moon landing

[Lilly]

You might say that the idea of science is to be open minded and fluid but this simply is not the reality. The reality is most scientists are no different than followers of a religion who are partial to a particular belief or line of thinking and adhere to it rigidly even when it flies in the face of common sense.

No, I disagree (highly) with this statement. Most scientists are not dogmatic, some may be, but this is absolutely not the manner in which the scientific method works. Please read this link. The mind set you are describing is not how the scientific really method works.

Pluto has not been placed in our science books as a "Planet?" it has not been taught to school children as "maybe a planet" rather, children have been taught it IS a planet.

Now we see that its not.

Of course Pluto has been taught as being a planet, all the information we had at hand in the past that indicated that it was. It's only with advancement that we have seen that Pluto should be more correctly referred to as a KBO. This is not all that different from what happened in physics after Einstein's 1905 paper. Such amending doesn't mean that Newton was *wrong*, only that he simply had part of the puzzle. Science is supposed to amend theories. In science one is supposed to try and falsify even the most correct appearing theory.

I have no problem with the scientific method, rather the application of the theories derived from these methods are regarded as "almost fact" when in reality they are simply ideas that have "some" back up. Most of that back up is other scientists ideas that have "some" back up. Its really a new kind of faith system.

Science is not the same thing as faith at all. Science demands empirical evidence, faith does not. This may seem to be a small point, but it really is a very major point.

How does all of this apply to the question of whether or not the Apollo space program landed men on the moon? I'm thinking that you're trying to say you don't somehow *trust* anything of a scientific nature? Please clarify your position, thanks.

[Trinitrotoluene]

If you want to argue about science and it's pro's/cons truethat, then go do it in another thread, this one is about the moon landing

Edited August 26, 2006 by Gavsto

[MID]

I must echo Lilly and Gavsto.

Your posts are tracking in a divergent direction from the subject of this thread.

You seem to have an attachment to this Pluto-not-being-a-planet idea, and seem to attach some negativity to this purely semantic classification as if it somehow compromises the integrity of science.

It is basically a meaningless topic, and the name given to Pluto as a "dwarf planet" changes nothing about the science of the body, its nature or characteristics, or anything associated with it, except what they call it, which is essentially a word, and nothing more.

The fact that we once taught that the Sun had 9 planets, and that we'll now say the Sun has 8 planets and a dwarf planet is inconsequential in respect to science. All it says is that some folks care about names of things, and proper classification of them based on established criteria (in this case, a criteria established by the International Astronomical Union).

But this too has nothing to do with Apollo.

[MID]

From straydog's post #2453:

Waspie_Dwarf ... Speaking of games and insults , you are one of the biggest offenders here ... Do you want to know what a prime example of condescension and passive-aggressiveness is ? .. It's comments such as this one coming from you .

"The sum total of your "proof" so far is a spotlight no one else can see and the fact that you don't think the LM looks right."

Not only is this a lie , as I have posted much evidence here which explains why Apollo was a hoax , but you are a liar when you say that no one else here can see the spotlight reflection in Cernan's visor .... Of course you and everyone else here can see it .. You just all pretend not to so you can continue to play your insidious mind games by provoking the conspiracy researchers here .

You're simply too sensitive about an administration person telling you to stop with the childish use of the term "astronot". It's an immature and childish thing to do, and it lights some folks up. The mods and leaders are ordering you to cease and desist with this oft-repeated silliness, in order to eliminate the continual barrage of comments about it.

Again...you must prove what Waspie says is a lie, which you can't.

What Waspie said was merely a statement of fact. Youir contention is also ever-so-slightly over the top in the respect that there is obviously nothing in that picture but a reflection of the Sun in a helmet visor, precicely where it should be.

You maintain the LM couldn't fly because it doesn't look right. You've said nothing else but that concerning this vehicle, as if its looks had something to do with its performance in space (which it didn't , as has been explained in detail) You also maintain that the rigging of the light fixture is obvious on that photo, yet, it simply can't be seen. You also stated that the fixture is in front of the 'sunlight' that the fixture is producing, which of course would be physically impossible.

