Moon Hoax - A Simple Solution

[softearth]

Hello everyone,

This is my first post and I've always been interested in science and space technology. I've been reading and watching a lot of information that claims we never went to the moon. Can you believe that?

Oh well, being an advanced monkey of sorts I have come up with a simple solution to end all this chatter.

I will first point you to a video I found on Google video which was released by the National Archives which shows that NASA sent an satellite to orbit the moon around 1967 to get closeup pictures of the moon to find a nice smooth spot for our astronauts to land.

*Please advance the video to the time code of 21 minutes 15 seconds to verify that they could in fact see a rock measuring 15 feet in diameter.

Ref: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9099963025139335412&q=moon

The Solution is:

NASA could simply just resend another moon orbiter with even higher resolution to verify that the lunar landers and space vehicles exist on the surface of the moon. We could learn a lot from these new pictures as well.

The Question is:

If they could send an orbiter way back in 1967 to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface that could identify a rock 15 feet in diameter, then why hasn't NASA done this after the lunar landings in the nearly 35+ years that have passed?

I hope this logic helps to solve the moon hoax problem once and for all. ;)

...

[jrkeller]

The Question is:

If they could send an orbiter way back in 1967 to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface that could identify a rock 15 feet in diameter, then why hasn't NASA done this after the lunar landings in the nearly 35+ years that have passed?

I hope this logic helps to solve the moon hoax problem once and for all. ;)

...

Actually NASA is planning on doing that in a couple of years with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/) to be launched in 2008.

[sts60]

Good morning (or whatever time of day where you are!), softearth, and welcome.

The lunar landing issue was conclusively solved long ago when Apollo was tracked to, around, on, and back from the Moon, retrieved hundreds of kilograms of differentiated samples, and hand-placed scientific instruments on the Moon. There's no question it happened among anyone who spends enough time learning about it.

But to address your specific question: http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Your question raises another one, though: given the evidence that already exists for Apollo, why should images taken by another spacecraft convince anyone? Any such image will be entirely electronic once it crosses the lens and hits the imaging array. What would stop NASA or whoever took such images from simply creating them in a computer? Why would they be convincing?

[sts60]

Oh, and why, as a taxpayer, would I want NASA to spend on the order of a hundred million bucks to satisfy hoax believers?

[softearth]

I guess NASA could indeed fake new pictures if they wanted to, but if they share the raw data with colleges, schools, scientist and others from around the world it would eliminate that argument.

As far as sending another orbiter, we could use advanced technologies to scan the moon's surface in more detail. This would be great knowledge and it would help to verify the moon landings so that we can go back and perhaps setup a lunar base. I don't know about you, but I think we should go back and setup a lunar base. This information could be used to make that happen.

[jrkeller]

Oh, and why, as a taxpayer, would I want NASA to spend on the order of a hundred million bucks to satisfy hoax believers?

They shouldn't and NASA will never convince people like Bart Sibrel. IMO this mission will definately convince fence sitters.

[jrkeller]

I guess NASA could indeed fake new pictures if they wanted to, but if they share the raw data with colleges, schools, scientist and others from around the world it would eliminate that argument.

While all the advances in electronics, the internet and the massive amount of data that will be return, it will be a lot harder to claim hoax.

[sts60]

I guess NASA could indeed fake new pictures if they wanted to, but if they share the raw data with colleges, schools, scientist and others from around the world it would eliminate that argument.

As far as sending another orbiter, we could use advanced technologies to scan the moon's surface in more detail. This would be great knowledge and it would help to verify the moon landings so that we can go back and perhaps setup a lunar base. I don't know about you, but I think we should go back and setup a lunar base. This information could be used to make that happen.

Well, that's exactly what Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (see links above) is for - helping identify good targets for the new landings scheduled to begin in 2018.

I'm not sure what you mean by "share the raw data". They did that back in the '60s and '70s, including lunar samples analyzed by scientists around the world.

[Maksutov]

Your question raises another one, though: given the evidence that already exists for Apollo, why should images taken by another spacecraft convince anyone? Any such image will be entirely electronic once it crosses the lens and hits the imaging array. What would stop NASA or whoever took such images from simply creating them in a computer? Why would they be convincing?I'm sure that, when we eventually have regularly scheduled flights to the Moon, the few remaining HBs et al, will claim it's all being done on a holodeck. Or maybe even a futuristic animation...

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/1094/apollo11futuramase1.th.jpg (http://img83.imageshack.us/my.php?image=apollo11futuramase1.jpg)

Welcome to the BAUT, softearth. Have fun!

[softearth]

I'm not sure what you mean by "share the raw data". They did that back in the '60s and '70s, including lunar samples analyzed by scientists around the world.

I mean allow scientist from around the world to collect the raw data in real time. No waiting around for NASA's approval like all the other missions. Raw data doesn't need approval, it needs to be shared and studied from all angles.

The raw data from the lunar landings back in the 60's and 70's was not shared in real time. It was filtered through NASA for approval and then released to the public.

[phunk]

How could it be shared in real time back then? There was no internet, and it was film, not digital, it had to be processed.

[Donnie B.]

I mean allow scientist from around the world to collect the raw data in real time. No waiting around for NASA's approval like all the other missions. Raw data doesn't need approval, it needs to be shared and studied from all angles.

The raw data from the lunar landings back in the 60's and 70's was not shared in real time. It was filtered through NASA for approval and then released to the public.
That depends on what you mean by "raw data". The mission communications and telemetry could be picked up by anyone with the proper antenna and receiving equipment. Most of the voice communication was "in the clear" and could be (and was) heard by many people worldwide, including the Soviet Union and others not under the control of NASA.

Similarly, the lunar samples were shared with any researcher in the world who requested it. You can't get much "rawer" than actual rocks and soils collected on the Moon! Yes, they were distributed by NASA, but quite freely -- and not a single researcher has disputed that the material came from the Moon.

Really, the evidence for the reality of the Apollo missions is overwhelming, so much so that anyone who refuses to accept it is very unlikely to change their mind based on some new photos from another NASA mission.

[jrkeller]

Similarly, the lunar samples were shared with any researcher in the world who requested it. You can't get much "rawer" than actual rocks and soils collected on the Moon! Yes, they were distributed by NASA, but quite freely -- and not a single researcher has disputed that the material came from the Moon.

And the lunar samples are still available to researchers. Link (http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/index.cfm)

[Bob B.]

Part of the problem is that those today that believe the landings were faked do so because that is what they want to believe. These people will continue to believe what they want no matter what evidence is provided. I'm sure new images will do little to put an end to the moon landing hoax theories.

[SpitfireIX]

I'm sure that, when we eventually have regularly scheduled flights to the Moon, the few remaining HBs et al, will claim it's all being done on a holodeck. Or maybe even a futuristic animation...

That's a good point, considering that there are a few especially cranky conspiracists (such as the author of this page (http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm)) who claim that the plane that struck WTC 2 was actually a missile with a hologram generator. :eek: :eek:

[jt-3d]

Don't forget, they already have an excuse for anything from Apollo that is proven to be on the moon. 'NASA has had 40 years to put it there.'

[Obviousman]

Yep, as soon as you show further conclusive proof, the HBs will dismiss it as faked.

An example: 9/11. On a forum, some people (none engineers or similar) were going over the flight recorder data from Flight 93 and saying "look at this!" and saying how it proved that the aircraft was shot down.

An aeronautical engineer with 20 years of experience in data analysis, FDR analysis, flight modelling, etc, pops in and says in no uncertain terms that the data from the FDR is entirely consistant with the offical report.

So that would have to convince them, right?

Nope. Now it's "the data was faked", etc.

[softearth]

How could it be shared in real time back then? There was no internet, and it was film, not digital, it had to be processed.

Actually, the film was processed and scanned to digital form on the orbitor and then sent back to earth via radio transmitions. It's this "RAW" digital information that should have and should be shared with the public and not the end picture(s).

Also, nobody has answered my basic question of "Why hasn't NASA or another space agency ever sent another orbitor to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface since 1967?"

[peter eldergill]

Money

[Grashtel]

Actually, the film was processed and scanned to digital form on the orbitor and then sent back to earth via radio transmitions. It's this "RAW" digital information that should have and should be shared with the public and not the end picture(s).
Is raw data unavalible or simply only provided if specificly asked for (and not nessicarily for free)? The general public lacks the capability to make use of unprocessed data so making it avalible to them is fairly pointless, and given the large quantaties of data supplying it will have a significant cost.

Also, nobody has answered my basic question of "Why hasn't NASA or another space agency ever sent another orbitor to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface since 1967?" Most likely because they all have decidedly limited budgets and as high resolution images are already avalible from Apollo obtaining new ones aren't high on the list of things to spend money on.

[Van Rijn]

Also, nobody has answered my basic question of "Why hasn't NASA or another space agency ever sent another orbitor to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface since 1967?"

As jrkeller mentioned, expect the LRO in 2008. As for why not so far, the moon is in our backyard. It just hasn't been considered a priority, scientifically or politically. Interplanetary probes and other juicier projects tended to get the money. Now that we are planning on going back to the moon, it makes sense to get better information on it.

[jt-3d]

Also, nobody has answered my basic question of "Why hasn't NASA or another space agency ever sent another orbitor to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface since 1967?"


Money is it in a nutshell. It costs money. They have a limited budget, why waste it on trying to prove that which they have already proven? No other country has felt the need to go take pictures of our lunar trash from space for the same reason. Not even the USSR who had the most reason to check up on us. We'll just have to wait until 2008 which I think will be very cool.

[Van Rijn]

Money is it in a nutshell. It costs money. They have a limited budget, why waste it on trying to prove that which they have already proven? No other country has felt the need to go take pictures of our lunar trash from space for the same reason. Not even the USSR who had the most reason to check up on us. We'll just have to wait until 2008 which I think will be very cool.

Just to be clear on this: There is absolutely no justification for going to the moon just to take pictures of where we have already been. The only reasons for lunar survey are scientific or to better plan for lunar settlements. Aside from the cost, a "check up" would be irrelevent. The evidence that we landed is already overwhelming. Moon hoaxers would just say it was faked and everyone else would wonder why the money was wasted this way.

[Nowhere Man]

How could it be shared in real time back then? There was no internet, and it was film, not digital, it had to be processed.
Actually, the film was processed and scanned to digital form on the orbitor and then sent back to earth via radio transmitions. It's this "RAW" digital information that should have and should be shared with the public and not the end picture(s).
Are you saying that this was done with the Apollo pictures? If so, I believe that you are wrong. The only electronic pictures taken by the Apollo missions were television. Everything else was film. Hundreds or thousands of 70mm Hasselblad frames, and loads of 16mm movies. The film was developed and printed on Earth. The astronauts had enough to do besides fooling with developing chemicals in free-fall.

I will, of course, accept correction from those who know more about it than me.

Fred

[softearth]

It seems that after doing some research on the subject of going back to the moon, NASA isn't the only one interested. I found a few resources for reference.

Ref: http://www.transorbital.net/media.html

Ref: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/transorbital_030715.html

The funny thing about this link is that it says:

A test mission was launched into Earth orbit in December 2002 to check out TrailBlazer's launch vehicle, a Dnepr rocket, and the spacecraft separation process.

"That launch performed flawlessly," said Laurie. "Our second step is to go to the Moon." TrailBlazer's launch is set for early 2004.

WHY DIDN'T WE HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?

Ref: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/future/future.html

So it seems there is great interest in going back to the moon, not only for science, but commercial use as well.

Hope this helps explain away why cost isn't an issue.

[Photon]

G'day softearth, I'm with you, I can't understand why they haven't been back.
Not only would the Petrologists love some more samples from other regions but imagine the full disk view of Earth from a small soft lander, there must be some value in being able to observe the Earth as it goes through it's phases from the lunar surface.

[Maksutov]

It seems that after doing some research on the subject of going back to the moon, NASA isn't the only one interested. I found a few resources for reference.

Ref: http://www.transorbital.net/media.html

Ref: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/transorbital_030715.html

The funny thing about this link is that it says:

A test mission was launched into Earth orbit in December 2002 to check out TrailBlazer's launch vehicle, a Dnepr rocket, and the spacecraft separation process.

"That launch performed flawlessly," said Laurie. "Our second step is to go to the Moon." TrailBlazer's launch is set for early 2004.

WHY DIDN'T WE HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?Those of us who regularly read www.space.com (http://www.space.com) heard about it when it happened. It's interesting to note that the TransOrbital website (http://www.transorbital.net/bluespartan/index.php?action=index) hasn't been updated since 2004.

BTW, why are you shouting?


Ref: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/future/future.html

So it seems there is great interest in going back to the moon, not only for science, but commercial use as well.

Hope this helps explain away why cost isn't an issue.Perhaps the reason TransOrbital has been delaying further missions for years now is due to money, or lack thereof. Same thing applies to the Russian proposals too.

[Maksutov]

G'day softearth, I'm with you, I can't understand why they haven't been back.Try reading all the posts in this thread.

Not only would the Petrologists love some more samples from other regions They have samples from the maria, highlands, craters, mountains, rilles, etc., that they're still working on. They will have more samples in a few years.
but imagine the full disk view of Earth from a small soft lander, there must be some value in being able to observe the Earth as it goes through it's phases from the lunar surface.What value, other than pretty pictures, of which we already have a plethora? Plus we currently get a multitude of Earth pictures from various geosats, weather satellites, the ISS, etc., which are much more detailed than what could be produced from the Moon.

[sts60]

I mean allow scientist from around the world to collect the raw data in real time. No waiting around for NASA's approval like all the other missions. Raw data doesn't need approval, it needs to be shared and studied from all angles.

The data wasn't held for "approval" but rather for processing and for those investigators who had done all the work to have first crack at it. There is nothing unusual about this in scientific practice. In any case, basically all data from Apollo has been available to anybody for decades.

Additionally, telemetry from Apollo, and the ALSEP experiments, was tracked and downlinked worldwide.

Finally, suppose the taxpayers coughed up about a hundred million bucks for a high-resolution imager meant specifically to "broadcast" data to any interested party. What would prevent the imagery from being faked onboard? We have the onboard computing capability nowadays to add a few pixels to a genuine Moon image. Your scenario is still untenable as "proof" of Apollo's reality; it doesn't hold a candle to the actual proof we already have from four decades ago.

Actually, the film was processed and scanned to digital form on the orbitor and then sent back to earth via radio transmitions. It's this "RAW" digital information that should have and should be shared with the public and not the end picture(s).

This was not the case with Apollo, which used both direct video and film which was processed on Earth.

It seems that after doing some research on the subject of going back to the moon, NASA isn't the only one interested.

The Chinese have a manned lunar program going. They are currently planning to land there around 2025 (last time I checked). Other nations have lunar exploration programs of various ambitions.

WHY DIDN'T WE HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?

We did; it made the usual news sources, though as usual politics and explosions and celebrity scandals received about a million times as much press. Apparently you don't follow the space business regularly, like many of us do.

Hope this helps explain away why cost isn't an issue.

No, it doesn't. Building up a space industrial infrastructure is enormously expensive and both progress and return on investment are far from certain. Private (or publicly-held) businesses don't spend that kind of money on their own. Governments don't spend that kind of money without public support (aka votes), and the taxpaying public hasn't had that kind of consistent interest in space since the first manned Moon landing. In the U.S., interest in unmanned projects has flared up episodically with Mars landings, but that's about it.

Not only would the Petrologists love some more samples from other regions

Er, why would petroleum geologists be interested in samples from a basically sterile body like the Moon?

but imagine the full disk view of Earth from a small soft lander, there must be some value in being able to observe the Earth as it goes through it's phases from the lunar surface.

Aesthetic and spiritual value, yes. But not much scientific value, in particular when compared to Triana (http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/triana.html) and other Earth observers. (And Triana was shelved anyway.) In any case, there is no point at all to having such an imager on the lunar surface; if you just wanted pictures of the Earth from the Moon, it would be far easier to take them from a lunar oribiter.

[Maksutov]

[edit]Not only would the Petrologists love some more samples from other regions

Er, why would petroleum geologists be interested in samples from a basically sterile body like the Moon?...A petrologist studies various kinds of rocks and is not necessarily involved in petroleum exploration et al. Reference. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrology)

[sts60]

I stand rejected dejected corrected. :)

[Hamlet]

Actually, the film was processed and scanned to digital form on the orbitor and then sent back to earth via radio transmitions. It's this "RAW" digital information that should have and should be shared with the public and not the end picture(s).

This was true of the Lunar Orbiter (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunarorb.html) missions, but was not true of the Apollo missions. The Apollo films were brought back to Earth for processing.

What's the hangup with "RAW" data? The raw data could just as easily be manipulated as the final product. This would do nothing to quell the ignorant rantings of the HBers. FYI, NASA does provided "raw" data for public consumption at the Planetary Data System (PDS) (http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/) for many missions. The data is usually made available after the principle investigators have had a chance to evaluate them.



Also, nobody has answered my basic question of "Why hasn't NASA or another space agency ever sent another orbitor to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface since 1967?"

NASA is doing just this in 2008 with the launch of Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) (http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/). This data will also be made available on PDS. Despite what you think it does come down to money and how you prioritize missions based on the budget. The Moon had a great deal of scrutiny during the 1960's culminating with the Apollo landings. During the 70's and 80's there was a great desire to probe other planets and that's where the money went. There is no doubt that proposals were made to go back to the Moon, but they lost out to other missions. In the 90's there was renewed interest in the Moon resulting in the Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions.

Now, with the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE), we have new impetus to study the Moon. The LRO will start off this new exploration.

