http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

this will make u believe that the moon landing was fake.

This should really be in the conspiracy forum.

Ask one of the mods to move it for you.

I'd say you're post is in the wrong forum, but I know this material. I have the book. Quite a consistant legend, if I do say so.
Thanks for the post.

Ok thx. I kknew I had the wrong forum but I couldn't see the other one. I tried and couldn't be bothered to look that hard. Soz.

great find,

only i don't think we will ever know the truth of anything when it comes to being a fake, especially something as big as this, even if something is real and it gets debunked we will still never know unfortunatley. When it comes to conspiracies tho, I wouldn't put anything past them.

I belive that we are all being lied to one way or another, so either way mankind still would never know what was fake and what is real and always accepting what we are told by our governments will keep us in line and for that reason we maybe blinded by what could really be there, right in front of our eyes. Just a thought to ponder.

I could make a commentary about how this effort reflects the sort of research effort many have come to expect from conspiracy theorists in general, but I'll just move this to were it belongs instead.

Please not this again.

Same tired old arguements that have been debunked time and time again. It looks like a badly cobbled together page of both pro and con arguements. Of course they have a lot more of the con material but it is still the exact same stuff you find on other sites. It doesn't make any of it any more valid. Every single thing on there has been debunked over and over again for years.

I doubt it's actually a 'con' as you put it but rather genuinely believed material, stating it as con material is an acusation unfounded. A person can genuinely believe something to be fraud and while passing along the material have genuine motives.

I couldn't agree more...

I meant "pro and con" as in "for and against". No other meaning was implied or intended.

I went and looked at some of the debating that happened in the past with this topic... got pretty heated eh? good information on both sides.

Uh...I guess so. What does that have to do with my comment?

I meant to be on topic all of the 'fors' and 'against' both on this thread and the ones in the past relating threads.

virusdeath .... I already have no doubt that the moon landings were faked .... but thanks for posting this link ... I have been looking for this one everywhere and couldn't find it again ... I was beginning to think that maybe NASA had it pullled and murdered everyone involved with putting it online ...

Just kidding NASA defenders ... I know how most of you have no sence of humor about this subject .

Sadly not all of the conspiracy information has been debunked , as our friend freant would like to have us all believe .... And the future missions to moon in the year 2020 ( if they ever happen at all ) will most likely be NASA's undoing and eventually prove once and for all that Apollo was nothing more than a publicity stunt and a scam .... That is unless the military/industrial complex decides to fake it again with new special effects .... Just think what kind of movie production they would be able to produce the next time with all that future computer graphics and photoshop technology at NASA's disposal ! ....It would put all of those phony Apollo videos and photos to shame , for sure.

Well, it didn't make me believe, but it was a pretty interesting link.

Very qiuckly, re the Nine Space Oddities:-

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

Correst! Mission Control teases him. He hit it his initial shot about two yards.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

A guy in mission control, allowing for the two second delay.

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

That's a photo of Aldrin - Arsmtrong is taking it.

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

The pressure garment was designed with articulated joints to alllow movement.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

Thousands of photos, hours of film, 380 kilos of rocks aren't enough to satisfy HBers - they would claim that this had been doen by a remote lander.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

Picture reference number required please.

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

The astronaut is in mid-jump, so his shadow isn't immediately below him. The flag isn't fluttering, it's made of nylon which is easily creased. The next picture in the sequence shows the exact same crease pattern - the video taken at the same time shows no fluttering

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

Direct and reflected sunlight (from lunar surface and LM). The stars are in the sky - can't see them as it's impossible to have the lunar surface and the stars correctly exposed. Ask any amatuer astrophotographer.

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

Pressure = Force/Area. The descent stage rocket DOES show evidence of having scoured the surface regolith away from underneath the rocket.

All debunked in the space of a few minutes. I'll flesh it out when I have some more time.

Alternatively if they mean the video of Armstrong stepping onto the surface, there was a video camera attached to an arm that was lowered as he exited.

This is like a family reunion Hey guys!



This however is new to me LOL

No, even after that I still don't think the moon landing was a hoax. Nice try though.

QUOTE
An interesting speech reversal can be found on Neil Armstrong's legendary 'One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind' statement. When played backwards Neil seems to say 'Man never space walk.' Listen to it for yourself.



Kinda like playing one of the songs (I forget which one) from the Beatle's Abby Road album, supposedly said, "Paul is dead". Wow, that was accurate (sarcasm mode).