And, you also didn't answer my question about that Apollo 11 photo showing the Earth's reflection in an astronaut's helmet...an Earth that's no more than 5 degrees above the horizon...this is because such a photo does not exist.

I made some jokes on this thread today because that's what this "debate" thread has become ... One big joke ! ... Only it's not really the funny kind is it ? .... I would say it is more of the pathetic kind , when none of you on the pro Apollo side are even able to discuss any of this fairly or honestly .

And this isn't inflammatory? Not discussing this fairly and honestly?

Look, you're coming from a position which consists of a decided lack of knowledge about that which you speak. When your arguments are killed by those of us who do know something, you resort to this sort of stuff, calling us unfair.

The joke is that you cannot rebutt anything with any sort of consistency, you can only make comments to the effect that it doesn't matter what we say, the whole thing was a fake!

The Russian craft ( even though this is only a drawing you posted here ) looks to be constructed of material which could with stand a flight to the moon ..... And even though it is quite strange looking , it is not as ridiculous looking as the Apollo LM's are

You see...it 'LOOKS LIKE IT COULD WITHSTAND A FLIGHT TO THE MOON'.

Tell me, why does it look that way?

which are constructed of gold foil , black construction paper, old curtain rods, scotch tape , and stapled cardboard .... and I highly doubt that any of those materials could really with stand a trip to the moon .... and there in lies the difference .... So it's not just that the LM's are silly looking , but that they are made of material which could not even be worthy of space flight .

This could be the final straw here...the final silliness.

You make a statement that the LM was constructed of curtain rods, foil and black construction paper?

You expect that I'll take you seriously after this statement, especially when its already been explained to you that the vehicle was contructed of a very complex semi-unibody frame made of aluminum alloys and titanium?

7000 pounds of black construction paper, foil, and curtain rods...geez.

Plus, the few test flights which you and MID have mentioned are meaningless because they can not be PROVEN .... Were any of these supposed flights ever video taped ? ... Did anyone besides a few nasa employees see these contraptions fly before they were allegedly launched for the moon ?

What?

They can't be un-proven. They happened. We have hundreds of photos, data collected, 16mm films, and hundreds of pages of analysis on these flights.

We've flown to the planets without videotaping the voyages for posterity. I am supposing you don't believe that the Voyagers actually transited the outer planets, and that all the other sucessful, and still operational probes are actually out there, providing us with data and imaging?

C'mon, stray.

The evidence of Apollo being a hoax is monumental ... and believe it or not , this hoax is not a secret and it never was ....

Yet...you've shown NONE OF IT. You're getting deperate here with this continued obstinate claim.

Contrary to popular belief you and MID and the rest of your type , don't know everything , like you pretend to .. and when it comes to nasa and the Apollo missions , all you really know and use is a lot of condescending mind games and nasa dis-information .

You really do have this high disregard for me ( and the rest of my "type") don't you?

Would that be because I, and 'the rest of my type' address your points and show you something you didn't know before, and that this sort of thing irritates you?

None of us have ever said we know everything. That is a silly comment to make. None of us do. However, some of us know a whole lot more about spaceflight and the Apollo program than you do. That's the issue here. It has nothing to do with us knowing everything. It really has much more to do with your lack of knowledge in specific areas pertinent to this discussion.

This is why I have steadfastly maintained that this thread is about educating. It is not about debating. You can bring any issue up you want, but if you want to be obstinate, and say things like "The evidence of an Apollo hoax is monumental", when it has been clearly shown that you are in error in this contention a hundred times, then what value is there is showing you anything that you obviously don't understand?

You ignore detailed explanations, you obviously do no research on your own to learn about the sciences and technologies presented to you, and you simply remain obstinate, and make incredible statements about the construction of the LM, which are, well...

Why do you think I keep saying, ASK QUESTIONS?

Stay off of this mind-game-nasa-disinformation kick, will you?

Those are terms that you use when you're dearest misconceptions are shattered by the facts. S3th did the very same thing. In fact, he used the very same terminology!

Let's not follow that road. He's gone forever, and that sort of stuff led him down that road.

There is no dis-information here. There are only things you don't know about.