[PhantomWolf]

Also really depends on what is mean by high resolution. Clemantine, Smart-1, Lunar Prospector all took high resolution photos, they just didn't take close-ups capable of seeing the lunar equipment (though Clemantine did image the Apollo 15 site which revealed a new crater, possibly created by a comet fragment impact recorded by Apollo 15's ALSEP between Apollo 15 and 16, and a darkened patch exactly where NASA claims Apollo 15 landed.)

[Van Rijn]

Also really depends on what is mean by high resolution. Clemantine, Smart-1, Lunar Prospector all took high resolution photos, they just didn't take close-ups capable of seeing the lunar equipment (though Clemantine did image the Apollo 15 site which revealed a new crater, possibly created by a comet fragment impact recorded by Apollo 15's ALSEP between Apollo 15 and 16, and a darkened patch exactly where NASA claims Apollo 15 landed.)

Yup. I tried to find a reference on that proposed "Trailblazer" to find anything that would give a hint on the expected resolution in practice - no luck. I have a hunch that much anything short of millimeter resolution with ideal angle and lighting would simply be dismissed as not good enough by the moon hoaxers. They wouldn't even bother to call it a fake, they'd just say there wasn't enough resolution to make any determination.

[sts60]

And if you took millimeter resolution photos... (looks around nervously) He Who Shall Not Be Named would show up pointing out the bridges, domes and delta-winged shuttles in the "long-range telescopic views" of pebbles and footprints.

[Maha Vailo]

They shouldn't and NASA will never convince people like Bart Sibrel. IMO this mission will definately convince fence sitters.

I think we should, for the simple fact that the fence sitters far outnumber the hoax believers. As I've said before, debunking is not for the believers or the skeptics, it is for the fence-sitters, the teeming masses who may have heard of the hoaxes and wonder: "Is it true?"

As for the "missle-with-a-hologram" 9/11 CT, it just doesn't fly (pun intended). I don't think we can make moving holograms (though I could be wrong - feel free to correct me).

- Maha Vailo

[Photon]

Try reading all the posts in this thread.
They have samples from the maria, highlands, craters, mountains, rilles, etc., that they're still working on. They will have more samples in a few years. What value, other than pretty pictures, of which we already have a plethora? Plus we currently get a multitude of Earth pictures from various geosats, weather satellites, the ISS, etc., which are much more detailed than what could be produced from the Moon.

Yes I can read, no I don't agree. I thought the current thinking was that the Apollo samples came from the Procellarum KREEP Terrane area on the Earth facing side and that the Apollo Highland, Maria model of the surface was out of date.
Pretty pictures? Why so defensive? Pictures from a fixed position on another Orbiting body as well providing real time data on radiation solar wind, you name it.

[PhantomWolf]

As for the "missle-with-a-hologram" 9/11 CT, it just doesn't fly (pun intended). I don't think we can make moving holograms (though I could be wrong - feel free to correct me).

Stationary Projected Holograms are still the province of SciFi, let alone animated ones and even more so moving ones.

[PhantomWolf]

I thought the current thinking was that the Apollo samples came from the Procellarum KREEP Terrane area on the Earth facing side and that the Apollo Highland, Maria model of the surface was out of date.

It's not a case of current thinking, it's a case of where the sites are, this isn't going to change. However, the very thing you are stating here shows that there has been further exploration. The KREEP area wasn't even known about during Apollo, it was discovered by Lunar Prospector in the 1990's. It was only after that that we were able to start sorting out candidate spots for the where the various Lunarite were ejected.

Pictures from a fixed position on another Orbiting body as well providing real time data on radiation solar wind, you name it.

A lot of scientists would agree with you, but remember, it's not Scientists who are writting the cheques, it's the Politicians and like it or not, they are more interested in their comfy office chairs in Washington than in pretty pictures of the Earth from the moon which cost the taxpayer a billion dollars to get, especially when they could be using that billion dollars to fund a pet project in their own State hence creating jobs and winning more votes next election, rather then letting Lousiana, Florida and Texas steal it all in space dollars. That's the way Politicians think. They don't care about space flights, manned or otherwise, they only care about getting re-elected next time, and spending money on pretty pictures of the moon when we already have a ton of them is not going to win them votes.

[Swift]

<snip>
A lot of scientists would agree with you, but remember, it's not Scientists who are writting the cheques, it's the Politicians and like it or not, they are more interested in their comfy office chairs in Washington than in pretty pictures of the Earth from the moon which cost the taxpayer a billion dollars to get, especially when they could be using that billion dollars to fund a pet project in their own State hence creating jobs and winning more votes next election, rather then letting Lousiana, Florida and Texas steal it all in space dollars. That's the way Politicians think. They don't care about space flights, manned or otherwise, they only care about getting re-elected next time, and spending money on pretty pictures of the moon when we already have a ton of them is not going to win them votes.
I'm one of those taxpayers, though admittedly a weird one who would spend a lot more money on NASA. But given budgetary limitations, I would rather see NASA spend money on new rovers for Mars or a Hubble repair mission, than trying to convince HBers and fence-sitters of what we accomplished almost 30 years ago. The physical evidence we went to the moon is overwhelming and readily available to anyone who is interested. If we return to the moon for further science or as a step-off point to Mars, great, but we don't need to redo what we've already done.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

As for the "missle-with-a-hologram" 9/11 CT, it just doesn't fly (pun intended). I don't think we can make moving holograms (though I could be wrong - feel free to correct me).

Stationary Projected Holograms are still the province of SciFi, let alone animated ones and even more so moving ones.
Not to mention huge...

[Mellow]

....circa 2008 puts CT hat on....

"So anyway, the images being received right now from the so-called Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter are simply pre-recorded images being beamed down on order from the gubbmint."

[softearth]

It seems that we all agree that going back to the moon is a worth while cause for scientific, commercial and military reasons. However, I still wonder why after nearly 45+ years after the first moon landing, we still don't have independent third party evidence that proves or verifies the landing sites themselves.

We know for a fact that we or someone else can easily send a lunar orbiter to take high resolution video or photos of the landing sites, since NASA did this way back in 1967, prior to the landings.

It also seems that every effort from other nations or corporate endeavorers are halted or sweep under the rug soon after we hear about them.

You must ask yourself, WHY?

After reading all the replies to my simple solution, I still haven't received a valid answer that holds water. Therefore, I must conclude that we never did land on the moon. I'm not happy about this result, for I was hoping that someone on here had proof or evidence that may have been overlooked by myself and others that have valid questions about the moon landings.

...

[captain swoop]

Who has halted the Chinese or sweptthem 'under the rug'? Japan is sending an orbiter, China are going to send a manned mission. They aren't going just to satisfy your request about the authenticity of the landings. Even NASA are going back with a manned mission.

Masses of evidence is available, that you want to close your eyes and ignore it is your problem. It's you making the claim its up to you to show that we never went. tell us what's wrong with the evidence we have?

Russia confirmed that the lunar samples braught back by apollo were the same as their samples returned later, is that '3rd party' enough for you? What about the various organisations and individuals around the world that tracked the missions to the moon and monitored the telemetry are they '3rd party' enough?

[Nicolas]

However, I still wonder why after nearly 45+ years after the first moon landing, we still don't have independent third party evidence that proves or verifies the landing sites themselves. We know for a fact that we or someone else can easily send a lunar orbiter to take high resolution video or photos of the landing sites, since NASA did this way back in 1967, prior to the landings.


The answer lies in the slight difficulties connected to getting to the moon or close enough to photograph it. The only ones who could do that now are the ones who verified Apollo back then by tracking it, and hence feel no need to once again show what they already know (and in case of the Russians that they lost the race). Are you going to study for months to redo your final exam, just to prove that you went to school in your childhood? Is your neighbour going to go through all nation records looking for evidence of you going to school in your childhood, when he already knows because he was in your class?


It also seems that every effort from other nations or corporate endeavorers are halted or sweep under the rug soon after we hear about them.

You must ask yourself, WHY?
Because many groups make wild claims of going to the moon in X years that they simply can't make reality due to budget or practical issues. The halt comes from within the body making the claim or it's direct bosses, not through some US bad guys.

[gwiz]

Also, nobody has answered my basic question of "Why hasn't NASA or another space agency ever sent another orbitor to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface since 1967?"

Actually, they did. In 1971 and 1972 the last three Apollo missions carried high-resolution mapping cameras. Due to orbital limitations, they only covered the daylight half of an equatorial band of the moon, which is why the upcoming LRO is needed to widen the coverage. The LMs were photographed on the lunar surface. I don't recall that this has convinced any hoax believers.

Incidentally, LRO will have a resolution of 0.5 metres, so an image it gets of an LM will be only a few pixels across.

[softearth]

Who has halted the Chinese or sweptthem 'under the rug'? Japan is sending an orbiter, China are going to send a manned mission. They aren't going just to satisfy your request about the authenticity of the landings. Even NASA are going back with a manned mission.

The US government is talking with China now about their planned missions and are trying to work together with them just like Japan and other nations. I wonder why? Read the news.


Masses of evidence is available, that you want to close your eyes and ignore it is your problem. It's you making the claim its up to you to show that we never went. tell us what's wrong with the evidence we have?

All the current evidence can be underminded, like the pictures, rocks and even the radio transmissions. The picture negitives taken from the moon show no radiation exposer as one would expect to happen since the camera had no protective lead shielding and was exposed to open space for nearly 10+ days.


Russia confirmed that the lunar samples braught back by apollo were the same as their samples returned later, is that '3rd party' enough for you? What about the various organisations and individuals around the world that tracked the missions to the moon and monitored the telemetry are they '3rd party' enough?

Sending a robotic space craft to retrieve rocks is possible and most likely what indeed happened. However, tracking the actual manned space craft to the moon can easliy be reproduced by simply using a non-manned space craft and a relay from planet earth.

See, simple answers to simple questions!

[softearth]

Actually, they did. In 1971 and 1972 the last three Apollo missions carried high-resolution mapping cameras. Due to orbital limitations, they only covered the daylight half of an equatorial band of the moon, which is why the upcoming LRO is needed to widen the coverage. The LMs were photographed on the lunar surface. I don't recall that this has convinced any hoax believers.

Incidentally, LRO will have a resolution of 0.5 metres, so an image it gets of an LM will be only a few pixels across.

Hummm, finally we're getting to the point of the issue. Could you please provide a link to these pictures of the LM's that were taken by the Apollo missions in 1971 and 1972 as stated by you in your first sentence. Please!

I'll be waiting...

[gwiz]

Sending a robotic space craft to retrieve rocks is possible and most likely what indeed happened. However, tracking the actual manned space craft to the moon can easliy be reproduced by simply using a non-manned space craft and a relay from planet earth.
So it was all done with an unmanned craft using a level of robotics - beyond the art even now - to move around on the surface, photograph rocks in situ before collecting them, drill core samples, scoop up loose dust, deploy scientific instruments and return the samples and film to earth. The unmanned craft (who built it? where was it launched from? how has it been kept secret?) split in two, leaving part in orbit while the lander was on the moon, and the orbiter part used very large cameras to photograph parts of the moon at much higher resolution than any other probe, again returning film to earth. It also managed to relay conversations, including references to current events, with a time delay consistent with one party to the conversations being on the moon.

You are really presenting a plausible scenario here.

[softearth]

So it was all done with an unmanned craft using a level of robotics - beyond the art even now - to move around on the surface, photograph rocks in situ before collecting them, drill core samples, scoop up loose dust, deploy scientific instruments and return the samples and film to earth. The unmanned craft (who built it? where was it launched from? how has it been kept secret?) split in two, leaving part in orbit while the lander was on the moon, and the orbiter part used very large cameras to photograph parts of the moon at much higher resolution than any other probe, again returning film to earth. It also managed to relay conversations, including references to current events, with a time delay consistent with one party to the conversations being on the moon.

You are really presenting a plausible scenario here.

Didn't the Russians bring back rock samples from the moon way back in the 1960-70's? thought so!

And yes, using a non-manned space craft with relays is the most plausible scenario.

[gwiz]

Hummm, finally we're getting to the point of the issue. Could you please provide a link to these pictures of the LM's that were taken by the Apollo missions in 1971 and 1972 as stated by you in your first sentence. Please!

I'll be waiting...

Try zooming in from this page (http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/landing_sites.html). Apollo 17 works best, the other sites have a yellow dot drawn in on top of the LM. You could try making a note of the frame numbers for 15 and 16 and googling for better copies.

[gwiz]

Didn't the Russians bring back rock samples from the moon way back in the 1960-70's? thought so!

And yes, using a non-manned space craft with relays is the most plausible scenario.
The Russians brought back less than a kg of samples from three missions from 1970 to 1976, Apollo brought back 380 kg. The Russians just grabbed what was within reach of the lander.

Read what I said about the conversations. Just using a relay with both ends of the conversation on earth would give twice the time delay.

[softearth]

Try zooming in from this page (http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/landing_sites.html). Apollo 17 works best, the other sites have a yellow dot drawn in on top of the LM. You could try making a note of the frame numbers for 15 and 16 and googling for better copies.

Thanks for the link, however these pictures do not convice me at all. You should be able to at least see the tracks of the moon rovers with the picture resolution, but you can't. I guess thats why they had to draw them over the photos.

Thanks again! and if you have other links, please provide them.

[gwiz]

Thanks for the link, however these pictures do not convice me at all.
Somehow, I'm not in the least surprised. You will find some way to wave any any future pictures too.

[Van Rijn]

Thanks for the link, however these pictures do not convice me at all. You should be able to at least see the tracks of the moon rovers with the picture resolution, but you can't. I guess thats why they had to draw them over the photos.


Please state how you determined this. What resolution do you think would be needed to see rover tracks? How would you see them?

See, this is exactly the response I expect - you will make assertions and find fault with any evidence provided. I have no doubt you will quickly dismiss the LRO images when they come.

And as for this:


All the current evidence can be underminded, like the pictures, rocks and even the radio transmissions. The picture negitives taken from the moon show no radiation exposer as one would expect to happen since the camera had no protective lead shielding and was exposed to open space for nearly 10+ days.

How would you fake the rocks? How would you fake the lunar conditions in the video and photos? How would you fake TV transmissions from the moon? How have you determined the radiation environment would require lead shielding for the cameras?




Thanks again! and if you have other links, please provide them.

Why should we bother, since you obviously are going to ignore them?

[captain swoop]

The US government is talking with China now about their planned missions and are trying to work together with them just like Japan and other nations. I wonder why? Read the news.

!


So do I take this to mean you think that NASA will make the Chinese go along with the Apollo hoax or they will sabotage their mission?

how will they do this? do you think the Chinese Govt will abandon their lunar mission because NASA ask them to?

[softearth]

The Russians brought back less than a kg of samples from three missions from 1970 to 1976, Apollo brought back 380 kg. The Russians just grabbed what was within reach of the lander.

Read what I said about the conversations. Just using a relay with both ends of the conversation on earth would give twice the time delay.

So, I guess your statement about sending robotic space craft to the moon in the 1970's was not possible is false?

The time delay argument is indeed in question, because all transmissions were routed and controlled through NASA and they seem to communicate faster than the speed of light in some instances.

Speed of light = 186,000 miles per second.
Distance to Moon = 251,967 miles from Earth.

251,967 miles (distance to moon from earth) / 186,000 miles per second (speed of light) = 1.35466 second time delay (one way transmission)

Listen to the lunar landing transmissions and see if the astronautes were able to communicate with NASA and vis versa without the 1.35 second time delay.

[gwiz]

So, I guess your statement about sending robotic space craft to the moon in the 1970's was not possible is false?
Read my post again. I didn't say grabbing the nearest scoop of soil was impossible, I said:

using a level of robotics - beyond the art even now - to move around on the surface, photograph rocks in situ before collecting them, drill core samples, scoop up loose dust, deploy scientific instruments and return the samples and film to earth.

[gwiz]

The time delay argument is indeed in question, because all transmissions were routed and controlled through NASA and they seem to communicate faster than the speed of light in some instances.

Speed of light = 186,000 miles per second.
Distance to Moon = 251,967 miles from Earth.

251,967 miles (distance to moon from earth) / 186,000 miles per second (speed of light) = 1.35466 second time delay (one way transmission)

Listen to the lunar landing transmissions and see if the astronautes were able to communicate with NASA and vis versa without the 1.35 second time delay.
Do you have an unedited example of this? Remember the delay is only on one side of the conversation: ground speaks - delay - moon speaks - no delay - ground speaks...

[softearth]

Somehow, I'm not in the least surprised. You will find some way to wave any any future pictures too.

Sorry, but I can't see the LM's or the tracks from the moon rovers. If you can see them, let us know how you can do it. Why should I say I see them when I can't?

You guys want to talk about science and evidence, but you can't produce any solid proof when it's ask for.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Sorry, but I can't see the LM's or the tracks from the moon rovers. If you can see them, let us know how you can do it. Why should I say I see them when I can't?
The question is: Why would you expect to see them?


You guys want to talk about science and evidence, but you can't produce any solid proof when it's ask for.
Solid proof and what you find acceptable seem to be two very different things.

Personally, I think you need to crank that self-righteousness down quite a few notches. It's no one's responsibility to prove anything to you. It's your responsibility to prove your claims to us. You have done nothing of the sort. There are quite a few direct answers you've completely ignored (at what resolution would you expect to see the tracks from the rover?).

[captain swoop]

Give it up, he hasn't got any interest in looking at the evidence. I don't know why people bother, when a thread like this pops up don't fall for it.!!!

[gwiz]

Sorry, but I can't see the LM's or the tracks from the moon rovers. If you can see them, let us know how you can do it. Why should I say I see them when I can't?
The Apollo 17 LM is visible as a bright dot which casts a shadow to the left. If you think the rover tracks should be visible, please explain why wheel tracks should be clearer than a 4 metre metal object. Also, I checked when the picture was taken, rev 15, just at the start of the first EVA, so you wouldn't expect tracks anyway.

