I Will Prove The Moon Landings Were Hoaxed

[jrkeller]

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

So are you telling us that the 24 men who went to the moon were the only ones who hoaxed it?

In other words, there are 24 men who have publically stated that they went to the moon. These are the crews of Apollo 8, Apollo 10 - Apollo 17. Or are your numbers in addition to the astronaut crews?

[jrkeller]

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.

Let's just say that your idea is true. Where did all the real time data come from? Mission Control received all kinds of data from pressure, temperature, flow rates, fuel consumption, fuel tank level, etc all in real time. The people who designed the equipment made predictions as to how it would perform on the moon. Who hoaxed the data? Data that was so good that it not only fooled the people who designed it, but all the people since who have looked at the data and not found any problems.

[wayneee]

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?

Sound stage does not have to be gravity less.
Bounce of what?If I send a probe to the moon it sends back telemetry off the the ship that launched it from moon orbit. Listen people everywhere are working on the assumption that there are people aboard that ship around the moon, Im sure they are not looking for anything else, Im sure there is no time to think if there might be anything amiss.
Why would all these scientist go through the trouble? Easy, we did actualy intend to do it. Hey maybe we did.
As for probes un able to stick a self correcting Mirror in the Ground , Im sure that was feasable.

As for Apollo 13, who knows , maybe the sound stage was compromised
I will spell out how it might have happened, all conjecture I admit.
Us determined to go to the moon -JFK
We develope Tech Mercury , Gemini
begin developement on Apollo
Put forth plans and feasibility projection. Many unknowns, Van Allen Belt radiation untried , Docking procedure of LEM launching from pad trajectory,
possible dangers from Solar Flare activity, Untested Atmospherics for three Astronaughts,landing LEM on moon, launching LEM. Margin of Error Great
Secondary plan initiated , By who , I have no clue President, CIA Secret Service, Easter bunny? America must be succesful for reasons we have gone through already. Technogy developed to stage hoax. Staging Moon Enviroment, building moon probe , developing the tools to fool Nasa ground control, Developing scenario
Apollo is built as if every thing is in order Everyone believes that Apollo will be used to go to the moon , Prehaps it still will. Scientists worked hard to lower the risks, watching Solar flare activity , practicing LEM docking in low earth orbit , and under water drills, Prehaps the scientists lowered the Error Margin low enough to win the take off.
Prehaps they didnt
The Apollo crew is put into there capsule
They launch, yet as they circle they get a coded message 'Operation big expensive Hoax'
They jetison there capsule and continue to circle Earth
Mean while their jetisoned ship continues to the moon
Back on Earth the stage has been set and the crews get ready to relay live feeds from the stage to the orbiting capsule full of astronaughts.
The unmanned ship arrive at the moon and launches the Lem(This could go two ways , either use the live feed from the Lem attempting to land Automaticly or by time delayed remote , or simply stage it.
voices are supper imposed by astronaughts still in orbit( hell for all we know thier capsule is docked with something else thats up there)
Voice overs and video feed are matched in a central control Hoaxer place live and fed to mission control in the conspiratorial time delay process.
Stage Actors on Earth follow through scenario
lem launches, does not dock Lem Docking Photos are revamped from older tests Ship returns towards earth
Astronaughts finaly break orbit and splash down in appropriate place and time
There ,Hoax accomplished

[wayneee]

Let's just say that your idea is true. Where did all the real time data come from? Mission Control received all kinds of data from pressure, temperature, flow rates, fuel consumption, fuel tank level, etc all in real time. The people who designed the equipment made predictions as to how it would perform on the moon. Who hoaxed the data? Data that was so good that it not only fooled the people who designed it, but all the people since who have looked at the data and not found any problems.

How does information from lets say an Air pressure Guage go from 200,00 thousand miles to some fella sitting at aconsole on Earth. it gets sent via Radio waves, There is a frequency in which our little Air pressure Guage sits in and it chirps away its information. This frequency can be changed or slaved. Just because the dials are working doesnt mean they represent someone on the moon

[Obviousman]

Waynee,

This is not to meant to be an insult, so please do not take it as such; however, by your 'this is how the hoax could be done' post you have demonstrated that you simply do not understand the complexity of manned space travel.

It might be likened to my saying "Well, first you build an anti-gravity device, then you take......" without having any idea HOW to build an anti-gravity device.

If you listen to the people here, you can have the problems explained to you, one at a time, why they were so difficult to overcome, HOW they were overcome, and why your own version is so much more difficult to accomplish than actually going to the moon!

Your choice...

