When you write about space as much as I do (and use a laptop with a big NASA sticker on the cover no less) you’re more than occasionally going to hear the question: did we really land on the Moon? (That, and “do you believe in UFOs?” My answer: not as credible evidence of aliens, no.) And with this year (2014) marking the 45th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing — which, by the way, most definitely happened — and this particular weekend being 45 years since the Apollo 10 “dress rehearsal” lunar orbiting mission, I thought I’d assemble a list of a few oft-quoted “proofs” of a grand-scale Moon landing hoax… and then let you know why they’re completely wrong.
You may have heard a few of these before:
1. The flag is waving.
This is one of the biggest claims waved around (yes, pun intended) by conspiracy fanatics. When the U.S. flag was placed by Armstrong and Aldrin and recorded by the TV camera they’d previously set up, it appears to be waving in a non-existent lunar breeze. But there’s no atmosphere on the Moon, how can there be a breeze to blow a flag around?
This isn’t proof of location on a Disney sound stage in Burbank. The flag isn’t “waving,” it’s swinging.
First of all the U.S. flag was hanging from a telescoping rod along its top to keep it extended, but it wouldn’t extend all the way. And when planting the flagpole, the astronauts had a difficult time getting very far into the lunar surface… after a few inches they hit some pretty solid stuff. The struggle to keep it upright for a good photo-op meant that it got some pretty vigorous shaking, and this resulted in a lot of movement. The Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere (aside from some sparsely-scattered ions and dust) but it does have gravity—about one-sixth of Earth’s—and a well-shaken banner will still wave… just not by any wind. In fact once they were done fussing with the flagpole, it stayed still for the remainder of the mission.
“During a pause in experiments, Neil suggested we proceed with the flag. It took both of us to set it up and it was nearly a disaster.”
– Buzz Aldrin
Unfortunately as soon as the ascent stage of the LM launched, returning Neil and Buzz to lunar orbit to meet back up with Michael Collins in the CM, the entire flag was blown over—but from the force of the ascent rockets, not wind. With the flag planted so close to the LM the downward thrust of the rockets was strong enough to push the shallowly-planted flag over. (Luckily Newtonian physics work very well in space, otherwise we’d never get anywhere!) Later missions put their flags a bit farther away.
(Note: the original TV broadcast of the Moon landing was blurry, no doubt, but there’s a reason for that; the “oddball” slow-scan signal developed by Westinghouse that was received and converted by the Australian Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek dishes was much, much clearer. But those versions will unfortunately never be seen again and here’s why.)
2. If there’s no atmosphere on the Moon, where are the stars in the photos?
This is Photography 101. The Apollo astronauts were using several types of cameras to record their lunar adventures, one being modified medium-format Hasselblad 500 EL cameras mounted to their spacesuits. (This was the one Neil used.) These were film cameras and had to be set just right to get pictures to develop correctly—not unlike today’s digital cameras, but without the convenience of auto mode! All the astronauts went through training on how to shoot with the cameras, so when they got to the Moon they were able to take some really great shots of the surface in beautiful 70mm detail. (Check out the Project Apollo Archive for hi-res scans of the color and black-and-white film they shot.)
Daytime on the Moon is about two Earth weeks long. (A full solar “synodic” day there takes 29.5 Earth days.) All the Apollo surface EVAs took place on the side facing Earth during the lunar daytime. This means that the Sun was in the sky, illuminating the surface and everything the astronauts were doing… including taking pictures. So even though there was no atmosphere above them, the astronauts still had to expose their cameras to account for a very bright lunar landscape (and in some instances with a very big white star we call the Sun in the sky.) They were there to explore the Moon, not the stars, and so they didn’t waste any film taking astrophotos.
Long story short, in order to capture stars in their photos they would have had to expose for them in camera, which would have resulted in a very blown-out, blurry lunar surface. (Plus they didn’t bring along tripods for long exposures.) Think about it—if you took pictures outside at night, and let your camera adjust for a well-lit object or scene, even if there was a sky full of stars above you at the time they wouldn’t be visible in your picture. It’s just how cameras work—they simply can’t adjust like your eyes do.
Learn more about the lunar cameras here.
NOTE: Actually there was a tripod-mounted camera used on the Moon: the Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph brought on Apollo 16. That instrument DID take astrophotos, but in ultraviolet wavelengths. Not only did it capture LOTS of stars but also Earth, the aurorae, and distant galaxies…from the Moon! Learn about that here.
3. You can still see things in the shadows. They should be completely black with no air to scatter light.
Well, yes and no. It’s true that light on Earth is scattered by the atmosphere, and so we can see even where sunlight isn’t directly illuminating a scene. And in space, shadows can be incredibly dark because of the lack of this effect. But there is still reflected light, and the lunar surface is reflective.
When Neil photographed Buzz descending the ladder onto the Moon’s surface, you can still see him pretty well even though he’s clearly in the shadow of the LM. This is the result of reflected light from the Sun hitting the lunar regolith and bouncing back up into the shadows, not “another source of artificial illumination” claimed by some conspiracists. Again, no atmosphere doesn’t negate the physics of how light works—after all, the Moon is pretty dark in color yet we see it as a very bright object in the night sky, especially when full. This is a ready testament to its reflectivity (and even then it’s still only reflecting 12% of the sunlight it receives.)
Also don’t forget that in addition to the Sun, the Earth was in the sky above the Apollo astronauts—and it was also reflecting sunlight onto the Moon, just like the Moon does onto Earth.
Want an example of how this worked? Check out Ian Goddard’s demonstration site here, and see the results of an experiment on Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters” here. Added 9/22/14: see an article on Nerdist.com here regarding reflected sunlight from a space-suited Neil Armstrong.
4. The shadows in the photos were uneven.
Therefore alternate lighting sources? No, therefore uneven terrain. Single-source lighting on a perfectly flat plane will result in perspective-aligned shadows, but on an uneven surface the shadows will “appear” to slant off at different angles as they are projected across the ground. The Moon pretty much has no perfectly flat planes—it’s cratered and hilly down to the smallest scales. Shadows cast by the Sun will be skewed all over the place. (See the link above for a sample of that too.)
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke got to drive a Boeing-made Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) on the Moon, one of three sent up during the Apollo program. Note how the dust is kicked up in nice billowing arcs by the LRV’s wheels… that’s not Earth gravity in action!
5. Radiation would have killed the astronauts en route to the Moon.
Radiation in space is very dangerous. Nobody’s contesting that fact. Even a thickly-hulled spacecraft can allow in enough cosmic radiation to damage living DNA over long durations, and outside of Earth’s protective magnetosphere it becomes an even bigger danger. This in fact is still a major obstacle to overcome if we’re to send humans to Mars or beyond. But the Apollo astronauts weren’t on a year-long voyage to Mars, they were on week-long trips to the Moon. Even the Van Allen belts, which concentrate energetic particles from the Sun into donut-shaped rings surrounding Earth, were passed through pretty quickly by the Apollo spacecraft on their way Moonward.
A pretty clear explanation is given by astronomer Phil Plait in his 2001 Bad Astronomy article:
“The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth’s surface where the Earth’s magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn’t enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation.”
(If you really want to get into the math of how the radiation environment of the Van Allen Belts were quite survivable by astronauts, even in the late 1960s, click here.)
Now, had the Apollo astronauts been in the way of a strong solar flare event while on the lunar surface, it would have been a different story. Protected only by their space suits, they could have received a lethal dose of solar radiation very quickly as a cloud of particles swept past the Earth and Moon. Luckily that didn’t happen, but it was an occupational hazard. (Although compared to the countless other dangers they confronted in order to achieve their goals that was somewhat low on the list.)
6. We didn’t have the technology in the 60s to go to the Moon.
This is a total cop-out argument. Yes, 1960s technology was far inferior to what we have today; even our cell phones contain vastly more computing power than what was aboard the Apollo spacecraft. But the Apollo spacecraft only had to know how to do one thing: get living, breathing astronauts to the Moon and back. This was achieved through complex engineering and the efforts of many thousands of the brightest minds in the country, not to mention a few fearless astronauts who knew a thing or two about flying experimental aircraft. Getting to the Moon was a case of pure physics, dedication, and guts… the required innovations just came as a direct result. Read more here on Clavius.org.
Also as a technical note, the circuitry and components of Apollo spacecraft were relatively enormous by today’s standards—they literally were big enough to avoid getting knocked offline by stray atomic particles. These days we have to take much more care shielding sensitive space electronics from radiation. (Thanks to spacecraft software engineer Emory Stagmer for the info.)
As far as NASA having created all the footage of the landings in a studio, it actually would have been easier at the time to just go to the Moon…
(And before you claim that Stanley Kubrick confessed to filming the whole Moon landing in a “documentary”…um, NO.)
7. Myth: nobody has ever seen the landing sites on the Moon. Fact: they’ve imaged all the Apollo landing sites from lunar orbit.
NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has been surveying the Moon for five years now, and during that time has imaged all of the Apollo landing sites from its position in lunar orbit. Several times, in fact, and under many different lighting angles. So while we can’t visually resolve the remains of the Apollo sites from Earth (simply due to the angular resolution limitations of telescopes) LRO can see them very nicely… LM descent stages, ALSEPs. LRVs, and astronaut tracks all as they were left over 40 years ago.
Don’t want to believe anything NASA has to say regarding the landing sites? That’s OK—China said it was able to see the remains of the Apollo 11 site with the Chang’e-2 orbiter back in 2012 and Japan’s Kaguya orbiter was able to discern the bright “halo” on the lunar surface from Apollo 15’s July 30, 1971 landing in 2008.
8. Okay…so if they REALLY went to the Moon, how come we never went back?
This, unfortunately, has more to do with the nature of politics and public interest than space technology, although the latter often becomes a casualty of the former. There’s a lot involved with the answer to this (and you can read about some of it in this article on Scientific American featuring space historian David S.F. Portree) but suffice to say after the Apollo program was closed down, the technology to send humans to the Moon was retired. The Saturn V rockets were either dismantled, put in museums, or, in the case of Skylab, used in other programs, and eventually all of the special components created by contractors and sub-contractors that allowed the success of Saturn and Apollo were no longer available or in production. We didn’t lose the technology, as some have claimed, we just stopped making it, at least for those specific uses. As times changed, priorities (and thus budgets) changed, and NASA’s manned spaceflight program of the 60s and early 70s became a thing of the past, in some cases replaced by newer, better goals… but in some cases still not replaced at all.
Is it a shame that the last bootprints on the Moon are still those of Gene Cernan from December 1972? Heck yes. Does it mean he never went at all? Hell no.
Read more in this article by Space.com’s Clara Moskowitz.
The Apollo missions are still one of the crowning achievements (in my opinion, at least) of both our country and of humanity as a whole. Yes, the reasons behind the race to the Moon in the 60s were very political, that’s surely no secret. But in just eight years we went from sending the first American on a brief suborbital flight to safely landing astronauts on the surface of another world and bringing them home again, an incredible feat accomplished only through the talent and hard work of literally hundreds of thousands of people—over 400,000, in fact (source)—and the support and financial backing of an entire nation. Reasons aside, the summer of 1969 changed both the global political landscape and our perspective of our place in the Universe, and that’s not something to be dismissed lightly… or with wanton disregard for all those who made it happen.
And, of course, let’s not forget the undeniable 842 pounds of Moon rocks that the Apollo astronauts brought back to Earth with them (rocks that are still standing up to microscopic scrutiny even today by geologists) and the laser ranging reflectors that were left up there and still being used to measure distances to the Moon today!
“The body of physical evidence that humans did walk on the Moon is simply overwhelming.”
– Dr. Robert Park, Director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society
Want to dive even deeper into the debunking of any Moon landing hoax? Check out the links below:
Great info from University of Arizona LPL Senior Researcher Jim Scotti
“Bad Astronomer” Phil Plait’s de-hoaxing article (which specifically attacks a 2001 “documentary” on Fox TV)
NASA’s Response to Said Fauxumentary
Clavius.org — a site dedicated to debunking Moon hoax theories
A Retrospective Analysis of Project Apollo (NASA)
National Geographic attacks 8 Moon landing hoax myths
A debunking by rocket and space technology site Braeunig.us
Watch Universe Today’s video “How Do We Know The Moon Landing Isn’t Fake?”
Wondering about external sounds picked up during the Apollo surface EVAs? Read this thread.
Apollo Landing Sites Imaged by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
Added 6/3/14: A “Decisive Debunking” of the Moon Landing Conspiracy by med student Hasaan Rafique
Added 6/3/14: The Moon Landing Hoax Debunked on RelativelyInteresing.com
Added 7/18/14: Here’s a video by spaceflight historian and fellow Discovery News blogger Amy Shira Teitel regarding the whole “flapping flags” topic (because that one never seems to get put to rest.) nice job, Amy!
Added 9/22/14: Also by Amy Teitel, this article for Nerdist.com shows some demonstrations by NVIDIA of their newest graphics processing card that “prove” how the illumination scenarios seen in the Apollo 11 photographs were most definitely real and possible. (In addition to being a test pilot and astronaut, Neil Armstrong was also a great light reflector!)
Added 7/20/15 (Happy Moon Day!): Here’s well-known physicist Michio Kaku talking about some of the popular hoax myths above, as well as the lunar rocks that were brought back to Earth and a claim that the astronauts’ cooling suits wouldn’t work in a vacuum:
Added 7/21/15: Professor Brian Cox and none other than Buzz Aldrin himself had a few things to say to Moon landing disbelievers on Twitter on the 46th anniversary of the Apollo 11 EVA – read those on Huffington Post UK here. (Thanks Gabby Laine-Peters!)
Added 7/27/15: Find out what happened to the “lost” Apollo 11 telemetry tapes (a cautionary tale of poor foresight).
Added 9/15/15: On the Moon Landing Hoax and Anomaly Hunting
Added 10/14/15: Why do People Persist in Denying the Moon Landings? Article from Smithsonian Air and Space which includes the video below, a Q&A series with space history curator Dr. Roger Launius:
“If people decide they’re going to deny the facts of history and the facts of science and technology, there’s not much you can do with them. For most of them, I just feel sorry that we failed in their education.”
– Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut
Added 11/10/15: Check out Paul White’s unabashedly anti-hoaxer site “One Big Monkey” and Robert Walker’s analysis of the Apollo rock samples that “are just too good” to have been manufactured.
Also, in regards to the supposed “same background” seen in some Apollo footage: according to an interview of SwRI geophysicist Stuart Robbins by a Japanese documentary film crew, “According to our research, the “identical background” video clips were taken from the NASA-sponsored documentary video, “Nothing so Hidden.” And the documentary is produced by other production company outside of NASA. Therefore, our understanding is that it’s an error on editing stage of production: the production company took wrong clips and audio and used in the documentary.“ This erroneous claim has been debunked many times but is still often brought up by Moon landing deniers who are more than happy to cite misedited footage as credible evidence. (Source)
Added 1/26/16: An Oxford professor has calculated the length of time a conspiracy involving over 400,000 participants could possibly be kept secret: less than four years. If the Moon landings were faked somehow, based on his numbers it’d have become widely-known by 1973. Read more here.
Added 6/13/16: The Apollo spacecraft en route to the Moon were observed by amateur astronomers and professional observatories all around the world (and not affiliated with NASA either.) Thanks to Bill Keel for the info and site.
Added 6/17/16: Read what Apollo 11 LM pilot Michael Collins recently had to say about Moon landing hoaxers (including Bart Sibrel) in this Air & Space Magazine article.
Added 11/20/17: A recent Fox News online article (YES I KNOW…and I’m not linking to it either) is for whatever misled reason highlighting a claim by a conspiracy theorist that a “stagehand” is seen reflected in an Apollo astronaut’s visor. The photograph in question is below, and it literally took me under two minutes to determine that it’s the reflection of LM Pilot and geologist Harrison “Jack” Schmitt reflected in Apollo 17 Commander Gene Cernan’s visor during mission EVA #3 on Dec. 13, 1972. Jack took the photo, which is why he’s reflected in the visor. He very clearly has a suit and helmet on, and isn’t some “long-haired stagehand” as erroneously accused.
Two minutes, people. Two. It’s really not hard to find answers to your questions if you know where to look (and who NOT to listen to, e.g. YouTubers like “Streetcap1.”)
Added 7/22/18: Apollo 15 CM Pilot Al Worden recollects a sky “awash with stars” visible from the unlit night half of the far side of the Moon in this article on Medium.com.
“[T]here was a little space around the far side of the Moon where I was shadowed from both the Earth and the Sun and that was pretty amazing. I could see more stars than I could possibly imagine.”
Added 7/12/19: While it’s true that the live feed most people saw on their television sets during the Moon landing in July 1969 was of not-so-great quality, there’s a reason for that—it’s how the first live video signals were received at the Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek dishes in Australia and then converted to formats that TV broadcasters around the world could display. Cameras were good in the late 60s but live satellite TV technology was still pretty new. You can read more about that here (and see how some of the first uncompressed images from the Moon looked on the monitors at the Australia stations!) Also, watch the movie The Dish. You’ll love it.
__________________________
…and after all this, if you still must believe that the Apollo missions were all just an elaborate global scam, I’m afraid I really can’t help you (like Jack Schmitt said in the quote above.). The world you choose to live in is much, much more dark, tangled, and subversive than I care to ever venture into…I’m sorry that you have so little faith in what humans can achieve. (Just please don’t try to confront Buzz Aldrin with your silly claims.)
*One last note: a Facebook acquaintance of mine once made a very lucid point: this was the Nixon administration – they couldn’t even keep the secret of a few hired goons breaking into a hotel room. Just sayin’.
Lights in the Dark 
And my favorite debunk to the non-believers:
If we never went to the moon, why didn’t the Soviets call our bluff? They had every opportunity AND the technology to prove it AND every motivation to do so. Anybody who knows anything about the 1960’s politics clams up on this one 🙂
LikeLike
That is very true too. They’d have been the FIRST hoax-theorists, one would think.
LikeLike
The Soviets couldn’t call NASA’s bluff because even the Russians believed the USA landed men on the Moon. Any politician knows that they can’t go against their own people. Think of it this way. You know that God doesn’t exist but there has never been a proclaimed atheist in the White House. Beliefs are hard to overcome. If the Soviets (the people in power) would have declared the hoax they would have been put in a position where they would have looked upon as soar losers. After all, what was shown on TV was proof back then. It’s not like today where people are skeptical of the Media. Back then, the Media WAS GOD.
LikeLike
To tell that God doesn’t exist….limits one knowledge….it’s obvious that time is well managed in its nature….it’s not an accident that Bible claiming about end days are true….. everything works with its energy in its time….the starting line of Bible gives a clear statement of time space and matter….it’s just that God is beyond time….when u ll have that revelation..you u ll know what God is.
LikeLike
I thank you for this article…I was 7 years old and in school watching the Apollo missions on television and i believe then and i still believe to this day we landed men on the moon.
LikeLike
Coon!
LikeLike
who do you think started these rumors?
LikeLike
how could the flag wave theirs no seasons or temperature mood swings, and the lighting is very bright if you were actually on the moon it would be a lot darker.
LikeLike
They just did. And so do Chinese.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3130017/Russian-official-demands-investigation-really-happened-moon-landing-original-footage-disappeared.html
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2013/12/19/chinese-lunar-rover-finds-no-evidence-of-american-moon-landings/
LikeLike
You do realize of course that a full fifty percent of the articles you shared is copy-and-pasted from a news satire site….. aaaaand the other is Daily Mail.
LikeLike
So you’re argument is being supported with a link to essentially a British version of the Onion.
Careful or your ineptitude is gonna have hoaxers calling you a NASA shill planting bogus info to make hoaxers look stupid.
LikeLike
Hoaxers are stupid and deal with it
LikeLike
Response to RW who says Russians and Chinese just said the moonlandings were fake. I suggest you do a little more research about the two news sources quoted (or maybe even just read the full story).
The report says – According to the translation in the Moscow Times, Mr Markin claimed Russia were ‘not contending that they did not fly (to the moon) and simply made a film about it.’ They are in fact demanding an investigation into how the footage was lost.
And further on the article says – “All of these scientific – or perhaps cultural – artefacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss.”
Hardly a ringing endorsement for the Monn Conspiracy Theorists.
As to the Chinese report. I would suggest that someone is messing with your head if you believe this to be a credible news source. Firstly, I seriously doubt that the Chinese Foreign Minister actually said “Ha ha ha ha ha! Pig dogs!” in reference to the US.
The report says that the Chinese robot was equipped with something akin to Edward Scissor Hands to shred any US flags they found, and also had feet with boots on them so they could “kick around” any artefacts they found. Seriously! You believe that?? You believe that a senior minister in the Chinese Government said that!!
Finally, the Chinese robot landed on the lunar surface nowhere near where any of the moon landings took place. The information regarding the coordinates of the Chinese robot landing are readily available – from the Chineses. The Chinese also say the robot operated in a 1 square mile radius. Not surprisingly, if you dont land near an Apollo site and you only walk around one square mile, you probably won’t find any evidence of a previous landing. It’s a bit like saying that you strolled around a few blocks of lower Manhatten and proved that polar bears don’t exist because you didn’t see any.
Please find some credible evidence you numbskull!
LikeLike
Because Russia didnt know it at the time, they found out later on with viewers and people studying it and now with the internet and documentries they have actually came out and said that the US faked it… but see so did the russians sometimes… so thats a perfect reason too not say anything….because they faked some too. You also cannot trust everything that happened during the Nixon ERA…. JFK was killed then all of a sudden you guys have a corrupt president… hmmm it is all politics
LikeLiked by 1 person
No the Russians did not come out and say the US faked it. A low level insignificant politician from the legislature made some accusatory claims out of anger that the US was instead of celebrating the stealing of Crimea by Russia was leveling sanctions on Russia.
It was 5 years before Nixon became President, LBJ had won an election and decided not to run again because of Vietnam. Nixon barely won in 68.
And it’s not like there wasn’t corruption around under Kennedy. Last minute ballots from Chicago, hires his brother for Attorney General. The Kennedy’s make Nixon look like an amatuer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because they have a similar program to get money of tax payers
LikeLike
It seams like You trying to look at Russia in the same way as looking on USA.
I live in one of the post CCCP countries (Poland) and trust me -> this assumption is wrong. Russia don’t give a damn about they tax payers. If they do not want to pay – send police. If they still refuse – send army 🙂 This is how Russians politics make they business and nothing had changed since 60 🙂
They just don’t care if You want to pay or not -> they just make sure that You will 🙂
LikeLike
Maybe as a person, who lives in post-communistic CCCP world, I can write something more about it.
My parents told me, that only the moonwalk EVA has been transmitted by TV. And only once – no tv station has ever replayed it until CCCP broken apart.
Also, there was a lots of discussion about, is this is hoax or not at this moment – during the landing. Trust me – in Russia, there were lots of people, who tried to point out, that this was hoax, all the time 🙂
Also CPPP has been really proud, that they could track location of every Apollo ship during it fly to the Moon. There was even opinion, that NASA thanked them for help with localization of Apollo 13.
So in fact, if it would be a fake, CCCP would be the first to report about it 🙂
LikeLike
im glad you mentioned the soviets, if we really did go to the moon and it is possible to safely get there like driving to the local mall here on earth that many claim it is that easy to do, then why didn’t the soviets go? oh that’s right they wouldn’t want to waste money doing something that was already done. why did the US put satellites in orbit if the soviets beat us to it. why did the US put a man in orbit if the soviets beat us to it? in Antarctica there are research stations from many different countries, why? why should other countries go there if the first country to put a research station there already beat the other countries? same with the moon, if hypothetically the US landed on the moon, why would that stop the soviets? the soviet government had tons of money in their space program.
they even had moon landers already built and ready to go, so why didn’t they if it is so easy to get to the moon? that’s because it isn’t easy to get there. radiation in space is deadly and they had no radiation shielding. it was known even in NASA circles that the US couldn’t do it. radiation being an issue, which it really is. you can’t say that they went through the radiation quickly so they didn’t get much exposure. that’s like me saying if i run through the pouring rain fast enough without an umbrella i won’t get as wet.
why fake it? simple. money, particularly aerospace contracts and military contracts. also public image. when kennedy announced that the US would put a man on the moon, he put NASA on the spot. the world was watching. with all eyes on NASA they had to achieve this no matter what. national pride was at stake. the Russians had beat the US into space with the first satellite and the first man in orbit. The US had to show the world that a capitalistic and democratic government could achieve the unreachable and send a man to the moon and get him back again, alive. as the years went on NASA realized it couldn’t guarantee the safe return of the astronauts. i mean think about if for a minute, all those missions to the moon and not one mistake? not one circuit going bad during the trip. then there was Apollo 13, a disaster in space and not to mention, incidentally, when viewership was at an all time low. now throw in a mishap and get the attention of the world again. notice how there was only one major mishap during all the trips to the moon and back. with all the things that could go wrong, only one mission was diverted due to a malfunction. statistically speaking i can’t see how it could be possible, except, if it was all staged and the astronauts never really went OR there were in fact astronauts that did go and in the process gave their lives or managed to survive but keep quiet while the other astronauts, neil armstrong, buzz aldrin, and michael collins took the credit.
another theory i have is that neil, buzz and michael went but used alien technology (with human tech) gathered from crashed ufo’s which would be difficult to explain to audiences. this last theory of alien tech would also explain why the russians did not go. the russians might not have figured out a way to incorporate alien tech with human tech. the alien tech protected the astronauts from cosmic radiation and they landed effortlessly using anti-gravity tech. also it would explain the transmissions picked up by ham radio operators hearing neil armstrong describe silver ships on the surface of the moon. NASA was aware of a base on the moon since they sent unmanned probes to take pictures before the Apollo missions. it was also stated by Neil Armstrong that the alien beings on the moon do not want us there and that could explain why we never went back after Apollo 17. although one could speculate that after the first mission to the moon we never went back and all subsequent missions were faked since the moon owners told us that the moon is off limits to humans for whatever reason. maybe we can go there but only when the time is right. also it might have been during the first mission that evidence was placed on the moon surface because NASA figures that this is a monumental event and that in future years some might look for evidence of the landing which was done by alien tech and not human tech so it was thought to leave evidence of man going to the moon.
the main thing is that i don’t believe all of NASA was in on the fake landing or blame anyone in NASA or even the astronauts. NASA and the astronauts will forever be my heroes. If there was subterfuge committed i believe it was for the benefit of national pride, to spur the US economy, and to also protect the world, at that time, from information that they wouldn’t be able to handle such as an alien base on the moon. i do feel that since much time has passed that it is now time to be honest with the world and let everyone know the truth. alien technology has been given to the world that can eliminate the need for fossil fuels but has been kept from us by the greedy corporations that control our world. I’m an American but i seek the truth as a fellow HUMAN wanting to save our planet from corporations.
LikeLike
You idiot. You demonstrated your simplistic understanding of things with your rain analogy. A better analogy would be X-rays. You can have an X-ray and be exposed to a low dose which doesn’t usually cause a problem. But if you sit there and expose yourself to X-rays constantly you will have a problem. It’s not the radiated or not radiated; it’s the degree of exposure. I read the rest and am still laughing at you. Thanks – brightened up my day.
LikeLike
You lost me with the alien technology crap, seriously, I’m all for there being something else in space, but to have that mixed in the conspiracy as to how we didn’t land on the moon, is quite dumb. Edit that and you have you a plausible working theory against our moon landing.