[sts60]

No, the problem is that you are ignoring or misinterpreting evidence.

LRV tracks are not detectable at the levels of resolution available in any of the images taken from lunar orbit. That's not a matter of opinion.

Didn't the Russians bring back rock samples from the moon way back in the 1960-70's? thought so!

Once again: Soviet automated lunar sample returns scraped up and brought back a few ounces of topsoil. That was the peak of automated sample recovery capability. The Apollo missions brought back several hundred kilograms of differentiated lunar samples, including intact rocks and core samples, all of which were extensively documented in the imagery record. The worldwide geological community agrees that the Apollo samples were retrieved in situ on the Moon. There was (and is) no capability to gather such a sample collection robotically.

And yes, using a non-manned space craft with relays is the most plausible scenario.

No, it isn't. The time delays would be all wrong. And it has been explained before multiple times in this forum that "no-delay" recordings are a normal and expected result of where the recordings are made.

Do you really think that if such obvious flaws existed in a giant lunar hoax, nobody would have been smart enough to figure this out before? What a curious form of unwarranted intellectual arrogance.

[softearth]

Do you have an unedited example of this? Remember the delay is only on one side of the conversation: ground speaks - delay - moon speaks - no delay - ground speaks...

Excuse me, but the time delay would be in both directions.

Example: if the word "Hello" took 0.5 seconds to speak
Again, it takes 1.35 seconds to send a message to the moon from planet earth and vis versa.

Earth time 1:00:00.00 pm EST: says "Hello"
Moon time 1:00:01.35 starts to hear "Hello", takes 0.5 seconds to hear word
Moon time 1:00:01.85 replies with "Hello"
Earth time 1:00:03.20 starts to hear "Hello", takes 0.5 seconds to hear word
Earth time 1:00:03.70 hears total reply

Total round trip time = 3.7 seconds with the word "hello", therefore all round trip messages between the earth and moon must have a mimimum of 2.7 second time delay between them in order to communicate using the current laws of physics.

[Grashtel]

Excuse me, but the time delay would be in both directions.

Example: if the word "Hello" took 0.5 seconds to speak
Again, it takes 1.35 seconds to send a message to the moon from planet earth and vis versa.

Earth time 1:00:00.00 pm EST: says "Hello"
Moon time 1:00:01.35 starts to hear "Hello", takes 0.5 seconds to hear word
Moon time 1:00:01.85 replies with "Hello"
Earth time 1:00:03.20 starts to hear "Hello", takes 0.5 seconds to hear word
Earth time 1:00:03.70 hears total reply

Total round trip time = 3.7 seconds with the word "hello", therefore all round trip messages between the earth and moon must have a mimimum of 2.7 second time delay between them in order to communicate using the current laws of physics.
You do realise that you just agreed with gwiz? Remeber that the recordings were taking place at Mission Control so you hear the total delay from travel time between Mission Control's message and the reply from the Moon.

[softearth]

You do realise that you just agreed with gwiz? Remeber that the recordings were taking place at Mission Control so you hear the total delay from travel time between Mission Control's message and the reply from the Moon.

So let's listen to the transmissions between NASA and LM's and see if the laws of physics were indeed broken. I'll try and find a link and I suggest you do the same if you really want the truth.

[Tog]

So let's listen to the transmissions between NASA and LM's and see if the laws of physics were indeed broken. I'll try and find a link and I suggest you do the same if you really want the truth.

I just want to throw this out there.

You do realise that the pause in the recordings will only happen before the Moon responds right?

Mission control: Hello?
Pause
Lunar Modue: We're here.
MC: bring back a Coke.
Pause
LM: You got it.

Becasue the recording device is on the Earth

[Nowhere Man]

However, I still wonder why after nearly 45+ years after the first moon landing,
2006 - 1969 = 37. Nowhere near 45+ years, yet. :think:

Fred

[Nicolas]

I just want to throw this out there.

You do realise that the pause in the recordings will only happen before the Moon responds right?

Mission control: Hello?
Pause
Lunar Modue: We're here.
MC: bring back a Coke.
Pause
LM: You got it.

Becasue the recording device is on the Earth

Correct. Note that the pause is 2 times the travel time, as it goes from earth to moon and back.

[NEOWatcher]

2006 - 1969 = 37. Nowhere near 45+ years, yet. :think:

Fred
And he(?) wants to argue physics and numbers. http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/konfus/g060.gif

[MG1962A]

The time delay argument is indeed in question, because all transmissions were routed and controlled through NASA and they seem to communicate faster than the speed of light in some instances.


Incorrect. Transmissions in Australia were routed straight of the recievers at Parkes and Honeysuckle creek.

[Nicolas]

Sorry, but I can't see the LM's or the tracks from the moon rovers. If you can see them, let us know how you can do it. Why should I say I see them when I can't?

You guys want to talk about science and evidence, but you can't produce any solid proof when it's ask for.

Hint on the moon rover tracks: some molecules would be long enough to be visible with the naked eye, yet we can't see them becasue they're too thin.


you can't produce any solid proof when it's ask for

Erm, no. There's a pile of evidence, only you don't want that and demand evidence that isn't existing. Whole different story!

[Jakenorrish]

Well, I give you credit Softearth for trying a new approach to the Moon Hoax thing by trying to draw us in to the fact that you believed the Moon landings when in actual fact you didn't and are a bonefide Hoax Believer.

However, there are just the two flaws in your argument thus far. You can't count (an essential ability for calculations especially when discussing the delays in responses from the orbiters and mission control) and you've yet to come up with anything that the likes of Sibrel and his numptys haven't tried so far.

One question though. How did NASA fake the landings with the co-operation of the (at the time extremely hostile) Soviet Union? Did they magically get a signal to the Soviet's (and rest of the worlds') tracking facilities or were the Russians in on it too? All available evidence so far is that the Russians knew full well that the US landed on the moon.

I think you may be a little out of your depth.....

[gwiz]

Erm, no. There's a pile of evidence, only you don't want that and demand evidence that isn't existing. Whole different story!

Strangely enough, this is a tactic that the conspiracists accuse the debunkers of using, but it is the conspiracists themselves who seem to me to be the major offenders. See tactic 19 here:
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

[PhantomWolf]

And occasionally you'll get this:

Mission control: Hello?
Pause
Lunar Modue: We're here.
MC: bring back a Coke.
Pause
LM: I'll check my loose change.
MC: Thanks a lot guys.
CM: Get me one too
LM: You...
Pause while listening
LM: You got it. We'll make sure we have enough for you too Houston.
MC: Roger that.

[softearth]

I just want to throw this out there.

You do realise that the pause in the recordings will only happen before the Moon responds right?

Mission control: Hello?
Pause
Lunar Modue: We're here.
MC: bring back a Coke.
Pause
LM: You got it.

Becasue the recording device is on the Earth

Of course, but let's not forget the time delay of 1.35 seconds per direction since this is the main issue at hand.

:exclaim: The bottom line is that the LM could not have responded faster then 1.35 seconds to a question or statement from NASA. If the recordings show a response time from the LM faster than 1.35 seconds, then there is no way they could have been on the moon.

:dance: I hope we can find a link to the NASA recordings so that everyone can hear the transmissions for themselves.

[PhantomWolf]

I noticed no one really took this one to task, so I'm going to.

All the current evidence can be underminded, like the pictures, rocks and even the radio transmissions.

Only by those that have no idea of science, no alternative way of doing any of these things actually stands up to real scientific scrutiny, they just sound good to laymen with no knowledge to base their beliefs off.

The picture negitives taken from the moon

What picture negatives?

show no radiation exposer as one would expect to happen

What type of radiation? What is the flux? The energy? How much affect should we see from it?

since the camera had no protective lead shielding and was exposed to open space for nearly 10+ days.

Show that it needed it, otherwise you are merely begging the question.

[Jakenorrish]

Of course, but let's not forget the time delay of 1.35 seconds per direction since this is the main issue at hand.

:exclaim: The bottom line is that the LM could not have responded faster then 1.35 seconds to a question or statement from NASA. If the recordings show a response time from the LM faster than 1.35 seconds, then there is no way they could have been on the moon.

:dance: I hope we can find a link to the NASA recordings so that everyone can hear the transmissions for themselves.

How about you go to the NASA site and type in a search for Hmmmmmmmm........ 'Apollo recordings' maybe, or would you like us to do your shopping for you too?????? :D

[Swift]

<snip>
All the current evidence can be underminded, like the pictures, rocks and even the radio transmissions. The picture negitives taken from the moon show no radiation exposer as one would expect to happen since the camera had no protective lead shielding and was exposed to open space for nearly 10+ days.

I'm not sure what you mean by the evidence could be "underminded"? Do mean faked? If so, how were they faked? Remember, 1969 is before Photoshop existed, let alone the PC to run it on. How were all the still photos (thousands of them), movies and video faked? If they were filmed in some studio, how did they fake the lower gravity and vacuum of the moon, not only for the astronauts, but for the lunar dust?

I have a PhD in solid state chemistry and essentially make artificial "rocks" for a living, yet I don't know how to make a fake moon rock that would convince every geologist that examined it, let along hundreds of kilograms of such fake rocks. And not just rocks, but core samples of the lunar soil, that no current robots could take.

[NEOWatcher]

...Remember, 1969 is before Photoshop existed, let alone the PC to run it on...
Wasn't that software a declassified black project that used to run at area 51 on a supercomputer? :shifty:

[Jakenorrish]

Sssshhhhhh! Don't tell everyone, I thought it was supposed to be our little secret NEO. You'll be letting on about the non-breakable alloy next.......

;)

[JimTKirk]

<snip>:dance: I hope we can find a link to the NASA recordings so that everyone can hear the transmissions for themselves.

You are of course under the assumption that no one here has ever actually listened to the recordings, when in fact a large portion have.

Don't get me wrong, there are some press kit materials where the pauses were intentionally removed. It just doesn't make for good journalism to have dead air, so those were produced. The original recordings do have the pauses as expected. The HBers love to find a chopped up press kit recording and say "Look!" as if that is evidence.

[captain swoop]

they TELL you its a chopped up press kit! but they would wouldn't they? ;)

[Jakenorrish]

Jim, the point is that the Hoax Believers love to find anything that they either don't understand, or can't be bothered looking into then expect others to explain it to them.

[Jakenorrish]

they TELL you its a chopped up press kit! but they would wouldn't they? ;)

Yep then they could graft the pauses in to make it sound like a delay...... :shifty:

[JimTKirk]

they TELL you its a chopped up press kit! but they would wouldn't they? ;)

Gotta love the mentality!;)

BTW: Where's JayUtah been lately? I haven't seen him here for quite a while! He'd probably love this thread...

[JimTKirk]

Jim, the point is that the Hoax Believers love to find anything that they either don't understand, or can't be bothered looking into then expect others to explain it to them.

Oh, I know... Just trying to head off the next rebuttal by the OP, if he finds a press recording.

[tofu]

You should be able to at least see the tracks of the moon rovers with the picture resolution, but you can't.

Please provide the math that you used to make the determination that, "you should be able to see the tracks at this resolution." I want to see you calculate this:

1. here is the resolution of the image.
2. the tracks were X meters wide
3. at this resolution, the tracks would be Y pixels wide.

I'm not holding my breath - I know that you didn't do any calculations. We all know the truth softearth, you made up your mind to reject the images before you even clicked on the link!

Here's what you've contributed to this thread so far.
you: why haven't we gone back and taken pictures?
others: money
you: no, it's not money. here is a private company that wants to do it.
others: yeah, and they ran out of money
you: that's because NASA sabatoged them!!! why hasn't anyone taken pictures?
others: well, apollo 17 did.
you: PROVE IT! SHOW ME THE PICTURES!
others: here's a link
you: HA! THAT IS FAKE! I CAN'T SEE THE TRACKS!!

My response to this thread: *yawn*

[captain swoop]

There are loads of threads like this, the OP will keep switching from question to question and detail to detail as the questions are answered and links are given. He has no intention of looking at this objectively and no intention of following any of the links you give.

[NEOWatcher]

...It just doesn't make for good journalism to have dead air, so those were produced...
That might have been true back then, now, they would just overlay it with a commercial.

[JimTKirk]

That might have been true back then, now, they would just overlay it with a commercial.

Blipverts?:clap:

[tofu]

proof that softearth is jerking everyone around:



The Solution is:

NASA could simply just resend another moon orbiter with even higher resolution

(snip)why hasn't NASA done this after the lunar landings in the nearly 35+ years that have passed?

I hope this logic helps to solve the moon hoax problem once and for all. ;)

...

emphasis mine. So the goal that YOU set up is for NASA to do something. You're being totally disingenuous of course, because later you say this:


after nearly 45+ years after the first moon landing, we still don't have independent third party evidence that proves or verifies the landing sites themselves.

So now the goalpost is moved. Now NASA sending a probe isn't enough.

And what happens if the ESA sends a probe? You'll move the goalpost again. "THE ESA IS IN BED WITH NASA! GEORGE BUSH THREATENED TO PUT THEM ALL IN GUANTANIMO IF THEY DON'T SUPPORT NASA'S LIE!!!"

So what happens if China sends a probe? "OBVIOUSLY CHINA DOESNT WANT TO ANGER THE US BECAUSE WALMART WILL STOP BUYING FROM CHINA. CHINA WAS PRESSURED INTO SUPPORTING NASA'S LIE!!!!"

This will continue basically forever. This, softearth, is why nobody (especially NASA) is going to pay one penny to "verify" apollo. Anything they spend will wasted because you will always claim it's not good enough.

Instead, NASA spends its money on science and so far what they've needed for science with regard to the moon has been wide field of view imagers, so that they can look at large areas of the moon - and I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but those can't see apollo hardware.

[softearth]

It seems that NASA doesn't have the original transmissions on their website, or at least I couldn't find it:confused: . Perhaps one of you guys can find it and post the link so everyone here can verify the time delays for themselves. Go ahead, prove me wrong, if you can!

As far as the pictures of Apollo 17 goes, the rovers would have left miles of tracks that should be visible from the pictures provided from the link since you can see the LM and it's shadow :liar: (not really) as stated on the website. Heres's the link http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/ls_17_5a.html.

I'm still waiting for proof! :neutral:

[Swift]

It seems that NASA doesn't have the original transmissions on their website, or at least I couldn't find it:confused: . Perhaps one of you guys can find it and post the link so everyone here can verify the time delays for themselves. Go ahead, prove me wrong, if you can!

As far as the pictures of Apollo 17 goes, the rovers would have left miles of tracks that should be visible from the pictures provided from the link since you can see the LM and it's shadow :liar: (not really) as stated on the website. Heres's the link http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/ls_17_5a.html.

I'm still waiting for proof! :neutral:
I think you need to read the FAQs and the rules of this board. It is not up to us to prove mainstream science, such as the moon landings, it is up to you to prove an alternative theory.

[tofu]

the rovers would have left miles of tracks that should be visible from the pictures

uh huh. The great wall of china is 4000 miles long and should be visible in this picture, since you can see the rivers and mountains.

http://seaofcrisis.com/ext/babb/greatwall.gif

or... maybe I'm just being an idiot who doesn't realize that while the wall is very long, it's also very thin and thus wouldn't show up at this resoluton. hmm.

What proof do we have that the great wall exists? Some pics taken by China? Some "scientists" who tell us they have examined bricks? Why has there been no independent verification in over 2000 years? Come on, do you really think that the Chinese could build a 4000 mile wall 2000 years ago - and yet we can't even build a wall on the southern border of the US today with all our modern technology?? And don't tell me it's about money.

I'm still waiting for proof.

[softearth]

uh huh. The great wall of china is 4000 miles long and should be visible in this picture, since you can see the rivers and mountains.

http://seaofcrisis.com/ext/babb/greatwall.gif

or... maybe I'm just being an idiot who doesn't realize that while the wall is very long, it's also very thin and thus wouldn't show up at this resoluton. hmm.

What proof do we have that the great wall exists? Some pics taken by China? Some "scientists" who tell us they have examined bricks? Why has there been no independent verification in over 2000 years? Come on, do you really think that the Chinese could build a 4000 mile wall 2000 years ago - and yet we can't even build a wall on the southern border of the US today with all our modern technology?? And don't tell me it's about money.

I'm still waiting for proof.

Perhaps if you would zoom this picture in to see a 5 meter wide structure similar to the LM, you would see the wall, but wait, google doesn't let you do that.

Geez, give me a break dude! Try comparing apples to apples once in a while, it's helps to sort things out a bit. :clap:

[softearth]

I think you need to read the FAQs and the rules of this board. It is not up to us to prove mainstream science, such as the moon landings, it is up to you to prove an alternative theory.

So you're saying you can't find the proof as well? Guess not, or you would be providing the link to end this thread once and for all.

[tofu]

but wait, google doesn't let you do that.

EXACTLY!! So, google has pictures of my house that are so good I can see my car in my driveway. But for China? Oops! Sorry! We don't have those pics!

Can't you understand why? If google put the high resolution pics of china on thier website, then we would see that there is no wall! Google will do ANYTHING to keep the Chinese government happy. Want proof? Take a look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm

The title of that article: "Google censors itself for China." What did they censor? That's easy, they took out any images that didn't show a wall!

And take a look at this:

http://tnl.net/blog/2004/04/30/how-many-google-machines/

Google has over 30,000 computers in an underground vault. What do you think they need all that power for?? That's an easy one to figure out too. They are using those computers to digitally enhance millions of images in order to add a great wall of china. mark my words. One day, google is going to announce that it has higher resoluton iimages of china, and sure enough, those images will show a wall. Don't be fooled! Google added the wall to the images. It's all a hoax.

