I Will Prove The Moon Landings Were Hoaxed

[Swift]

I agree, nice posting nomuse. Christpher Ferro, I think I understand what you are saying. But I think that it is a leap from not understanding science (because of lack of education or ability) to not trusting science. For example, I have never taken a dance course in my life and I can barely walk down the street without tripping over my own two feet. But I still can appreciate dance and I don't question that it is not humanly possible because I can't do it.

There are plenty of people on this board who are not scientists and admit limited ability in it (for whatever reason). But they don't automatically assume science is lying to them. I think there is another factor going on here.

[AGN Fuel]

I agree. The only other comment that I might add is that a contributing factor (but by no means the main one), is a natural disinclination in our psyche to admit that another individual has superior abilities, whether they be physical or intellectual.

Comments like those used by Moonman on several occasions that something was 'unbelievable' or 'impossible' reflected directly on his lack of understanding of the topic. If he can't understand it, then to contemplate a world where others grasp the concepts effortlessly is to contemplate a world where he must acknowledge his own inadequacies.

I think that a lot of people find this deeply unsettling and it may manifest itself as a suspicion of all things (and achievements!) technical.

[Sotos]

Last I looked, Moon Man was still arguing that the re-entry chart proved that the Apollo craft descended straight down from 200,000 feet. Now, several people have very patiently expalined the distorted scale of that chart, but he cannot or will not understand this--so how would one successfully demonstrate that the descent has horizontal as well as vertical movement? Evidently a chart won't do it for at least some people.

[tofu]

a natural disinclination in our psyche to admit that another individual has superior abilities, whether they be physical or intellectual.

hmm. Very interesting. From an evolutionary standpoint, I guess that a male who looks at another male and thinks, "nah that guy is a little bigger than me, I'm not even going to try" is more likely to just submit and accept his place in the pecking order, and less likely to have lots of kids. A male who believes he can win (even when he's the weaker) will occasionally get lucky, and pass on those genes that made him believe in the first place.

[nomuse]

Outer space is a vacuum. Earth is not. The vacuum begins just beyond our atmosphere. What is our atmosphere made of that prevents the vacuum from penetrating it..?

From the "Thermodynamics 101" thread at ApolloHoax.

[Crum]

Outer space is a vacuum. Earth is not. The vacuum begins just beyond our atmosphere. What is our atmosphere made of that prevents the vacuum from penetrating it..?

From the "Thermodynamics 101" thread at ApolloHoax.

Laughing my hat off! Did Moon Man post that question? You're NOT serious!

[Musashi]

Does that beat this or just rival it?

But on a summer day when the sun is at it's highest peak there wouldn't be much of a shadow anyway if at all, in my view.

[Musashi]

Oh man, I should have read on, it got worse.

[Mild paraphrase]
Since shadows are so small at noon on the equator, there shouldn't be shadows on the moon.
[/paraphrase]

[hplasm]

Last I looked, Moon Man was still arguing that the re-entry chart proved that the Apollo craft descended straight down from 200,000 feet. Now, several people have very patiently expalined the distorted scale of that chart, but he cannot or will not understand this--so how would one successfully demonstrate that the descent has horizontal as well as vertical movement? Evidently a chart won't do it for at least some people.

I think this he's starting to crumble a bit on this one; however space has developed a temperature again...

still, he has been awake for quite a bit now~~~~

[wayneee]

Wow, is it technicaly possible to recreate Theatricly. I dont know exactly. I can quess as to some of the ways it might be done.
The general look of the moon can certainly be done, the lighting and scenery. the Videos of the moon always reminded me of this Rock Quarry near my house at night.
Motion of Astronauts could be achieved with black coated wire harnesses
Motion of dust is problematic. When I watch the motion of the Dust on the moon it reminds me of how silt moves when desterbed under water. I have read that Hoaxers have suggested Slow motion photograhy.

None of you know for sure what resources there might be for lunar Rocks that have hit the earth.

As for tracking information , that could be faked with an un manned probe.

Only a few would need to know about the hoax, since most the equipment was contracted. Nasa personel read and understand what thier individual staions report. They see a rocket launch, They talk to voices , they read numbers and readouts.

Photos and prehaps Film could be duplicated despite modern age attmepts in movies. Telemetry could be fooled, Rock evidence is a non issue.