[wayneee]

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.

I dont think Scientist think about Apollo anymore , Realy all I want is independent varification from the moon probe . It will supposedly give a detailed topographic map and True Color photos. The Apollo Junk should be there pretty much how we left it. We will all see it , case dismissed.
good Conspiracies are never believed , Bad ones are called scandals.

Have a Question , is there ever a time in the Lunar footage that you can see a mans face, while he is on the moon?

[Obviousman]

Have a Question , is there ever a time in the Lunar footage that you can see a mans face, while he is on the moon?

Yes, about 3 or 4 times with video footage, and a similar number of times (possibly more) with still photography.

[nomuse]

So if they do the mission for real, and more astronauts die (they've already had deaths in the program by the time we reach your go/no go point), the US takes a prestige hit. The Soviets were much better at hiding their casualties.

But if they fake the mission, and anyone finds out, the US becomes the laughingstock of the world.

Plus you are faced with having to go from conditions of great open-ness, freely sharing data with all the scientists, technicians, reporters, and interested observers across the world, to a compartmentalized "need to know" basis just as you are about to do the actual landing series.

Plus the missions weren't JUST there to say "hey, we made it." There was legimate science to be done -- and a whole world community of scientists waiting impatiently for the data returns. So you are going to make up data that will convince them, that will have the right blend of consistency and novelty, and that will stand up for decades of further investigation?

Just on the basis of "Now, here's my plan," I'd say that was a sucky plan.

[wayneee]

Waynee,

This is not to meant to be an insult, so please do not take it as such; however, by your 'this is how the hoax could be done' post you have demonstrated that you simply do not understand the complexity of manned space travel.

It might be likened to my saying "Well, first you build an anti-gravity device, then you take......" without having any idea HOW to build an anti-gravity device.

If you listen to the people here, you can have the problems explained to you, one at a time, why they were so difficult to overcome, HOW they were overcome, and why your own version is so much more difficult to accomplish than actually going to the moon!

Your choice...

I simplified as I saw the post getting long . I am not offended I was merely showing how it might have been staged. I suppose I could write a book , yet if I did it here on a message board Imsure I would be thrown off.
Ignorance of manned space flight is assured , There are many here who know some pieces of it Im sure , But I have not seen any Atronaughts on the board. if you a specific problem with the scenario please state it , and I will try to fill you in on the detail to the best of my knowledge

[wayneee]

Yes, about 3 or 4 times with video footage, and a similar number of times (possibly more) with still photography.

Id like to see that anyone have a link I can google I suppose if not

[nomuse]

I dont think Scientist think about Apollo anymore

Oh, come now. Every engineer, space scientist, telecommunications satellite team manager, cable TV investor would be noticing.

"And then," says the presenter, "we launch our new satellite into the deadly Van Allen belts..."

"The which?"

"Belts of hard radiation that destroy everything that attempts to leave Earth."

"Say....I just had a thought. Those things were there forty years ago, right? How'd NASA get the moon men through them?"

[wayneee]

Just on the basis of "Now, here's my plan," I'd say that was a sucky plan.

Hey I gave it my best shot you guys never give a guy a break do you

[nomuse]

I'll throw you one SPECIFIC problem to solve. How about that?

Get me some Moon dust. Make it look real -- make it match the film and video shot by the Apollo astronauts. Show me how I can film that stuff in a studio.

[Relic]

Id like to see that anyone have a link I can google I suppose if not

I recall seeing some stills from 16mm at the site below. There are likely photos as well somewhere in there.

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

[wayneee]

I'll throw you one SPECIFIC problem to solve. How about that?

Get me some Moon dust. Make it look real -- make it match the film and video shot by the Apollo astronauts. Show me how I can film that stuff in a studio.

ok Ill work on that for you
with that I need to go to bed have a good night folks



One of these Days Alice 'POW!' right to da moon!

[AGN Fuel]

Sound stage does not have to be gravity less....blah blah blah blah blah blah...There ,Hoax accomplished

Pretty story. Any evidence whatsoever that any of this happened?

I could write a hundred possible ways that any historical event could have been hoaxed. They are not worth a pinch of spit unless I choose to make a career writing science fiction.

[Obviousman]

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-146-22296.jpg

Jack Schmitt at Station 6, leaning over LRV with gold visor raised.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...46-22296HR.jpg

(Hi-res version)

[tofu]

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.

Well, the radio signals definitely came from the moon. That was confirmed by lots of people, for example university professors who built direction finding equipment just for the educational value. Even hobbists tracked the mission. So, we know that the radio signal came from the moon.