LikeLike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2npEjci9G0 THE FAKE GEMINI 4 SPACE WALK PLEASE WATCH IT BEFORE YOU WRITE BACK INSULTING ME. I AM SORRY I LOST YOU. I WILL MAKE IT SIMPLE SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND. YOU HAVE ME MIXED UP WITH SOMEONE ELSE, I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE SOVIETS. YOU NEED A VACATION, YOUR WORK LOAD IS TOO MUCH. WHAT I SAID WAS THE GEMINI 4 SPACE WALK ( AND I ATTACHED A VIDEO OF IT CALLED THE SMOKING GUN) WITH A PERSON WHO DOES REAL RESEARCH “EOSTERIC DETECTIVE” I STATED IN MY PREVIOUS EMAIL IF YOU LIE IN COURT ABOUT ONE THING, ALL FUTURE TESTIMONY IS CONSIDERED A LIES. THE GEMINI 4 VIDEO IS THE BIG LIE, AND THERE ARE SO MANY COMING OUT OF THAT FRAUDULENT ENTITY, NASA, YOU DONT HAVE TO LOOK HARD. THE SO CALLED SPACE WALK WITH THE STOP ACTION FOOTAGE, THE BEST THEY HAD BEFORE CGI, HAS THE ASTRONAUT TURNING HIS HEAD AND SALUTING. YOU THE SPACE EXPERT AND YOU DONT SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THAT. SINCE I AM THE STUPID ONE, (I DONT KNOW WHAT THAT MAKES YOU BUT IT HAS TO LESS THAT STUPID)THE HELMENTS ARE FIXED AND HEADS CANT TURN TO SALUTE. I WONT ARGUE THE COMMON AGRUMENTS ABOUT SHADOWS AND FLAGS ETC., WHAT I STATED IS THE ROCKET COULD NOT TAKE OFF WITH THE AMOUNT OF WEIGHT ON BOARD, LET ALONE RE-ENTRY WHERE THE PARACHUTES SIZE PROCLUDES ROOM FOR ANYTHING ELSE ON BOARD. THATS NOT IMPORTANT, WHAT IS, IMPORTANT IS NASA CLEARLY LIED AS (EVIDENCED BY FOOTAGE OF GEMINI 4) WHY WOULD YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING ELSE THEY SAY? ONCE A LIER ALWAYS A LIER. OK SO, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TURN YOUR HEAD AND SALUTE IN A SPACE SUITE, HENCE THE SO CALLED SPACE WALK OF GEMINI 4 WAS A LIE AND ALL FUTURE CLAIMS ARE ASSUMED LIES. I THINK THAT IS VERY CLEAR AND SIMPLE. YOU CANT DISPUTE THAT FOOTAGE IT COMES FROM NASA AND YOU CANT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THE HELMETS ARE STATIONARY. THE ONLY YOU MIGHT DISPUTE IS NASA’S TRUSTWORTHYNESS. AND IF YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE A CLEAR LIER THEN YOU BELIEF IN THE MOON LANDINGS IS THE LEAST OF YOUR PROBLEMS. BY THE WAY, HAVE YOU NOTICED HOW ALL THE VIDEO OF THE PLANETS IS CGI? YOU WOULD THINK WITH THE BUDGET NASA HAS THEY COULD MAKE THOSE PICTURES LOOK BETTER THAN CARTOONS, AND THEY DO LOOK LIKE CARTOONS. I STILL CANT BELIEVE YOU REALLY BELIEVE THEY WENT TO THE MOON.
LikeLike
You ask someone to watch something before they insult you, and then proceed to insult them repeatedly? Get lost.
PS: There’s a button on your keyboard called “caps lock.” Left-hand side. I’m pretty sure it’s turned on.
LikeLike
I INVITE YOU TO CALL ME AND AGRUE WITH ME, 9045.03.1177. I AM 100% SURE YOU WONT CALL AND YOU WONT GIVE ME YOUR NUMBER. IT IS SO EASY TO HIDE BEHIND TEXT. DONT BE A COWARD. I AM AN OLD MAN, 53 THERE IS NOT A LOT HAVE NOT SEEN/DONE. YOU KEEP SENDING ME THE EMAILS AFTER I PUT YOU TO REST WITH FACTS. THE VERY FIRST EMAIL YOU SENT ME WAS FULL OF INSULTS MONTHS AGO. YOU ARE CORNERED WITH FACTS YOU CANT ARGUE. YOU ARE AS FRAUDULENT AS NASA, HELL YOU PROBABLY WORK FOR THEM, WHY ELSE WOULD YOU ARGUE THIS MOON LANDING NONSENSE. THEY WENT TO THE MOON, YEAH SURE THEY DID, HA, HA. YOU SILLY BOY YOU. EITHER YOU WORK FOR NASA, OR YOU ARE 10 YEARS OLD, OR MENTALLY CHALLENGED. AS YOU KNOW, (SUPER MARK) THAT RIDICULOUS PIC) SUPER MARKKKKK!!! I HAVE A SCIENCE DEGREE. LET ME GUESS, YOU HAVE A LIBERAL ARTS DEGREE? OR WORSE, NO DEGREE. YOU ARE WELCOME TO CALL ME ANYTIME. YOU ARE WELCOME TO GO TO UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA AND SEE THE PROOF OF MY EDUCATION: BACHELOR SCIENCE IN NURSING (CNAT GE IN WITH < 3.5 GPA) MY PHONE NUMBER IS 904.503.1177 CALL ME ANYTIME, CALL ME! A GOOD SONG! BLONDIE
LikeLike
k
LikeLike
emorys said: “And my favorite debunk to the non-believers:
If we never went to the moon, why didn’t the Soviets call our bluff? They had every opportunity AND the technology to prove it AND every motivation to do so. Anybody who knows anything about the 1960’s politics clams up on this one”
oh i wont clam up on that one. that’s easy to answer. you are forgetting that among scientist circles information was given back and forth between the US and the Soviet Union. all that saber rattling by the US government and the Soviet government was just play acting. the US had gathered info about UFO’s and so did the Soviets. Scientists from each country would often communicate and share findings and discuss the beings that created the UFO’s. Scientists care about one thing, science! they do not care so much about politics and that kind of crap. since the scientists on both sides share info and info about the moon since the russians had landed a lunar rover there in 66 i believe. the rover gathered tons of rock samples and so forth which by the way would come in quite handy later on when the US needed to have lunar rock samples from a trip that might not have occurred, you know what i mean?
so getting back to why the soviets would keep their mouths shut. simple. money.
hypothetically a US official contacts the russian government and says to them that the US space program is kind of sucky and we just don’t have the tech to get to the moon, if you guys go along with this hoax we are planning, this billion US dollars can end up in the soviet premier’s bank account, and all you have to do is say nothing. what do you think the soviet leader is going to do? oh and the deal is sweetened by this mysterious US official saying, AND there’s more where that came from once we get all those aerospace deals and defense contracts to send satellites into orbit to spy on you guys, then the conversation ends with a lot of laughing, and cigar chomping.
now you might say that that sounds like a bunch of crap but how do you know it didn’t take place? how do you know? you can say your gut tells you but i could easily say my gut tells me it did take place or something to that effect. there’s a theory that all this enemy stuff between nations and even terrorists is all made up as a smoke screen. to distract us from the real evil in the world. the rich men who pull the strings. 9/11 also orchestrated to distract us and tell us that our enemy is terrorists and we better give up our freedom (patriot act) and we have to spend more on defense, we need drones to spy and more spy satellites, but who are they really spying on?
so getting back to the moon landings, yeah they were probably faked. Russia played along and the same can be said for China. money has a way of making people or even governments see things any way you want them to see something. also a promise of even more money in the billions or should i dare say trillions? call it US aid to china, there’s big holes in the US spending budget and no one can explain where the money went. black projects, bribes, hush money whatever you want to call it. you think the mob is the only organization to give pay offs? the mob and the US government are one and the same, who do you think assassinated JFK? the mob and the CIA.
I digress, i’m getting off topic. the russians would go along with a US hoax because if you remember in history class on November 6 and 7, 1917 (or October 24 and 25 on the Julian calendar, which is why this event is also referred to as the October Revolution), leftist revolutionaries led by Bolshevik Party leader Vladimir Lenin launched a nearly bloodless coup d’état against the provisional government, and bullets cost bucks, buddy (hmm, maybe i’ll get that tattooed on my chest) and revolutions cost even more. got to get your guns from somewhere and they aren’t free. US bankers at that time were greedy sons of bitches, just like they are today, and funded the revolution in Russia which then became the Soviet Union. why you might ask would US Bankers do this? they realized that war means profits and huge profits! So later on many decades later when the US asked Russia for a little itsy bitsy favor like not telling the world that the moon landing is a hoax, how could they say no?
sweeten the deal with a little monetary bribe like i mentioned earlier and Russia’s lips are sealed.
where as most Americans forget historical things and countries that helped, such as if it wasn’t for France’s navy the American revolution might not have gone so well, other nations not so forgetful. Perhaps the Soviets felt they owed us since if it wasn’t for US bankers financing their little revolution, they might not have done so well. You could say all of this is conjecture but i guess we will never know.
that is really the truth of things when it comes to the powers that be. they can do things and can we ever really know what they are up to or know the truth? meetings could take place and how would we ever know?
LikeLike
There is simply no arguing with a conspiracy whacko. Me thinks you’ve been standing too close to the microwave oven. Step away!!!!
LikeLike
Very interesting article Jason.
Of course the man had walked on the Moon. Now when the man will land on Mars ??
Jeff Barani from Vence (French Riviera)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on SUSAN'S SPACE and commented:
A really interesting article.
LikeLike
how did they avoid burning up in their space suits? How did they slow down the ship when it arrived at the earth on the way back at 11,000 m/second?
LikeLike
The Apollo suits were climate-controlled and had multiple layers of insulation as well as liquid cooling lines. They were in themselves like mini-spaceships. The return capsule was rotated so the heat shield deflected the friction of re-entry; slowing down was a matter of physics (and parachutes).
LikeLiked by 1 person
hahahahahaha ….. dream on
LikeLike
You need a cloud of air to use a parachute yet retardation from 11,000m/sec should be done way before the return capsule reaches the outer most layer of the planet, so that it enters at a velocity that will have less impulse and friction.
LikeLike
outer most layer of the earth’s atmosphere
LikeLike
What about the supposed pictures taken a day apart and a mile or so away that have the same rocks in the foreground.
LikeLike
Hollywood mistake
LikeLike
whatever
LikeLike
There is video footage that claims to be from 2 different EVA’s kilometers apart, with the LM in one of the clips, yet is clearly the same location. That is because it is edited footage a few minutes apart on a single EVA. The LM is actually a samples bag which gets picked up and can be seen being carried down the hill by the astronaut. It’s about 3 minutes apart in the feed.
Other claims of photos showing same background, is basically leaping at beliefs with lack of understanding of photography or how lack of atmosphere changes depth perception from what we are all used to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One thing the moon landing deniers forget is the dust kicked up by the astronauts it doesn’t form clouds it falls right back down. It was filmed in a vacuum. In some of the videos you can see it flying several feet after it was kicked up this is because it was in 1/6 th gravity.
LikeLike
The photo that shows the eagle and some tracks is the only object on the surface with the shadow on the left not like everything else that has a shadow on the right! Explain that?
LikeLike
You’re misinterpreting the image. Those aren’t hills (with shadows that would be on the left) they’re craters (with interior shadowing on the right.) Solar illumination is from the right, so the LM casts a leftward shadow while craters are lit along the left walls.
LikeLike
If the technology today is advance compared to 1969 why haven’t we gone back its only a 4 day trip and what about radiation! I guess they were really good back then to be able to land a ship without crashing on a moon filled with craters? They say the moon is so important water and for a base! Did they really land on the moon? Were are the stars in the night sky? In the photos there missing!
LikeLike
You didn’t actually read the article, did you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I cannot comprehend he stupidity of moon landing deniers and their stupid reasons. When this fool said why haven’t we built a base yet I could obviously tell he does not know anything about NASA funding and R&D (politics too)
LikeLike
Why would there be stars in a photo taken with camera settings for their being in the daytime?
Ever notice of all the millions of photos taken of the Moon there are no stars either in any of those photos.
That is because if you took a long enough exposure, seconds to minutes long depending on settings, a Moon in such a photo would look more like a glowing light bulb than the Moon.
Go outside and see what kind of exposure you need to use to get stars, or even the Moon to show up in a photo. Guarantee you try it at daylight level settings you won’t even get a faint Moon. And try and take photos of stars while hand holding your camera to see what you get.
LikeLike
Its all fake we never landed on the moon its all bull crap Another lie from the government ha ha ha! WMD, kKennedy assignation, loch ness, billy the kid!
Its all made in some studio there’s no way we could have been there! Its impossiblez
LikeLike
YEAH I READ THE ARTICLE! ITS ALL BS! HOAX!THEY DIDNT GO THEN AND THEY CANT GO NOW!
LikeLike
I don’t believe they have landed on the moon….why arnt there any day time pictures….and the moon glows …why arnt there pictures of them why on the moon”…..and let’s not forget the dark gray areas that can be seen at night time….is it water ….water and land…..they don’t know….and don’t say it’s always dark there…it’s all a bunch of b.s..”
LikeLike
All of the lunar landings were on the day side on the Moon.
LikeLike
You guys are all losers. Of course they landed on the moon! Great article Jason, I found it really interesting.
LikeLike
No ..you don’t even know us…so you are the losers… Mr.anonymous.. Let’s have some day time pics….it’s not dark up their for Christ sakes….you can see the moon plain as day at times in the day in the day light& lets not forget how bright it can get at night…..and since you know they have camped on the moon, dose it burn their feet when it’s a orange glow…”.ooo I know you are employed by the gouverment arnt you mr anonymous…
LikeLike
I’m not a ‘Mr’, thank you very much. And no, I’m not employed by the ‘gouverment’ either. I am simply someone who has researched, and is completely sure that the NASA moon landings aren’t faked. Why are you so sure they are, Mr ‘Rick Tyler’? Do you want to believe the earth is flat???
LikeLike
Lmao….lady that likes to try to get the last word…….but I still haven’t seen day time pics of the so called man on the moon….but you should put your real full name on your reply…..unless you are alian ……or brained was by the good ole government …..
LikeLike
The Moon only looks bright and blue during the day here because we’re seeing it through our sunlit atmosphere. Once you get past that into space it always looks like it does at night.
LikeLike
Jason thats not what the astronaughts said.. They said its like the deepest black, they were never able too see stars at all during the Apollo mission. Neil said that himself. Along with the others. They all in an interview said its like a deep bucket and black as you can imagine… Never could they see stars by eye without using the optics. Why are you saying different…..
LikeLike
You believe the Moon becomes hot when it appears to be orange in our atmosphere?