[Van Rijn]

Laughing my hat off! Did Moon Man post that question? You're NOT serious!

But wait, there's more!

So air it keeping the vacuum out and the vacuum is not keeping the air in our atmosphere..?

Is it air pressure that keeps the vacuum out..?

Why is the atmosphere ceiling at the height it is and not, say, another 100 miles into space before the vacuum begins..?

[Faultline]

Only a few would need to know about the hoax, since most the equipment was contracted. Nasa personel read and understand what thier individual staions report. They see a rocket launch, They talk to voices , they read numbers and readouts.

You mean, a few thousand people?

[nomuse]

I'll take this in inverse order, Waynee. First, of course, none of this is new. It has been discussed in detail on this board, also at ApolloHoax, explained at Clavius (and other excellent sites I'm too lazy to provide links to at the moment).

The contractors may not have known all the details of the program. They did know enough, however, to know if it is not possible. Let's take for an example the folks at Hasselblad who modified one of their cameras for the mission. Experts in photography, presumably in optics and film as well. When the pictures came back with no stars and funny shadows, did they think it was odd? No -- because they knew what to actually expect. When asked if the film melted or the casings outgassed they can also answer in the negative. That was their department. They did their job.

Same story can be followed for any of the subcontractors. Imagine someone stitching the zipper into an overgarment. "Won't this fail in vacuum?" they ask. So either they have explained to them the pressure bladder UNDER the zippered overgarment, or they blow the whistle on the insanely stupid space suit.

Now, a subtler point. You have all these contractors who believe their subsystems work. In fact, they have each delivered a workable subsystem. For every major HB argument, there is a company that supplied dosimeters or a team that hand-crinkled foil. Either these people were ALL wrong, wrong about something that fell within their specific technical field, or they were all right....and by their efforts NASA was delivered with a functional vehicle.

[wayneee]

I have shown why it could not have been faked in this post. Please read my post and explain how what I said is wrong before you claim all, or most of it, could have been faked. Even if it could have been faked, as I said in that post it would have involved building a complete working spacecraft that could have done the Apollo missions successfully, launching it, and then spending huge amounts of money on top of that to do a hoax as well. It is completely illogical to do the hoax when it is more difficult, more expensive, and riskier to do the hoax than to do the real thing.

I read your post that you linked , I must have missed it before or I would have replied. First I must state that your assumptions might be wrong. Your Assumptions are the Expense and the capabilities of the craft as well assuming we couldnt get all those Moon rocks and how tracking might have been following an unmanned probe bouncing signals off a high orbit Gemini like Capsule. But lets say your right . Let me give you everything, including the higher risk of hoaxing the entire world. There is still one thing that hoaxing has over Actual, and that is ---__Assured Success.__--

I came into this discussion realizing I would have some pretty stiff opposition. I have no aspirations to prove Apollo was a hoax. Instead I like to keep a strictly sceptical mind. I have learned that those in science ahere to many doctrines, and as this site observes is sometimes in the catergory of Bad Science. In Science there is not suppose to be any sacred doctrine except for laws. And sometimes even those need to be pressed. I also love to debate, even though here I seem to be losing and feel like the scrawny kid in the locker room.

[nomuse]

When the team starts into a theatrical film, Waynee, they break it down into shots; limiting the technical problems each shot has to face. In many cases this is as simple as shooting John on Thursday and the reverses with Susan on Friday; saves having to get both cast members there both days and set up two cameras with the proper lighting.

When the SFX team gets in, they split out the shots into "this one we can do with a simple matte," or "this one we'll do on location with live pyro," or "this shot will be pure CGI." Again, this limits the number of things you have to get right in each shot. You can limit what the camera sees, you can do a locked-off shot to save yourself having to match motion, you can keep to long shots so stunt doubles can stand in for the less replaceable talent.

Trouble with the lunar footage is we have film, video, and stills, including panorama series, as well as unbroken audio recordings and telemetry. There isn't any ability to "cut away" and fix a prop or change the lighting setup. Stills can be matched to film be matched to recordings. It would, at the very least, give a movie continuity person an ulcer the size of Mare Imbrium.

And you have to solve every one of the technical problems in every shot.