Ah yes, a wonderful little family reunion...
Hi guys (and gal!).

And Posty, again, you make quick work of the situation!

Allow me to embellish a little (I promise!):


Correct. His name was Ed Fendell, affectionately known as "Captain Video". He controlled all of the LRV camera movement during the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions.



The pressure inside the suits is just like it is today, between 3.5 and 4 PSI, pure oxygen. This oxygen pressure is adequate to support life (in fact, it is equivalent to the partial pressure of oxygen in our atmosphere at 14.7 PSI). Not only was the suit designed with special joints, it has a special bellows construction to prevent any balooning. A football bladder has absolutely no relation to an Apollo EMU pressure garment. There was a BIG difference between the pressure garment in a one million dollar Apollo EMU and the bladder inside of a typical $50.00 (good quality) football.

I thought that seeing it all happen live on TV was more than enough PR. I'm supposing we should've made a big bonfire? Then again, that couldn't have been seen in cloudy areas, or on the other side of the planet, where it was daytime and Moon wasn't visible...


...oh yea, there's that little lack of oxygen thing as well...I forgot.





OH YES...HB rule...Identify all material, especially photos, since there were about 6000 of them taken on the lunar surface.
I cannot wait to see the picture where the photographer doesn't have a Hasselblad...

But I will concede that the text from the article was correct. Only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 EVAs. In fact, only two men walked on the Moon in all of the Apollo EVAs.


...I'm still trying to figure out how we got to see both of them on TV during all of those many EVAs...

I think this person meant to imply that the flag was edge-on, or perfectly parallel to the suns rays, and thus, it should've been in the shadow of the post...?
I would want to ask how a flag, which never hung perfectly flattened, and always had surfaces in the sunlight, could be expected not to be lit up...?



The astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust?
How can one tell, since the LM pads settled into the dust and never moved? You cannot see the impression they made in the dust (indeed, we never have seen this).

The lander weighed about 2.8 tons. It's mass was 17 tons. It's 4 roughly 3 foot diameter footpads would disperse that weight to about 1.4 pounds per square inch of area. An astronaut weighed about 60 pounds. His foot print was somewhere around 60 square inches, which equates to around 1/2 pound per square inch of sole area. Now the photos, and astronaut descriptions, show that feet went in anywhere from 1/8 to 1/2 inch, depending on what the surface was like where they were stepping. Alternately, the crews all described LM footpad impressions in the 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 inch range.

Sort of makes sense to me...

Posty is of course correct...there is plenty of evidence of the LM DPS blasting away the surface dust in all Apollo mission photo sets.
I should ask the poster:

How should the engine of the DPS look after it's been fired?
Please indicate why the DPS engine should've made a crater in the lunar surface, when it has been clearly established that it couldn't have done so, given it's exhaust gas pressure at touchdown.

A family reunion and right after Christmas too ... Isn't that sweet !

Hi MID ... Hey everybody ... Yep , Posty is pretty quick on the draw with those famous clavius 'debunks' isn't he ?

We now have twenty three posts so far and this thread hasn't even turned into a brawl or been locked yet ? .... Will wonders never cease !

But we all know that if the black sheep of this little family ( that mangy straydog ) had posted this topic link here it would have already been locked ... Like right after the first post .

I am tired of this topic. It seems to be everywhere.






Top 10 Apollo Hoax Theories
By Robert Myers and Robert Pearlman
SPACE.com



In the early days of the Cold War, three men claim they were chosen by a powerful new government agency to undertake a historically perilous journey. They claim this well-funded operation was staffed with the best scientists and engineers using technology pioneered by the Nazis, and they created the most powerful machine ever built.

In July of 1969, they claim, they climbed aboard an enormous rocket assembled in a Florida swamp, and were sent hurtling at incredible speeds into the sky … all the way to the Moon! Two of them even claim they landed on the Moon, got out, and walked around!


Below:
The 10 Wildest Theories Against the Moon Landings
And what prize did they bring back from this momentous journey? Well … they have a bunch of black and white photos of unidentifiable persons in bulky white spacemen costumes in a field of gravel (but curiously without any stars in the black sky) -- and several bags of gray, dusty rocks.

Put that way, the story of the Apollo program can sound pretty far-fetched.

But why should we believe the stories? What evidence is there, really, that the Apollo program landed men on the Moon and brought them back?

Phil Plait, an astronomer at Sonoma University in California, and the Web master of BadAstronomy.com, has his reasons.