Are clouds actually hot too at sunrise/sunset?
LikeLike
Love your talk Amy. Well presented 😀
LikeLike
Why should I? What is it to you?
Have a look at this website: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080127102745AAGkCCn for answers to you ‘daytime moon’ questions.
How come you always think the worst of people? Do you just enjoy trying to make people mad? Coz it won’t work with me.
LikeLike
Ask your self the same question…..and when you come up with the ans..please share it…thanks
LikeLike
I do not.
You didn’t read the webpage did you?
LikeLike
Anonymous we went there, I understand your just looking for an excuse to get attention and to do something since you don’t have a job, just get over it alright? I’m sick of people like you, it’s called a conspiracy THEORY for a reason, because it isn’t for sure proven either way, so how about you stop shouting your opinion like its a fact because it’s not.
LikeLike
oh -uh. wow so many believers and non-believers. I am now very mcuh confused. Help me Lord!!!
LikeLike
YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID THE QUESTION: HOW DOES THE CAPSULE FLY WITH CARGO THAT CANNOT FIT IN TE SPACE CAPSULE. YOU DEFLECT AND DISRACT, I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED IN YOU. IT IS VERY SIMPLE, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. I DONT KNOW HOW OLD YOU ARE BUT MY GUESS IS LESS THAN 30. I MIGHT BE WRONG, BUT BASED UPON YOUR NAIVATE AND OVERALL LACK OF RESPECT YOU SEEM VERY JUVENILE, HENCE MY GUESS OF YOUR AGE. I DONT EVEN BELIEVE YOU ARE READING MY EMAIL. IT SEEMS THE RESPONSE YOU ARE GIVING DOES NOT FIT THE EMAIL IS SENT. CALLING ME SICK WITHOUT THE ANY PROOF OF THE ACCUSATION. I AM A R.N. AND I NOT QUALIFIED TO DIAGNOSE. MARK, THE SPACE EXPERT(ASTRONOTS TO THE MOON, HA HA AH). MARK, THE MEDICAL EXPERT. WOW, SO INTELLINGENT AND GOOD LOOKING TOO! BOY, I ENVY YOU. I FIND I AMAZING YOU DONT QUESTION THE CLAIMS OF NASA. THEY WENT TO THE MOON 6 TIMES WITHOUT A HITCH. COME ON MAN. I WOULD HAVE A INCIDENT/INJURY GOING CAMPING, I WENT STILL WAITING ON THE ANSWER. WHY DONT YOU JUT ADMIT THE CAPSULE WAS NOT ABLE TO FLY TO THE MOON. NO MATTER HOW MUCH PROOF TO THE CONTRARY, YOU WONT AMMEND YOU POSITION. THE SICKO, JOHN. ALL OTHER EXS
LikeLike
They didnt fly through radiation either.. lol so bs
LikeLike
Actually they did, “Flat Earther.” At the speed and trajectory the Apollo craft were traveling the astronauts only received an amount of radiation no more than an average medical X-ray. They were quite safe.
LikeLike
I like to write on these boards to say if you really believe the BS, then you can never understand the truth. It is simple, life is short and technology is killing everyone. Don’t waste your precious time debating the LIE. It makes no difference, either way. Everything from why were there Dinosaurs to how the stars shine in their astrological patterns, are not of your concern, the only thing you need to pay attention to and understand is you. Fear to reveal oneself and unlock the possibilities. Erase your facebook, no more pinterest, stop tagging everything you do, put down the damn tablet or phone and recognize where you are in the first place. Did we ever go to the Moon?, what difference does it make if we did or didn’t, what has it done for you if we did or did not? all lame misinformation and garbage to sap your already tortured mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Erase your facebook, no more pinterest, stop tagging everything you do, put down the damn tablet or phone and recognize where you are in the first place.” …he said in a comment on a WordPress blog. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Technology is not killing everyone because technology such as clothing, structures, electricity, farming, irrigation, heating, ac, washing machine and dryer, refrigerators, freezers, ovens, cars etc are all pieces of technology and are saving people and increasing life expectancy. You are a hypocrite because you are typing this on some sort of technology.
LikeLike
Even with today’s technology SOFT-LANDING on the Moon under rocket power is incredibly difficult. Yet, the Apollo mission did it six times PERFECTLY?
Landing under rocket propulsion has not been perfected today. How did they do it 40+ years ago and yet they can’t do today consistently? Something isn’t right.
LikeLike
How? With some of the country’s best test pilots personally performing the job, that’s how. And rocket-powered landings work pretty well today… just ask JPL’s Curiosity EDL team.
LikeLike
Must be fake. Man couldn’t have had the technology to do it. If “he” had, why has that tech, all but, vanished? Look to your hearts not to your minds. Man would have advanced much further than he’s done since the Moon landings if the landings were real Another example of brainwashing the gullible. Sadly. most humans are VERY easily fooled and brainwashed. The powers that be rely on that factor.
LikeLike
Both MY heart AND mind tell me it happened. My heart says we had the desire and drive to make such a powerful statement to the world at the time and that half a million Americans were working to make the Apollo program a success, and my mind says that, although a challenge, human spaceflight certainly isn’t impossible. What kept us from continuing to travel to the Moon was flagging public interest and continued allocation of funds, not the lack of know-how.
LikeLike
so in 1969 we travelled over 230 000 miles and today we struggle to complete 500 miles?
LikeLike
Once SLS and its ground infrastructure is ready we’ll be going well past that.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more! Humans are an invasive species, we’d have a McDonald’s on the moon by now if we landed in the 60’s. A military base at the least. We have base in the inhospitable regions on earth why would we stop? It’s not in our nature.
LikeLike
Anything that’s in McDonald’s food would likely violate Article IX of the international Outer Space Treaty (as would military bases.) We stopped because of MONEY. NASA may operate to explore, but they do nothing without sufficient appropriations by DC subcommittees which are reviewed every single year.
LikeLike
How in any way would a military base on the Moon be of any use a quarter million miles away and take about half a week to get to/from?
We can spy far better with satellites a few thousand miles from Earth.
We can launch nukes a few miles off the coast of any nation with subs.
We have bases around the world that allows us to station forces.
We have the only fleet of super carriers that allow us to deploy anywhere in the world an air force that is larger than most of the countries in the world.
LikeLike
I guess the mirror that we can bounce off of was already there
LikeLiked by 2 people
Forget the first landing and set it aside, look at the last trip video, the Apollo 17 trip. In this video of the last trip, one of the men tries to help stick something in the moons ground. He looses his balance and starts to fall, as he falls he kicks some sort of tripod and instead of it floating when kicked into the air (with no gravity on the moon ), it flies up in slow motion and then down in slow motion hitting the ground and bouncing back and forth before it comes to a stop. And it looks just like it would here on earth if it were kicked the same way, it and the men in the space suits in the video all appeared to move in slow motion. There are several things in all the videos of the moon trips, when pointed out by many people that make sense, that prove man walking on the moon never took place. And another thing, ahhhhh, if we did go to the moon 40 something years ago and we had that kind of technology back then, well, then where is the advanced, unbelievable technology now. I don’t see it. I mean, looks like if we were on the moon in the 60’s and 70’s and had that kind of talent back then, where is the huge advancement from then to today? Think about it, seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Moon does not have no gravity. It has 1/6 Earth gravity. Things fall on the Moon too, just with less force than they do here. As far as the tech, we do not lack it today – we simply don’t have a funded lunar program. Funds went elsewhere: to the Shuttle program, to building and maintaining the ISS, to Earth science, to planetary exploration. There’s simply no money for a lunar mission today.
LikeLike
Wait, you think there is ‘no gravity on the moon’?
Even if that fallacy was true, how do you think the astronauts stayed on the surface?
LikeLike
Definitely a HOAX! we didn’t have the technology in the 60’s to get man to the moon, we still don’t have it today. Your rebuttal above regarding this is no explanation at all..
LikeLike
Oh yeah… and NASA’s “missing” the original moon landing footage, all the trajectory details and more of the most bizarre things you would ever lose when its suposibly the greatest achievement of mankind. It really just isn’t believable anymore.
LikeLike
Pretty sure the ‘moon rocks’ which nasa gave to holland turned out to just be petrified wood
LikeLike
One of them was shown to be petrified wood. But that was a commemorative item given to the ex-PM in 1969 by the Apollo 11 astronauts; the actual Moon rocks given by NASA to the Netherlands are real and are in the Leiden museum. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2009-08-27-moon-rock-museum_N.htm
LikeLike
???????????????????????
LikeLike
The Van Allen Belts DO contain dangerous radiation. It would not be a good idea to sit astronauts in them for extended periods of time. That is not a question. And as far as Orion vs. the Apollo CSMs, Orion will have way more advanced computer systems than Apollo did. It would be much more susceptible to radiation damage, which is why it needs even better shielding.
LikeLike
I’m not asking how the astronauts them selves would survive…. but more so their electronics/computer systems. On the roof of the power plant in Chernobyl they had a hard time getting robots/electronic systems to function properly on account of the ambient radiation. Not looking to get flamed, I am just curious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know the weather satellites we all rely on, and the GPS satellites?
Well they are in orbit of Earth out around 20,000 miles, inside the outer Van Allen Belt.
The radiation from a nuclear plant and the radiation in space are not even remotely the same.
LikeLike
The program of the guidance computer was hand wired into what were called “flight ropes”. They were called that because they LOOKED like ropes. Every mission required NEW “ropes” to be hand wired. They were designed that way to preclude a power interruption or radiation effects from erasing the memory and dooming the mission and the crew!
LikeLike
Hoaxes are like gossip. Just because someone likes to spread it around doesn’t mean you have to listen.
LikeLike
With all due respect, if that’s your opinion, and you don’t listen to gossip, why are you reading this? Just pointing it out 😁
LikeLike
Anyone who thinks we didn’t land on the moon is an idiot. Plain and simple.
LikeLike
Beautifully said my friend.
LikeLike
The reason some deny the landings, is because some lack education about nasa. It’s easy to deny when a person lacks understanding of a subject. Many hoaxers are unaware of what technology we are capable of. The problem with the hoax theory, is every claim is easily explained, if people would do proper research. Many conspiracy sites sell DVDs filled with misinformation and lies to gullible people. Who’s the government sheep now? All six landings fake? We never got caught? Nope it is a fact of U.S. history. Why has no one ever come coward? Lots of hush hush money right? Government threatened them? The theories go on and on. Remember Russia tracked the mission, if transmissions weren’t coming from the moon, they would have known we lied. Of course theorists come up with as many lies and ideas to discredit the landings. People just need better understanding of space travel and the nasa program.
LikeLike
I for one DO believe that the moon missions happened… However, simply calling deniers ‘idiots’ or ‘morons’ is a hamfisted approach and doesn’t get anyone anywhere. It is in human nature to ask questions, when questions go unanswered we ask more questions. It was once ‘fact’ that the world was flat, what would have become if we did not question that? Unfortunately you are dealing with the credibility of a non credible source. The United States government has proven itself to be untrustworthy and untruthful many times, and continues to do so. Once the United States government (and many others) become more truthful, things like the moon landing will become much easier too believe. Until then, no matter which side of the fence you sit on, you’re screaming into the wind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The u.s. Has been to the moon six times. That’s a fact. There is plenty of evidence and proof to back it up. It’s misinformation from conspiracy theorists and paranoid people with vivid imaginations that confuse the facts. I agree when people call each other names, naturally people disagree with one another. For some, their minds are already made up, and no amount of moonrocks, photos, or facts will make some people believe we landed on the moon. They just aren’t informed enough about space, rocket science or physics. That’s why it’s best left to the people who really know, what happened that’s the scientists at nasa. Despite what hoax believers want to believe. Once people get better educated, they can understand it was real and not a hoax. Funny how hoaxers believe they are so smart, when believing conspiracy sites filled with bad science, but think nasa and everyone else is a liar. I say it’s great to ask questions, but remember, you have a right to your own opinion, but you don’t have a right to your own facts.
LikeLike
A single falsification unravels thousands of “proofs”.
Here is the falsification.
Charlie Duke destroys the Apollo myth with three little taps of a rock.
There are sounds that are quite impossible to exist in a vacuum all throughout the footage.
To make an excuse will require rewriting physics.
I have confirmed the Hoax. Wait till you hear what I have found next!
I also have measured dozens of “gravity” events and found several that are clearly wrong. As well the dirt falling faster than the astronauts. Specific frame rates were used, and speed changes are observable.
Why?, Still today people do not recognize slow motion? I have also removed the slow motion as an example in my restored clips. See my other videos.
It is over. It is falsified. People just do not know yet. Some will never believe it could be a hoax, no matter what. Physics be damned! It is like the adults version of santa claus. Well sorry kids it is not real. You cannot hide behind science and then rewrite it to hold onto a belief, you cannot have it both ways.
LikeLike
You’re right. Sound can’t travel through the near vacuum of the lunar atmosphere. There is no air on the Moon. But there is air inside a space suit, and that’s where the astronaut’s microphones were located. The sound of the rock hammer was carried through the suit itself and into the helmet, where it became a noise that could be picked up on mic. The same thing happened on Apollo 12 for Al Bean, read more on that here: http://blog.moonzoo.org/2011/07/18/sounds-on-the-moon/
No new physics required.
LikeLike
That has no empirical basis.. That is Nasas damage control excuse for the hammer strikes. That is ludicrous even for hammering. No modern astronaut has experienced it.
Tapping a rock? And the suit amplifies it? Ah ooooo kkkk…..
I thought this site may have been one of science. Sorry my mistake.
Notice that he is not touching the LRV when he closes the seat lid. Does the sound of the lid pass through the rover, through the lunar surface into the suit through the boots and layers of latex, tubing and insulation to activate the mike?
I also have other examples where sound is made without contact from the suit. Sorry, it is time to wake up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Sounds in space..umm It is odd to have a hammer or a metal tool and bang it against something and hear absolutely nothing.”
NASA astronaut Piers Sellers.
“Space since there is no atmosphere. air.. When you bang on something during your spacewalk you will not be able to hear that.”
NASA astronaut Mike Massimino.