You can't do one FX shot of an astronaut jumping to establish low gravity, and another of dust effects to establish vacuum, then a nice panorama on another set. They are all there together, in long unbroken sequences.

[wayneee]

I'll take this in inverse order, Waynee. First, of course, none of this is new. It has been discussed in detail on this board, also at ApolloHoax, explained at Clavius (and other excellent sites I'm too lazy to provide links to at the moment).

The contractors may not have known all the details of the program. They did know enough, however, to know if it is not possible. Let's take for an example the folks at Hasselblad who modified one of their cameras for the mission. Experts in photography, presumably in optics and film as well. When the pictures came back with no stars and funny shadows, did they think it was odd? No -- because they knew what to actually expect. When asked if the film melted or the casings outgassed they can also answer in the negative. That was their department. They did their job.

Same story can be followed for any of the subcontractors. Imagine someone stitching the zipper into an overgarment. "Won't this fail in vacuum?" they ask. So either they have explained to them the pressure bladder UNDER the zippered overgarment, or they blow the whistle on the insanely stupid space suit.

Now, a subtler point. You have all these contractors who believe their subsystems work. In fact, they have each delivered a workable subsystem. For every major HB argument, there is a company that supplied dosimeters or a team that hand-crinkled foil. Either these people were ALL wrong, wrong about something that fell within their specific technical field, or they were all right....and by their efforts NASA was delivered with a functional vehicle.

I dont doubt that these contracted things woked the way they were supposed to. I dont doubt that every contractor submitted specified equipment to do the work need. Yet it was piece meal. So you make a camera with shielding and protected lenses, doesnt mean it actual made it to the moon. How would any of these contractors know what was done with thier stuff.
I understand why stars can not be seen in film , I is not so stupid. Although I have taken pictures of a comet with a tripod and my Pentax K-1000.
Dont worry about the link , I think members have given me it about 10 times so far, and yes I have read it much of it.

[wayneee]

Nomuse . I think you are overstating the lunar footage, as well as overcomplicating the Movie set theory(old fav of mine Capricorn One) If this is being done , its being done live, to promote the hoax. To prove that it could not be done is a big feather in the cap of Debunkers

[wayneee]

You mean, a few thousand people?

No I mean maybe 20 to 30 people in on the hoax, why would you think there would be thousands?

[Van Rijn]

You can't do one FX shot of an astronaut jumping to establish low gravity, and another of dust effects to establish vacuum, then a nice panorama on another set. They are all there together, in long unbroken sequences.

Worse, the transmissions came from the moon. There's no getting around that: With tracking and transmission delays, we know there was a spacecraft that went to orbit the moon, where astronauts interacted with ground control. There was a spacecraft (the LM) that landed on the moon and also sent transmissions with audio and video, with astronauts interacting with ground control. Not to mention the placing of the retroreflectors, or the moon rock they gathered (which, sorry, cannot be found on earth).

Most of the folks that assume fakery simply don't understand the speed of light delays and the tracking issues. Even if you could somehow duplicate this in a studio (and flatly, you couldn't - the methods wayneee suggested would be obvious fakery) you still would have to magically have it all come from lunar orbit and the landing site.

[Van Rijn]

No I mean maybe 20 to 30 people in on the hoax, why would you think there would be thousands?

Because spacecraft went to the moon, LMs (of some type) landed on the moon, were tracked the whole way, and Apollo CMs dropped into the ocean filled with astronauts.

We're talking hundreds of thousands involved in the various aspects of this thing, world wide. At least.

[SolusLupus]

Not to mention the Russian telemetry.

[wayneee]

Worse, the transmissions came from the moon. There's no getting around that: With tracking and transmission delays, we know there was a spacecraft that went to orbit the moon, where astronauts interacted with ground control. There was a spacecraft (the LM) that landed on the moon and also sent transmissions with audio and video, with astronauts interacting with ground control. Not to mention the placing of the retroreflectors, or the moon rock they gathered (which, sorry, cannot be found on earth).

Most of the folks that assume fakery simply don't understand the speed of light delays and the tracking issues. Even if you could somehow duplicate this in a studio (and flatly, you couldn't - the methods wayneee suggested would be obvious fakery) you still would have to magically have it all come from lunar orbit and the landing site.