"If I were trying to fake this, I would put stars in the image," he said referring to the complaint made by hoax proponents that the Apollo photos lack stars. If this had been an oversight, he said, it's an amazingly stupid thing to have forgotten, considering the scope of the "hoax."

Not to mention that with the way cameras work, photographing stars under those conditions would have been nearly impossible.

"If you do know about physics and photographs, you can see these arguments are all ridiculous," Plait said.

So why do people even give an idea like this a second thought?

"I'm not exactly sure," said Plait, "Michael Shermer is a renowned skeptic… and he has a list of reasons (such as) we have an innate thing inside of our brain, we have a need to believe."

"But one thing he leaves off, is that some of these things are just believable. If you don't know much physics, these arguments might sound convincing."

Besides, Plait says the political realities of the time would have made a fraud of that scale almost impossible to pull off.

"We went to the moon to beat the Soviets. If the Soviets had suspected that we faked these missions in any way, they would have been screaming at the top of their lungs."

The Ten Wildest Theories Against the Moon Landings:

10. Fluttering Flag

The Claim: The American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.



The Science: If you look closely, you will notice the flag's edges are pulled taught. This effect, which was done purposely as to not allow the flag to just hang flat, it was created by inserting a stiff wire into the fabric. The "flutter" was created as the astronauts worked to erect the flag. As the wire was adjusted, "Old Glory" appeared to wave.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



9. Glow-in-the-Dark Astronauts

The Claim: If the astronauts had left the safety of the Van Allen Belt the radiation would have killed them.




Simulated Van Allen Belts.



The Science: The Van Allen Belts are created by Earth's magnetic field, and protect the planet from dangerous solar radiation. The belts collects this radiation, and traps it in a layer surrounding the Earth. But unless you deliberately caused your spaceship to hover within this layer, for many hours or days, the radiation exposure is well below dangerous levels. The Apollo astronauts passed through the Belts in less than four hours total for the trip. "It's not much more serious than getting a chest x-ray," said Plait.

Outside the belt, the radiation drops to low levels that are only dangerous over extremely long periods of time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



8. The Shadow Knows

The Claim: Multiple-angle shadows in the Moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp.


The Science: The astronauts were taking their photos on a hilly, brightly-lit landscape while the Sun was close to the horizon. Imagine taking a photograph of someone on a rolling, uneven field of snow during a full, low-hanging Moon. The contours of the ground would produce shadows of many different lengths.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


7. Fried Film

The Claim: In the Sun, the Moon's temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted.




Alan Bean's Hasselblad camera is strapped to the middle of his chest.



The Science: No one was leaving bare film out on the hot lunar surface. All material was contained in protective canisters. In addition, at the time the Apollo missions landed, they were either at lunar dawn or dusk. As a result, the temperature was more easily manageable.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


6. Liquid Water on the Moon

The Claim: To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil, doesn't it?


The Science: Not always. If you take some dry fine-grained dust such as talcum powder and dump it out, it's easy to make tracks in it that hold their shape. The particles hold their positions due to the friction between them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



5. Death by Meteor

The Claim: Space is filled with super-fast micro meteors that would punch through the ship and kill the astronauts.




The Leonid meteors burning up in Earth's atmosphere, as seen from space. Forced perspective make them appear much closer together.



The Science: Space is really amazingly big. While there are indeed an uncountable number of tiny pieces of debris travelling through the Solar System at speeds in the neighborhood of 120,000MPH, the volume of space keeps the density low. The chance of any given cubic yard of space having a micro-meteor passing through it is incredibly close to zero. Additionally, the astronauts suits included a layer of kevlar to protect them from any tiny fragment they might encounter.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


4. No Crater at Landing Site

The Claim: When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the "dusty surface."



The Science: Beneath the layer of dust, the Moon is made of fairly densely-packed rock. What dust and loose dirt there was though, was "kicked up" as referenced by the astronauts and captured in their landing films.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



3. Phantom Cameraman

The Claim: How come in that one video of the LEM leaving the surface, the camera follows it up into the sky? Who was running that camera?




Apollo 17 lifts off from the Moon.



The Science: Though we are sure the photographer, Ed Fendell, would have loved to have been on the lunar surface instead of at his seat in Mission Control, he indeed was in Houston remotely controlling a television camera on the lunar rover (which was left on the surface).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2. Big Rover

The Claim: There's no way that big moon buggy they were driving could have fit into that little landing module!