LikeLike
I’m not saying EVAs are noisy, and the Shuttle suits are not the same as the Apollo suits. If anything, the sounds picked up by the Apollo mics show how much they can transmit vibrations, rather than “prove” that the whole program was faked. This is not some silver bullet that will vanquish the great Moon conspiracy… it’s just another wispy anomaly.
(I also get suspicious of audio enhancements that turn dull thuds into sharp knocks.)
In addition other Apollo astronauts (Cernan, for one) have said that sounds were picked up by the suit mics that they didn’t even hear at the time.
LikeLike
There are sounds made without contact with the suit even in this single example. So it is a moot point.
Just so stories without basis do not cut it.
The sounds are clearly there, similar techniques are used in audio analysis for criminal convictions.
I have even extracted some sounds of the astronauts boots in the sand.
Cernans alledged claim (in the transcripts) makes no sense because the astronauts breath or the suits systems would be far louder. This is NASAs feeble attempt at damage control, astronauts made up guesses, not actual science. So Vox mode or not? Again it has no basis. And does not occur in modern space walks plain and simple. Despite changes in the suit, the fundamentals remain the same and do not allow the suit to act as a drum. Another astronaut is on record stating that the suit, even ones that are actually pressurised are not taut enough to act as a drum. No empirical basis, only stories from the propagandists themselves. Do you not see the logical fallacy there?
We are talking about the tapping of a rock here, that anyone who has working ears can hear without enhancements. Your suggestion of manipulation on my part seems like desperation to me.
Did I mention the failed gravity simulations, just another wispy anomaly that is wispy enough to defy physical law? I have found evidence for manipulation in the frames of footage. Various ratios of duplicate frames, dropped frames, edit points and speed changes.
This is my area of expertise. I have done my own independent researh and analysis, and do not just copy and paste the same old excuses of debunkers regurgitated all over the net, which this article is assembled from.
You are stretching excuses outside of physical law. Handwaving with terms like wispy anomaly and excuses without basis, even suggesting I have manipulated the audio.
Like I said, some will never accept the physical evidence that is right infront of their faces.
Physics be damned. Santa is real! I see this is where you are at, so I will not tread on your childhood fantasies anymore. This is also why I do not allow comments on my vids. Apollo is like a religion to some people. Truly bizarre! What happened to the scientific method?
Apollo is a perversion of science, a crime against humanity and progress. And it is falsified by fundamental physics that is taught in high school level physics.
As an empiricist this article and it’s responses are always revealing. like the twitter of Brian Cox and others who claim skeptiks to be idiots says more about belief systems and the power to manipulate peoples minds more than anything else. And the state of the media and science, these science PR guys are cartoon characters. All of them.
If you believe the tapping of a rock is transmitted through layers and layers of insulation, latex, cooling tubes to echo in the suit, with a tiny amount of energy and not to be absorbed, and it’s frequencies not stiffled in any way, and against every modern spacewalk since…. then dare I say who the real “knob ends” are, or who it is that needs a new brain.
And again it is a moot point, because there are sounds without contact with the suit, even in this single example.
It is very sad, such gullibility is deserving of being manipulated. And we only have ourselves to blame. So enjoy it if you like.
LikeLike
Goodness it must be lonely to be the only one who’s sane. 😉
All snarkiness aside, I agree that this is a curious anomaly. But even with your (almost eerily) meticulous forensic analysis of the recordings – in which you yourself admit a certain level of manipulation (isolate…frame shift…enhance!) – it’s no body with which to convict NASA, the Apollo astronauts, and its 400,000-plus then-contracted workers of a “crime against humanity and progress.”
Especially since the findings are inconsistent. There are noises in a few recordings, but not in most others. Some astronauts say they heard something, others don’t. I don’t have a reason for this, and perhaps nobody will until we have humans on Mars or the Moon again. But if I were on a jury I would certainly not give a guilty verdict based on this evidence. Your exhibits are inconclusive.
If I had a nickel for every time someone has contacted me with claims of disproving something or another with his own independent research and analysis, I’d have a lot of nickels. To date none of them have taken the scientific world by storm.
I do agree with you on one thing though. Comments can be tiring. But I allow them.
LikeLike
hey
LikeLike
Excerpt from mi biography of Bill Kaysing:
http://planet.infowars.com/science/biography-bill-kaysing-the-film-capricorn-one-and-his-lawyer
LikeLike
If we don’t have the technology to send humans to the moon today(and that was officially claimed by NASA), how did they have the technology in 1960?
LikeLike
Probably the fifth time here alone I’ve said this, but here it is again: we have the technology, we don’t have the FUNDING. Any NASA endeavor has to be approved and funded through Congress and the Appropriations Committee. NASA can’t just send astronauts to the Moon because it or the public wants to.
LikeLike
Well then why are they not getting pproved? Why approve it in the 60’s and not today?
LikeLike
The Cold War. Beating the Soviets in global space superiority. And direct orders from the President to “land men on the Moon and return them safely to Earth.” Once that was achieved, public interest waned and funding was reduced until the programs were cut altogether. They didn’t have a long-term lunar plan.
LikeLike
All of the Apollo Manned Moon Missions occurred during the Nixon Administration. Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were cancelled for many reasons given by NASA. If the Apollo Manned Moon Missions were only simulated, it is pretty clear that such deception (active missions), began and ended within Nixon’s administration. NASA and virtually all U.S. government agencies and most high officials continue (at least publicly), to sustain and diligentlly support and defend NASA’s claims.
LikeLike
We had the theoretical technology in the 60s and 70s, but we probably didn’t have the practical technology. We still obviously don’t have the practical technology today (4 1/2 decades later), to soft land even an unmanned craft on the Moon (or Mars) and then return that craft safely to Earth. NASA press releases would almost imply that samples are being returned from Mars to Earth, but in actuality, NASA has not retrieved any lunar or Martian samples since 1972. FUNDING is obviously only a false EXCUSE, because NASA claims to have sent numerous unmanned craft to our Moon and Mars, yet no samples are actually returned. Physical geology no longer seems to be important to NASA. Given the difficulty of successful soft landings of small unmanned craft on Mars, it is not CRAZY or ILLOGICAL or STUPID or GULLIBLE to question the Apollo Manned Moon Landings. It is perfectly SANE and RATIONAL.
LikeLike
NASA has never claimed to have returned a sample from Mars. It hasn’t even almost implied that it has. It has stated that it does plan to do so in the future. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/mars-sample-return-msr/
LikeLike
Some of NASA past press releases do indeed give laypersons the impression that Martian samples were retrieved and actually analyzed here on Earth, rather than by onboard computers which sent only data back to Earth. Interesting that you agree there is a future plan/need to retrieve physical samples. The Soviets and U.S certainly had a past need for actually retrieving such samples, but between 1972 and 2017 … we are supposed to accept that “FUNDING” allows dozens of unmanned missions including landings, but not retrieval of samples. I don’t buy it. It is increasingly clear to me that NASA still does not have the practical technology to successfully soft land a craft (either manned or unmanned), on the Moon or Mars, and successfully return that craft to Earth fully intact … as there is ZERO evidence or even any such CLAIM by NASA since 1972. The reason is not simply FUNDING. NASA is experiencing much greater practical technical difficulties than anticipated in the 60s and 70s … and continued DECEPTION is their only option to bridge the gap between past CLAIMS and future realities. All of the Apollo Manned Moon Missions were ONLY simulated … they were not actually realized … and now NASA is beginning to lose the most expensive public relations campaign in human history. It is going to be very embarrassing for the United States to have to admit the truth, and NASA (understandably), is still fighting very hard not to ever have to do that. Imagine trying to get future funding from Congress … after NASA finally admits their 1969-1972 fraud upon the world.
LikeLike
“Some of NASA past press releases do indeed give laypersons the impression that Martian samples were retrieved and actually analyzed here on Earth, rather than by onboard computers which sent only data back to Earth.” What press releases were these? I have never seen nor heard of one. Even during the Viking missions it was clear that no sample return was to be performed; the spacecraft did all analysis in situ. Perhaps you’re confusing not comprehending with being deceived.
Continuing to allege that the Moon landings didn’t occur does not make it true. Neither is the allegation that NASA is somehow losing a PR campaign, or that it cannot land a craft on another world. Its Opportunity rover is now in its 14th year on Mars and still working quite well.
LikeLike
I did not state that NASA cannot land a craft on another planet. I am stating the FACT that since 1972, NASA has not landed a craft (manned or unmanned), on another planet and then successfully returned that craft safely back to Earth (intact). Yet NASA claims to have done so 6 times successfully between 1969 and 1972 with humans on board! You acknowledge the future plan/need to retrieve soil samples from Mars, and we all are aware of the geological importance the U.S. and Soviets placed on retrieving such samples in the 60s and 70s, yet this need was somehow suspended for 45 years of space exploration! FUNDING was not the reason. Scientific interest was not the reason. NASA … OBVIOUSLY … does NOT currently have the practical technology to land a craft on another planet and then safely return that craft to the surface of Earth. NASA has not done so and has made no CLAIM of achieving such since 1972. Perhaps they “lost” the technology along with the original film footage. It simply is not credible. NASA is not telling the truth.
LikeLike
Not only the Moon Hoax:
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/04/30/are-the-crew-members-of-1986-space-shuttle-challenger-still-alive/
LikeLike
So stupid and misled it’d be ridiculous if it weren’t so downright disrespectful.
LikeLike
Who are you trying to kid very weak argument
LikeLike
Apollo 8 lunar fly-by, Apollo 13 crisis and dramatic return back to earth, and of course the alleged successful landings of Apollo 11-12,14-17- ALL FAKED.Period.
There are plenty of evidence spread across the photos, videos, documents, data, ‘moon rocks’, astronaut statements etc that prove the Apollo missions were faked.
Knowing that they cannot defend against the overwhelming number of anomalies present in the Apollo records, the shrinking pro-Apollo crowd seems to confine themselves only to these few points as mentioned in this article, and do a rather mideocre job with their ‘explanation’ in defence. The reality is that now there are millions of people around the world would not believe in this crap called Apollo anymore, and this number is steadily rising.
LikeLike
Anomalies – especially invented ones – are not proof of anything except the imagination and/or paranoia of those who conjure them up. But you are certainly right about one thing: there are millions of people who think the landings were faked: approximately 7% of American voters, for one. Of course, this is just less than twice the amount who think the world is actually run by a super-race of intelligent lizard people. (Source: Public Policy Polling http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-poll-results-.html).
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” – Daniel P. Moynihan
LikeLiked by 1 person
lol funny article , i am just bothered with the size of their shadows and the placement of sun in this scenario and also the amount of burn it will produce
LikeLike
When you make a website, all your web pages are served from the server residing somewhere on the internet.
Figure out what it is you need and want and from there shop around to see what web hosts
matches these expectations. You can be diligent about protecting your website but someone else on the same server might
not be.
LikeLike
To Dick Strong. Adding “period” to the end of a stupid claim doesn’t make it so. Trotting out words like shadows, flags, dust, moon rocks etc doesn’t make it so either. Conspiracy theorists have common traits; whether it’s the moon landing, JFK, Sandy Hook, flat earth or lizard overlords. They all use the word proof but then provide absolutely zero actual proof. Irrefutable facts are consigned to the ‘it’s been manipulated’ basket or that their common-sense understanding of science is more accurate than millions of hours of research conducted by thousands of scientists who are way smarter than they will ever be.
But the best trait of all is the belief that it’s ‘the government’ who are constructing and maintaining the elaborate hoaxes.
Just remind me again; would this be the same government that couldn’t see Japanese threat to Pearl Harbour, thought it could win a war in Korea, made the same mistake in Vietnam, failed to control the financial markets leading to the GFC, couldnt keep secret the fact that 2 clowns broke into a hotel and stole some papers AND allowed a B Grade actor to be elected president? It can’t do any of that simple stuff but it can do other really complicated stuff! Give me a break!
Put the tin foil hat back on, tell your parents you forgive them for dropping you on your head as a baby and go and get an education. Alternatively, remove yourself from the gene pool
LikeLiked by 1 person
O snap.
LikeLike
Um…Bullshit!
Who cares about a waving flag or non-parallel shadows, we have plenty of photographic, mathematical, and technical evidence to prove man never walked on the moon, let alone got anywhere near the moon! The Van Allen radiation belts are deadly, even if a man passes through them only about an hour or two. Secondly, the sun was at a solar maximum during the alleged Apollo 11 mission (and other Apollo missions). Anyone who thinks there were no solar flares hitting the moon at that time must be crazy.
And what about the thousands of micrometeorites that hit the moon every hour? Not a single one managed to hit the LEM or the Orbiter? The astronauts claimed not to see any stars. Total bullshit, even on the sunny side. Yuri Gagarin called the stars from outside earth’s atmosphere “astonishingly brilliant”, not to mention some of the official NASA photos show stars. The reason there are no stars is because astronomers would have quickly concluded the mission to be a hoax (configuration and distances of star formations would have been incorrect because our inability to convincingly fake them, which is way NASA didn’t try to fake them).
The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad’s camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren’t the astronauts affected? Why have many of the surviving photos been tampered with? The Hasselblad camera lens had crosshairs etched into its surface yet many of the photos show objects in front of those crosshairs, which is physically impossible unless those photos were altered.
There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM’s 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?
Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background? Why are the background mountains the same in photos taken where NASA said the sites were miles apart, even the rocks and small craters are identical?
Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital “C” on it and a ‘C’ on the ground in front of it? Why did the people who saw the live footage in Australia see an empty Coke bottle on the lunar surface, which was later edited out for American audiences? Google it, many people claimed they saw it.
In Ron Howard’s 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun’s rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.
Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in “one sixth” gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of lead shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of REM in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn’t the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?
In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to “see” the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminum shielding!
CNN issued the following report, “The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the ‘Van Allen Belts’ can spawn (newly discovered) ‘Killer Electrons’ that can dramatically affect the astronauts’ health.”
How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary ‘Paper Moon’ The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Center in Houston, what he finds is that the ‘official’ measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM. Watch the film for yourself. There is literally no way two astronauts could have fit into the LEM with their space suits on. By the way, the door opened inwards, making it even more impossible.
The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapor discharges. They never did.
With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, ‘Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can’t even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.’ This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA’s progress in the great space race.
