Moon landing was fake

[straydog]

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 !

[MID]

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.

[postbaguk]

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 .

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.

Edited December 27, 2006 by postbaguk

[straydog]

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 .

[Adam2006]

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?

[postbaguk]

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.

[MID]

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.

I'm into that!

And while we're at it...

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....

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.

After all , you claimed to have worked on the Apollo Program ....

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 even if you suspected that something was very wrong with the official Apollo record , you would never admit to it .

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.

[MID]

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?

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...p***ed-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.

[postbaguk]

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.

[straydog]

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 .

Edited December 27, 2006 by straydog

[expo2]

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

[straydog]

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 .

[postbaguk]

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 .

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.

[Obviousman]

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 .

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.

[aquatus1]

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

[Picturesque Orion]

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 !

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

[Picturesque Orion]

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

[itsnotoutthere]

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

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

erm......no

[Waspie_Dwarf]

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

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

[crystal sage]

Fleshed out version, with typos corrected hopefully!

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.

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.[/indent]

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

How?????

Edited December 27, 2006 by crystal sage

[Waspie_Dwarf]

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.

Edited December 27, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf
corrected typo.

[Fluffybunny]

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

How?????

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...

[MID]

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

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.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

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

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.

Edited December 27, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Obviousman]

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).