DID WE LAND ON THE MOON .

[MID]

Not doubting the moon landing or anything.. because I have NO idea about it..

But i nthe photo here: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Shadow_Lengths.htm

Who took the photo? Both astronaughts are in the photo

Replacement...

Just to concur with another comment,

That's not actually a photo, per-se. It's a frame of video taken by a TV camera. Hard to tell what mission that's from but given the terrain, I'd say it's from one of the J-Missions (Apollo 15-17). The TV camera was mounting on the LRV, which was controlled by mission control.

Regards.

[Pharoah]

I think it was fake. Look at the video of the moon landing; the flag was moving, and the gravity on the moon wouldn't allow that would it?

And who was video taping the moon 'walk'? I'm guessin' robotic devices could do that, though.

[Pannkakskungen]

Regarding the flag, quote from this here site - http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Some of the Apollo video shows the American flag fluttering. How can the flag flutter when there is no wind on the airless Moon?

This I find to be one of the more ridiculous observations. It is readily apparent that all the video showing a fluttering flag is one in which an astronaut is grasping the flagpole. He is obviously twisting or jostling the pole, which is making the flag move. In fact, in some video the motion of the flag is unlike anything we would see on Earth. In an atmosphere the motion of the flag would quickly dampen out due to air resistance. In some of the Apollo video we see the twisting motion of the pole resulting in a violent flapping motion in the flag with little dampening effect.

I've heard many hoax advocates claim that some of the Apollo photos show a fluttering flag. (How one can see a flag flutter in a still photograph is a mystery to me!) I can only guess that ripples and wrinkles in the flags are being perceived as wave motion. The flags where attached vertically at the pole and horizontally from a rod across the top. On some flights the astronauts did not fully extend the horizontal rod, so the flags had ripples in them. There is much video footage in which these rippled flags can be seen and, in all cases, they are motionless.

[Megalomania]

Yup, just how they filmed the launches off the moon, by remote from Earth.

Wow, remotes can get that powerful?

Now my TV seems sucky

[SerenitysRiver]

Oy. My government class had a debate on this the other day. Personally, I find it a little pointless.

[Hazzard]

I find it strange that the same questions about the Apollo missions to the moon pop up,and on the same thread.

All the answers to all the hoaxtheorists questions are here on this site.

I suggest that you read them.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

I'll end this on one more bit the HBs don't talk about. When Jim Lovell, two time Apollo astronaut and commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, was told about Kaysing's claims, Lovell called him a kook(woo woo).

Kaysing, ever the rational thinker, sued Lovell for slander. Imagine: Kaysing, who says that NASA murdered three men outright and arranged for the murders of others, sued Commander James Lovell for slander! After some time, a judge wisely threw the case out of court.

There's still hope.

Edited October 6, 2005 by hazzard

[Pannkakskungen]

Wow, remotes can get that powerful?

Now my TV seems sucky

Yup, it was huge, roughly the size of a WWII aircraft carrier, and this being the 60s it didnt have them easy touch buttons that remotes have today, nope, it had big buttons you really had to push down, to do that job NASA had trained a bunch of elephants imported from Thailand. So now you know

[Lilly]

I think it was fake. Look at the video of the moon landing; the flag was moving, and the gravity on the moon wouldn't allow that would it?

I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard this one. Please read this from Clavius. In fact, it's a good idea to take the time to read all of Jay's website...it's well worth it.

[MID]

I think it was fake. Look at the video of the moon landing; the flag was moving, and the gravity on the moon wouldn't allow that would it?

And who was video taping the moon 'walk'? I'm guessin' robotic devices could do that, though.

Pretty much what Pannkakskungen said regarding the flag moving.

Regarding "who was videotaping the moon walk", no one really was The camera was on, sitting there in the distance. Didn't need an operator, just a little guidance on where to put it from mission control. On later missions the camera was attached to the LRV, and was remotely controlled by mission control, who could pan it and raise and lower it's elevation by simple commands.

Regards.