Why did NASA’s administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission? You’d think he would have stayed around to receive some of the honors for helping to send men to the moon. Instead he bailed out.
In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That’s the equivalent of a simple calculator.
Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History’s greatest accomplishments? Do you really believe NASA lost all of the telemetry data from the moon missions? Do you really believe NASA lost all of the original video of men landing and walking on the moon? The most important achievement in man’s history and NASA accidentally taped over it and lost it all.
Unbelievable!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow! What an impassioned and time-intensive comment to write, regarding very many points concerning purportedly “faked” lunar missions — some often brought up, others less commonly posed. Allow me to address as many as I can.
An oft-mentioned concern of the “no-way, no-how” camp: the Van Allen belts. Yes, these inner tubes of charged particles that surround Earth do contain enough radiation to sicken or even kill a human, but that’s only if they stay in them long enough. The Apollo crews crossed through the belts in only about an hour, subjecting them to radiation levels comparable to safe levels for employees of nuclear power plants…or getting a CT scan. Of course at first this was a legitimate concern for NASA, and they researched it for years. But in the end they decided that 1. the shielding offered by the craft., 2. the short time within the belts, and 3. the all-over inherent risks of a lunar mission anyway, made it worth it. See this article by space historian Amy Teitel on Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts) and this by gamma-ray astronomer Bill Wheaton (deceased): http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html.
As far as solar storms were concerned, well… yes, that would have been bad. the years of 1969-1972 were in a solar maximum (although looking back it was a relatively low one) but a CME in August 1972 missed hitting an Apollo crew by four months in either direction. If astronauts had been caught out on EVA during a direct hit, they could have been in a lot of trouble. One of the risks of space exploration. Luckily, CMEs and flare storms aren’t constant events, even during maximums.
Stars on the Moon: astronauts could see them when they were in shadowed locations (not getting glare from the sunlit surface), but they couldn’t capture them on film with settings for daytime lunar photography. This is film photography 101. But, on the nightside (say during Earth orbit) stars CAN be captured on camera without overexposure. We see this today with images from the ISS.
Micrometeorites: the Moon is hit by lots of them every day — 25 million or so — but that’s over the surface area of the entire Moon. The chances of being in a specific spot where one will strike at a given time is very very small. But even so the CSMs, LMs and EMUs had thin layers of shielding to help protect from possible smaller impacts.
The Apollo craft did not have “pure oxygen”…that lesson was learned with the Apollo 1 fire. After that they switched to an oxygen/nitrogen mixture.
The crosshairs on the Hasselblad film photos — thin fiducials etched on the reseau plates — can very easily be covered over by exposure bloom, particularly in white areas (which are precisely where the “cover ups” are seen.) See more on this at http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html
You don’t need moisture to leave a footprint or track — it can also be done in very dry but very fine material, like ash, talcum powder, or flour. Lunar regolith is made of dust and material like that, and also has quite sharp edges to the particles. Perfect for setting a boot-print or two.
And the LM Eagle’s retro-rockets were both throttled down as the module neared the surface and was operating in a vacuum, which makes their force dissipate quickly. It wasn’t enough force to form a crater under the LM nor blow all the dust away from the entire Tranquility Base site like a landing helicopter might on Earth— no air = no wind. (BTW the famous bootprint was Buzz’s, not Neil’s.)
The infamous “C” on the foreground rock in an Apollo 16 pan film photo is the result of a hair on the negative. This was identified in a second or third-generation (or even fourth!) scan of the original film… other and better scans of the same exposure do not show this artifact. See http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/34.html.
So the Apollo computers had less computing “power” than an iPhone… big deal. The key “computers’ for Apollo were the people working in Mission Control and inside the spacecraft themselves… these were some of the best engineers and test pilots America had ever seen. It doesn’t matter if you couldn’t play “Candy Crush Saga” on the CSM’s consoles, they did what they were designed to do. (The Great Pyramids and Coliseum were built with 0K of memory!)
As far as James Webb’s resignation (which I assume you think will sound slightly suspicious if framed alongside all of these other accusatory queries) he didn’t resign before the first Apollo mission, he resigned before the first CREWED Apollo mission. Webb held the position from 1961 to 1968, and helped the agency recover from the Apollo 1 tragedy to proceed toward its ultimate goal. But with connections to L.B. Johnson, who was not running again, the 62-year-old Webb resigned a few days before the launch of Apollo 7 — about a month before the election of Richard Nixon. Deputy Admin. Thomas Paine took over the position. There wasn’t any scandal — sorry!
Lost telemetry tapes? Yes, I do believe that something like that can happen… I have worked in an office before and I see what goes on with files, especially as technology advances and jobs change hands. NASA isn’t immune. Read this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Apollo_11_TV_Tapes_Report.pdf
I don’t know where you got the idea that astronauts should have been jumping ten feet off the Moon, but with a 300-lb EMU suit and PLSS on that a nearly 500-lb suited person could easily jump up 19 inches is pretty darn good I’d say.
The “air conditioners” on the PLSS units used a small amount of water to slowly sublimate and thus dissipate heat. There wasn’t enough steam buildup at any time to create any “explosive discharges.” (That would have been an egregious engineering error, I’d think.)
Check out “Barbecue Mode” in regards to the anti-heating rotation of the CSM during trans-lunar coast. (https://books.google.com/books?id=x-taL4N0sjIC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=apollo+barbecue+mode&source=bl&ots=v85yJUvUPS&sig=TDVvsBVhb2eXP8LpxLCyZCY4Iu0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAmoVChMIwIOmm9WEyQIVhOkUCh06uQt-#v=onepage&q=apollo%20barbecue%20mode&f=false)
Collier’s film “Paper Moon”…it seems like you really liked that one… this was apparently a thought project that went too far (and was likely misled to begin with, having followed the tracks set down by Ralph Rene.) For the sake of brevity (and since the work has already been done) I’ll just leave this here http://www.clavius.org/bibcollier.html along with this: http://apollo-history-and-hoax.com/apollo9.html.
So is the Moon landing unbelievable? That’s OK… it still happened! What’s more unbelievable is that people will go through incredible efforts to make it seem like it didn’t. It’s almost like they don’t *want* there to have been any Moon landings. Which is amusing because even those who didn’t want there to be any Moon landings the most — i.e., the Soviet Union — accepted that they did in fact occur.
Whew! That’s probably the longest blog comment I’ve ever written. Thankfully it’s on my own blog, so I don’t feel too much like a wingnut for writing it. 😉
I’ll leave this quote by Mr. Neil Armstrong: “People love conspiracy theories. I mean, they are very attractive. But it was never a concern to me, because I know that one day, somebody’s going to go and fly back up there, and pick up that camera that I left.”
Gotta love that Neil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I must admit the last conspiracy poster did put forward arguments I had never heard before. Well rebutted though, with either physics, research or logic. None of which are a strength with conspiracy theorists. They’ve seriously gotta get over it and go do something which adds value to humanity, their country, their community or even just a hobo!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not everyone in the Soviet Union fully accepted that the Apollo Manned Moon Missions actually occurred. Both USSR and US space agencies began officially cooperating as early as 1970, a little more than a year after Apollo 11. Discussions and communications between space agency representatives probably began much earlier. From Wikipedia, “In October 1970, Soviet Academy of Sciences president Mstislav Keldysh responded to NASA Administrator Thomas O. Paine’s letter proposing a project about a cooperative space mission, and there was subsequently a meeting to discuss technical details.” A few years later, the Apollo-Soyuz linkup in space was celebrated as successful by both nations, and the U.S. and Russian space agencies have cooperated ever since.
Although not published in the U.S., isn’t there a published book by a renowned Russian scientist, Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov (b. 1943) fully renouncing the validity of Apollo Manned Moon Missions?
I notice that this, “Soviets would have ratted US out” argument is often used by NASA apologists. But the United States (NASA), to my knowledge, has never officially suggested that any part the Soviet Luna programme (1959 – 1976) was not real, including an unmanned mission claiming to bring back soil samples from the Moon.
Given a full understanding of political relations, space agency cooperation, as well as U.S. and Soviet control of their respective media organizations in that time period … this Russian Rat argument doesn’t hold much water. If two married men see each other in a gay bar, they don’t have to have a conversation in order to keep quiet. Two thieves, two mobsters, two con men, two fishermen with big fish stories, two politicians each with a suitcase of cash … you get the picture.
Cynical …. skeptical? Absolutely. Perhaps ALL of the Luna and Apollo missions were fully realized. But my point, if the Soviet space agency and NASA were not fully transparent with their respective public, regarding ALL of their space missions (as we now know THEY and WE were NOT), the Russian Rat argument isn’t of much use.
LikeLike
Yet with all that ‘media control’ in the US it was still the media that uncovered Watergate and brought down a President who just won a landslide election.
It was the media’s reporting on Vietnam that drove a civil rights championing President from seeking further office. Which turned the American people against the war.
There was ever a desire to cool down the Cold war and warm up relations between the US & USSR. To find area’s to work together on, to build bridges and trust upon. The challenge of space was a hoped for new area to effect political change on Earth. It was hardly a jumping into bed together and cooperating on any grand scale. The greatest cooperation has been on the ISS, which the US footed most of the cost of but also by the Russians, ESA, JAXA, Canada. Without the ISS, the Russian’s today would just be sending capsules up and down like in the 60’s.
Their space program is gonna take a hit when the US stops paying millions for rides up to the ISS in the coming years as the commercial launch program takes off. And with NASA working with ESA on a deep space vehicle, Russia with nothing truly new even being planned is going to probably be stuck using their section of the ISS as a station while China surpasses them in the coming decades. A shame they aren’t doing more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!
LikeLike
I would love to see that evidence. Post a link to the peer reviewed ‘evidence’ that proves the landings were fake. Or are you just repeating the conspiritard claims of others? Some of your assertions are just plain wrong.
LikeLike
Every single image of Earth (photograph, 16mm and live TV) contains a unique time and date specific meteorological signature that pins it down to an exact point in time. Those meteorological signatures match exactly what can be found in weather satellite images.
There are small rocks and craters visible in photographic and video images, as well as evidence of human activity, that can be seen not just in US probes but those from China, India and Japan. Those surface features were not known about prior to the missions,
Stars were both photographed and commented upon during the missions, and some experiments were specifically designed to capture them on film. Venus was photographed in orbit and from the ground by Apollo 14, and on the ground by Apollo 16. Jupiter was photographed by Apollo 17 several times in lunar orbit not only exactly where it should have been but moving consistently over time.
Lunar shadows are the correct length for the mission times and change as the missions progress. The lunar terminator photographed over the mission matches the mission timings. And so on and so on and so on…
Every single tiny detail of the Apollo missions hangs together in a cohesive, consistent whole, whereas not one single detail of the so-called hoax ‘theory’ stands up to the slightest scrutiny. The hoax stance is built at best on ignorance, at worst on lies, and is pretty much entirely supported by “it kinda looks funny”, “I woulda done done it different” and “Boo, NASA”. The best hope for humanity is that these people are not outside mingling with real people.
Feel free to explore my own examination of the subject here http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Though how come in the moon pictures they have an image of the Earth that looks just how the Moon looks to us. But the Earth is literally 98.8% larger than the Moon, so almost the entire “sky” from the moon should have shown a GIANT Earth instead of a photo shopped small Earth the same size of the moon….
LikeLike
The Earth is about 4 times larger in diameter than the Moon, which means it would take up (subtend) an area in the sky 13 times that of the full Moon. But, considering that the full Moon is smaller in the sky than a dime held at arm’s length (go ahead, try it) the Earth would not be anywhere near filling the entire sky. Watch Universe Today’s Fraser Cain’s video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwEcEumoeuc
“The fact that just from the distance of the Moon you can put your thumb up and you can hide the Earth behind your thumb. Everything that you’ve ever known, your loved ones, your business, the problems of the Earth itself—all behind your thumb.” – Apollo 8 and 13 astronaut James Lovell
LikeLiked by 1 person
No offence folks, but if you are going to argue the moon landing was a hoax please do it from a position of science or logic. Even van Allen in later papers admitted he had over stated the danger of the radiation belts. The moon has GRAVITY. just 1/6 that of the earth. This explains the ‘similar’ type motions you would expect in the earth, just somewhat dampened. A number of film makers have recreated the scenario of human activity on the moon (walking, jumping, running) and then played it back in slow motion. All agree it looks ‘similar’ to footage from the moon BUT NOT IDENTICAL.
The Apollo moon landings were not about strategic acquisition of territory. They were about ego! There was a Cold War and the U.S. had to beat the Rissians at everything. There is no NEED to go back to the moon. It would serve no purpose. And if you think going back to the moon was important in maintaining the “lie” then if they could fake it in 1969 then they could fake it in a heart beat in the 21st century. Can you imagine trying to get funding for new moon landings. I suspect Congress might crack up a bit.
The funniest claims are those relating to the rock ‘prop’ with the letter C on it and the supposed Coke can seen my some in the original footage.
Two things about the rock – don’t you think if they were spending so much time, effort and money on a fake Aplollo Program they could have found a few extra dollars for a Continuity Director. Even Hollywood is smart enought to employ them. Secondly, why on earth would you care about where a rock is placed “on the set” and then completely miss the fact that some bozo left a coke can lying around?
I am yet to see one shred of actual evidence that supports a hoax. Evidence based on science or fact.
But of course we are all wasting our time because there is no reasoning with someone who is dillusional. By definition, logic won’t work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
wow.. Other astronauts have now admitted that they cannot get past the van allen belt… I guess when our country and our schools repeat something to us over and over again we end up not only believing it, but discarding all evidence to the contrary and even fact.. This is called brainwashing, and you sir, Jason Major, have been brainwashed to discard any common sense you have about this issue.. Hey, really, 90%, probably more believe all of these lies taught to us in school and repeated.. IT IS EASIER TO DECEIVE THE MASSES THAN CONVINCE THEM THEY HAVE BEEN DECEIVED.. This article is proof, and evidence of how strong their brainwashing is.. Ya Jason discard all common sense, provable knowledge, and discard all facts that go against your way of thinking.. That’s called brainwashed jason.. You were programmed like a cpu, u cant change ur mind, listen to others ect.. sad sooo sooo sad
LikeLike
Claims without sources/references are just empty noise. Who are these astronauts you say have “admitted” they can’t get past the van Allen belts? Because I know of 24 who personally have. Their names are:
Frank Borman
James Lovell
William Anders
Thomas Stafford
John Young
Eugene Cernan
Neil Armstrong
Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin
Michael Collins
Pete Conrad
Dick Gordon
Alan Bean
Jack Swigert
Fred Haise
Alan Shepard
Stuart Roosa
Edward Mitchell
David Scott
Alfred Worden
James Irwin
Thomas “Ken” Mattingly
Charles Duke
Ronald Evans
Harrison “Jack” Schmitt
I am 100% positive none of those above still living would corroborate said claim.