I'm still waiting for proof.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Swift
I think you need to read the FAQs and the rules of this board. It is not up to us to prove mainstream science, such as the moon landings, it is up to you to prove an alternative theory.So you're saying you can't find the proof as well? Guess not, or you would be providing the link to end this thread once and for all.
No, I'm saying I'm not going to spend the time looking for the link, it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to me that men have landed on the moon. Would a recording of a moon-to-Earth conversation with the right time delay be sufficient proof for you?

And why the wink smiley at the top, is this all a joke?

[ToSeek]

It seems that NASA doesn't have the original transmissions on their website, or at least I couldn't find it:confused: . Perhaps one of you guys can find it and post the link so everyone here can verify the time delays for themselves. Go ahead, prove me wrong, if you can!



I can't verify these because I don't have access at work, but these appear to be what you're asking for:

Apollo 11 audio (http://www.live365.com/stations/apollo_11_oda)

Some Apollo 12 audio on this page (and others) (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.eva1prelim.html)

Some Apollo 17 audio on this page (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.1ststep.html)

There's a lot more, but I'll leave that as an exercise. Note that it only took me about a minute to find these, so I wonder just how hard you were looking.

[softearth]

EXACTLY!! So, google has pictures of my house that are so good I can see my car in my driveway. But for China? Oops! Sorry! We don't have those pics!

Can't you understand why? If google put the high resolution pics of china on thier website, then we would see that there is no wall! Google will do ANYTHING to keep the Chinese government happy. Want proof? Take a look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm

The title of that article: "Google censors itself for China." What did they censor? That's easy, they took out any images that didn't show a wall!

And take a look at this:

http://tnl.net/blog/2004/04/30/how-many-google-machines/

Google has over 30,000 computers in an underground vault. What do you think they need all that power for?? That's an easy one to figure out too. They are using those computers to digitally enhance millions of images in order to add a great wall of china. mark my words. One day, google is going to announce that it has higher resoluton iimages of china, and sure enough, those images will show a wall. Don't be fooled! Google added the wall to the images. It's all a hoax.

I'm still waiting for proof.

Please try and stick to the subject at hand. My point was that you could see a 15 meter object (the LM), but no tracks from the rover from the link provided. The moon rover would have left miles of tracks that should have been visible from said pictures within the link.:wall:

[tofu]

So you're saying you can't find the proof as well?

1. Tonnes of moon rocks. Scientists - people with actual degrees from actual universities - look at the rocks and say, "yep, they are from the moon"

But softearth is smarter than a few (thousand) people with PhDs, so he rejects that proof.

2. Telemetry. It wasn't encrypted or encoded or anything. The russians followed the missions all the way to the moon and back. Other countries, like Australia, helped NASA collect the telemetry.

But softearth is too smart to be fooled by this. He knows that russia and australia are also hoaxes.

3. mountains of technical drawings of apollo hardware, and surviving hardware in museams. Engineers - people with actual engineering education and actual experience - look at it and say, "yep, these designs are sound, they would work."

But softearth is smarter than a few thousand silly engineers who were probably paid off by NASA anyway.

4. Thousands and thousands of photographs. (if you were really going to fake something, wouldn't you limit the number of photographs??)

But softearth sees right through this. He knows that real photographs always show stars - and if someone who has actually taken a photograph tells him otherwise - well, he's smarter than they are.


etc. etc. etc.

[tofu]

Please try and stick to the subject at hand. My point was that you could see a 15 meter object (the LM), but no tracks from the rover from the link provided. The moon rover would have left miles of tracks that should have been visible from said pictures within the link.:wall:

You can see a 15 meter object because it's 15 meters square.

You can't see tire tracks because the tires are only about 1/4th of a meter across.

Don't you get the point of the great wall of china example? You can see a town in the north-west corner of that image because the town is a few miles square. But you can't see the great wall of china even though it's thousands of miles long - becuase it's a thin wall.

duh.

[ToSeek]

Please try and stick to the subject at hand. My point was that you could see a 15 meter object (the LM), but no tracks from the rover from the link provided. The moon rover would have left miles of tracks that should have been visible from said pictures within the link.:wall:

Your point is wrong. The rover tracks are centimeters wide. Why would you expect them to be visible in an image that shows a 15-meter object as only a few pixels?

[NEOWatcher]

...
etc. etc. etc.
Eyewitnesses to the live broadcasts?
Since they are getting older and dying off, there's only a few MILLION left.

[Swift]

Eyewitnesses to the live broadcasts?
Since they are getting older and dying off, there's only a few MILLION left.
Hey! I resemble that comment.
But since softearth probably hasn't seen me, I'm probably a hoax too. :D

[NEOWatcher]

Hey! I resemble that comment.
But since softearth probably hasn't seen me, I'm probably a hoax too. :D
Maybe N.E. Ohio as a whole is... Glenn Research Center created it all. Cleveland's just a scale model in the old tank plant.

[sts60]

It seems that NASA doesn't have the original transmissions on their website, or at least I couldn't find it:confused:.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

[Count Zero]

You guys want to talk about science and evidence, but you can't produce any solid proof when it's ask for.

Fine. Show us how it is done.Here (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html) are science reports, mission reports, transcripts, hours of videos and thousands of photographs. Here (http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/apollopdf.htm) is a small sample of the documentation concerning the development and implementation of Apollo hardware. Please provide solid proof that any of it has been faked (saying "it could have been" is conjecture, and not solid proof).

For example, you said:

All the current evidence can be underminded, like the pictures,
Here (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/) are all of the photographs taken on Apollo missions. Here (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html) are more than a thousand hi-res scans (more are available (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1157556705&page=1#1157556705)). Provide solid proof that they have been faked. Bleating about missing stars, c-rocks, footprints, ridge lines, shadow angles, lens flares and reflections have all been previously debunked ad nauseum on this and many other boards. No conjecture, please.


...rocks...
You elaborated on this when you said

Sending a robotic space craft to retrieve rocks is possible and most likely what indeed happened. However, tracking the actual manned space craft to the moon can easliy be reproduced by simply using a non-manned space craft and a relay from planet earth.

As gwiz asked,

who built it? where was it launched from? how has it been kept secret?
Solid proof, please.


...and even the radio transmissions.
The same questions apply: Who built the relay? Where was it launched from? How has it been kept secret?

For that matter, if we could send automated radio relays to the Moon and land unbelievably sophisticated robots (that don't even exist today) to land, collect hundreds of pounds of specific surface samples (as opposed to the 8 ounces of random samples from the Soviet missions) and return - all in total secrecy despite the KGB watching our every move - then why couldn't we send men to the Moon?

You said,

using a non-manned space craft with relays is the most plausible scenario.
All evidence is consistent with manned missions. No evidence has been put forward for an unmanned relay. What solid proof do you have that makes the latter more plausible?


The picture negitives taken from the moon show no radiation exposer as one would expect to happen since the camera had no protective lead shielding and was exposed to open space for nearly 10+ days.

I will remind you of Phantom Wolf's questions:


The picture negitives taken from the moon

What picture negatives?

show no radiation exposer as one would expect to happen

What type of radiation? What is the flux? The energy? How much affect should we see from it?

since the camera had no protective lead shielding and was exposed to open space for nearly 10+ days.

Show that it needed it, otherwise you are merely begging the question.
Solid proof, please. Show us how it should be done.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

All the current evidence can be underminded, like the pictures, rocks and even the radio transmissions.

Only by those that have no idea of science, no alternative way of doing any of these things actually stands up to real scientific scrutiny, they just sound good to laymen with no knowledge to base their beliefs off.
Heh. Perhaps that's what he means by "underminded"...


mind&#183;ed (mīn'dĭd)
adj.

1. Disposed; inclined: I am not minded to answer any of your questions.
2. Having a specified kind of mind. Often used in combination: fair-minded; evil-minded.
3. Directed or oriented toward something specified. Often used in combination: civic-minded; career-minded.
A subtle slip, perhaps, exposing that his opposition to reality is based solely on his less than average knowledge of the technology, rather than anything substantial?

[captain swoop]

I think he is doing this just to wind you all up. plus no one picked up his

5 meter wide structure similar to the LM or his
you could see a 15 meter object (the LM)

what was that all about?

[Nowhere Man]

More popcorn, Cap? I saw it but decided to not bother. 5m is closer to the real size anyway. Be it 5 or 15, there's no scope in the world that can resolve the LMs.

Fred

[PhantomWolf]

I'm still waiting for proof!

NASA has already provided a ton of proof.

See here's how science works.

NASA makes a claim. We went to the Moon.

We say. Prove it.

They say. Fine, Here are 380 pounds of rocks, soil samples and deep cores, all documented, photographed and in many cases filmed. Here are the results of independant geologists who have confirmed them as not of Earth origin. Here are the results of comparisons with the Soviet return samples. Here are 10,000 photos taken on and near the moon. Here is the hours of DAC 16mm flim. Here is all the hours of TV footage shown live at the time. Here are the hours of recordings of the transmissions, here are the hundreds of pages of transcripts of the transmissions. Here are the tracking reports from the Goldstone, Madrid, Parkes, and Honeysuckle Creek tracking stations. Here are the independant tracking stories from the Soviets, and from amatuer Ham radio operators. here are the pictures of the spacecraft in transit taken by amatuer astronomers. Here are the returned spacecraft, and the spacecraft we didn't use. Here are the pages of documentation on the design and building of those spacecraft. here are the hundreds of thousands of pages of preperation and reports on the program. here are the hundreds of photos and the film of the training of those that went. Here is the testimony of those that went. Here is the testmony of those that were in the control room, in the back rooms, who built the equipment, who recovered the capsules, of the 100,000's of people involved in the program. Here's the proof.

Now whether you like it or not, that is proof, it's overwhelming in it's amount. It isn't enough to say, but it could be faked, or I don't believe it. If you are going to claim that it's fake, then you need to show why it's fake. Saying it looks fake is a poor reason, all it show is that you don't want it to have been real so you refuse to believe the tons of evidence.

Remember, you have to prove that 10,000 photos are ALL fake. If even one was taken on the moon, it proves they went! You have to prove that ALL of the TV footage, ALL of the 16mm film is faked, because even if 1 minute is filmed on the moon, they went! You have to prove that ALL of the moon samples are fake, because if even one rock is legitimate, they went! The burden of proof is squarely in the "it was all a Hoax" side of the court, and waving your hands, and repeating the tripe spread by Sibrel, Rene, and Kaysing isn't going to get you any crediblitly. You demand proof, but you have just closed your eyes to all the proof that exists. Why should we bother to provide more when you are so closed minded that you wont even scientifically look at the what's already on the table instead of just refusing it as proof?

[tofu]

very well said.

[JonClarke]

Hear! Hear!

[Kiwi]

I guess NASA could indeed fake new pictures if they wanted to, but if they share the raw data with colleges, schools, scientist and others from around the world it would eliminate that argument.

Softearth said the above in post No. 5. But didn't Nasa do exactly that back around 1969-72? In fact, in some cases, people collected their own data without it going through Nasa.

Take, for instance, the list of geologists who put forward their names to research lunar samples before Apollo 11 left Earth:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=344858#post344858

I wouldn't mind betting there were more names submitted later. Notice too, the thread tells where you can see a contemporary report in an old National Geographic on the research done by one of the scientists in that list.

Doesn't that meet the criteria in post No. 5?

Softearth, do you even understand what posters are talking about in this thread when they mention core samples? These are drilled into the surface and cannot be done robotically. Dave Scott, Apollo 15, damaged his hands because he worked so hard on one of his core samples, and he and Jim Irwin both had to work on pulling it out of the ground. This was filmed by the TV camera.

If you get hold of the Spacecraft Films DVDs of Apollo 17, you can watch Gene Cernan drilling into the Moon's surface. After he extracts the core, he walks right up to the TV camera on the rover, holding the sample in both hands, and shows it to the viewers on Earth. But the most interesting part of this sampling is the incredible trouble he also had extracting it after doing the drilling. Jack Schmitt went over to help Gene to manipulate a jack-type apparatus to pull the core sample up, and in the process he took a wonderful fall and kicked over the drill stand which gracefully sailed into the "air" in the one-sixth g.

See the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal / Apollo 17 / Deep Core and ALSEP Completion:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html


121:01:05 Cernan: No, go ahead. (Laughter)

[Jack looses his balance and spins to the ground; he kicks the rack again on the way down.]

121:01:11 Cernan: (Both laughing) Okay, okay, okay.


[Cernan - "This part - where Jack spins around and falls a**-over teakettle - was the funniest thing in the world."]


There is no robotic instrument even nowadays that could drill a lunar core sample, extract it, package it up and return it to Earth like humans can.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

121:01:05 Cernan: No, go ahead. (Laughter)

[Jack looses his balance and spins to the ground; he kicks the rack again on the way down.]

121:01:11 Cernan: (Both laughing) Okay, okay, okay.


[Cernan - "This part - where Jack spins around and falls a**-over teakettle - was the funniest thing in the world."]
:shifty: Ahh, proof! Anyone on the moon, especially someone who had trained so long to be there, wouldn't use the phrase "in the world"... unless they were still on Earth when it happened! :shifty:

[DaveC426913]

(Not that I feel the HBs' claims need to be dignified with a response, but we can humour then...)

What about the laser reflectors? Aren't there devices on the Moon that will reflect laser light? Anyone with the motivation could fire a laser and get a return pulse. That wouldn't be subject to ANY intermediate tampering.

It would prove that there are man-made artifacts placed carefully on the Moon (though it would not prove humans had landed there.)

[Nowhere Man]

The standard HB (hoax-believer) answer is that the LRRRs were placed by robot landers. The fact that they are placed with more precision than a 60s-era robot lander could manage is handwaved away.

Fred

[Luckmeister]

I think it's time this post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=604107&postcount=1536) by Count Zero from another thread be revisited. It's not the proof you're mistakenly asking us for, softearth. It's just something you really need to have said to you.

Mike

[PhantomWolf]

The standard HB (hoax-believer) answer is that the LRRRs were placed by robot landers. The fact that they are placed with more precision than a 60s-era robot lander could manage is handwaved away.

This is just one of the many HB contradictions. The Soviet space tech was far more advanced than the US's, but whereas with their so advanced probes they could only get a few hundred grams of random soil, and place two badly positioned laser reflectors, the US could send lesser advanced probes that could gather and package hundreds of kg of perfectly selected samples, rock chips, soil samples (including samples of white soil underlying the surface (Apollo 16,) and orange soil (Apollo 17,)) and up to 8 foot long deep core samples, and could also so perfectly position three sets of LRRR's (Apollo 11, 14, 15) that it is impossible to tell the difference between them and hand-postioned ones.

[captain swoop]

hey, when your hot your hot!

[PhantomWolf]

One more thing while I'm thinking about it.

Many HB's seem to think that Apollo was Hoaxed because it was done by the US Government and they always lie. However Apollo wasn't exclusively an American Programme. It was in many respects an International Programme. I'm sure than many more will be added to this list, but besides the Geologists that got Lunar Samples the following countries which come right to mind had people involved to greater or lesser parts.

Canada: Engineers
Gemany: Engineers, Techs, and Designers
Italy: Apollo 11 CMP
Australia: Tracking Stations Honeysuckle Creek, Parkes
Spain: Tracking Station Madrid
New Zealand: Director of Jet Propulsion Labs

Armstrong stated that these missions were for ALL mankind, and people from all over the world helped to make them happen.

[tsig]

It seems that we all agree that going back to the moon is a worth while cause for scientific, commercial and military reasons. However, I still wonder why after nearly 45+ years after the first moon landing, we still don't have independent third party evidence that proves or verifies the landing sites themselves.

We know for a fact that we or someone else can easily send a lunar orbiter to take high resolution video or photos of the landing sites, since NASA did this way back in 1967, prior to the landings.

It also seems that every effort from other nations or corporate endeavorers are halted or sweep under the rug soon after we hear about them.

You must ask yourself, WHY?

After reading all the replies to my simple solution, I still haven't received a valid answer that holds water. Therefore, I must conclude that we never did land on the moon. I'm not happy about this result, for I was hoping that someone on here had proof or evidence that may have been overlooked by myself and others that have valid questions about the moon landings.

...

So unless reality conforms to your belief it's not real?

[tsig]

Thanks for the link, however these pictures do not convice me at all. You should be able to at least see the tracks of the moon rovers with the picture resolution, but you can't. I guess thats why they had to draw them over the photos.

Thanks again! and if you have other links, please provide them.

When the mind is made up facts don't matter.

Why should anyone care what you believe?

[tsig]

Of course, but let's not forget the time delay of 1.35 seconds per direction since this is the main issue at hand.

:exclaim: The bottom line is that the LM could not have responded faster then 1.35 seconds to a question or statement from NASA. If the recordings show a response time from the LM faster than 1.35 seconds, then there is no way they could have been on the moon.

:dance: I hope we can find a link to the NASA recordings so that everyone can hear the transmissions for themselves.

You seem to be calling us all idiots.

[captain swoop]

One more thing while I'm thinking about it.

Many HB's seem to think that Apollo was Hoaxed because it was done by the US Government and they always lie. However Apollo wasn't exclusively an American Programme. It was in many respects an International Programme. I'm sure than many more will be added to this list, but besides the Geologists that got Lunar Samples the following countries which come right to mind had people involved to greater or lesser parts.

Canada: Engineers
Gemany: Engineers, Techs, and Designers
Italy: Apollo 11 CMP
Australia: Tracking Stations Honeysuckle Creek, Parkes
Spain: Tracking Station Madrid
New Zealand: Director of Jet Propulsion Labs

Armstrong stated that these missions were for ALL mankind, and people from all over the world helped to make them happen.



Easy, America lied to them all.