So your suggestion is that maybe the signal originated on Earth and was just bounced off an unmanned probe? OK, but here's the thing, that would have doubled the time delay. So it seems to me that to support this claim, you need to be looking for video or audio recordings with longer than expected time delay.

But look, there is still one major major problem with any hoax theory. The basis for every theory is that it has to be impossible to go to the moon. That has to be the foundation on which put all these other claims. Because, if it was possible, then NASA would have just done it. So, before we even start guessing how they did it, we have to establish why it was impossible. And that gets us back into the territory where the hoax believers have to prove something. See, I understand what you said about debunkers having to prove their case. That's fine. But for any hoax theory to make sense, there has to be a *reason* why NASA choose to undertake the hoax. And that is what the hoax believers have to prove.

[EvilBob]

Have a Question , is there ever a time in the Lunar footage that you can see a mans face, while he is on the moon?

In Chaikin's "A man on the moon" there is a still from the TV footage showing Jack Schmitt during EVA on A17, where you can clearly see his face. I don't have a link to video footage, as my work network blocks media files. But the footage is out there.

[jrkeller]

How does information from lets say an Air pressure Guage go from 200,00 thousand miles to some fella sitting at aconsole on Earth. it gets sent via Radio waves, There is a frequency in which our little Air pressure Guage sits in and it chirps away its information. This frequency can be changed or slaved. Just because the dials are working doesnt mean they represent someone on the moon

I guess you missed the point of my post.

Let's say that I designed the cooling system for the Lunar Module (I didn't BTW). I have spent years designing, testing, running simulations this hardware, so I should have a pretty good idea as to how it will behave on the lunar surface. Probably better than anyone on or off the planet. This hardware was instrumented so that mission control and MER (Mission Evaluation Room) can see how the system is working. Just so you know, most of this data is still available to public in post operation reports.

So now LM is on the surface of the moon (or in your world, being faked) and I'm getting data back. If the mission is being faked where is this data coming from? And how is it being faked to look like my cooling system is on the moon? Remember it is all real time.

For some misssions, the astronauts were too hot or too cold and they adjusted things for more personal comfort, so I would see that on the data in real time. How was that faked?

BTW, the MER is the support staff for mission control. These folks are the engineers you designed and built the hardware on the space vehicle. They are both government employees and contractors.

[TheBlackCat]

OK, but here's the thing, that would have doubled the time delay.

Not necessarily. If they sent the response to the astronauts when they were right here on Earth, or in Earth orbit, then the astronauts immediately sent the signal to the probe, which then immediately relayed it back to Earth, the delay would be about what you would expect. The astronauts' signal would arrive at the probe at about the same time as the original transmission (minus the time they needed to actually answer the question), then would take the same amount of time to get back. The only further delay would be from the relay system, which would have been extremely short. There are numerous problems with such a scenario, but the length of time before a response is recieved is not one of them.

[jrkeller]

In Chaikin's "A man on the moon" there is a still from the TV footage showing Jack Schmitt during EVA on A17, where you can clearly see his face. I don't have a link to video footage, as my work network blocks media files. But the footage is out there.

Here's another photo where you can see the astronauts face. It's Buzz Aldrin. The stuff is there if you look.

[Obviousman]

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v_1650025.mpg

The rover is parked on the very steep flank of the North Massif. Gene is beside the rover, occupying about half the television camera frame, and is attaching the clip of his yo-yo to the handle of his tongs. As he moves away from the camera Jack is revealed behind him, perhaps 10-15 metres away up the steep hill, holding his scoop and taking a series of panorama pictures. In order to shoot each frame at this steeply slanted location, he bends his knees and tilts backwards to aim his lens correctly. As the television camera zooms in on Jack, his visor is up and his face is visible inside his helmet with unusual clarity.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17schmitt.face.jpg

Video still

[AGN Fuel]

Not necessarily. If they sent the response to the astronauts when they were right here on Earth, or in Earth orbit, then the astronauts immediately sent the signal to the probe, which then immediately relayed it back to Earth, the delay would be about what you would expect. The astronauts' signal would arrive at the probe at about the same time as the original transmission (minus the time they needed to actually answer the question), then would take the same amount of time to get back. The only further delay would be from the relay system, which would have been extremely short. There are numerous problems with such a scenario, but the length of time before a response is recieved is not one of them.

The astronauts could not be in LEO to do this, or their transmissions to the probe would be blocked for 40 odd minutes out of every 90.