LikeLike
Heres an astronaut that said he didnt even know if he went through them!!!!
LikeLike
IT STARTS ALL 11 some odd mins
LikeLike
This is by Bart Sibrel, who is a world-class clod and total a-hole as well as one of the most militant hoaxers out there. His head is full of fluff, I wouldn’t trust him to tell me what time it was nevermind what happened during the Apollo program.
LikeLike
Listen to the footage properly. When the interviewer says that the VA belts are from 1,000 to 25,000 miles the astronaut says that he went through them and past them. Sounds pretty clear to me. Try watching the whole thing and not just the ‘grabs’ that suit you knucklehead!!
LikeLike
It starts at 14:00 he is in a blue shirt… and he says I dont think we went out far enough to hit the val allen belts…and he is then corrected. Also you trying to bash Bart Sebriel when he has shown alot of fishy evidence like None of them swearing on a bible they walked on the moon…Hmmm u think that if you went too the moon and came back…You would do a bunch of interviews and swear an oath on a bible for chairty and not Say no i wont do it and threaten peoples life like Edgar did…swearing a oath is which is done in court ….So… it seems they are old and wont risk doing that regardless of their belief… Also the fact that all these APOLLO missions happened during the NIXON ERA …A known corrupt and lying administration (Criminal) Also the fact that Bart Sebriel showed the footage from NASA of them faking halfway too the moon with a transparency in the window. I know you have seen this footage and u can clearly see them remove the insert and the blue earth is shown as they are in earth orbit.
On top of all these things NASA clearly states that they can only go to earth orbit THATS THE FARTHEST THEY CAN GO…SO..THE MOON..ETC ARE ALL PLEASE WE “COULD GO TOO…. IN THIS VIDEO
LikeLike
You do realize this video is posted by a person who claims that the Earth is flat, right? 😉 Besides that, the claim that “we can only fly in Earth orbit” pertains to the SPACE STATION. It is not an admission of historical spaceflight limitations.
You conspiracy theorists would do well to learn about conversation contexts.
LikeLike
Why do you use invalid reasoning? You attack the messenger, and attempt to invalidate a legitimate and interesting statement and point of argument … by association … rather than valid reasoning. The man on the video describing the challenges of passing through radiation belts is a NASA engineer. Wouldn’t it be more direct and reasonable to argue that the engineer probably did not intend to suggest that astronauts had never passed through the radiation belts, but that he was simply describing ORION technology, which seeks to more fully resolve the radiation issue in order to protect future astronauts? To expect that astronauts are always perfect and never misspeak is unreasonable. Invalid reasoning used by NASA and NASA apologists is a part of the reason that laypersons and skeptics continue to doubt that the Apollo Manned Moon Missions were more than just simulated. It is important to keep in mind that while NASA has provided virtual mountain ranges of images and evidence, there has been little conclusive scientific proof (in over four decades) that all of the Apollo Manned Moon Missions were fully executed as presented to the public. Some of the scientific evidence is circular in logic, and only serves to prove that UNMANNED craft have been to the Moon. It is understandable that layperson HOAXERS use invalid reasoning, but NASA professionals have little excuse. It is important to always bear in mind, that intelligent reasonable people also have doubts, questions, and are even sometimes highly skeptical, and that while there are millions of HOAXERS and BELIEVERS … there are also millions of intelligent people who would readily admit that they don’t (and probably cannot) KNOW if some or all of the Apollo Manned Moon Missions were ONLY simulated by NASA. If NASA expects and desires laypersons to believe in the integrity of previous MANNED missions which seem increasingly scientifically, technologically, and chronologically … highly unlikely, then it needs to do a better job of presenting it’s arguments … perhaps more clearly distinguishing between actual unaltered images and artist renderings … and using ONLY valid reasoning.
LikeLike
Eugene Cernan and Edgar Mitchell both swore on Sibrel’s bible. Alan Bean was willing too but Sibrel didn’t do it while editing the footage to make it appear Bean was unwilling.
Most of the astronauts are aware of this nut, and fully aware that swearing on the bible is essentially meaningless because it won’t change anything, hoaxers will just move the goal posts to claim something else.
Or if it is so all powerful as proof does this mean you believe Cernan and Mitchell did walk on the Moon because they swore on it?
LikeLike
The Interviewer corrected the Astronaut because HE DIDNT EVEN KNOW IF HE WENT THAT FAR… what kind of astronaut is this; do u see how nervous they are hes making stuff up on the spot. I mean you can put a tv on and watch Star Trek and they have an explanation for everything. Its SCIFI but they MAKE THE MATH FIT…regardless of how far away something is or what they have too do… They can make the math fit anyway they want too. Your telling people on here that once you clear the earths atmosphere you can see all the stars….None of them said that..Watch the Apollo 11 conference etc….and that all of them Admitted they went past the belts…. Well you would think he knows where they are and if he went through them…why does the reporter even have too correct him when he clearly states…. I dont know if we went out that far…. That makes No Sense . So tech.. he didnt admit to going past the belts until he was corrected and explain space to him by the reporter….
LikeLike
I’ll say it again: Sibrel (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bart_Sibrel) is a crank, a crackpot, and a scam artist. His “mockumentaries” are zero percent scientific, in that he just edits and works them toward his own ends. (When his tactics didn’t work, he got himself a punch in the face by the second man on the Moon.) He’s even listed on the Encyclopedia of American loons (#1144). http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/09/1144-bart-sibrel.html
In a nutshell, his antics do not provide reliable evidence for anything besides his own foolishness.
LikeLike
So….who are these ‘other’ astronauts who have said they can’t get through the van Allen belts?
So, let me get this straight, if anyone doesn’t agree with you they must have been brainwashed? How come the uneducated, uninformed, unintelligent and illogical ‘minority are the ‘enlightened’ ones? And please don’t trot out some bogus figure about the majority of Americans don’t believe man walked on the moon. The figure is around 20%-25% of the whole population, which includes a lot of dumb people. In the world-wide scientific community the figure drops to less than 1%. With the Hari Krishna it is up to 90%. With Cubans it’s 95%. With Russians it’s 35%. It depends which people you survey. I’m going with the ones that are educated, informed and intelligent, and who have no bias due to their religious beliefs or hate of America.
The Apollo program collected 380 kilograms (838 lb) of Moon rocks during the six manned missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide (note: not just NASA or American) all agree that these rocks came from the Moon – no published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim. Obviously they’re ALL brainwashed.
India’s lunar mission Chandrayaan-1 took photos of the Apollo 15 landing site and tracks of the lunar rovers. Obviously brainwashed.
China’s second lunar probe, Chang’e 2, which was launched in 2010, can photograph the lunar surface with a resolution of up to 1.3 meters (4.3 ft). It spotted evidence of the Apollo landings. Obviously brainwashed. I can see the Communist Party room in China trying to think of ways to help out the Americans with their moon landing lie. Yeh, Right!
Finally, the father of the consiracy theory, Bill Kaysing, wasn’t even a scientist! He majored in English! He was a Technical Writer! These are not exactly high end scientific disciplines which place him in a position of credibility. I suggest sour grapes after he got the flick from Rocketdyne..
Move on people
LikeLike
complete and utter shite, no actual evidence to support argument just really shite references and this is me referencing you to a fucking cat sitting on the toilet which proves cats do sit on toilets, sometimes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok. I cannot find anyone who has seen or observed this. Apollo 17 blasting off from the moon. It’s the six minute and something video. After the LM takes off, 1) one can see the LM zig and zag out of frame shortly after in space. 2) when the camera pans down and then into the sitting craft, the so called foil seems to still “wave” or “flutter.” It should have stopped by then. There also seems to be a blinking or reflection moving on part of the foil. Could someone please explain this.
LikeLike
I assume you mean this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlGis35Epvs
There’s nothing out of sorts in it that I could see. At 3:02 the LM engine ignites, sending the ascent stage into lunar orbit. When the LRV-mounted camera tracks back down to the remaining descent stage around 5:15, you can see some bits of the aluminized Kapton foil still swinging around and reflecting sunlight. They would have stopped in a terrestrial environment, with air quickly slowing them down, but in a vacuum the bits can move until all of their kinetic energy is transferred somewhere else.
LikeLike
1. I agree that shaking the pole would cause the flag to pop in a certain direction. The writer does not address the question of how the flag tip falls back down and swings in the opposite direction. The writer does not address the moon’s 1/6 earth’s gravity issue.
It stands to reason that it would hang in the upward position for a longer time before slowly coming down, and possibly swinging back up in the other direction.
2. The stars, sun and any part of the visibly lighted earth, would have appeared much brighter on the moon. The writer’s explanation basically debunks #3. If the stars, sun and earth are completely blacked out due to exposure for the lighted surface, then the astronauts and equipment shown in shadows would have been nearly blacked out with no highlighted appearance.
3. If the surface ground in the shadows were blacked out due to exposure for the lighted areas, then the astronauts, equipment and lunar module in the same shadow would have also been blacked out. The images clearly show that while the lunar surface ground is rich black in shadow, the astronaut and lunar module are highlighted.
The reflective material on the lunar module is clearly reflecting artificial light from another source than the sun. Also, notice the astronaut’s shoes are darker. This is an indication that the artificial light source was putting out a light spread that did not offer even exposure and resulted in no highlighting of the ground.
They used basic Photography 101 principle of lighting ratios. In order to fill in the shadows, the flash needs to produce enough light to fill in the shadowed area, while at the same time the shutter and aperture are set for best exposure of the lighted area. The image shown with the story is a classic example of using artificial light to fill in the shadow area of the astronaut and lunar module.
4. False from the first sentence. It does not matter how the surface and objects are shaped and angled, the sunlight would cause all shadows to point in the same direction, without deviation. A lighting source that is closer to the subjects would cause different subjects to cast shadows in different directions.
5. A trip to the moon has the potential of causing great radiation damage to equipment and humans, just as a trip to Mars. I found a 1980 NASA study report that concluded it would require a 6 foot thick wall around the whole module to protect the astronauts and equipment from damaging radiation exposure. It did not draw a distinction of damage level based on a trip to the moon compared to a distant planet.
6. I am unable to speak to the level of technology during the 1960s and 1970s. But logical reasoning would dictate that if NASA is trying to overcome basic radiation complications today, then they did not have the technology to overcome such complications during the 1960s and 1970s.
7. Considering modern technology with photo editing, it is possible to place and paint the image to appear as if something is on the lunar surface. Plus, the image shown in the story looks more like a crater with some use of brightening or exposure tool around it. It would be easy to drop in a shadow. Simply not a convincing image.
8. The writer said, “We didn’t lose the technology, as some have claimed, we just stopped making it, at least for those specific uses.”
Actually, I find no critics who alleged that we lost the technology. Instead, it is claimed that the technology for successful human space travel to the moon was not there at all.
His first sentence explains it quite well, “This, unfortunately, has more to do with the nature of politics and public interest than space technology, although the latter often becomes a casualty of the former.”
Because the technology did not exist for successful human space travel to the moon, it was really about politics and public interest, and not about space technology, thus we have the need to produce an artificial moon trip and lunar expedition.
9. The counter-debunker did not address other important issues.
A. Assuming we agree that there was no water on the lunar surface, and therefore no moister in the dirt, then it stands to reason there would be no foot and EVA track prints seen in the photos. Instead, we see rich impressions similar to that seen on moist dirt. Comparing with most beaches, the sand that is farther back from the water does not leave shoe and foot impressions. But impressions do occur on sand closer to the water.
B. The film of astronauts skipping and jumping reveal that they are on earth’s gravity. The vertical and horizontal distance is quite similar to conditions on earth’s gravity. Only difference is they are shown in slow motion. Considering the moon’s gravity is 1/6 earth’s gravity, it stands to reason the vertical and horizontal distance for each skip and jump would be approximately 6x that on earth’s gravity. We should see a visibly significant increase in vertical and horizontal distance on the moon’s gravity.
LikeLike
#2 The stars are faint points of lights of various light years from the Moon, unless a camera is set to proper settings they will never be captured in camera. A camera set for daylight exposure will never capture the light of stars.
#3 Your premise is entirely false. The reason objects on the Moon in shadow aren’t black is because they are lit up by the vastly larger area of lunar surface reflecting sunlight. If you look at the astronauts in shadow you will notice that as you go down their body they get darker, their boots are not nearly as lit up as their upper body. This is because the area being reflected by the boots is the shadow area they are closest to while the greater area of the lit up lunar surface reflects into items higher up.
As a professional commercial photographer your multiple lighting scenario ignores that the astronauts moved about and were not going to remain in proper ratio to any lighting setup and multiple shadows would have occurred. Never mind that we have hours of uninterrupted video footage of the astronauts moving about over great distances. The photo’s can not be only evaluated in isolation from the entirety of the Apollo records.
#4 Again this is false. Surface angle and shape of object do indeed matter in how shadows are captured in camera in relation to the perspective of the camera to the shadows. An irregular shaped object can give the illusion when recorded into a 2D medium of having a shadow going in a different direction. A rise or fall in surface will also cause a shadow to have an appearance of going in a different direction. All of this is readily observed here on Earth.
And once again, if there were multiple lights there would be multiple shadows, this would be unavoidable with out having obvious light fall off from the directional lights to minimize their overlap. Look at any sporting event at night and you will see multiple shadows from the players and the shadows even rotate about a player as they move about the field.