[dhd40]

I have an excellent link, unfortunately, it is in German. But maybe some of the pictures can be helpfull.
Here&#180;s the link: http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/index.htm

DHD40

The only hoax is the moon itself: It&#180;s projected to the sky by a secret services beamer :D

[Thomas(believer)]

The Solution is:

NASA could simply just resend another moon orbiter with even higher resolution to verify that the lunar landers and space vehicles exist on the surface of the moon. We could learn a lot from these new pictures as well.


Sure.
Clever people there at NASA.
It is all so easy for them. They just simply build moon-rockets, little orbiters, high resolution cameras. Peace of a cake for them...

[Kodiak]

I just finished reading this entire thread. I seriously get the impression that Softearth doesnt even believe what he is saying.

A hoax, hoax-believer. LOL, what next.

[captain swoop]

If Nasa said they sent a new orbiter to the moon and had new hi res pictures why would you believe them but you dont accept any of the overwhelming evidence of Apollo?

[Van Rijn]

If Nasa said they sent a new orbiter to the moon and had new hi res pictures why would you believe them but you dont accept any of the overwhelming evidence of Apollo?

Do you even need to ask? I am already convinced that LRO images will simply be dismissed as not having enough resolution, rather than being called outright fakes. If an orbiter could manage millimeter resolution with perfect angle and lighting, only then would moon hoaxers declare them fakes.

[Van Rijn]

Sure.
Clever people there at NASA.
It is all so easy for them. They just simply build moon-rockets, little orbiters, high resolution cameras. Peace of a cake for them...

Exactly. It's easy and cheap to build a lunar orbiter that can take extreme hi-res images of the lunar surface! I wonder why softearth doesn't whip one up in his backyard and send it himself? :whistle:

Of course, in the real world, it isn't easy and it costs a lot of money. And it isn't going to change the mind of somebody like softearth anyway.

[jaydeehess]

Eyewitnesses to the live broadcasts?
Since they are getting older and dying off, there's only a few MILLION left.

I'm 50 this year. I witnessed all the live broadcasts. most of my classmates are also alive and kicking too.

[jaydeehess]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet but the costs to fake the thousands of hours of video and film for well over a dozen missions would be at least as great as actually going to the Moon. This is the equivalent of producing 50-60 (I believe I am being conservative on this estimate) full length movies with the best special effects possible, in total secrecy as well as producing real Saturn V rockets (hard to fake a launch) , the supposed orbiting radio relays, the unmanned robotic collection vehicles, etc., etc., etc.

Given that faking it was as expensive as doing it for real and would involve creating a robotic return mission (several times) that would be more complex and complicated than a manned spacecraft, a hoax can be shown to be an untenable proposition.

[gwiz]

As far as the pictures of Apollo 17 goes, the rovers would have left miles of tracks that should be visible from the pictures provided from the link since you can see the LM and it's shadow :liar: (not really) as stated on the website. Heres's the link http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/ls_17_5a.html.

I'm still waiting for proof! :neutral:
Ignoring the issue of resolving the tracks from 100 km away, as I said above, the Apollo 17 picture was taken at the start of the first EVA, so before the rover made any tracks.
You are not paying attention.

[Skyfire]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet but the costs to fake the thousands of hours of video and film for well over a dozen missions would be at least as great as actually going to the Moon. This is the equivalent of producing 50-60 (I believe I am being conservative on this estimate) full length movies with the best special effects possible, in total secrecy as well as producing real Saturn V rockets (hard to fake a launch) , the supposed orbiting radio relays, the unmanned robotic collection vehicles, etc., etc., etc.

Given that faking it was as expensive as doing it for real and would involve creating a robotic return mission (several times) that would be more complex and complicated than a manned spacecraft, a hoax can be shown to be an untenable proposition.

Yes but, you are forgetting something! You are trying to use logic, reason, and presentation of a few facts which show how difficult a full hoax would be.

Since when have any of these inconveniences (logic, reason, facts) ever enetered any HB's arguments? Especially when their own "common sense", handwaving, and pseudoscience are used instead. Often with a dash of hearsay thrown in as well.

[softearth]

Ignoring the issue of resolving the tracks from 100 km away, as I said above, the Apollo 17 picture was taken at the start of the first EVA, so before the rover made any tracks.
You are not paying attention.

:hand: How convenient! Why isn't there any pictures showing the rover and it's tracks from the Apollo Command Module? The Command Module orbited the moon many times during the rover exercises, but no other pictures were taken of the landing site. Give us a break!:think:

This video shows that tracks from a 15 foot rock, therefore it's very likely that the Moon Rover tracks should be visible as well. It's these type of convenient excuses that make people question the moon landings in the first place.

*Please advance the video to the time code of 21 minutes 39 seconds to verify that they could in fact see the tracks of a rock measuring 15 feet in diameter way back in 1967.

Ref: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9335412&q=moon

BTW, I'm going over the Apollo transmissions now to see if any responses from Apollo to Houston were faster than 1.35 seconds. Thanks for supplying the links.

[Musashi]

Thanks for ignoring the evidence.

[Frantic Freddie]

Hey softearth,I got a question for you:

On July 20,1969,my father was Maintenance Supervisor at the MSFN tracking station outside of Madrid,Spain.His area of expertise was telecommunications.
He would certainly have noticed any difference in the time lag,but he didn't.How come?

[Van Rijn]

This video shows that tracks from a 15 foot rock, therefore it's very likely that the Moon Rover tracks should be visible as well. It's these type of convenient excuses that make people question the moon landings in the first place.

*Please advance the video to the time code of 21 minutes 39 seconds to verify that they could in fact see the tracks of a rock measuring 15 feet in diameter way back in 1967.

Ref: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9335412&q=moon


LOL!

Correct link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9099963025139335412&q=moon

That was an image of a FIFTEEN FOOT WIDE track made by a rock. The rover is a fraction of that width, never mind the wheels!

Keep 'em up, this is great stuff!

[Van Rijn]

By the way, along with the amusing issue of scale, there is also the small issue of the relevance of a mission in '67 to imaging rover tracks.

[PhantomWolf]

there is also the small issue of the relevance of a mission in '67 to imaging rover tracks.

I think he is assuming that since the LO program had a camera able to resolve that sort of detail, the CSM should have had one. Of course this is a falacy based on the two things having exactly the same design parameters, ie altitude and camera, rather then logical thought based on reality.

[tofu]

That was an image of a FIFTEEN FOOT WIDE track made by a rock. The rover is a fraction of that width, never mind the wheels!

Why is that so hard for him to understand?? I think he's trolling.

Here's another good site with pix from clementine

http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html

[Van Rijn]

there is also the small issue of the relevance of a mission in '67 to imaging rover tracks.

I think he is assuming that since the LO program had a camera able to resolve that sort of detail, the CSM should have had one. Of course this is a falacy based on the two things having exactly the same design parameters, ie altitude and camera, rather then logical thought based on reality.

Oh, I agree completely. Those assumptions make his comments very amusing.


Why is that so hard for him to understand?? I think he's trolling.

Maybe, but we've seen examples before of people who couldn't seem to understand issues of scale.

[Gillianren]

For example, "How far from the Moon does this alleged vacuum start"?

[jaydeehess]

:hand: How convenient! Why isn't there any pictures showing the rover and it's tracks from the Apollo Command Module? The Command Module orbited the moon many times during the rover exercises, but no other pictures were taken of the landing site. Give us a break!:think:

This video shows that tracks from a 15 foot rock, therefore it's very likely that the Moon Rover tracks should be visible as well. It's these type of convenient excuses that make people question the moon landings in the first place.

*Please advance the video to the time code of 21 minutes 39 seconds to verify that they could in fact see the tracks of a rock measuring 15 feet in diameter way back in 1967.

Ref: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9335412&q=moon

Well you proved it. Had someone dragged the rover sideways and upside down thus creating a 15 foot wide drag mark it should have been visible. Instead they chose to keep it upright on wheels that measure a few centimeters in width thus creating two tire tracks each several centimeters wide and separated by a couple of meters.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Had someone dragged the rover sideways and upside down thus creating a 15 foot wide drag mark it should have been visible.
*pictures the rover wiping out during a high-speed chase on the Moon* Hmm...

[Van Rijn]

Well you proved it. Had someone dragged the rover sideways and upside down thus creating a 15 foot wide drag mark it should have been visible. Instead they chose to keep it upright on wheels that measure a few centimeters in width thus creating two tire tracks each several centimeters wide and separated by a couple of meters.

Heh! For the record, according to this, (http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/ApolloCat/Part1/LRV.htm) the dimensions were:

3.1 m (10.2 feet) long, 1.83 m (6 feet) wide, 1.14 m high; 2.3 m wheelbase

So even dragged sideways, it would make a substantially thinner track.

But, yes, if they had put a LO in proper orbit to take an image after they had (somehow) dragged a LRV upside down and sideways some distance on the lunar surface, there is a good chance it would have been visible.:wall:

[softearth]

Perhaps the Smart-1 space craft that was sent to orbit the moon for 3 years in 2002 to take high resolution pictures will answer my first question.

Why hasn't NASA or another agency sent another lunar orbitor to take high resolution images of the moon since 1967?

Ref: Smart-1 (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/smart1_pictures_050126.html)

:( I guess all those that said money was an issue were dead wrong!

Now then, my questions are;

1) What's the resolution of the camera?

2) When will they release the pictures of the landing sites so that we can verify the moon landings?

Hopefully, we will finally know the truth and some of you can help to launch a real trip to the moon. :lol:

[softearth]

The nominal operational lunar orbit of the spacecraft SMART-1 is polar, with the perilune lowest altitude at approximately 300 km and apolune at 3000 km.
At a distance of 300 km, the field of view of AMIE (5.3° x 5.3°) corresponds to 27 km: the spatial resolution for the 1024 x 1024 CCD is therefore 27 m at perilune.

It seems that you guys have lucked out again since the camera onboard will not be able to identify the LM's in detail. :mad:

Damn, my 4 year old Sony camera has better resolution than the AMIE camera.

What's the deal with that? :question:

[Van Rijn]

Perhaps the Smart-1 space craft that was sent to orbit the moon for 3 years in 2002 to take high resolution pictures will answer my first question.


You know, we've been answering your questions. Why don't you start answering ours?

If we did send a spacecraft that can achieve the same ground resolution as LO (2 meters at best), will you say here and now that you would agree this is sufficient? That you wouldn't just dismiss this along with everything else?

Please answer the questions.




Now then, my questions are;

1) What's the resolution of the camera?


That depends on distance. However, a quick google turned this up. (http://spacespin.org/article.php/close-up-highlands-near-crater-pentland) From there:

This high-resolution image, taken by the advanced Moon Imaging Experiment (AMIE) on board ESA’s SMART-1 spacecraft, shows an area close to crater Pentland on the Moon.

AMIE obtained this sequence on 18 March 2006 from a distance of 573 kilometres from the surface, with a ground resolution of 52 metres per pixel.

Emphasis added.

Edited to add: It seems you found the answer yourself.



2) When will they release the pictures of the landing sites so that we can verify the moon landings?


It appears that it didn't have sufficient resolution.

[Van Rijn]

The nominal operational lunar orbit of the spacecraft SMART-1 is polar, with the perilune lowest altitude at approximately 300 km and apolune at 3000 km.
At a distance of 300 km, the field of view of AMIE (5.3&#176; x 5.3&#176;) corresponds to 27 km: the spatial resolution for the 1024 x 1024 CCD is therefore 27 m at perilune.

It seems that you guys have lucked out again since the camera onboard will not be able to identify the LM's in detail. :mad:

Damn, my 4 year old Sony camera has better resolution than the AMIE camera.

What's the deal with that? :question:

How much resolution does your camera have when you photograph something 300km away? Resolution depends on distance and optics (and on earth, atmosphere). That's why it isn't easy to get really high resolution (fractional meter) resolution from orbit.

[softearth]

You know, we've been answering your questions. Why don't you start answering ours?

If we did send a spacecraft that can achieve the same ground resolution as LO (2 meters at best), will you say here and now that you would agree this is sufficient? That you wouldn't just dismiss this along with everything else?

Please answer the questions.

:) YES! All I am looking for is 100% proof, mainly from a LO that has a high resolution CCD camera with 1 meter resolution or higher. Also, NASA should allow for direct access to the raw data that can reviewed and verified from third parties not associated with NASA.

:silenced: NASA has broken the cardinal rule of basic science and peer review by having everything go though them before it's released. Basically, they control everything and only allow what they approve to go public for study. HOGWASH!

:silenced: NASA has also lost or misplaced the original tapes and footage from the Apollo mission(s) so that no other scientist can verify or study them. How convenient for them, again.

The whole point of science is to be able to test and verify raw data independently so that other scientist can come to their own conclusions. Until this standard protocol is honored by NASA, there will always be those like myself that will question their findings, as it should be. :clap:

[Nicolas]

Also, NASA should allow for direct access to the raw data that can reviewed and verified from third parties not associated with NASA.

Such has the direct access to the moon rocks for scientists around the world, the public access to all photos taken on all missions, the ability for people numbering hundreds of thousands to see the SaturnV lift off, the ability for all professional and amateur trackers around the world to track the missions, the ability for everyone to use the laser reflectors, the ability for the whole world to see the landings live on TV, the free access to lots of schemes such as the LM computer...?


NASA has also lost or misplaced the original tapes and footage from the Apollo mission(s) so that no other scientist can verify or study them. How convenient for them, again.
This one just keeps popping up. Only a part of the footage, and no footage that nobody has seen before. Again much more is being made out of the lost tapes than it is.


Until this standard protocol is honored by NASA, there will always be those like myself that will question their findings, as it should be.
Some research into the release of Apollo data to the scientific community might have been suitable then.

[gwiz]

:hand: How convenient! Why isn't there any pictures showing the rover and it's tracks from the Apollo Command Module? The Command Module orbited the moon many times during the rover exercises, but no other pictures were taken of the landing site. Give us a break!:think:

Why doesn't every aerial photo of the earth include your house? Possibly because NASA wanted to map a different swath of the moon's surface on each orbit, rather than repeatedly mapping the same swath.

[AGN Fuel]

Sigh.. I was going to stay out of this thread, because repeatedly bashing one's head against a wall is losing it's allure after three years. However, as this post has gone unanswered for some time...


:) YES! All I am looking for is 100% proof, mainly from a LO that has a high resolution CCD camera with 1 meter resolution or higher. Also, NASA should allow for direct access to the raw data that can reviewed and verified from third parties not associated with NASA.

Really? Who do you suggest should fund a mission and for what purpose other than to provide further evidence to someone who is prepared to ignore the vast bulk of evidence already available?

In no particular order: 32,000 photographs, hundreds of hours of television and film footage, nearly 500,000 employees/sub-contractors worldwide, the Soviet Union, tracking from nations around the world, reception of radio transmissions in real time by ham operators around the world, 382kg of differentiated rock, soil and core samples displaying unique features utterly unlike terrestrial samples, the testimonies of the astronauts themselves, the incontrovertible fact that 14 Saturn rockets were launched and did not remain in LEO, clear evidence of astronauts working in a vacuum and in low-g, results from experiments left in-situ including the LRRRs still in use. That's some of the direct evidence.

Indirect evidence: spin offs from Apollo, including massive advances in computing technology, metallurgy & welding techniques, management techniques, telemetry & tracking, electronics, etc. The internal consistencies: what a stroke of genius it must have been to plan in advance the return into Earth orbit of the Apollo 12 S-IVB. Such foresight!! Amazing how lunites were identified as such by comparing them to Apollo sample returns. Remarkable how the Soviet return sample missions were also completely consistent with the Apollo samples.

I could go on, but it seems somewhat pointless.



:silenced: NASA has broken the cardinal rule of basic science and peer review by having everything go though them before it's released. Basically, they control everything and only allow what they approve to go public for study. HOGWASH!

I got my degree using raw data from NASA without any problems at all. Do you mean that you have an issue with the raw data coming via NASA? Given that most of the telescopes, satellites et al are run by NASA and the data downlinked through them, is this honestly a surprise? However, I also got data through ESA which was utterly consistent with the NASA data - perhaps they are in cahoots??


:silenced: NASA has also lost or misplaced the original tapes and footage from the Apollo mission(s) so that no other scientist can verify or study them. How convenient for them, again.

So the literally hours of footage that I have from Mark Gray's 'Spacecraft Films' is what... animation? This (very tired) argument is tantamount to saying that the master tapes for Sgt Peppers can't be found, so the album never existed.


The whole point of science is to be able to test and verify raw data independently so that other scientist can come to their own conclusions. Until this standard protocol is honored by NASA, there will always be those like myself that will question their findings, as it should be. :clap:

That's fine. Build yourself a launch vehicle and satellite & place into into lunar orbit with a Hi-Res CCD and image yourself silly. Let us know how you do.

[AGN Fuel]

And just when I thought no-one could muster the energy to continue this argument, Nicolas & gwiz come charging back to the fray!

Onya guys!

[softearth]

Why doesn't every aerial photo of the earth include your house? Possibly because NASA wanted to map a different swath of the moon's surface on each orbit, rather than repeatedly mapping the same swath.

If we assume what you're saying is true, then we should be able to view the lunar modules, rovers and/or rover tracks from the other prior Apollo missions that it flew over. Right? :dance:

I find it amazing how every argument you give doesn't hold water or stand up to pure logic. It seems you have the answers, but not the correct questions. :rolleyes:

[Van Rijn]

:) YES! All I am looking for is 100% proof, mainly from a LO that has a high resolution CCD camera with 1 meter resolution or higher. Also, NASA should allow for direct access to the raw data that can reviewed and verified from third parties not associated with NASA.