[MID]

Thanks for the replies, MID. Good, in-depth points made, as I've come to expect from you. We are much in agreement on the radiation and the hazards it presented. Thanks for the info on the satellites - I wasn't aware of the progression of launches as you detailed.

It will be interesting to see how the new program develops regarding radiation testing. I, of course, see it as the first actual full bore study of all the potential hazards for a "first time" manned mission to land on the Moon, and yourself as a more rigorous study for the second series of Moon landings, for a longer stay and potential launching point for Mars missions!

Nice to have another positive discussion on the topic. I'm sure we'll have more to talk about on other issues regarding Apollo in the near future. Out of interest, what is your background regarding the space program and/ or NASA specifically? You have quite a wealth of knowledge on the subject.

Cheers.

Hey Turb, you're welcome.

Yes, it will be interesting to see how the new radiation studies progress. I confess to being a little skeptical, however. Not that I don't want them to be doing these things. It's just the reality that many a program of manned space exploration has been proposed and scrapped-up in the beurocratic wasteland of budgetary consideration and less than far-sighted government for three decades now. It's wait and see for me...and I give it about 20% odds of panning out (I keep thinking of how the shuttle, a vehicle which has no real mission, isn't fixed yet, and then I extrapolate to a manned lunar landing vehicle that must be right for a much more compelling and dangerous mission, and I wonder...).

Oh me? I'm just one of those nut-cases who had a pilot's license before he could drive a car, studied aerospace engineering in college, participated in many an Air Force and or NASA sponsored program on space flight or aviation, and wound up abandoning the manned space program because the exploration had left it. I was about a half generation too late to do what I really wanted to do.

But Apollo (and Mercury and Gemini) were very influential on me....just a little. I took models from it for other endeavors...sucessfully.

I think something the experience has done for me, in light especially of the three decades that have passed since Apollo, is to make me open to what some people call stupid questions.

For instance, if, in say, 1975 someone was talking about a lunar landing hoax, I'd have probably told them to make an appointment with a shrink, and quickly. But today, someone can say to me, "Hey, if we can't get a shuttle to fly in earth orbit without blowing up or burning up, how do you expect me to believe we went to the moon in 1969?" , and...

I actually understand the question, based upon where society is nowadays. There's a complete generation plus who haven't been exposed to anything nearly as compelling as Apollo, and the relative absence of education in today's schools regarding such things (historically or scientifically) is apparent to me. I find it interesting and somewhat understandable, not offensive, that people have these questions.

I can certainly see where someone like Buzz Aldrin would swat someone like Bart Sibrel across the noggin for his harrasment, and I am not averse to telling someone like Bill Kaysing that he's a complete joke.

However, I am completely averse to retorting after a legitimate inquiry in a negative fashion (although I confess to having to bite Cosmic Conspiracy's head off to get their attention...which worked and an in depth discussion ensued---resulting in modifications of their web page, appeals from readers to get rid of the apollo hoax page and concentrate on their real emphasis (U.F.O.s), and apparently, their abandonment of further discussion (I may have bored them to death...)). Inquiries like yours, for instance, which are presented voluminously and with intelligence, deserve discussion, not going nowhere comments or complete ridicule.

And so, I look forward to more discussions on the matter, as they present themselves!

Regards.

[UEL]

Wrong. The VLT can - it has a resolution of about 2m (6 ft.) at the distance of the Moon. The lunar rover (11m length x 7.5m width) and the lower half of the lem (9m landing gear span - 4.27m was the module diameter), could indeed be imaged at that length. The rover tracks (over 100m lengths) would be even easier to see.

But, even though they conducted a project dedicated to finding and imaging the Apollo sites, they never did. And they have not explained why they did not get any images, nor why they ended the project, failing to succeed in their goal.

First post, please excuse anything that may have been represented on earlier threads.

I have substantial work experience with satellite and aerial photography.