The cool part of this type of thing is that I, and some of my compatriots here can educate people in areas they aren't familiar with.

That's the fun...but you're not participating in that. So, make a choice, ask questions, or take off. This sort of thing is getting boring.

[Brotherofthemoon]

If anything, something's not quite right with the Russian Lunar Module.

Astronautix.com -LK

-It only has enough room for one astronaut, which means if he were somehow incapacitated he'd die on the lunar surface. That same astronaut would have to land the spacecraft, focus on his instruments, and make split-second decisions by himself, all at the same time.

-It doesn't have it's own descent stage, and had to use the forth stage of the N1 rocket as a braking stage. The same rocket that had an alarming tendency to explode in the first 70 seconds of flight.

-The spacecraft's propulsion module has to be used for both descent and ascent.

-There's no docking tunnel, which means the astronaut has to spacewalk between the LK and the LOK.

-The landing radar has a maximum acquisition altitude of 3,000 meters, compared to as much as 12,000 meters for the American LM.

-The automated landing system only allows about 50 seconds to divert to alternate landing site 100 meters away. Later in development this was reduced to 20 seconds.

-The pitch and yaw thrusters are four times more powerful than the roll thrusters.

-The computer has even less processing power than the LM's.

-The size of the propulsion size limits the amount of scientific equipment to a very small amount.

I'd rather fly to the Moon in a LM any day, kewl looking or not.

[straydog]

**Straydog, please read the PM I am sending.** Edited August 27, 2006 by aquatus1

[aquatus1]

Pro-Apollo side, this is the last general warning that I am going to post here. Formal warning will be issued to anyone who continues this absolutely childish posting of mockery, of snide commentry, and of outright insults. I have been far more lenient in this thread than in any other, and I have reached the limits of my patience.

Pro-hoax side, the same goes for you.

[badeskov]

First of all, this is my first post here and while I believe I adhere to the forum rules, please do not hesitate to tell me why and point out where I am in fault if I don't.

I have been following this thread with some interest (lurking, admittedly, as my time has been rather limited and I have therefore not been able to devote the appropriate time to really make a contribution - albeit I have been very tempted at times).

Personally, I have no doubt that the landings were for real and I have not seen any scientific proof contradicting this. And in scientific I mean in the strictest sense - I am myself a scientist, although not in astronomy, but in the physics of optical fiber communications. While I might not be able to to do orbital insertion calculations and the like off the top my head (I would probably need to revisit some of my old books on mechanics), I would still assume that the rules of science apply (as in following a chain of logic statements from one end to the other to reach a conclusion).

Now, I have to say that I admire the patience of some of the contributors on this board with respect to answering the same questions over and over again - I am not sure I could :-) But somehow this discussion spawned another question I had. And this is where I might be in violation of forum rules, as I am not 100% sure it is the right thread to drop it in, but here goes:

What is the history behind the moon hoax story anyways? To me, to be quite honest, it seems like mole whacking. Every time it is debunked it pops up somewhere else. I seriously doubt that the Soviets would be dumb enough to start a story like this given they could track the CM+LM all the way to the moon and back. Hence, IMHO, it must have started somewhere else. This is probbaly more a study in sociology, but reading through all the pages this thread contains, it really got me curious. Anyone got any ideas?

Best

Badeskov

[itsnotoutthere]

Here's one for straydog.

Was it just NASA in on the hoax or was the rest of the world in on it too? By this i mean i seem to remember that when the U.S. lost the television signals because of the rototion of the earth, other radar stations around the world picked up the signals to continue the coverage to households worldwide, or did NASA use advanced technology to bounce the fake signals from there film studio off the moon & back again? Your razor sharp insight would be appreciated.

[straydog]

Give the man a cigar !

Yes, nasa bounced the fake studio TV signals OFF of the moon , not from it .... It is NOT advanced technology... It could be as easily done then as it is today and it didn't take the "whole world" being in on it either ... but just a handful of people who would have agreed to be complicent in nasa's fake moon landings .

The hoax keeps cropping up because nothing about the official Apollo record rings true .... Conspiracies don't just happen for no reason ... When they do , there is usually plenty of reason to believe that something is not right about the official record ...