The Science: The rover was very cleverly constructed to be made out of very light materials, and designed to fold up to about the size of a large suitcase.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1. Its Full of Stars!

The Claim: Space is littered with little points of lights (stars). Why then are they missing from the photographs?



The Science: If you've ever taken a photograph outside at night, you'll notice that faint distant objects don't show up. That's not because the air blocks them -- it's because the brightness of the nearby objects washes out the film. In fact if you were standing on the day side of the Moon, you'd have to somehow block the landscape out in order for your eyes to adapt enough to pick out the stars.




Source

Well,
That may be, since straydog has already posted such stuff and has had things explained to him and has a tendency to persist beyond any ability to argue to the contrary. For him to post such a thing again might result in a lockdown, since it would be redundant, and ridiculous.
But we don't have to find out, since someone else posted the link.
He or she may be interested in learning something, so we'll see how that pans out.

See what I mean about being the black sheep of the moon hoax family ? ... That big meany MID just accused me of being ridiculous and redundant ! ...

I'll tell you what's "ridiculous and redundant "... Those pitiful copy and paste clavius moon hoax 'debunks' first from Posty and now from Ghostkol .

Sorry MID but it looks to me like the OP on this thread has already seen through the Apollo smoke screen barely covering up their bogus moon missions and knows the truth when they see it .... As in : The Apollo moon landings were science fiction !

The OP hasn't yet responded. We'll see...maybe you have an ally. Maybe someone is willing to actually learn.

Ridiculous and redundant is ridiculous and redundant. That's not mean, stray. That's just what is.

I don't know about Clavius cut and pastes...but they do seem to be pertinent, if that's what they are... written by someone who actually knows a few things about it. But I realize you think Dr. J.W. is a NASA stooge...which is fine. I'm sure he'd be amused. I am a stooge too, apparently...or at least a NASA dis-information specialist (I am not used to being demoted thus!!!).


It isn't actually possible to see through a "smoke screen" that never existed. It is of course possible to mis-interpret, based upon lack of subject-matter knowledge. That has invariably been the case to date...

Hopefully, this person is curious, rather than insistent on that which he or she has no hope of proving.

That's rich coming from the King of Copy and Paste!

It's also untrue - and I'm tired of saying I quote sources ad nauseam whenever I do copy and paste. If Clavius has similar arguments, that's because they're very probably true. Please provide the link to where I copied and pasted my answers from, or withdraw the claim that I copied and pasted. Nice try at changing the subject, I'm assuming it's because you know the brief answers I gave are essentially true. If you think they are false, please provide an argument and some supporting evidence - rather than yet again hiding behind your strawman.

MID ..... There may be no hope of proving that Apollo was a hoax to you or to those who believe what you do about the alleged manned moon missions , but there are plenty of people who are open minded enough to look at the conspiracy evidence with a different perspective than somone like you , who apparently has a vested interest in this.... After all , you claimed to have worked on the Apollo Program .... So even if you suspected that something was very wrong with the official Apollo record , you would never admit to it .

Quite frankly i cannot be bothered to trawl through the tons of evidence/ theories that the moon landing was fake or not. I am quite happy to stay open minded about all of this, and can't decide which way to go , hence the open mind. However i do have 1 question. Why haven't we been back? We have much better technology and could do it much easier. This is why i think it was done/faked just to do it before USSR did it. This is the only reason i can think it might of been faked. But that still doesn't answer why we havent had another manned mission to anywhere other than orbit. Answers?

Simple - lack of money and political will!

Although strictly speaking, we have been "back" five times already , since there were six successful Apollo lunar landings. And with the demise of the expensive space shuttle, new missions are now being planned for 2020.

I'm into that!


And while we're at it...

I do not believe. I know. As has been pointed out to you many times, there is a difference between knowledge, and belief.
You believe. I know.



No, I did not ever claim such a thing.
I said I was involved. You may take that to mean what you will.
I do not speak of my specific involvement, nor tout any particular credentials. They are meaningless here, as you, or anyone else, cannot confirm or deny them (after all, let's consider that Jay over at Clavius has a PhD in an associated discipline....and despite the fact that he's written an erudite, and articulate treatise (I often wonder how busy he really is with his actual work!) concerning the main contentions of hoax believers, and explains in pretty concise terms why they're all wet (I know, a decidedly un-scientific term)...you think he's a NASA STOOGE! So much for credentials and their meaning on the world-wide-web....