The LRO should be able to achieve that resolution. And, anybody who wants to and has the technoloy could receive the signals directly from the spacecraft and process it themselves. That's as raw as you can get. Of course, that would be very expensive and difficult so I'm sure noone will bother. Meanwhile, being digital data, it is necessarily processed at every stage, from initial capture, processing for transmission, transmission, reception, and several more steps before you have a useful image for viewing. So the question becomes, at what stage would you classify it as raw data?

Now, when those images come in, will you concede? I would bet good money that you'll either declare them fake or not good enough.

[Van Rijn]

If we assume what you're saying is true, then we should be able to view the lunar modules, rovers and/or rover tracks from the other prior Apollo missions that it flew over. Right? :dance:

I find it amazing how every argument you give doesn't hold water or stand up to pure logic. It seems you have the answers, but not the correct questions. :rolleyes:

Er, no. First, they would need sufficient resolution, as previously discussed. Next, they would need to be in an orbit that allowed them to photograph those locations. Finally, they would have to decide to take photographs of those sites, and as previously discussed, there's a lot of moon to look at. There's no particular reason to focus on the landing sites.

[softearth]

Er, no. First, they would need sufficient resolution, as previously discussed. Next, they would need to be in an orbit that allowed them to photograph those locations. Finally, they would have to decide to take photographs of those sites, and as previously discussed, there's a lot of moon to look at. There's no particular reason to focus on the landing sites.

Perhaps if NASA would have focused on these landing sites back in 1970's, I wouldn't be here now 35+ years later asking for verification. :shifty:

[Van Rijn]

Perhaps if NASA would have focused on these landing sites back in 1970's, I wouldn't be here now 35+ years later asking for verification. :shifty:

Oh, no. You already denied Apollo orbital images. I am quite certain you would deny any images presented, just as you denied the massive amount of evidence that does exist.

[softearth]

Sigh.. I was going to stay out of this thread, because repeatedly bashing one's head against a wall is losing it's allure after three years. However, as this post has gone unanswered for some time...

Really? Who do you suggest should fund a mission and for what purpose other than to provide further evidence to someone who is prepared to ignore the vast bulk of evidence already available?By the same people that funded the original missions. The US tax payer! Are you saying that no other scientific data is needed from the moon? Why the SMART-1 mission then? :D

In no particular order: 32,000 photographs, hundreds of hours of television and film footage, It seems that this evidence is in fact in question.

nearly 500,000 employees/sub-contractors worldwide, This proves nothing, so what, they built something in their factory. This proves nothing.

the Soviet Union, tracking from nations around the world, reception of radio transmissions in real time by ham operators around the world, This could have been easily done with an unmanned spacecraft using relays. Again, this proves nothing.

382kg of differentiated rock, soil and core samples displaying unique features utterly unlike terrestrial samples, The moon samples returned by Russia and NASA robotic flights could have used to collate existing rocks found here on Earth. Again, this proves nothing.

the testimonies of the astronauts themselves, Hear-say, again, this proves nothing.

the incontrovertible fact that 14 Saturn rockets were launched and did not remain in LEO, They could have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere and burned up on re-entry. Again, this proves nothing.

clear evidence of astronauts working in a vacuum and in low-g, results from experiments I agree that they were in Earth orbit, Again, this proves nothing.

left in-situ including the LRRRs still in use. An unmanned craft could have done this as well. Again, this proves nothing.,That's some of the direct evidence. Really? :rolleyes:

Indirect evidence: spin offs from Apollo, including massive advances in computing technology, metallurgy & welding techniques, management techniques, telemetry & tracking, electronics, etc. Again, this proves nothing.

The internal consistencies: what a stroke of genius it must have been to plan in advance the return into Earth orbit of the Apollo 12 S-IVB. Such foresight!! Amazing how lunites were identified as such by comparing them to Apollo sample returns. Remarkable how the Soviet return sample missions were also completely consistent with the Apollo samples. I believe that NASA sent unmanned craft to the moon and returned samples, just like the Russians. Again, this proves nothing.

I could go on, but it seems somewhat pointless. Please, go on with your pointless arguments.

I got my degree using raw data from NASA without any problems at all. Do you mean that you have an issue with the raw data coming via NASA? Given that most of the telescopes, satellites et al are run by NASA and the data downlinked through them, is this honestly a surprise? However, I also got data through ESA which was utterly consistent with the NASA data - perhaps they are in cahoots?? Perhaps

So the literally hours of footage that I have from Mark Gray's 'Spacecraft Films' is what... animation? This (very tired) argument is tantamount to saying that the master tapes for Sgt Peppers can't be found, so the album never existed. Garbage in, Garbage out!

That's fine. Build yourself a launch vehicle and satellite & place into into lunar orbit with a Hi-Res CCD and image yourself silly. Let us know how you do. It seems like I will have to in order to get the truth

Thanks for the response, I look forward to debunking arguments like yours. ;)

[PhantomWolf]

Have you ever thopught thast perhaps the reason there aren't a lot of photos, is that NASA never assumed that people would demand to see them as proof? Exactly the same way when you go off to bed you don't think you'll be needing to supply an alibi, but if 3 weeks from now, someone claims you were off commiting a crime, well how do you prove otherwise?

As to why no other orbiters have taken high resolution images of the sites, what reason has there been to do it? NASA isn't going to spend a heap of money taking images for a bunch of people who aren't going to believe them anyway, so what's the point? Surely it's better to put a camera on the orbiter that will do something useful for NASA's purposes, rather than spending money and weight on a pointless excerise. NASA know they went. Most people on the planet know they went. They have provided a bundle of prove. Why should they provide more at great expense when there is still a bundle on the table and the best argument against it is "It could have been faked." Well gosh darn it Dorothy, new images could be faked just as easily too, so it's pointless taking them unless it's for a good scientific reason other than trying to impress people who don't have a clue anyway. If you have one, they might think about it.

[Van Rijn]

Thanks for the response, I look forward to debunking arguments like yours. ;)

Well, your so-called "debunking" certainly put a smile on my face, and I suspect a few others on the forum as well. :doh:

Edited to add:

Most of your "debunking" was already debunked earlier in this thread if you had bothered to read it.

[gwiz]

If we assume what you're saying is true, then we should be able to view the lunar modules, rovers and/or rover tracks from the other prior Apollo missions that it flew over. Right? :dance:

Due to the limitations of orbital dynamics, each mission only covered a limited amount of the lunar surface. I don't know if any of the three mapping missions overflew earlier landing sites, suggest you check if you want to know, but since you were not impressed by the Apollo 17 image, why should you want to see others?

[softearth]

Due to the limitations of orbital dynamics, each mission only covered a limited amount of the lunar surface. I don't know if any of the three mapping missions overflew earlier landing sites, suggest you check if you want to know, but since you were not impressed by the Apollo 17 image, why should you want to see others?

I guess I'm looking for any scrap of evidence that proves we went to the moon. Can you blame me for that? :shifty:

[captain swoop]

you aren't looking for evidence, we are back in the Cheese Shop. You have yourself said that you want independant 3rd party evidence so if NASA sent an orbiter and then produced photograps of the landing sites why would you believe them? After all it's NASA providing them and you don't believe them now.

YOu have no intention of looking at any evidence, if you did then what is already available would be sufficient.

I see no more point in reading this thread. Bye.

[Van Rijn]

I guess I'm looking for any scrap of evidence that proves we went to the moon. Can you blame me for that? :shifty:

Given that you've been handed a mountain of evidence, but you deny it, only to demand other evidence that would be no more "proof" than all the evidence you deny, certainly I can. I do not think you are honestly looking for proof. I am sure there would never be sufficient evidence for you.

[softearth]

you aren't looking for evidence, we are back in the Cheese Shop. You have yourself said that you want independant 3rd party evidence so if NASA sent an orbiter and then produced photograps of the landing sites why would you believe them? After all it's NASA providing them and you don't believe them now. I couldn't have said this better myself. :dance:

YOu have no intention of looking at any evidence, if you did then what is already available would be sufficient. Perhaps the people who believe everything the Evening News says is true will buy this logic, but I don't. :hand:

I see no more point in reading this thread. Bye.

Bye, and thanks for your time! :rolleyes:

[PhantomWolf]

By the same people that funded the original missions. The US tax payer! Are you saying that no other scientific data is needed from the moon? Why the SMART-1 mission then?

Why should ther US Tax Payer pay for your wants? And Smart-1 was mostly to test the Ion Drive it carried, it took pictures because it needed something to do when it got there. There is more information needed about the moon, but taking photos isn't going to do that, landing people there again will.

It seems that this evidence is in fact in question.

But questioning it isn't good enough. Unless you can show, and if we use your standard of proof, 100% that it was all faked, thern they went to the moon.

This proves nothing, so what, they built something in their factory. This proves nothing.

It proves that NASA had the equipment to do what they claimed to have done.

Hear-say, again, this proves nothing.

Since when is eye-witness testimony hearsay?

They could have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere and burned up on re-entry. Again, this proves nothing.

This is a case of you not understanding the point. The Saturn IV Booster from Apollo 12 returned to Earth and orbited us a few times as an artificial moon about two years back, before being flung back out into a Heliorbit.

An unmanned craft could have done this as well. Again, this proves nothing

So the Americans weren't as good as the Soviets, but they could land a probe in secert and align it better than the Soviets could, in fact they could do it three times to the Soviet's one, and get it with pinpoint accuracy each and every time. And this is supposed to be easier than just landing a man on the moon?

I agree that they were in Earth orbit, Again, this proves nothing.

If they were in Earth orbit during the missions, how did the Apollo 11 crew do the TV transmission where they focused back from the earth and to the window sill, then moved the camera to look out a second window at them Earth, focusing back in on it?

Also why weren't they seen from the Earth? The LM/CSM stack is a naked eye object in a time when there was few satellites.

Also how did Amatuer Astronomers take images of them on the way to the moon, and how did Ham Operators and the Soviets track them to the moon. There are more problems like having the earth between them and the tracking stations, but hey......

I believe that NASA sent unmanned craft to the moon and returned samples, just like the Russians. Again, this proves nothing.

Again, if the US was behind the Soviets, how did they manage to return over 1000x the weight in samples the Soviets did. How did they obtain 8 foot deep core samples? How did they get the white and orange soil samples? How did they get the Anorthosite rock, this is a lucky find for a human, its almost impoossible for a robot to select it. Why would a robot return a 12kg rock? Who build these probes? Where and when were they launched? Who controlled them? How did they return to them to Earth un-noticed? How come they don't show signs of contamination beyond the sample bags if they were used in the faking of TV and photo images? Remember most of the TV footage of 15, 16 and 17 is of the astronauts collecting and documenting these samples. How did they take an image of a huge rock and chip part of it off as a sample? They can't have brought back a 5 yard across rock.

You say you believe it was done with probes, but unless you can proof the answers to these questions 100%, why is your burden of proof lower for robots than for humans?

Garbage in, Garbage out!

I'm not sure what your point here is, but suffice to say, if the tapes were of huge importance to the science community you seem to have decided they should be, they wouldn't have been misplaced in an archive somewhere. The reason they are is because no one has been interested in them for the past 30 years. The truth is there is nothing on the tapes that doesn't already exist. They are a backup tape that was taken in case something happened to the primary link to houston and their recordings. The TV image they hold however, is unconverted and with digital technology it'll be clearer then the current kineoscope versions, that's the only reason for finding the tapes.

It seems like I will have to in order to get the truth

I'd suggest you gather together all the HB's and fund and build it, but since the scientific and aerospace engineering knowledge of the collected HB group would fit on the back of a postage stamp and still leave enough room for the enitre Encyclopeia Britanica, I doubt any attempt would result in much more then an impressive explosion.

[Gillianren]

I guess I'm looking for any scrap of evidence that proves we went to the moon. Can you blame me for that? :shifty:

Well, yes, in fact.

Why?

Because you've been presented with a lot of it. More, in fact, than we have for a lot of other historical happenings. For example, the Spanish Armada. None of the ships are left. None of the sailors are left. All the images are paintings, none of which were done at the time. I should imagine practically no documentation of pay, captains' logs, quartermasters' reports, and such are left, given that they've had over 400 years to get lost, decay, and such. Heck, I'd be surprised if many of the medals Elizabeth I had cast ("God's Wind Blew, and They Scattered") are left. Do you doubt the Spanish Armada tried to invade England in 1588?

Here's a brief list of questions you should be asking yourself.

Why do I doubt this? Is it based on evidence or ideology?

Do I believe in any space travel? Which missions? If I believe in some, why don't I believe in the landings?

If it was faked, how many people had to have been in on it? What technology would be required to make a convincing fake?

Who would have had to have been convinced? If they were fooled, why am I not fooled? If they weren't, why did they keep quiet?

Do I have the requisite grounding in physics, history, engineering, and all other related fields to make a reasoned, educated judgement on this topic? If I don't, why do I think I know more than people who do?

[PhantomWolf]

I guess I'm looking for any scrap of evidence that proves we went to the moon. Can you blame me for that?

You have been given ample evidence, you continue to reject it out of hand for purile reasons that don't even come close to stacking up to reality. If you were even the slightly bit genuine in your claims, you would at least subject the hoax claims to the same level of proof you are demanding from Apollo. 100% (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=837590&postcount=155) wasn't it?

[Count Zero]

I'm still waiting to see softearth's solid proof (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=835469&postcount=110) that the missions were faked. So far he has only posted unsupported conjecture that fails the most basic logical examination.

[tofu]

I'm still waiting to see softearth's solid proof (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=835469&postcount=110) that the missions were faked. So far he has only posted unsupported conjecture that fails the most basic logical examination.

I would recommend one thread per claim. Most hoax believers, when they get desperate, fall back on the shotgun method, they post 20 claims per message and the thread just falls apart.

This thread was about, "why don't we have images of apollo hardware" and to summarize:

We do in fact have images of apollo hardware.

http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html

Next question: why don't we have better images of apollo hardware?

Because missions to the moon (and anywhere else) are driven by scientific goals, not by hoax believers whims. Lots of real actual scientists with PhDs tell NASA what kind of spacecraft would be useful. It turns out that the scientists have been asking for orbiters that can map the entire moon - thus, lower resolution images with 100% coverage. No actual scientist has asked for 0.1 meter resolution but only 10% coverage of the surface. The only people who ask for that are people like softearth - people with ZERO scientific education or training.

Your questions have been answered softearth. If you don't accept the answers, that's your right. You don't have to believe in evolution either or believe that the Earth is round. Nonetheless, your questions have been answered. If you want to make some other claims regarding apollo, I suggest you start a new thread.

[softearth]

After reading all of the responses to my basic question of ...

“Why hasn't NASA or another space agency sent a Lunar orbiter to the moon to take high resolution pictures and/or spectrum annalist scans for scientific study which could also be used for verification of the Lunar Modules on the surface of moon since 1967?”

...has not be answered, I've instead been given a box of rocks and a few core samples as proof. I've already explained how the rocks could be accounted for and the core samples seem to be contaminated. Core samples reference (http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/apollo_moon_rocks_010326.html)

It seems that I must now prove it was a hoax, when in fact, the burden of proof lies with the person(s) or entities who are making the claim in the first place. All evidence must be verifiable and open to speculation from independent scientist in order to validate such claims. It seems that all of the evidence, including pictures, radio transmissions, video and film footage, rock and soil samples all come from the same source “NASA” and by default they didn't build any check points to allow for independent verification from third parties. People now say that NASA didn't think about it back then, but I find that logic outright insulting considering the magnitude of such an en devour.

The bottom line is that we could discuss this subject until 2050 without any resolution until a new Lunar orbiter is sent that can take high resolution scans (1 meter of higher) that are shared in real-time with scientist from around the world. Someone made the comment that it would take super computer intelligence to receive and process the raw data. Excuse me, but this excuse doesn't fly in todays world, where computers are in common use and digital pictures are sent, received and processed a hundred times a day by the average Joe browsing the Internet. Give us the picture format, the radio frequency and X, Y, Z coordinates of the orbiter and we will do just fine processing the data ourselves.

Perhaps this is too much to ask for since it involves honesty, integrity and down right common sense, but someone needs to step forward to make a case for truth.

I hope the new mission (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) planned in 2008 will do just this, but I highly doubt it since I haven't read anywhere where they plan to make the raw transmissions public. Again, NASA will transmit, receive and process the data before anyone else can even look at it.

:rolleyes:

[Tog]

After reading all of the responses to my basic question of ...

“Why hasn't NASA or another space agency sent a Lunar orbiter to the moon to take high resolution pictures and/or spectrum annalist scans for scientific study which could also be used for verification of the Lunar Modules on the surface of moon since 1967?”

...has not be answered, I've instead been given a box of rocks and a few core samples as proof. I've already explained how the rocks could be accounted for and the core samples seem to be contaminated. Core samples reference (http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/apollo_moon_rocks_010326.html)


Did you happen to read the whole page? I ask because it says in that same article that the contamination was most likely to have happened in the collection process, when the samples came in contact with the bags and astronaut suits.

You still have not shown where the technology even existed to do this robotically. You have said it is possible, yes, but, then others have said it is not. So which to believe? The side that is presenting links with several different forms of evidence in support of the Moon landings, or the person who is running around frantincally saying "no it isn't"?


oh nearly forgot...:rolleyes:

[V-GER]

I hope the new mission (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) planned in 2008 will do just this, but I highly doubt it since I haven't read anywhere where they plan to make the raw transmissions public. Again, NASA will transmit, receive and process the data before anyone else can even look at it.


So basically you're already dismissing any pictures the LRO might present as evidence? And what's the point making the raw data available immediately? You can always claim they're faked. And why are you so sure the raw data won't be available? Have you not looked at Nasa's Cassini site? There's more than enough raw pictures to make your head ache.

TV cameras were also present when Nasa got the first Spirit and Opportunity pictures. Judging from the reaction of the Nasa personnel, that was indeed the first time they saw them, and everybody else watching as well.