Just the phony moon set photographs alone are proof enough that nasa was deceptive about Apollo .... and if they were deceptive about those , then it's not too unreasonable to believe that they were deceptive about the rest of it .

I sent an e-mail to Jack White about the Cernan spotlight visor reflection and he not only confirmed that the spotlight reflection was there but even pointed out more strange anomalies in the several photos I sent to him .

I can copy paste my e-mails to him and his in return to me and also what he wrote on each picture , but unfortunately the photo attachments from him containing his drawn in analysis , can not be reproduced here because the photos are in my documents and don't have the Http addy needed to post an image here .... Unless someone knows of another way to post the images here without using an Http .

I posted some Apollo photos here last night which showed a series of pictures pointing out how phony the actual LM which allegedly landed on the moon really was .. but because I also posted some silly nasa bashing comments next to these photos , my post was deleted by Aquatus .

So I will re-post the damaging photos without the previous comments , and maybe it will be left alone .

I don't think it is right to delete someone's post unless it contains insulting remarks to another poster ... and I just wanted to set the record straight that my deleted post only contained damaging photographic evidence and some silly mockery dialogue against nasa , and was not directed to any of the members here .

Edited August 27, 2006 by straydog

[straydog]

Here is my first e-mail to Jack White .

Dear Mr. White ,

I am a conspiracy researcher and a great admirer of yours .... I have been studying the Apollo hoax for several years now and some of the most convincing and fascinating evidence to me is the faked studio moon set photos which nasa has attempted to pass off as having really been taken on the moon .

Being a conspiracy theorist , I post on a few web sites about this subject and find it interesting but also very frustrating at times in dealing with closed minded people who defend nasa's obvious deception .... When certain anomolies are pointed out to them they get very insulting , as that is the only way they can "win" the argument ... But I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know .

Speaking of insulting people , I went to Evan Burton's site yesterday to see what he had come up with in attempting to bebunk your work .... and I must say I was not impressed at all ... Most of his arguments against you were very lame and it seemed what he was doing was more like character assassination, than anything else .

But while on his site I found a few interesting Apollo photos which I don't know if you are aware of ... One is a study you have already done showing some type of stage light or fan reflected in the top right corner of the Apollo 12 astronot's visor ... but there are other pictures taken of this same scene which show even more strange anomolies .. and are even more obvious in the close up high definition photo ....

I believe what is being reflected is a stage light which nasa used to fake the sunlight on the set .... There are also what appears to be a bank of stage lights reflected on the top part of the visor and the object which you already studied in another photo , has now moved to the center of the visor in this picture of a different angle ... and it clearly looks like some type of fan with four blades .... and the best part is , you can see the shadow of this object lower and to the left of it , on the moon set floor ... You can also see what clearly looks like the back of the spotlight with the Y shaped bracket attached to the flat piece which mounts onto the rack above the set .

I am enclosing these pictures in an attachment to you .... The reason I am sending them to you is because I believe these photos prove once and for all that Apollo was photographed in an studio ... and I believe the reflection of this spotlight in particular , is clear evidence of nasa's deception .

If you find these pictures to be of use to you could you please let me know ... Or if they are not what I think they are , could you please let me know that also .... Several pro nasa people on one forum I post on , have tried to explain these obvious reflections away as being just smears on the visor , as Evan Burton suggested ... But these are obviously reflected objects , some of them even casting shadows , so in no way can they be just smears on the visor .

Thank you for taking the time to read this , and I hope these photos are of some use to you .

Sincerely , Duane Daman ( straydog )

PS ... I have also included a photo of the CM which is suppossedly flying over the moon ... I suspect that nasa used blue screen imaging for the fly over shots ... In studying this photo of the CM over the lunar surface I noticed a blue color and other anomalies reflected back in the shiny surface of the skin of the CM , which should not be there if this picture had really been taken from the Snoopy LM in space .... Could you please take a look at this picture also and see what you think ? ... I was wondering of the blue being reflected back in the CM might possibly be caused by the initial blue screen imaging being used to fake this photograph .