One thing about using remote sensing systems to identify lunar equipment has three challenges:

- yes, the resolution on these telescopes can identify the equipment, but in order to identify it, the whole field of view of the system should be down to about 50 by 50 metres. This is fine if you know "exactly" where to look. The moon in the late 60s and early 70s did not have highly accurate lunar surveys completed where precise locations were recorded. So as far as knowing where the lunar rover is, if it is known within a 5 km radius, it would take about 32 000 separate images that would have to be interpreted, to what end. If one wanted, you could pan out and do an area search, but by panning out you are reducing the amount of detail available and risking the chance of overlooking the very objects you are trying to identify.

- telescopes like the VLT are geared to tracking distant starfields rather than near lunar surfaces. I am a surveyor, and I would prefer to track a star with my theodolite than the moon. The moon moves so fast that keeping it within view is a challenge. The VLT would have a considerable time keeping the same 50x50 metre view stabilised in the image.

- someone also mentioned this one, but I think it bears repeating. Telescopes like Hubble and VLT are in high demand. By training these resources onto a task to conduct a survey of the lunar surface to detect and identify the lunar rover or the LEM base would be a waste. Afterall, what would be the scientific dividend by investing some telescope time to this task? Their lifespans are finite, and if we are to learn about the wonderful universe in which we live, these systems will have to stay focussed on these tasks.

In the quote above, it is mentioned that they did try to find the equipment. I suspect that what occurred is that they tried an area survey and did not detect any site that warranted a more detailed survey. After all, a 0.01% location error from earth puts it within a 40 km radius. Absolutley precise locations were not necessary at the time of the missions, I am led to believe, because the program did not rely upon huge amounts of computerised flight, but upon human reaction. They also had directed radio links between the different modules to assist in linking.

Thanks for the conversation.

Edited: Should have read more of the threads before posting.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=52449

Edited October 11, 2005 by UEL

[Hazzard]

Fists step.

There was a video camera mounted and extended from the side of the landing module especially for this purpose. NASA anticipated that the moment that Armstrong stepped onto the Moon would be thought as being particularly significant and something everyone would want to see.

As Armstrong started down the ladder he remotely deployed it, swinging it out from its storage position in the side of the module. Note how the left hand side of the video image is obscured by both the side of the Lunar Module and the arm of the storage compartment that lowered it.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/First_Man.htm

Filming The Take Off.

This often shown footage was taken by a remotely controlled camera, mounted on the lunar rover which was left behind. They knew exactly how fast the lander would ascend, so knew how fast it had to pan up.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Take_Off.htm

[BLITZ KRIEG]

of course it was real ......... those off you who say we have never landed on the moon have just got to much time on your hands. after all the RUSSIAN never argued that it was a fake. the whole world viewd this historic moment and it was accepted.

i was watching the news the other night and they said that another launch to the moon is already planned. some where around 2015 i think

[MID]

One thing about using remote sensing systems to identify lunar equipment has three challenges:

- yes, the resolution on these telescopes can identify the equipment, but in order to identify it, the whole field of view of the system should be down to about 50 by 50 metres. This is fine if you know "exactly" where to look. The moon in the late 60s and early 70s did not have highly accurate lunar surveys completed where precise locations were recorded. So as far as knowing where the lunar rover is, if it is known within a 5 km radius, it would take about 32 000 separate images that would have to be interpreted, to what end. If one wanted, you could pan out and do an area search, but by panning out you are reducing the amount of detail available and risking the chance of overlooking the very objects you are trying to identify.

- telescopes like the VLT are geared to tracking distant starfields rather than near lunar surfaces. I am a surveyor, and I would prefer to track a star with my theodolite than the moon. The moon moves so fast that keeping it within view is a challenge. The VLT would have a considerable time keeping the same 50x50 metre view stabilised in the image.

- someone also mentioned this one, but I think it bears repeating. Telescopes like Hubble and VLT are in high demand. By training these resources onto a task to conduct a survey of the lunar surface to detect and identify the lunar rover or the LEM base would be a waste. Afterall, what would be the scientific dividend by investing some telescope time to this task? Their lifespans are finite, and if we are to learn about the wonderful universe in which we live, these systems will have to stay focussed on these tasks.