I have repeatedly said I was involved. That's all. I have also repeatedly said that the content of one's posts show what's really going on with someone. It is appearent that some posters here have something going on...

It is also apparent that you have alot of belief, and not alot of technical knowledge about what happened or how. You actually consider Jack White an authority, and Jay at Clavius a NASA stooge...You think Sibrel has is something other than a second-rate film maker who fabricated his product out of silliness, and an actual scientist is a stooge....see what I'm saying here?




So...your conjecture is wrong. If I suspected something was wrong with the NASA record, I would be compelled to show proof of that. That would require scientific inquiry and substantive evidentiary manifestations....which is not to be forthcoming, since everything put out by NASA regarding Apollo meets every criteria for scientific scrutiny that exists.


You are correct, stray. There is no hope of proving that Apollo was a hoax...to me, or several others on this board. This is because Apollo was a factual occurrance, and no one, yourself included, has ever provided one jot of evidence that shows that it was a hoax...not in the slightest. Your arguments meet no standard of proof known or accepted. They are based upon conjecture and belief, and as has been clearly shown, they are in many cases based upon a decided lack of technical knowledge in the subject matter.

Again, I will say that that fact is not an insult. It is simply something that is. Many of us are here to educate...not to argue. But if your positions are filled with emotional attachment to an illusory ideal, there's really not much we can do to break through that and get you to actually investigate the sciences and technologies involved.

I wish it could be different...in Jack White's case, he's far too old to reach. He believes far too much, and has decided intellectual issues which have caused him to publish virtual idiocies regarding photographic anomalies that do not exist. In your case...you are not that old.

I shall say that listening to Posty on this will provide you the answer to your question in a nutshell....
Why haven't we been back (since Apollo 17) is a result of funding, which is of course associated with public will and governmental support. Those two apsects shape everything we have done as a nation concerning space exploration...and many other things.

We do have more advanced technology...but going to the Moon wasn't simple in 1969, and it shall not be simple in 2020. We will however do it in the future, just as we did it in the 1960s and 1970s.

You said you had an open mind about this, and in the next breath described why you think it was faked. The reason you cited for this is a common facet of human and societal nature, which it would behoove everyone to understand.

On 1972, many of us who had involvement with the program in some way were chagrined...pissed-off, quite frankly, at Nixon's premature scrapping of the Apollo program...but this was just the way things were...and are, and that was the reason for the cancellation of the final 3 Apollo missions, and for the fact that we haven't been back since.

But, we will return.

Fleshed out version, with typos corrected hopefully!

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

Correct! Mission Control teases him. He topped his first shot, then managed to hit it 2 or 3 feet. That's when Haise (mission control) says it looks like a slice. On the third attempt he hits the first ball some distance, and then hits his second ball even further with his first attempt.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14.clsout2.html - scroll to 135:08:11. You can read the transcription from the audio, and even see a (low res) video of his golf shots.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

As explained by MID, this was Ed Fendell. There is an interview with him here.

Briefly, this was done using the TV camera on the rover, remotely controlled from Earth. On Apollo 15 the motor was burned out so it didn't work - on Apollo 16 the rover was parked the wrong distance from the LM. They finally got it right on Apollo 17, as you can see here.

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

There are no photos taken by Aldrin of Armstrong descending the ladder. There is of course TV footage, but this is looking at Armstrong from the side, not from below. The only photos I can imagine the author is referring to is the sequence from AS11-40-5862 to AS11-40-5869 - this shows Aldrin descending the ladder, with Armstrong taking the photos. Incidentally, he was not "lying on the surface", as you can see from the TV sequence taken at the same time.

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

The pressure garment was designed with articulated joints to allow movement.

"The basic design of the A7L suit was a one piece, five-layer "torso-limb" suit with convoluted joints made of synthetic rubber at the elbow and knee joints, "link-net" meshing to prevent the suit from ballooning, and a shoulder "cable block" assembly to allow the shoulder to be extended and retracted by its wearer." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_A7L

Here's what the suit looked like without the outer protective layer of the pressure garment (the outermost layer was not pressurised).



5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

Thousands of photos, hours of film, 380 kilos of rocks aren't enough to satisfy HBers - they would claim that this had been doen by a remote lander.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

Picture reference number STILL required please!!!

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

Firstly, the astronaut is in mid-jump, so his shadow isn't immediately below him.