[softearth]

I would recommend one thread per claim. Most hoax believers, when they get desperate, fall back on the shotgun method, they post 20 claims per message and the thread just falls apart.

This thread was about, "why don't we have images of apollo hardware" and to summarize:

We do in fact have images of apollo hardware.

http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html

Next question: why don't we have better images of apollo hardware?

Because missions to the moon (and anywhere else) are driven by scientific goals, not by hoax believers whims. Lots of real actual scientists with PhDs tell NASA what kind of spacecraft would be useful. It turns out that the scientists have been asking for orbiters that can map the entire moon - thus, lower resolution images with 100% coverage. No actual scientist has asked for 0.1 meter resolution but only 10% coverage of the surface. The only people who ask for that are people like softearth - people with ZERO scientific education or training.

Your questions have been answered softearth. If you don't accept the answers, that's your right. You don't have to believe in evolution either or believe that the Earth is round. Nonetheless, your questions have been answered. If you want to make some other claims regarding apollo, I suggest you start a new thread.

Thank you for your reply, it was by far the most honest one I've gotten since I started this thread. You're correct when you state that the pictures we currently have do not prove the existence of the Lunar Modules, since the resolution is not high enough to verify them beyond a shadow of a doubt (no pun intended).

I guess it all comes down to the new lunar mission planned in 2008. If NASA were to make the raw data from the high resolution camera available for third party verification, it would answer my question and quell all the moon hoax theories in a heart beat.

So the question now becomes; Will NASA make this information available:question: YES or NO

[V-GER]

They have done so with at least Cassini, Spirit and Opportunity so the answer would be YES. Or do you not perhaps consider raw pictures at their web site as making them available?

[Nicolas]

I guess it all comes down to the new lunar mission planned in 2008. If NASA were to make the raw data from the high resolution camera available for third party verification, it would answer my question and quell all the moon hoax theories in a heart beat.

Why then aren't you convinced by hundreds of high res scans of the original film rolls, featuring photo's taken from mere meters distance of the landed LM?

[tofu]

After reading all of the responses to my basic question of ...

“Why hasn't NASA or another space agency sent a Lunar orbiter to the moon to take high resolution pictures and/or spectrum annalist scans for scientific study which could also be used for verification of the Lunar Modules on the surface of moon since 1967?”

...has not be answered

has not been answered ...except by Grashtel on page 1 who said: because they all have decidedly limited budgets and as high resolution images are already avalible from Apollo obtaining new ones aren't high on the list of things to spend money on.

and Van Rijn on page 1 who said: It just hasn't been considered a priority, scientifically or politically. Interplanetary probes and other juicier projects tended to get the money. Now that we are planning on going back to the moon, it makes sense to get better information on it.

and jt-3d on page 1 who said: Money is it in a nutshell. It costs money. They have a limited budget, why waste it on trying to prove that which they have already proven?

and Van Rijn page 1: There is absolutely no justification for going to the moon just to take pictures of where we have already been. The only reasons for lunar survey are scientific or to better plan for lunar settlements. Aside from the cost, a "check up" would be irrelevent. The evidence that we landed is already overwhelming. Moon hoaxers would just say it was faked and everyone else would wonder why the money was wasted this way.

and sts60 page 1: Private (or publicly-held) businesses don't spend that kind of money on their own. Governments don't spend that kind of money without public support (aka votes), and the taxpaying public hasn't had that kind of consistent interest in space since the first manned Moon landing.

and Hamlet page 2" The Moon had a great deal of scrutiny during the 1960's culminating with the Apollo landings. During the 70's and 80's there was a great desire to probe other planets and that's where the money went. There is no doubt that proposals were made to go back to the Moon, but they lost out to other missions.

and PhantomWolf page 2: Clemantine, Smart-1, Lunar Prospector all took high resolution photos, they just didn't take close-ups capable of seeing the lunar equipment (though Clemantine did image the Apollo 15 site which revealed a new crater, possibly created by a comet fragment impact recorded by Apollo 15's ALSEP between Apollo 15 and 16, and a darkened patch exactly where NASA claims Apollo 15 landed.)

and so on and so on. I quit reading after that. What's the point of me quoting the thread back to you?

But seriously, you're right, nobody has answered your question. Wow, the BAUT community is totally ignoring you.

[softearth]

They have done so with at least Cassini, Spirit and Opportunity so the answer would be YES. Or do you not perhaps consider raw pictures at their web site as making them available?

:hand: NO, I do not consider pictures taken from NASA's website as authentic raw data. Give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter and I will be satisfied. :dance:

[gwiz]

It seems that all of the evidence, including pictures, radio transmissions, video and film footage, rock and soil samples all come from the same source “NASA” and by default they didn't build any check points to allow for independent verification from third parties.
NASA plus the Russian, Australian, etc tracking station staff, the astronomers still using the laser reflectors, the worldwide communities of amateur astronomers and trackers, geologists who studied the rocks and scientists involved in the other experiments, and the engineers at the contractors who built the hardware.

[gwiz]

:hand: NO, I do not consider pictures taken from NASA's website as authentic raw data. Give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter and I will be satisfied.
Much as this guy was?

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm

[V-GER]

:hand: NO, I do not consider pictures taken from NASA's website as authentic raw data. Give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter and I will be satisfied. :dance:

Why not just give you money while they're at it?

[softearth]

Why not just give you money while they're at it?

Is this a bribe to shut me up? How much we talking about? :whistle:

Again, give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter scheduled for 2008 and I will be satisfied. :dance:

[R.A.F.]

It seems that I must now prove it was a hoax, when in fact, the burden of proof lies with the person(s) or entities who are making the claim in the first place.

Are you really that confused on just who has the burden of proof here??? Sheese..


Give us the picture format, the radio frequency and X, Y, Z coordinates of the orbiter and we will do just fine processing the data ourselves.

And "homegrown processing" has worked so well in the past. :lol:

[softearth]

Are you really that confused on just who has the burden of proof here??? Sheese..

And "homegrown processing" has worked so well in the past. :lol:

SETI doesn' seem to have problems with running their equipment and I'm sure the world scientific community can handle the task of processing the raw data. :think:

[R.A.F.]

SETI doesn' seem to have problems with running their equipment and I'm sure the world scientific community can handle the task of processing the raw data. :think:

What does any of this have to do with what I posted???

[softearth]

What does any of this have to do with what I posted???

Excuse me, but you made the comment that "Homegrown processing has worked so well in the past." - read your post and think about it. :lol:

...

[R.A.F.]

Excuse me, but you made the comment that "Home grown processing has worked so well in the past."

The comment about "homegrown processing" was regarding all the "everyday joe's" using photoshop (etc.) to "mangle" data beyond all possible scientific usefullness. I MOST CERTAINLY WASN'T talking about actual scientists working at SETI or elsewhere.


- read your post and think about it. :lol:

I have...I did...I'm not laughing...

[V-GER]

read your post and think about it.

That's coming from someone who hasn't read the answers given to him on page 1...

[softearth]

The comment about "homegrown processing" was regarding all the "everyday joe's" using photoshop (etc.) to "mangle" data beyond all possible scientific usefullness. I MOST CERTAINLY WASN'T talking about actual scientists working at SETI or elsewhere.

I have...I did...I'm not laughing...

:confused: Oh please, can't we all just agree that NASA needs to provide unhindered access to the raw data from the Lunar orbiter scheduled for launch in 2008 in order to prove without a doubt that the moon landings indeed took place 35+ years ago.

Is this concept so hard for people to comprehend and accept? Why does opening the doorway to truth, honesty and integrity have to be so difficult for some people? :shifty:

[Musashi]

That is funny. Especially the "truth, honesty and integrity" part.

[Swift]

:confused: Oh please, can't we all just agree that NASA needs to provide unhindered access to the raw data from the Lunar orbiter scheduled for launch in 2008 in order to prove without a doubt that the moon landings indeed took place 35+ years ago.

Is this concept so hard for people to comprehend and accept? Why does opening the doorway to truth, honesty and integrity have to be so difficult for some people? :shifty:
As you mean it, no we can't agree. NASA has given unhindered access to all the data from their missions, you have been given links to lots of it, but you refuse to consider it. And NASA has no need to prove that the lunar landings happened, it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. If I have to choose, as a US taxpayer, whether to spend money on valuable scientific research, or convincing you that we went to the moon, I pick choice # 1.

[Swift]

Softearth,
Back in post 80 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=835223&postcount=80), I asked you some direct questions, such as how the photos and the moon rocks were faked. You have not supplied any answers. On this board you need to address such questions when questioning well established theories.

[softearth]

As you mean it, no we can't agree. NASA has given unhindered access to all the data from their missions, you have been given links to lots of it, but you refuse to consider it. And NASA has no need to prove that the lunar landings happened, it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. If I have to choose, as a US taxpayer, whether to spend money on valuable scientific research, or convincing you that we went to the moon, I pick choice # 1.

NO?, we can't verify the raw data! Now that's what I call scientific reasoning!

Nice, real nice! :doh:

[Swift]

NO?, we can't verify the raw data! Now that's what I call scientific reasoning!

Nice, real nice! :doh:
What raw data do you want, the actual spools of film, the actual bits that were sent by radio?

[tofu]

Again, give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter scheduled for 2008 and I will be satisfied.

Well you're in luck. I'm sure they'll do the same exact thing that they did with the Cassini mission:

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=35026&fbodylongid=1632

"x-band carrier at 8.4 Ghz" etc. etc.

more info here:
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/subsystems-cassini.cfm

and here:
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/subsystems-huygens.cfm

I guess we can lock this thread until 2008 - when you'll be back here to tell us why that's not good enough and the pictures are still fake. My guess is, you'll say that the images are created here on Earth and beamed to the LRO, which then just retransmits them. But that's just my guess. You're pretty creative so I'm sure you'll come up with something better. After all, plenty of people claimed that the Cassini data was fake.

The bottom line is, there are mountains of evidence in support of apollo and every scientist and engineer on the planet says that evidence is clear proof. You really don't have the education or experience or knowledge to refute what the scientists say.

Nice try though!

:boohoo: :razz: :shifty: :sick: :liar: :o :hand: :confused:

[Hamlet]

Perhaps if NASA would have focused on these landing sites back in 1970's, I wouldn't be here now 35+ years later asking for verification. :shifty:

Perhaps if you spent more time in a library attempting to understand the preponderance of evidence you wouldn't need to be here. The fault is not NASA's, it's yours. The Apollo program was in the public eye and the resulting data is open to anyone with initiative to get it and understand it.

You've focused on one area that you believe indicates a hoax and ignored all the other evidence that plainly shows Apollo happened. Your selective acceptance of evidence belies your claim that you are looking for the "truth".

Your demands for "raw" data are a red herring. You've given no indication that you would know what to do with the "raw" data if you had it. You've insinuated that the data has been tampered with, but have provided no evidence. Your arguments are very weak and it is evident that you haven't done any significant research. Until you've spent some time learning, this discussion is rather pointless.

[Tolls]

:confused: Oh please, can't we all just agree that NASA needs to provide unhindered access to the raw data from the Lunar orbiter scheduled for launch in 2008 in order to prove without a doubt that the moon landings indeed took place 35+ years ago.

Is this concept so hard for people to comprehend and accept? Why does opening the doorway to truth, honesty and integrity have to be so difficult for some people? :shifty:

It is when all you'd need to do then is claim that that isn't good enough because the data beamed from the orbiter could simply have been faked!

If you're willing to discard all the evidence put to you in this thread (and all the evidence elsewhere) then quite frankly I cannot see how any data from the orbiter, whether published via NASA or transmitted directly to your PC, is going to make a blind bit of difference.

[R.A.F.]

Why does opening the doorway to truth, honesty and integrity have to be so difficult for some people? :shifty:

Speaking of which...are you now ready to answer the following???...


It seems that I must now prove it was a hoax, when in fact, the burden of proof lies with the person(s) or entities who are making the claim in the first place.


Are you really that confused on just who has the burden of proof here??? Sheese

[Hamlet]

:hand: NO, I do not consider pictures taken from NASA's website as authentic raw data.

Why? What evidence do you have the data is not authentic?


Give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter and I will be satisfied. :dance:

Why? Do you have the receiving equipment needed? Do you know how to track a satellite?

Why would you believe the signal from LRO? If NASA is as nefarious as you claim, why couldn't they fudge the downlink data? How would you know the difference?

Your best bet is to pass the hat around to all the HB'ers and collect enough money to build your own probe and send it to the Moon. The exposure of such a hoax would bring you riches beyond the dreams of avarice. The book deals, lecture circuit and movie money would more than payback the initial investment.

Sound like just the project for a group of "truthseekers".

[NEOWatcher]

Well you're in luck. I'm sure they'll do the same exact thing that they did with the Cassini mission:

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=35026&fbodylongid=1632

"x-band carrier at 8.4 Ghz" etc. etc...
What kind of equipment would be needed to actually recieve that type of signal. I would be willing to guess the processing requirements would be large enough that anyone with those capabilities already has ties to NASA. So here we go again... 99.99% is not good enough.

[softearth]

Perhaps if you spent more time in a library attempting to understand the preponderance of evidence you wouldn't need to be here. The fault is not NASA's, it's yours. The Apollo program was in the public eye and the resulting data is open to anyone with initiative to get it and understand it.

You've focused on one area that you believe indicates a hoax and ignored all the other evidence that plainly shows Apollo happened. Your selective acceptance of evidence belies your claim that you are looking for the "truth".

Your demands for "raw" data are a red herring. You've given no indication that you would know what to do with the "raw" data if you had it. You've insinuated that the data has been tampered with, but have provided no evidence. Your arguments are very weak and it is evident that you haven't done any significant research. Until you've spent some time learning, this discussion is rather pointless.

If the evidence you speak of is so clear cut and verifiable to convince everyone we went to the moon, then the moon hoax phenomena wouldn't have any grounds for scientific reasoning to base it's claims on. Remember, all the data from the Apollo missions were released by NASA, only after their approval and consent. :shifty:

Again, my primary point is that NASA needs to provide unhindered access to the raw radio transmissions from the LO in 2008 to third parties for verification and study. Until this is done, all data will be scrutinized by people who understand the proper protocols of discovery and peer review. ;)

...

[Hamlet]

If the evidence you speak is so clear cut and verifiable to convince everyone we went to the moon, then the moon hoax phenomena wouldn't have any grounds for scientific reasoning to base it's claims on. Remember, all the data from the Apollo missions were released by NASA, only after their approval and consent. :shifty:

The Moon hoax is not about data or science. It is purely ideologically driven and no amount of data ever satisfies them. They are a fringe group of naysayers and attention seekers who, when questioned, demonstrate that they aren't in command of the most basic facts about space exploration, in general, and Apollo in particular.



Again, my primary point is that NASA needs to provide unhindered access to the raw radio transmissions from the LO in 2008 to third parties for verification and study. Until this is done, all data will be scrutinized by people who understand the proper protocols of discovery and peer review. ;)

...

More accusations. Where's the evidence that the data is tainted? Why would you believe the downlink data? It could be just as easily modified. How would you know the difference?

[Musashi]

If the evidence you speak is so clear cut and verifiable to convince everyone we went to the moon, then the moon hoax phenomena wouldn't have any grounds for scientific reasoning to base it's claims on.



It doesn't. Case closed?

[triplebird]

It seems that all of the evidence...come from the same source “NASA”...

Uh, maybe because it was NASA who went to the moon, so therefore they would have taken the pictures, collected the rocks, etc?


All evidence must be verifiable and open to speculation from independent scientist in order to validate such claims. It seems that all of the evidence, including...radio transmissions...

No. Radio transmissions could be (and were) listened into by people worldwide with amateur equipment. The frequencies in fact were published by NASA for this purpose. No one who has listened in seems to dispute the authenticity of said transmissions. (And don't say that every ham operator in the world at that time was either in on the conspiracy, a sherson who blindly follows the Evil Government, or was paid off.)


...rock and soil samples... [NASA] didn't build any check points to allow for independent verification from third parties.

Again, the rocks and soil have been examined by innumerable geologists worldwide. No one disputes their lunar origin. (No, not every geologist in the world is a conspirator, sherson, or on NASA's payroll either. 'Radiation ovens', unless you're referring to the microwave or infrared variety, do not exist. And the former do nothing more to rocks then warm them.)


Give us the picture format, the radio frequency and X, Y, Z coordinates of the orbiter and we will do just fine processing the data ourselves

Space probes are not equipped with JPEG format digital cameras like you seem to be under the impression of. Typically it's a specialized format/encoding that would require specialized software to interpret--that the average "Joe Blow" wouldn't have. "Joe Blow" is also not likely to have the radio receving equipment or an adapter(?) to convert the radio signals into something meaningful to the average home PC. NASA doesn't use Windows XP for Space Exploration(tm) on its orbiters. Sorry.

Also, this "open processing" would in fact make any data received suspect, as there would be nothing to stop someone from, say, photoshopping in an alien moon base and releasing it as an authentic moon picture.

[Frantic Freddie]

Hey softearth,I got a question for you:

On July 20,1969,my father was Maintenance Supervisor at the MSFN tracking station outside of Madrid,Spain.His area of expertise was telecommunications.
He would certainly have noticed any difference in the time lag,but he didn't.How come?

I'm waiting for an answer to my question.....

[Van Rijn]

Is this a bribe to shut me up? How much we talking about? :whistle:

Again, give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter scheduled for 2008 and I will be satisfied. :dance:

No, the money needed to do this. How much money do you have lying around to buy and build the equipment? For the team of engineers and programmers? The data stream is far more than just a "picture format." As to locating the transmissions, that will not be an issue.