In the quote above, it is mentioned that they did try to find the equipment. I suspect that what occurred is that they tried an area survey and did not detect any site that warranted a more detailed survey. After all, a 0.01% location error from earth puts it within a 40 km radius. Absolutley precise locations were not necessary at the time of the missions, I am led to believe, because the program did not rely upon huge amounts of computerised flight, but upon human reaction. They also had directed radio links between the different modules to assist in linking.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=52449

UEL:

Substantial points.

Thanks for the contribution!

Regards

[MID]

Fists step.

There was a video camera mounted and extended from the side of the landing module especially for this purpose. NASA anticipated that the moment that Armstrong stepped onto the Moon would be thought as being particularly significant and something everyone would want to see.

As Armstrong started down the ladder he remotely deployed it, swinging it out from its storage position in the side of the module. Note how the left hand side of the video image is obscured by both the side of the Lunar Module and the arm of the storage compartment that lowered it.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/First_Man.htm

Filming The Take Off.

This often shown footage was taken by a remotely controlled camera, mounted on the lunar rover which was left behind. They knew exactly how fast the lander would ascend, so knew how fast it had to pan up.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Take_Off.htm

More precisely (for those of you with a penchant for detail), the TV camera was mounted on a bracket inside the MESA (Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly). At the top of the ladder, the astronaut (Armstrong, in the case of Apollo 11) pulled a D-ring like device which released the MESA table. When deployed, the TV camera lens was pointing at the ladder of the LM. The LM pilot, Aldrin still inside the LM, switched a circuit breaker to power the camera, thus, turning it on.

On the lunar liftoff videos, not only was the rate of ascent known, but also the camera's field of view, and its distance from the LM (both of which were used to calculate the pitch rate of the camera in order to follow the LM). An additional consideration was the time delay in transmitting a command to the camera to pitch up at a rate to keep the ascent stage in the field of view.

A single flight controller (Ed Fendell, a.k.a. "Captian Video") in the MOCR in Houston controlled this process for the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 mission's lunar launches, leading the actual time of lunar liftoff by an interval of some 1.2-1.5 seconds with his command.

He got pretty darn good at it!

Regards.

[MID]

of course it was real ......... those off you who say we have never landed on the moon have just got to much time on your hands. after all the RUSSIAN never argued that it was a fake. the whole world viewd this historic moment and it was accepted.

i was watching the news the other night and they said that another launch to the moon is already planned. some where around 2015 i think

Well...

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions, I should think.

But, as someone who realizes that the Apollo program was real, simply telling folks they're all wet, vis-a-vis saying people 'who say we never landed on the moon have too much time on their hands', doesn't really do much to discuss their doubts, or their ideas. Such a comment may be perceived as a wee bit abrasive, or even aggressive to some, which does nothing for the cause of discussion.

Indeed, the skeptic might look at your statements and argue that just because the whole world accepts what the media presents them doesn't mean that what they present is the truth.

They might also say that another lunar landing program in the planning phase for the future has no bearing on what happened in the 1960s and early 1970s.

It's better in the long run to make a contribution to the discussion than just tell folks they're wasting their time...

Regards.

[turbonium]

yes, the resolution on these telescopes can identify the equipment, but in order to identify it, the whole field of view of the system should be down to about 50 by 50 metres. This is fine if you know "exactly" where to look.

And we do know "exactly" where to look - if NASA is correct. Apollo 11, 14 and 15 placed reflector arrays at a measured distance from the lem bases. These could be used to zero in on the lem, and with the Apollo journals, also locate the rovers.

[Hazzard]

And we do know "exactly" where to look - if NASA is correct. Apollo 11, 14 and 15 placed reflector arrays at a measured distance from the lem bases. These could be used to zero in on the lem, and with the Apollo journals, also locate the rovers.

The reflectors are there to measure the distance between the Eart and the moon and to calculate the Earts location in space, and are used about 270 times every year.