I understand you think I am ignorant of time delays , I assure you that I am not. -The Telemetry you speak of could have come from something unmanned. Video and audio could be fed from high Earth orbit with conpiratorial time delay. Retro reflectors could be done with unmanned probe , for all we know, that probe was what telemetry mission control tracked. And yes Moon Rocks do hit the Earth, Martian Rocks Hit the Earth too.

[wayneee]

Because spacecraft went to the moon, LMs (of some type) landed on the moon, were tracked the whole way, and Apollo CMs dropped into the ocean filled with astronauts.

We're talking hundreds of thousands involved in the various aspects of this thing, world wide. At least.

According to the Hoaxers the Astronauts were in high Earth orbit, cruising around waiting to drop into the ocean. Telemetry was actual tracking an un manned probe , prehaps to install Retro mirrors.

[Van Rijn]

I understand you think I am ignorant of time delays , I assure you that I am not. -The Telemetry you speak of could have come from something unmanned. Video and audio could be fed from high Earth orbit with conpiratorial time delay.

No. Tracking (by friendly and unfriendly countries alike) clearly showed where the transmissions came from. A spacecraft went to the moon, another spacecraft clearly landed on the moon, and in both cases there were transmissions by astronauts that interacted with ground control.

Retro reflectors could be done with unmanned probe , for all we know, that probe was what telemetry mission control tracked.

We've already covered this: They couldn't have been placed accurately.

And yes Moon Rocks do hit the Earth, Martian Rocks Hit the Earth too.

And it is obvious where they were found. That is: They show clear signs of passage through the earth's atmosphere and being subjected to the earth's environment.

Pristine moon rocks cannot be found on earth and have many distinct features. The moon rocks came from the moon. They weren't found on earth.

[Faultline]

Nomuse . I think you are overstating the lunar footage, as well as overcomplicating the Movie set theory(old fav of mine Capricorn One) If this is being done , its being done live, to promote the hoax. To prove that it could not be done is a big feather in the cap of Debunkers

A live movie with special effects of that caliber is several OOM harder to do than LOTR.

[SolusLupus]

Y'know, I love that line. "According to the Hoaxers..."

So, according to the "Conspiracy theorists...", you base your knowledge of such...

I understand the desire to distrust government agencies, but I can't understand why you'd want to trust some guy behind a computer screen you've never met before, that has no affiliation, and his educational status is in question.

[TheBlackCat]

I understand you think I am ignorant of time delays , I assure you that I am not. -The Telemetry you speak of could have come from something unmanned. Video and audio could be fed from high Earth orbit with conpiratorial time delay. Retro reflectors could be done with unmanned probe , for all we know, that probe was what telemetry mission control tracked. And yes Moon Rocks do hit the Earth, Martian Rocks Hit the Earth too.

Then why do a hoax in the first place? If you can get the spacecraft to the moon, land on the moon, do all the necessary things to make it appear as though there were people on it, have extremely sophisticated robots that are capable of setting up the reflectors, what is the point of doing a hoax at all? They would need a working launch platform, extremely sophisticated robots, most or all of the capabilities of a real manned lander (in fact more likely MORE capabilities). There would be no possibility for corrections if there were problems. What if the probe failed? What would they have done with the people whoe were supposedly on it? Remember that they had to change the landing site during the descent. If they had landed where they originally planned the ship would have been lost. You cannot land a spacecraft manually with a 4-second lag time between input and response, it is practically impossible to do it with even a few millisecond time delay. If they didn't land where they had claimed they landed than everyone tracking the lander would have known it. Yet nobody knew what the surface features of that area were at that time, so there is no way they could have known they couldn't land at their original target or known where would be a good target instead.

[AGN Fuel]

I think you are overstating the lunar footage, as well as overcomplicating the Movie set theory(old fav of mine Capricorn One) If this is being done , its being done live, to promote the hoax. To prove that it could not be done is a big feather in the cap of Debunkers

Actually, you are grotesquely understating the lunar footage. There are HOURS of contiguous footage, some of which is taken whilst in motion on the LRV. Your studio would have to be several kilometres in size. It would also have to be a vacuum and at reduced gravity to recreate the ballistic motion of the 'rooster-tails' observed on the LRV.