Secondly, the flag isn't fluttering, it's made of nylon which is easily creased. The first and second pictures in the sequence shows the exact same crease pattern - the video taken at the same time shows no fluttering. The GIF I produced below from two consecutive images demonstrates the point. You can see TV footage taken at the same time here - which also shows no fluttering.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70/apollo/Jump2.gif

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

Also see MIDs answer. Direct and reflected sunlight (from lunar surface and LM) - the nylon flag could easily be backlit as well as lit from in front.

As for the stars are in the sky - you can't see them in photos, as it's impossible to have the both the brightly lit lunar surface and the stars correctly exposed in the same photo. Ask any amateur astrophotographer.

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

See MIDs answer re the lander and astronauts feet making dents.

The descent stage rocket DOES show evidence of having scoured the surface regolith away from underneath the rocket. For example, this photo from Apollo 12.

And MID had the nerve to call me ridiculous and redundant ... .... Good grief Posty ... Please give it a rest already .... Now I'm even getting tired of this discussion .

im getting tired of this website actually for there is no fair conceding of any thread and its more about who can spit the in your face the most. Take care straydog im outa here

expo2 .... That's a very astute observation and also a very wise decision .... and if I had any brains I would have done the same thing myself a long time ago .

straydog

There may well be people reading this thread, or others, who would take at face value any of the nonsense about the moon landings that you and others espouse. Only fair to point them in the right direction!

Of course, if you're tired of a particular discussion, then don't post in the thread - simple. I'm tired too... the same old arguments that have been explained and debunked over and ober - but some people insist on repeating them. It's called an argumentum ad nauseam - keep repeating the same flawed argument over and over in the hope that people will get bored of refuting it, then claim to have won the argument. I hope that's never allowed to happen where Apollo is concerned.

Straydog,

You seem to have some issues with the thread, but I haven't seen you actually refute any of the explanations given that oppose your propositions.

Could you refute those counter-arguements given, to help me determine the validity of your position?

Thank you.

Straydog, if you have nothing to contribute (and, frankly, you stopped contributing and began repeating yourself quite some time ago), then do not post.

Hey buddy that " Copy and Paste" came from Space.com, click the source link below so it is certaily not "ridiculous and redundant.


P.S. Atleast I post something that has common sense

Posty, please provide a source link everytime you "Copy and Paste".

erm......no

Ghostkol, what is wrong with the three links that postbaguk has provided with his reply?

Can they really use a remote control from Earth to get something to work on the MooN!!!!!!!! ...That distance !!!!

How?????

Answer 1. Yes
Answer 2. Radio.

NASA can communicate with spacecraft further away than Pluto, the moon is very near by in astronomical terms. The only real problem is the time taken for the round trip. For the moon this is, as postbaguk has already stated, only 2 seconds.

We are controlling things via remote control that are running around on the surface of Mars(and in orbit as well) and we also have things we are controlling via remote control that are near the edge of our solar system...We have some pretty nifty technology. How do we do it? Big antennas...good batteries... great engineering. Don't let people here fool you into thinking that we cannot do things we put our minds to it. The technology to control things remotely has been around long before the moon landing and it works well...

I'll take that as a fair concession...

But seriously, what you are talking about is for those of us who actually have some subject-matter knowledge to give it up to those that don't, and who wish to hold onto their beliefs rather than investigate the actual information for themselves and grab hold of the facts.

There can be no conceding a thread like this, unless you do it. But that won't actually be satisfactory either until you've proven you've done your homework, and investigated the links, resources, and information given you, and therefore came to an understanding of what you were missing in your initial argument.

In lieu of that, it is probably best that you cease posting, since all that will be done is to regurgitate long ago explained (as in debunked) information. That will make anyone tired.

Whilst this is true, these craft need a high degree of autonomy. The 2 way time delay to Mars is in excess 20 minutes so if one of the Mars Exploration Rovers is about to fall down a hole it would be ten minutes before controllers on Earth would know and another ten minutes befor the command to stop was received by the rover by which time it would have been in the hole for 20 minutes. For a spacecraft on the edge of the solar system this delay is measured in hours so the spacecraft has to be fully autonomous.

A delay of only a few seconds is easily compensated for. Most talk radio stations deliberately introduce a delay of this length to censor "live" callers, yet they still manage to give accurate time checks. Autonomy is not an issue for an unmanned lunar spacecraft. The two Soviet Lunokhod moon rovers were controlled by remote control and this was a far more complicated procedure than moving a TV camera.

I can't help but note that both expo and straydog are conspicuous by their absence in various threads (even though they have been on the forum).