn't make me think anything. If you knew me, you'd realize that this idea is almost humorous. Scientific inquiry leads me...certainly not politicians or spin doctors of any sort!

The evidence that the moon landing were hoaxed is absolutely without scientific merit. Have you read Jay's Clavius site regarding photo analysis? If not, then you really need to set aside some time to read this information.

Thanks, psyche...
I of course agree with what you've said, and with what many others have said on this thread regarding the Apollo conspiracy "theories", and the somewhat treasonous nature of propagating such a silly idea, which of course dishonors those who did this thing, and especially those who gave their lives in the effort (as Lilly has so aptly pointed out).

No, I did not go to the moon, psyche. There were 12 very special men who walked there. In fact, there were many very special and equally qualified men who flew these, and all the Apollo missions in addition to the 12 who actually landed, and there were hundreds of people who worked in Mission Control and in the back rooms who were equally responsible and equally as special in their abilities (many of whom I considered role models)...as well as the hundreds of thousands of others who worked their hearts out on their respective areas.

For my part I prefer not to delve into my past history. I will say that Mercury, Gemini and Apollo shaped my life and character, and I was priveleged to be around in that fantastic time in history. I just know something about it, and I like to help others understand what happened, both from a technical standpoint (while attempting not to be inaccessible), and from an emotional standpoint...because believe me, that was an emotional effort!

Cinders,


My deepest gratitude to you, for your kind words...

[attachmentid=26063]

punkmonkey...

It's OK to believe something. That's OK, until it is shown to you that your beliefs are based on what I refer to as un-informed impressions or speculations.

This is not a criticism of you, mind you. I have said before that it is entirely logical to me to realize that an entire generation-or-so of people could be led to beleive in a fallacy by others that have a commercial motive and play upon the fact that some people were not around when this thing happened, and have little or no knowledge regarding the science and technology behind it.

This is one of the reasons why I rather insist that people with questions or doubts get into one aspect at a time, because sometimes the explanations require a little time.

You have put forth several points of contention above. Again, too many to address in one post .

I will say this:

Regarding photographic anomalies, There is absolutely nothing in any Apollo lunar surface photo that shows anything but natural effects. I can explain to you about the very effective backlighting that was present on the moon (due to the lack of atmoshere), something which was described by Neil Armstrong about 1 minute into the first EVA on the lunar surface.

I can also tell you that in the lunar photos where shadows appear (on the two-dimensional depiction of a three-dimensional scene) to be going in different directions, that such a representation is perfectly natural, and if the shadows didn't appear that way, something would be very wrong with physical reality on the moon (in fact, the same phenomena can be observed in many earth photos).

As to the flag, I can assure you that the horizontal support was in fact there.
You cannot see it because the flag itself was wrapped around the thin metal bar, which the astronauts deployed in order to hold the flag out horizontally, because the flag would not be visible otherwise, since there was no air on the moon to make the flag blow (it would just hang there limply, as any flag on earth does on a windless day).

Click on the picture at the top of this post. This is identified as AS17-134-20384, taken during Apollo 17 in December of 1972. I think you'll be able to see exactly what I'm talking about vis-a-vis the flag.

In your first paragraph, you state that we wanted to be the greatest, no matter how we got there.

I will say that we wanted to win a race in space, and we wanted to win it for political reasons, initially. We also, however, wanted to win it in the best way we could do it. It was the American way. That's why so many worked for about a decade to accomplish the goal, with a great deal of sweat, blood, and tears. And, contrary to the Soviets, we did it in full view of the world. Apollo, for those of us who participated, or even watched it all unfold, became much more than something bordered by the banality of politics...it became almost a spiritual quest, something that reflected the expansion of human consciousness...

I will also tell you that we did indeed have the technology. In fact, we invented the technology (that's why it took the best part of a decade to do this thing). And...we proved ourselves the best at what we attempted to do, because we did it. The Soviets failed, lost the initial race, destroyed their lunar landing capability in July 1969, and eventually gave up that particular aspect of their efforts (this is not to diminish what they actually accomplished).

Engineeers at Grumman spent years working their butts off on the LM...technology that proved itself on Apollo 9, and 10, and of course on 11, 12, 13 (magnificently), 14, 15, 16, and 17. And I will explain to you, if you wish, that the thrust that the LM DPS was pumping when the LMs were close to the surface was not anywhere close to 6000 pounds, and that the actual exhaust pressure (lbs/cu in) coming out of the DPS engine bell was nowhere near strong enough to do anything but what it actually did....blow the regolith away beneath the LM. It was no where near powerful enough to induce a "giant crater" in the extremely compact and hard substrate that existed a couple inches below the surface dust.

I understand your doubts, but the point is, you'll have to address one thing at a time, because the explanations may take a little "explaining".

By all means, if you have these questions, pick one, and ask. I'll be glad to help you out.

You are correct in this respect, punk...

Earthshine is a source of light certainly, but as pertains to Apollo lunar landings and the lighting present when they happened, there was no significant impact of earthlight on the surface of the moon.

We landed in broad daylight, with a sun shining unfiltered by an atmosphere on the surface. That light, brighter than anything seen on this planet, far and away outshown the earth's reflected light.

There was only one effective lighting source on the moon. The sun.

Words of an honorable man...

Agreed

And thank you for your time and response MID And to all of mission control and the marvellous efforts of these real life heroes.

More valuable shared talent and knowledge in UM. This place gets better all the time.

You are most welcome, psyche...

You folks humble me.

What I really hope for is that punkmonkey will come back and question things, as I've asked.

The fun part of things like this forum is that occasionally, someone can learn something. That of course takes individual effort, but I cannot see how learning something, coming to an understanding of what, why, and how, can't be fun.

Thanks again to everyone!

I hope he does too. I've learned several things already from this thread, the websites listed and from you MID. This has turned into a very interesting topic.

im baaaaaaaaack.....

i havent been on for a while because i got world of warcraft and was playing it, i do happen to ask why it was that we would drive to on place where we started driving (or walking, i cannot remember) as show in the pictures on page one, it also seem wierd to me that in one picture of a mountan, you can see the LEM, and in a picture of the SAME mountan, the LEM base (which should still be there) is gone

alot of people here think im crazy, i can tell by thier messages, but it is not as bad as this theory for flu shots that say" flu shots are given to us on christmas every year so we think we have no time to buy presents and spend all of our money buy presents....." LMFAO!!!!!!!