Hubble

The biggest problem with this is that they simply are not powerful enough. The lunar landers are very,very,very small in astronomical terms and they're pretty far away as well. There isn't a telescope in existence that could take a picture of one.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Hubble.htm

Clementine Photos

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Clementine.htm

Spy Satellites

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Spies.htm

SELENE Project

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/SELENE.htm

Unfortunately better pictures won't put an end to the hoax theories, that I can guarantee. Here's what the theories will be in a couple of years time. Yes, they're that predictable.

--The Japanese have been paid off by NASA to fake their photos. Well, we all know they're shifty foreigners with no morals, don't we? They'll do anything for the mighty dollar.

--NASA sneaked faked landers up there during the last five years in preparation for the Japanese photos. Don't bother asking about where the money came from to do this, or how they managed it all in total secrecy.

--What we can see aren't the Apollo sites, but alien bases that NASA are pretending are theirs. And if you join up all the dots on the photos it spells out a Masonic chant in ancient Greek.

Edited October 12, 2005 by hazzard

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

Absolute proof that they did infact go to moon comes from the fact that if the shuttle was just in orbit, it would have been completely noticable to practically everyone looking at the sky. It would have been much bigger than any satellite, infact, it would have been the second largest object only to the moon in the sky.

[MID]

Absolute proof that they did infact go to moon comes from the fact that if the shuttle was just in orbit, it would have been completely noticable to practically everyone looking at the sky. It would have been much bigger than any satellite, infact, it would have been the second largest object only to the moon in the sky.

For accuracy's sake it should be pointed out that shuttle's didn't exist in the Apollo years. Besides that fact, the idea that a spacecraft in earth orbit, say an Apollo CSM, would be the "second largest object in the sky next to the moon" is somewhat untenable, as largely, spacecraft in earth orbit are almost always invisible to anyone on the ground.

That it would be "completely noticable" is patently false. The shuttle itself, and the ISS are both significantly larger than the Apollo CSM, and neither of those are readily visible or at all conspicuous to the eye, even when they are in a very brief position to be viewed by someone in a certain location on the ground. Such sighting opportunities occur for only minutes at a time, and at specific times of the day (generally pre-dawn and post-sunset), and only when their orbits converge with sunlight in such a way as to provide a reflection to the ground. They are fleeting, and one would not be able to readily know that they were seeing a glimpse of either unless they were told where to look and when, and of course were doing so.

If an Apollo CSM was in orbit during say, Apollo 11, no one would've noticed, save the American and Soviet tracking stations that were keeping track of things in orbit (and I recall absolutely no reports by anyone saying that they saw Apollo 7 or Apollo 9 in orbit during those two mission's earth orbital forays, nor one during Gemini or Mercury, when those 16 spacecraft all flew missions exclusively in earth orbit).

Thus, this idea is hardly absolute proof of the fact that Apollo actually went to the moon. The fact is that the 25000+ photographs, the hours of video and 16 mm film taken, and the millions of pages of incredibly detailed scientific documentation produced in the program constitute much better "proof" of the events...inasmuch as "proof" of such a thing is required at all.

Regards.

[turbonium]

Good points, again, MID. It's good to see your pro-Apollo stance never takes precedent over your objectivity.

[Hazzard]

Good points, again, MID. It's good to see your pro-Apollo stance never takes precedent over your objectivity.

I agree,its a rare thing and not only on on sites like this.

I myself has to keep reminding my self to stay objective and not to let personal feelings get in the way of my objectivity.

I suggest we all try to do the same.

Edited October 14, 2005 by hazzard

[MID]

I agree,its a rare thing and not only on on sites like this.

I myself has to keep reminding my self to stay objective and not to let personal feelings get in the way of my objectivity.

I suggest we all try to do the same.

I thank you both (Turb and Hazzard).

I guess it's my way of saying, "Let's keep it real."

Regards.

[BLITZ KRIEG]

lol , yeah i think we all need to keep it real

[lonelyalpacafarmer]

Turbonium, I am sorry that I get defensive when I read these forums. I'll try to be more civilized. I am just curoius what evidence leads you to believe that the moon landings are fake, other than those pictures you posted.

Because you have to admit, those pictures are not exactly proof...

Edited October 17, 2005 by lonelyalpacafarmer