As I fully expected, you are already setting unrealistic requirements.

[Gillianren]

Hey, Softearth, have you seriously thought about the questions I asked?

See, the thing here is that you're looking at the pictures in isolation and saying, "Hey, if those are fake, the whole thing must be a fake!" That isn't the case, even if you have a valid reason for thinking they're fake, which you have not so far mentioned. If the pictures are fake but the moon rocks are real, we went to the Moon to get the rocks (as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, no existing probe now is technologically advanced enough to collect those samples). If the pictures are fake but the reflectors were clearly set by hand, we went to the Moon to set the reflectors. If the pictures are fake but the radio data is accurate, the missions went to the Moon and sent that information. Now, you might still have a case for some conspiracy to explain why the pictures were faked, but the fact remains that they alone prove nothing.

Besides, given that you don't understand that even if something is long, it must still be wide to show up in the pictures from orbit, why should we believe that you know enough to show that the pictures are fake?

[sts60]

Damn, my 4 year old Sony camera has better resolution than the AMIE camera.

From lunar orbit? That's quite a camera you have there.

All I am looking for is 100% proof, mainly from a LO that has a high resolution CCD camera with 1 meter resolution or higher.

Why exactly would you accept an image that has been converted into digital form at the sensor, stored, compressed, encoded, transmitted, received, relayed, decoded, decompressed, and then transmitted through various commercial Internet routes?

Also, NASA should allow for direct access to the raw data that can reviewed and verified from third parties not associated with NASA.

Why exactly would you trust the opinion of "third parties" who would receive electronic data, do things to it you don't understand, and then send results to you in electronic form so you can see it on your computer?

NASA has broken the cardinal rule of basic science and peer review by having everything go though them before it's released.

Wrong. This is not always done. Moreover, when it is done, it's done for the same reasons on any other scientific project: the investigators get first crack at the data because they're the ones who have been pouring their guts into a project for years.

Basically, they control everything and only allow what they approve to go public for study.

Wrong. NASA spends a great amount of its resources organizing and disseminating data. What's HOGWASH! is that you have no real idea what goes into the research or what happens with it, yet presume to issue such declarations from your position of assumed expertise.

NASA has also lost or misplaced the original tapes and footage from the Apollo mission(s) so that no other scientist can verify or study them. How convenient for them, again.

Wrong. The only thing misplaced is some data which basically shows some A11 video in higher quality than that seen by most households. That is of sentimental, but no real scientific value. There's literally more data generated by Apollo - far more - than will ever be completely utilized.

The whole point of science is to be able to test and verify raw data independently so that other scientist can come to their own conclusions. Until this standard protocol is honored by NASA,

We've already established that you know nothing of "standard protocols" in science, nor is your premise that Apollo "raw data" has not been shared in the scientific community correct.

there will always be those like myself that will question their findings, as it should be.

The first problem is that you don't even have the right idea of what you are questioning. The second problem is that you're not "questioning" it, you're simply parroting the same knee-jerk denials spewed by HBs for years. The third problem is that you ignore the answers to your questions anyway. The final problem is that you don't know anything about the subject and wouldn't understand the answers, but are too busy patting yourself on the back to learn anything from people who actually do know something about the subject.

[AstroSmurf]

At its most fundamental level, this isn't a scientific debate. It's a historical one.

In history, the record is *always* incomplete and impossible to replicate. Tough, deal with it. Since noone can be 100% certan that the record *isn't* tampered with, the official version is granted the presumption of authenticity, until proven to be actually falsified.

It's not enough that the records could *possibly* have been falsified. They always can, no matter how complete, detailed or difficult to falsify. The possibility of them actually being so may vanish below anything that's reasonably worth considering, but it's still there. (Beats me how, but then, who's to say the Aliens from the yellow quadrant didn't beam some technology down into the brain of the super-duper secret head honcho at NASA)

Nevermind the possibility. To show a hoax, show us evidence that actually was hoaxed.

[tofu]

(NASA not immediately releasing data) is not always done. Moreover, when it is done, it's done for the same reasons on any other scientific project: the investigators get first crack at the data because they're the ones who have been pouring their guts into a project for years.


The only case that I'm aware that NASA has actually done that is with hubble images. And they do it for exactly the reason you state. If I spend four years in grad school working on an astronomy PhD and doing my thesis on the coal sack nebula, and I spend months and months and nights and weekends writing up a proposal to have the HST observe the coal sack, and I wait in line for years - but then when the pictures are taken NASA puts them up on the web and some other grad student uses that to write a paper before I can finish my thesis - and then when I submit my PhD thesis my adviser writes "someone else has already done this, your work is not useful or needed." Man, I would be seriously ****ed.

Fortunately, in this one case, NASA is nice enough to release the data only to me. In every other case, NASA releases the data as soon as humanly possible. Currently, ASAP translates to "instantly." I had the images that Huygens took on Titan posted in my blog about 30 seconds after the scientists saw them.

NASA and the ESA are very open and transparent and they always have been. US taxpayers paid for Apollo, but the data is available for free to anyone in the world. So basically, we are helping the Chinese plan and execute their own moon landings. It's all in the spirit of advancing a human cause - a giant leap for mankind. It's really ashame that people like softearth can't see how special and amazing that giant leap was. It's too bad that some people can't be encouraged and uplifted by the knowledge that this is what we can do. This is what human beings can do if they just want to do it. We don't have to be slaves of fear and hate and other emotions - this is what we can do. That's what I think when I look at the moon (or listen to Bach or whatever). It's too bad that some people *choose* to wallow in ignorance.

[Thomas(believer)]

It's really ashame that people like softearth can't see how special and amazing that giant leap was. It's too bad that some people can't be encouraged and uplifted by the knowledge that this is what we can do. This is what human beings can do if they just want to do it. We don't have to be slaves of fear and hate and other emotions - this is what we can do. That's what I think when I look at the moon (or listen to Bach or whatever). It's too bad that some people *choose* to wallow in ignorance.

Bravo :clap:

[Nicolas]

What softearth doesn't seem to realise, is that there is a difference between optical and digital resolution of a telescope.

The optical resolution is determined by the optics of the telescope, in particular the aperture diameter. This determines an optical resolution as an arc, from which one can calculate the smallest object that can be seen from a certain distance as optical data carried in the light waves going into the telescope themselves..

The light carrying optical information in this resolution falls onto the CCD. This is a matrix of sensors that can be mapped one on one onto the pixels of the image. If the physical size of the sensors is equal to or smaller than the projection of the optical resolution onto the CCD, all optical information is transformed into digital pixels. It wouldn't help a thing to increase resolution from say 1024*1024 to 4096*4096 if the 1024 CCD already has a digital resolution which is finer than the optical one. It won't see new information.

Imagine it like this:

You have a 3*3 squares field, this is your CCD. You lay coloured squares of 1*1 onto it, alligned with the CCD. These coloured squares are the optical information that has gone through the aperture. Your CCD captures all information in this case; 1 pixels equals the smallest optical element visible. If you'd have a finer 9*9 CCD, each coloured square would be spread over a 3*3 pixels square. This bloats data, but doesn't add any optical detail because the smallest optical squares are 3 pixels wide. So your ol camera might have more than 1024 resolution, but if that 1024 resolution is enough to capture all optical resolution of the satellite, the comparison makes no sense. And rest assured that a good telescope satellite has better optical resolution than your 4 year old sony camera. It's not all pixels that count.

This was a simplified explanation; additions and corrections are more than welcome.

[erisi236]

hmm, if the 1000's of pictures already available can't convince HBers, then a few more probably wont either :)

Heck, look what happened to the "Mars Face" when high res cameras went back and took more pictures that showed it was just a random pile of dust, face believers said the new pics were fake :)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I guess I'm looking for any scrap of evidence that proves we went to the moon. Can you blame me for that? :shifty:
Huh? Just a few of your posts earlier you wanted 100% proof...

By the way, how's that analysis of the communications delay going? I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath for your inevitable conclusion...

[tsig]

:hand: NO, I do not consider pictures taken from NASA's website as authentic raw data. Give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter and I will be satisfied. :dance:

Apparently you'r going to have to build your own ship and go there, but who will you believe, your truths or your lying eyes.

[tsig]

Is this a bribe to shut me up? How much we talking about? :whistle:

Again, give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter scheduled for 2008 and I will be satisfied. :dance:

He can't get no,

He can't get no

Satisfaction.

[tsig]

:confused: Oh please, can't we all just agree that NASA needs to provide unhindered access to the raw data from the Lunar orbiter scheduled for launch in 2008 in order to prove without a doubt that the moon landings indeed took place 35+ years ago.

Is this concept so hard for people to comprehend and accept? Why does opening the doorway to truth, honesty and integrity have to be so difficult for some people? :shifty:

If I read you correctly you have just accused everyone on this forum of lacking truth, honesty and integrity.

If you did not mean this I suggest you retract.

[Musashi]

There is another, more realistic way to take that paragraph.

[tsig]

There is another, more realistic way to take that paragraph.

Well maybe you can explain it.

Get realistic.

[softearth]

I'm waiting for an answer to my question.....

Sorry for the delay in answering your question, but as I stated earlier, I'm currently importing the radio transmissions from the Apollo missions into my custom audio program to determine if any responses from Apollo to Houston were faster than 1.35 seconds. Not that this would prove anything, since I also pointed out that NASA could have easily used a remote spacecraft to send to the moon and used relays to accomplish the effect of communicating with the Apollo spacecraft(s) going to the moon.

However, if I do find a response that's faster than 1.35 seconds it would undoubtedly prove that the Apollo astronauts were not on or near the moon since this would be impossible due to the current laws of physics. :)

...

[Musashi]

Well maybe you can explain it.

Get realistic.

Perhaps softearth was merely projecting?

[tsig]

Perhaps softearth was merely projecting?

No he clearly said that accepting softearthe's facts reqiured truth, honesty and integrity.

Therefore we are all lacking such.

[PhantomWolf]

since I also pointed out that NASA could have easily used a remote spacecraft to send to the moon and use relays to accomplish the effect of communicating with the Apollo spacecraft(s) going to the moon.

So it's easy to send a remote controlled one, but impossible to send one with men in? Why so? It's far easier to drive a car or fly a plane, than to operate one by remote.

[tsig]

Sorry for the delay in answering your question, but as I stated earlier, I'm currently importing the radio transmissions from the Apollo missions into my custom audio program to determine if any responses from Apollo to Houston were faster than 1.35 seconds. Not that this would prove anything, since I also pointed out that NASA could have easily used a remote spacecraft to send to the moon and use relays to accomplish the effect of communicating with the Apollo spacecraft(s) going to the moon.

However, if I do find a response that's faster than 1.35 seconds it would undoubtedly prove that the Apollo astronauts were not on or near the moon since this would be impossible due to the current laws of physics. :)

...

I was a ham radio operator during the lunar landings. I heard them real time.

Are you telling me that your second hand perception of the event is better?

[Count Zero]

since I also pointed out that NASA could have easily used a remote spacecraft to send to the moon and use relays to accomplish the effect of communicating with the Apollo spacecraft(s) going to the moon.

So it's easy to send a remote controlled one, but impossible to send one with men in? Why so? It's far easier to drive a car or fly a plane, than to operate one by remote.
I think this is yet another expression of the theory that The Omniscient, Omnipotent and Infinitely Funded Government could accomplish anything imaginable - except, of course, landing men on the Moon using hardware that was developed, built & tested in front of the whole world.

[softearth]

I was a ham radio operator during the lunar landings. I heard them real time.

Are you telling me that your second hand perception of the event is better?

:exclaim: No, I simply stated that it was possible to use a remote unmanned spacecraft with relays to achieve the effect of the astronauts traveling to the moon.

...

[worzel]

Maybe the powers that be stuck everyone in the Matrix in June 1969 so they could pull off this amazing hoax.

[PhantomWolf]

No, I simply stated that it was possible to use a remote unmanned spacecraft with relays to achieve the effect of the astronauts traveling to the moon.

Who built them? Who launched them? Who controlled them? Where did the funding come from? What proof do you actually have that these spacecraft ever existed. Measure the proof you have of them against what NASA offers as proof of the manned Apollo missions. Which has more evidence?

And since you seem to have skipped it last time. Are you claiming tyhat it was easier to launch and fly a secret spacecraft to the moon and have it mimic the Apollo craft easier than it was to send one that was piloted by people? If so, why?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Sorry for the delay in answering your question, but as I stated earlier, I'm currently importing the radio transmissions from the Apollo missions into my custom audio program. . .
So now you're a software programmer? What do you need with a custom audio program just to figure out the time between responses anyway?

Your play is losing its audience.

[softearth]

So now you're a software programmer? What do you need with a custom audio program just to figure out the time between responses anyway?

Your play is losing its audience.

As a matter of fact, I do some coding from time to time, doesn't everyone these days? :surprised

I agree with you that I'm losing some of the audience here, mainly because a few people seem to want to ignore logic and basic scientific protocols when it comes to sourcing and validating raw data for independent review and conclusion. :wall:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I agree with you that I'm losing some of the audience here. . .
I'm pretty sure it's because you're obviously creating this charade as you go...

What language was your "custom audio program" written in?

[PhantomWolf]

I agree with you that I'm losing some of the audience here, mainly because a few people seem to want to ignore logic and basic scientific protocols when it comes to sourcing and validating raw data for independent review and conclusion.

Source information can be obtained from NASA. Have you bothered asking for it? Thought not. By the way do you have access to the source data for the Veitnam War? Perhaps then that didn't happen. How about the source data for the Roman invasion of Britain? Guess that didn't happen either right.

Now talking about ignoring things I have asked you a number of questions repeatedly, yet you continue to ignore those. Are you ever going to provide an answer, or will you continue to put your fingers in your ears?

[Van Rijn]

I agree with you that I'm losing some of the audience here, mainly because a few people seem to want to ignore logic and basic scientific protocols when it comes to sourcing and validating raw data for independent review and conclusion. :wall:

No, one person is ignoring logic and basic scientific protocols. You clearly haven't studied either the evidence or the science well enough to reasonably make the declarations that you insist on.

[Frantic Freddie]

Sorry for the delay in answering your question, but as I stated earlier, I'm currently importing the radio transmissions from the Apollo missions into my custom audio program to determine if any responses from Apollo to Houston were faster than 1.35 seconds. Not that this would prove anything,since I also pointed out that NASA could have easily used a remote spacecraft to send to the moon and used relays to accomplish the effect of communicating with the Apollo spacecraft(s) going to the moon.
However, if I do find a response that's faster than 1.35 seconds it would undoubtedly prove that the Apollo astronauts were not on or near the moon since this would be impossible due to the current laws of physics. :)

...

I asked a question.Where's my answer?

'cause that sure ain't it.

[AGN Fuel]

Not that this would prove anything, since I also pointed out that NASA could have easily used a remote spacecraft to send to the moon and used relays to accomplish the effect of communicating with the Apollo spacecraft(s) going to the moon.

And of course, this communication would have to be able to discuss events of the day in real time, transmitted and received directionally by MSFN, for extended periods of time.

I look forward to your explanation of how that was achieved without an obvious screw up of the time delays. :eh:

[Van Rijn]

And of course, this communication would have to be able to discuss events of the day in real time, transmitted and received directionally by MSFN, for extended periods of time.

I look forward to your explanation of how that was achieved without an obvious screw up of the time delays. :eh:

And I want to see the explanation of how the lunar environment could be copied properly on massive sets with "takes" that have no breaks. I'm especially interested in how he would properly duplicate all low gravity effects.

[softearth]

I asked a question.Where's my answer?

'cause that sure ain't it.

Perhaps you should get your father to explain my answer to you. :think:

[jt-3d]

So astronauts can't learn to simply wait a second and a half to respond, if they were being trained or directed in this epic radio play? This is your key proof?

[captain swoop]

plus for the time to be exact every time they would have to respond the instant that the transmission from earth stopped and vice versa EVERY time!

do u think that is likely?

[bonkey]

The Question is:

If they could send an orbiter way back in 1967 to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface that could identify a rock 15 feet in diameter, then why hasn't NASA done this after the lunar landings in the nearly 35+ years that have passed?


Answer: Why should they?

The last area on the moon that there is any identifiable scientific benefit to be had from a high-detail scan is the areas they've already been to.

In other words, the only arguable reason for NASA to do what you're suggesting would be to pander to the demands of HBs

Now...that leads to:

Question:

What does NASA stand to gain from pandering to the demands of HBs?

Answer this one, and your own question is once again relevant.
Alternately, show why there is a another reason why NASA should do this other than pandering to HBs and your question is again relevant.

[tofu]

determine if any responses from Apollo to Houston were faster than 1.35 seconds.

I guarantee you that some of the responses from astronauts are faster than 1 second after NASA stops talking.

http://seaofcrisis.com/ext/babb/timedelay.gif

But let me ask you this softearth WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU THINK YOU'RE PROVING? Are you proving that NASA is a bunch of idiots? Don't you think that, since they had boat-loads of smart people working on this hoax, they would have thought of something like this:


http://seaofcrisis.com/ext/babb/createdelay.gif

Sorry to blow away the thread with giant images (only 40k tho) but I know what's comming. Plus, I can use these images again so I figured it was worth the effort.

[Tog]

Heh, I had this same thought about making the delays in the trasnmissions but your vesrsion is a lot simpler than mine. Mine had the record and playback mounted on the same machine with about 1.4 seconds of slack on something like an idler bogey. I like yours better.

Oh and I agree. To fake something like this would have had a sure fire method, not a "2 Mississipi" one

[Nicolas]

The Revox A700 wasn't around until 1973 (don't know about those Maxell reels), but I get the point ;)

For the paranoid: yes, tapedecks were around in 1969, I was just nitpicking on the image used.