[Hugh Jass]

I simplified …I was merely showing how it might have been staged. …
Ignorance of manned space flight is assured , There are many here who know some pieces of it Im sure , But I have not seen any Atronaughts on the board. if you a specific problem with the scenario please state it , and I will try to fill you in on the detail to the best of my knowledge

The hoax is getting pretty complicated, sounds like it might have been easier just to go to the moon.

I dont think Scientist think about Apollo anymore , Realy all I want is independent varification from the moon probe . It will supposedly give a detailed topographic map and True Color photos. The Apollo Junk should be there pretty much how we left it. We will all see it , case dismissed.

Please, you don’t believe the ton of still and motion film taken from the Apollo missions, but you wouldn’t claim any photo from a probe showing Apollo junk wasn’t fixed? What will it really take for HBrs to accept there’s been men on the moon?

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

Ok, I’m going a different direction on this one. I’m going to completely ignore the thousands of people that had first hand knowledge and took part in the missions in one way or another (oops I guess I just mentioned them). When is the last time you watched the credits of some everyday ˝ hour TV show with no special effects involved. The list is about 200 people long. You are talking about the most advanced and elaborate series of movies ever created. The production, something to fool the people involved not only for that moment but for the rest of their lives, would be a bigger undertaking than… um… well bigger than NASA going to the MOON!!

[PhantomWolf]

The idea of the moon rocks being lunites is as old as, well the hoax, but it shows a total ignorance of both Lunites and the Apollo samples. Firstly, the samples weren't just rocks, they included core samples up to 8' in length and dirt samples, something you CAN'T get from a lunite. Not only that, but lunites have numerous traits of their own that the Apollo samples don't have, most caused by their time in space and then the travel through the atmosphere, though they also often show signs of weathering. Add to that that many of the Apollo samples came from an area with high radioactive isotope concentration, smething that wasn't actually known about until the mid 1990's. Also add that the first lunite wasn't found until 1979 and wasn't identified until 1981, and that the entire amount of recovered lunite material is far less than that recovered by the Apollo missions. Further, that the Russians did robotic return samples and only gained a number of grams from the entire three returns. Robotics could not have gathered the rocks, which were selected for their usefulness in a geological study of the moon. Robots could not have taken the core samples. The soils and core samples could not have been from lunites, the rocks themselves cannot be lunites because their distinictive traits are entirely different. The Apollo rocks match with the elements that have since been found to be present at the landing sites while most known lunites don't match the region the landings were in (and are highly studied because of exactly this reason.) Lunites were determined to be from the moon because of their similarity to the Apollo samples.

Can you see why these samples are damning evidence against there being as hoax? There is only one way that these rocks could possibly have been gained. People who were geologically trained had to go there and pick them up, drill samples cores and take soil samples. There is just no other way to do it, no matter how much the HB's hate the idea and so glaze over it without anything other than "they were just lunar meteorites." (or even worse, they were manufactured.)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

In the second (the "Boy, is this fun" clip) ...

I'd also like to point out that this video (among others, I'm sure) is an excellent debunking of MM's umm... "concern"... about the speed with which mission controllers were able to respond to the astronauts. Duke talks about "frame 89", the controller responds, then Duke starts talking again, but is interrupted by the controller's response, which he had just received (and you can hear in the background).

Of course, yeah, it's already been debunked to death, but hey...

[Hazzard]

I must admit that even though that Moon man kid was one step beyond annoying,this thread had great entertainment and educational value.

I learned a lot from all you guys trying to talk some sense into that lawyer wannabe.

Thanks everyone.

[NEOWatcher]

I'll throw you one SPECIFIC problem to solve. How about that?

Get me some Moon dust. Make it look real -- make it match the film and video shot by the Apollo astronauts. Show me how I can film that stuff in a studio.

Right, that can't even be done now. This month's PopSci (or as I refer to it as PseudoSci) has a short article about just that. I don't have it with me, but what I remember is that Tom Hanks is doing something like that, and they cant get an apparatus to behave correctly, and even have trouble simulating the moon dust. Going so far as to using ground up roofing.

[kookbreaker]

Right, that can't even be done now. This month's PopSci (or as I refer to it as PseudoSci) has a short article about just that. I don't have it with me, but what I remember is that Tom Hanks is doing something like that, and they cant get an apparatus to behave correctly, and even have trouble simulating the moon dust. Going so far as to using ground up roofing.

More fun: Edmund Scientific sold a simulated 'Moon Dust' in the early 70's. Since I work for one of the three companies that ES evolved into, some of the product accounting files ended up in my office. Interesting reading.