Edited August 27, 2006 by straydog

[straydog]

Jack's e-mail replies to me .

...............................

Here is my analysis of the HiDef image. *( attachment photo shows analysis )*

.................................

I examined this photo several years ago and wondered about

the blue reflections and the odd "lens flare". * ( attachment photo shows analysis ) *

Jack

Jack and Sue White wrote:

>

> I have spent quite a while looking at the images Duane sent.

> These two reflections do not look right to me. Am I wrong?

> Shouldn't the farthest astronaut have the smallest reflection? * ( these questions were directed to another photo analysist that he forwarded the high def photos on to ) *

>

> Jack

>

> Jack and Sue White wrote:

> >

> > Hi, Duane...yes, I got your previous message and thought I

> > replied to it; however, a couple of weeks ago I had a computer

> > crash and after it was fixed, I think a few emails were lost.

> >

> > Thanks for calling this to my attention. However, I had noticed

> > the anomalies you mention, and think I even used one of the

> > images in my Aulis Apollo studies.

> >

> > I will examine all the images you sent and see if I find anything

> > additional. The reflections of lights in the visors are very

> > interesting. Several years ago I did many studies of them.

> > See attachments.

> >

> > I will get back to you later.

> >

> > Thanks.

> >

> > Jack

* I will post his analysist descriptions later ... If I can't find a way to post his picture attachments here , then I will post the original pictures with his comments next to them .

[Trinitrotoluene]

Before you do that can you just answer one simple question, it's easy I promise!

1 Bank of 5 stage lights in different positions = 5 different shadows

Care to give an explanation?

[itsnotoutthere]

Some time ago i looked out of my living room window & noticed that the Jehova's witness geezers were doing the rounds. I was about to close the blinds & turn up the volume on the T.V.when i thought no, i'll hear what the guy has to say. So i answered the door. As expected he went into his shpeel, whilst handing me a pamphlet with a artists picture of two small children cuddling a fully grown tiger on the front. After a while he asked me if i believed in god. I explaind that my personal opinion was that the whole of western religion was basically based on the bible scriptures, & that it was my belief that either you believed whole heartedly in those scriptures or you didn't, i.e. you couldn't 'cherry pick' the bits you wanted to believe & discard those you didn't. So i said no i don't believe in god, he asked why, to which i replied that for example, in the bible there is no mention of dinosaurs & quick as a flash he replied 'ahh but it has not been scientifically proven that dinosaurs actually existed'.....my mind then wondered off to the natural history museam & those masive fossils of the T-rex & others, at which point the plain truth of the matter dawned on me, & i thought 'forget it, this guy makes up his own rules' as my front door slowly shut in his face.

**itsnotoutthere, please read the PM I am sending you**

Edited August 27, 2006 by aquatus1

[Brotherofthemoon]

Pro-Apollo side, this is the last general warning that I am going to post here. Formal warning will be issued to anyone who continues this absolutely childish posting of mockery, of snide commentry, and of outright insults. I have been far more lenient in this thread than in any other, and I have reached the limits of my patience.

Sorry about that. I'm used to posting on the Bad Astronomy board, which isn't terribly leniant about this sort of thing, and the Apollo Hoax board, which can be a bit rough-and-tumble at times.

[AtomicDog]

straydog, please invite Jack White to join this forum.

[straydog]

I doubt that Jack White would waste his time posting on this forum .

I don't think I will be able to post Jack's analysis photos here but I will see what I can do , as they will show all of you that you are wrong about it being smears on the Cernan visor ...He even found more anomalies in that one particular phony photo than even I had noticed .

itsnotoutthere .... Please stop comparing me to Jehovah's Witnesses ... I don't insult you and it does nothing to bolster your argument at all , but rather makes you look like the closed minded fool .... Aquatus just posed for the insults to stop .... Can't you read ?

This has nothing to do with Jack's e-mail anaylis to me about the stage light reflection in Cernan's visor ... but I have recently described the LM as being made of construction paper , gold foil, old curtain rods or TV antenias and SCOTCH TAPE .... and this picture of the LM allegedly taken on the moon just comfirms that description .