Also, you are completely overlooking the fact that the contractors who built the various components of the spacecraft, apart from being aware whether their own component was capable of performing the task required of it, needed to understand how it would be integrated with the other components. The pieces of the spacecraft were not built in isolation.

The moon rocks that you so blithely dismiss as meteorites collected on Earth overlooks (or deliberately ignores, seeing this point has been made before) the zap-pits made by micrometeoritic impact. These zap-pits are completely obliterated during the ablative passage of a meteorite through the Earth's atmosphere, so their existence in the samples is proof that they were collected from the lunar surface.

The voice communications could not have been faked, as the astronauts responded to Capcom discussing events of the day, including sporting events (unless you think the ABL, NBA, NFL etc were in on the hoax in order to fix the games in advance). These communications were received by the tracking stations (several hundred technicians here in Australia alone, with similar numbers in Madrid, Goldstone and other locations) for hours at a time, meaning that the spacecraft was not in a low-earth orbit. Also, and for the second time, ham radio operators around the world listened to communications for hours at a time. Think about how that could have been faked.

[TheBlackCat]

I read your post that you linked , I must have missed it before or I would have replied. First I must state that your assumptions might be wrong. Your Assumptions are the Expense and the capabilities of the craft as well assuming we couldnt get all those Moon rocks and how tracking might have been following an unmanned probe bouncing signals off a high orbit Gemini like Capsule. But lets say your right . Let me give you everything, including the higher risk of hoaxing the entire world. There is still one thing that hoaxing has over Actual, and that is ---__Assured Success.__--

Assured success, you mean like Apollo 13? Or do you more mean assured success, like how Apollo 11 almost ran out of fuel trying to find a good landing site because their original target was full of boulders? In the case of a probe, there is very little possibility of correcting a major error, especially at a time-critical point like the landing, liftoff, or docking. There is also no possibility of making in-flight repairs of any sort if there is a problem.

And what of the probe that they were supposedly bouncing signals off of and that would have set up the reflector (which probes in that day couldn't do as accurately as this one was set up)? What if it had failed? The people supposedly on the Apollo craft are safely in Earth orbit or in a gravityless sound stage that is impossible with today's technology. What would happen to them if the radio relay system failed, or if telescopes around the world saw the Apollo capsule blow up, or if the Saturn rocket blew up on the launch pad, or if the capsule caught fire like in Apollo 1? They couldn't announce to the world that the mission was a failure and the astronaughts dead and then quitely send them back home. They would either have had to admit the whole thing, or murder the astronaughts. If they were just going to kill them in case of a failure, once again what is the point of doing a hoax? They would be dead either way, but in the case of the real thing then the gov't wouldn't have to murder them with their own hands and there would never be any chance of the whole thing getting leaked or figured out. So there is no point of doing a hoax this way either.

And it is not an assumption that we couldn't have gotten the moon rocks another way, it is a fact.

So I will ask again: how they could have either fooled 10,000 highly trained scientists and engineers who are experts in such things or why would they have built a complete working apollo program (not just spacecraft, an entire program) as well as a complete working probe that had capabilities far beyond any probe of that era (or probably even modern probes) and a soundstage in a complete vacuum that we cannot build with modern technology that also has 1/6 our gravity which is physically impossible and and gravityless soundstage which is physically impossible except in space and hired a bunch of additional people to design, build, and run these things but who never confessed, and done all this when it would have added risk to the program and had the added risk of it being discovered when it is more difficult, more expnsive, and more risky than doing it for real, and then faked a near disaster in the case of Apollo 13 when you had gone to all this trouble to make the program seem flawless and then continued the hoax even after it was clear that the Apollo 13 disaster wasn't enough to renew public interest in the program?

[nomuse]

I know it does little to dismiss the theoretical possibility of a cunning hoax... but the vast majority of the "evidence" offered by the HB's does not take a scientist or engineer with detailed experience in the field to answer. If the hoax were truly on the laughably amaturish level the "clues" the HB's interpret would have, then anyone with more than grade-school science would have noticed. It isn't as if Professor Van Allen is the only man on Earth who knew about the "radiation belts" that bear his name.

To make a decent case for a hoax you need one that is sophisticated enough to fool scientists -- and continue to fool them today, despite the great strides we have made in so many fields.