Editor's Note: This is a genuine Apollo 11 photograph, NASA file number AS11-40-5922, allegedly shot on the Moon. This picture was apparently taken just after a series of close ups of the LM's footpads. The adhesive tape used was more likely to have been a polyimide or Mylar¨ tape.

Edited August 27, 2006 by straydog

[Brotherofthemoon]

itsnotoutthere .... Please stop comparing me to Jehovah's Witnesses ... I don't insult you and it does nothing to bolster your argument at all , but rather makes you look like the closed minded fool .... Aquatus just posed for the insults to stop .... Can't you read ?

This has nothing to do with Jack's e-mail anaylis to me about the stage light reflection in Cernan's visor ... but I have recently described the LM as being made of construction paper , gold foil, old curtain rods or TV antenias and SCOTCH TAPE .... and this picture of the LM allegedly taken on the moon just comfirms that description .

The "construction paper" you keep mentioning is part of the descent stage's external thermal blanket/ micrometeroid shield. It's not the actual "skin" of the spacecraft.

The "gold foil" is Aluminized Kapton, which has been used for thermal protection on spacecraft since God knows when.

The "scotch tape" is kapton tape, which is extremely strong. A 1 inch by 36 yard roll of the stuff sells for $125 commercially.

The "curtain rods" are actually the support struts for the RCS plume deflector. The "roofing paper" is Inconel foil. The X-15 was made from Inconel X, and could survive re-entering the Earth's atmosphere at Mach 6.

The "floodlight holder" is actually the plume deflector.

As for the TV antennaes... what is a "real" antenna supposed to look like? A giant radar dish?

[straydog]

Here is another photo of the LM allegedly taken on the moon ... but if you look closely the equipment kit hasn't even been unpacked yet , but there are tire tracks in the dirt in front of the LM already .... Would they really have deployed the rover before unpacking the other equipment ?

And here is a close up picture of the side of this same LM ..... This one is unbelievable !

How could nasa spend billions of dollars on these space crafts yet allow this crummy SCOTCH TAPE to hold in place this FLIMSY PAPER FLAG AND THIS FLIMSY PAPER SIGN SAYING UNITED STATES ??

This one is just too ridiculous for words .

[AtomicDog]

Here is another photo of the LM allegedly taken on the moon ... but if you look closely the equipment kit hasn't even been unpacked yet , but there are tire tracks in the dirt in front of the LM already .... Would they really have deployed the rover before unpacking the other equipment ?

Why not?

Edited August 27, 2006 by AtomicDog

[AtomicDog]

And here is a close up picture of the side of this same LM ..... This one is unbelievable !

How could nasa spend billions of dollars on these space crafts yet allow this crummy SCOTCH TAPE to hold in place this FLIMSY PAPER FLAG AND THIS FLIMSY PAPER SIGN SAYING UNITED STATES ??

This one is just too ridiculous for words .

Why not? As has been explained numerous times, the LM had to be built as lightly as possible. If tape and gold mylar can do the job of holding insulation on a spacecraft, why not? It worked for Galileo, Cassini, New Horizons, Hubble, and numerous other satelites and space probes.

[straydog]

Here are two photos of the LM allegedly in lunar orbit .

Can anyone say ... STUDIO FAKES !!

[AtomicDog]

I doubt that Jack White would waste his time posting on this forum .

It's cool. I just thought he'd like to come here and defend his argument, that's all.

[Brotherofthemoon]

Why not?

That, and the Quad 3 of the J-Series descent stage (which you can't see in that photo) housed the lunar rover experiment pallets, including a hammer, sampling rake, some tongs, a scoop, and a few sample collection bags. The astronauts already had a contingency sample bag in case something went wrong. Also, wouldn't it be a good idea to cover the MESA's thermal blankets back up when no one was using it? So, why not?

[AtomicDog]

Here are two photos of the LM allegedly in lunar orbit .

Can anyone say ... STUDIO FAKES !!

What makes them fakes?

Let me add the atlas nunbers for you.

as11-44-6598

as11-44-6574

Edited August 27, 2006 by AtomicDog