#6 Pretty much any expert in radiations in space is going to tell you a 6ft wall of lead is the least desirable shielding because of the increased likelihood of creating a cascade of radiation from particles hitting the lead. A more desirable shielding tends to be of a type that doesn’t cause the particles to be split up and shot all about and instead merely block them in a less rigid manner. Which is why water and PVC are popular for dealing with the most common forms of radiation. But for solar events the radiation in space is easily blocked by a few mm of aluminum, it is when solar events happen that things get hairy. Our weather and GPS satellites we are all so dependent upon these days are parked about 20,000 miles up, right in the heart of the outer Van Allen Belt. Their electronics do just fine in those belts for years on end.
#7 Modern day photo editing wasn’t around 40 years ago.
B. There is no reason to expect them to be leaping and moving about 6x’s that of what they do on Earth. These men did not lose their ability to control their muscles by entering into a lesser G environment.
Want to see slowed down fake astronauts on the Moon, look at 2001 or Space1999. Neither of which remotely resemble the movements of the Apollo astronauts, which if sped up look more like a silent era Keystone Kops film than anything close to normal movement.
LikeLike
Item #4 – It absolutely does matter whether the terrain is flat or not when it comes to casting shadows. Get a big flat table outside on a sunny mrning. Stick an irregular object in the middle of about 6 – 8 inches in height and photograph the shadows. Now chuck on heaps of dirt and mould some of it into craters and the rest into mounds. Now photograph the shadows.
Item #6 – technology of the 60s and 70s was less prone to radiation because it was a simpler transistor/diode based technology and not based on silicon chips and nano technology. My 1960s car technology couldn’t have been killed with axe because it was basic. My 2015 car, with all it’s technology can be affected by a lightning storm. Does this mean my 1960s car was a hoax?
Item #9A – you’re assuming lunar dust is like beach sand which wouldn’t leave clear footprints. 2 minutes of research would have told you that lunar dust is like talcum powder. Which, even when bone dry, leaves clear footprints.
Item #9b – the whole astronauts moving on the moon looks like normal fooitage slowed down. You said it yourself “looks similar” to normal footage slowed down BUT NOT THE SAME. There are countless Youtube videos showing that videoing on earth and slowing it down does NOT look identical to lunar movement. Cinematographers will tell you they are not the same. And I don’t mean someone with a GoPro who fancies themselves as a suburban Cecille B DeMills
LikeLike
So much of your reasoning is literally contrary to what’s correct, I don’t even know where to begin. Thankfully others have made the correct points in response already.
I will say that the water-needed-for-tracks argument can quickly be proven erroneous by either attempting to make prints in dry material like flour, ash, or, for an in-situ demonstration, tracks made on Mars by the various rovers. Lunar regolith is not like terrestrial beach sand and can’t be assumed to behave as such.
LikeLike
Just think of the fluffy stuff they found that they don’t tell us about ,mmmmmm!
LikeLike
Ummm? Fluffy stuff? What fluffy stuff?
LikeLike
My uncle worked for NASA in the late seventies and told us the first moonrocks were covered in a sticky like fluffy substance that was only visible under ultra violet light.during one experiment the moonrocks would seem to move, two technicians were blinded by the stuff squirting from the centre of the rocks. The experiments were cancelled and the staff debriefed and sworn to secrecy. My uncle was killed in a suspicious car crash in the early eighties as he was writing his memiors, .
LikeLike
That’s curious, since previous experiments on lunar samples at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory at JSC showed no unusual qualities or adverse effects on test animals, even when injected into them within a saline solution. Researcher Tom Chambers recounted on Robert Perlman’s CollectSpace forum: “There were no surprises in terms of finding something very different or threatening in the Lunar samples. According to scientific documents, there were basalts, breccias, KREEP [potassium]. And in addition to the organogenic elements (H, C, N, O, S, P) the lunar samples from Apollo 11, 12, 14 and 15 contain CO, N2 and CO2.” (http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum41/HTML/000194.html) What was your uncle’s name, perhaps Mr. Chambers worked with him or knows someone who did? Regardless, experiments on lunar samples have not been canceled — researchers can request samples today from JSC for experiments at http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm.
If you’re referring to the “fluffy” samples returned by the Russian Luna 16 mission, it’s thought that those are the result of nanoparticles created by micrometeorite impacts (see http://phys.org/news/2012-06-nanoparticles-moon-glass-weird-lunar.html).
LikeLike
Here is why I think it’s fake:
1. They simply didn’t have the right technology as we do now. The technology now is 3D and has bold images while the moon landing photos are blurred and not even in colour yet.
2.the flag. If you look in the photo the flag was standing up right at one point on its own as if there was gravity.
3.the craters. They look unrealistic. Also when the NASA Landed you would espect a crater to form underneath the module like the ‘foot prints’ but if you look closely there is none. It’s like they just placed it down on the moon.
4. There would be most likely a lot of dust. And with the quality of the cameras you would see a lot of it.
5. On the moon there was shadows in all directions and the only light source was the sun. It suggests there must of been other lightings and just looks like a film set. So all the shadows must of run all in the same directions.
6. On one of the astronauts helmets there was a small blurred image on the helmet and the theory was that is looked like a hanging light source don’t believe me? Search it up there was a proof close up of the helmet.
7. a footage shows them in slow motion but if you speed it up x2.5 they have been seen them running at earths gravity. Also for the height they just added extra height while they where running with hidden cables.
8. There are no clouds on the moon?!? So what’s with the lack of stars? You would be able to see billions in space so why would it be different on the moon? They said that ” it was the quality of the camera ” but with a few decent camera angles and with the same quality you would still be able to see much more stars from the earths atmosphere.
9. One of the most famous picture was the rock with the engraved letter ‘C’ on the left side of the rock suggesting a prop number. Also the NASA said it was either a joke the filmer ‘accidentally put in’ as a joke.
10. They used crossed-heirs these are crosses when filming but in most of the images they have been clearly shown that the crossed-heirs where behind the objects. Such as a flag if you look at the image you would see a black cross behind the actual image suggesting that it could be photoshopped in the image or simply placed. Also if you take a photo you would see a small black cross over the photo image this suggests that the image was taken. But when the NASA took the photo it shows the crosses behind the objects, not I front.
LikeLike
Addressing your points/concerns in order:
1. No they didn’t, but they had enough to achieve a journey to the Moon and back. The ability to render 3D images with a computer has no bearing on that. The “blurred” images were low-quality television broadcasts; many very clear, sharp medium-format film images were captured while on the Moon.
2. There is gravity on the Moon. 1/6th that of Earth’s. The flags were attached to posts hammered into the lunar surface.
3. Craters look quite lunar. And the LM engines were throttled down quite a bit during the last few moments of the descent. All their exhaust did was blow lunar dust away from the touchdown site. (Remember, no air to create additional wind either.)
4. There was a lot of dust. But see above; no air to suspend it. Dust would have fallen to the surface quickly.
5. The only light source was the Sun. But sunlight was reflected from the lunar surface, from equipment, from the Earth too. This created complex additional lighting sources.
6. Your accusation; your burden to present your case. I’m not searching.
7. The Discovery show Mythbusters has already demonstrated that the Apollo footage is not just slowed-down video (among other things; see http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing). Also, I’d suggest you watch the video in the article above from the filmmaker that explains how high-speed film works.
8. No clouds on the Moon. But you can’t capture stars on cameras set to expose for bright lunar daytime (technically late morning) photos. It’s not camera quality — Hasselblads are excellent cameras — it’s simple film mechanics. Also there’d have been no scientific value in astrophotos from the Moon, the stars would look the same as they do from Earth.
9. The “C” shape was a hair on a film scan made many years later. The original image does not contain that artifact. This is a fabricated anomaly.
10. The cross marks etched on the reseau plates inside the 120mm cameras were very thin and were easily “bled” over by bright areas of the images. This non-issue is understood by film photographers and happens even in photos captured on Earth. (Also there was no such thing as Photoshop prior to 1988. 🙂 )
Many of these commonly-mentioned points are addressed in the article above with further links to more information.
LikeLike
Well, you can close your eyes and “debunk” everything, but you cannot debunk the “SAME BACKGROUNDS” used for different “locations”. It seems it is you who need to do your “research” better.
LikeLike
Every piece of so called evidence to call out the moon landing as a hoax has been explained comprehensively with objectivity, science, physics, maths or plain logic. If you choose to still believe your conspiracy theory then feel free to do so. A quick look around the internet shows a disturbing correlation between moon landing disbelievers and flat earthers. Probably the same people that think that Bart and Homer Simpson are real and that the whole thing is an Illuminati plot anyway.
They argue that we’ve all been duped and brainwashed. Even the most intelligent among us have been duped. Except of course for the really stupid people; they haven’t been brainwashed or duped. Yeh right!!
I had one nutter who thought the moon was fake and put the onus on me to prove it was real. No; the onus is on him to prove it’s not, in light of all the credible evidence that it does exist. His comeback to that, and his “proof” was that it “looked fake”.
Where did all these looneys get their oxygen for this stupidity before the internet existed?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So NASA pulls off the ultimate hoax with huge fake lunar sets in which either outdoor sets that have nary a gust of wind to stir up any dust if outdoors or an outdoor set so large they can move at a minimum of hundreds of meters about let alone uninterrupted recordings of them driving over greater distances. And yet NASA went cheap and used the same background over and over?
Oh wait that didn’t happen, that’s just hoaxers grasping at straws dependent upon ignorance and BS they saw presented elsewhere. There are no duplicate backgrounds in shots, there are the same backgrounds which have obvious changes in perspective due to being captured from different locations.
LikeLike
You will never capture stars in a camera set for daylight conditions.
Any photographer worth a grain of salt will tell you that to take photos of stars you need your camera mounted on a steady mount, ie tripod, otherwise you have a blurry mess. Rule of thumb is to not take a photo off tripod with a setting below 1/30th to avoid blurring from camera shake. Stars won’t show up at 1/30th.
Billions of photos of the Moon taken from the Earth, and yet in not a one properly exposed for capturing the Moon’s features is there a single star in any of the photos.
Are they all fakes as well?
During the Apollo era, video slow motion recording was limited to about 30 sec. The video footage of Apollo is hours long mostly uninterrupted.
If there were multiple lights you would have multiple shadows, just like you see during night sporting events from players if you bothered to look. That premise only holds water if one ignores the effects of surface elevations, varied and irregular shape of objects, and relation of 3D environment to the perspective of camera angle.
Thousands of color photos from the Moon.
And yet that C on the Moon rock doesn’t appear in earlier versions of that image.
It’s dust or a hair in that print, an all to common annoyance in dark rooms and today annoyance with dust getting on the digital sensors of dSLR’s. When propping a set, you don’t have your props embedded with a tag, you adhere a label or better still have them organized off set for location on set. A generic rock, would be unworthy of special tagging.
LikeLike
Riain – unfortunately you have raised issues which were adequately countered decades ago. YOU need to do a little more research and investigation than simply looking at a few internet photos. I would take on board the opinions of 1000s of scientists, technicians and other specialists before I would pay even a smidge of notice to uneducated, uninformed conspiracy theorists. Their sole purpose is to either get as many clicks in their sites as possible with ridiculous claims or they are simply dillusional. Do yourself a favour; do your own research. The classic example is looking at photos. The ones you often find on the web are blurred and poor quality because they have been shared 100s or 1000s of times. You can find high quality images which are close to first generation photos. If you look!
LikeLike
I feel very, very, very, very, very sorry for your level of intelligence and your basic capability to understand common sense if you think that any government has landed on the moon or that there is a remote controlled mini John Deere Gator on Mars. It has been proven beyond doubt, many times over that we live on a flat, fixed plain. The actual shape of the whole thing is anyone’s guess. If you think we live on a spinning ball shooting through the universe at 490,000 miles an hour where the Milky Way galaxy moves with us and the sun, moon and stars all stay in relatively the same positions, I wonder if your brain is beyond repair? How did that Ivy League brain cleansing of an education work out for you?
“How can so many people be in on it?” There are not a whole lot of people in on it. Many of those who are have been paid huge sums of money and many more threatened, especially their families. “Help us pull off this lie and we will give you $135,000 a year of hard earned slave tax payer dollars and you never actually have to do any work, just sit a desk be smart.” Most are just completely clueless and except all the information that is passed down to them. Many of the books people study in “school” come from the same sources. Think people, use your brains for at least once in your life. Please spread the truth and not more lies.
LikeLike
“It has been proven beyond doubt, many times over that we live on a flat, fixed plain.”
B.o.B is that you? 😉
BTW you can rest assured I am not Ivy League-educated.
LikeLike
Actually you are wrong about the earth being flat. I walked around the whole world once and ended up back at my house. Mind you, it took a couple of hours.
LikeLike
Delusional XXLTinfoilsombrero. I believe you are the one that’s been duped by all the flat earth nuttersout there.
LikeLike
People choose to believe what they want to believe and, it’s very often not the facts.
Fact: We went to the moon.
Fact: We will go back.
Fact: The space program and i n particular, the Apollo program created our modern world.
Fact: Don’t believe it? So, where did your cell phone come from? What about the video camera in it? The medical equipment we have today? Computers? The list goes on and on and on…
The hoax believers are the same ones that cry ‘Sending money into space is a waste!’.
No money went into space except a few coins. It went into the American economy and generated the greatest ‘payback’ our civilization has ever seen.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The biggest problem is that some backgrounds, allegedly miles away, are EXACTLY the same. The same backgrounds. Only in studio. So, think again. Whoever goes to the moon will find nothing there, he/she will be the first…
LikeLike
Once again; FAIL. It’s been shown time and again by lots of people (not just NASA) that the backgrounds are indeed the same but they are NOT exactly the same. They are at slightly different perspectives. If you took a photo with a mountain in the background (say 20 kms away) then move a few hundred meters and take another photo, the backgrounds would look the same,but not exactly the same. poor deluded soul
LikeLike
If man went to the moon then answer me this. WHY HAVEN’T ANY OTHER COUNTRIES EVER PUT ANOTHER MAN ON THE MOON? Especially Russia since they were supposedly so close to America and lunar landings. And if you say “Well, hey, they went their seven times so no more need to.” I will scream. We as humans cannot leave anything alone – only if we could get there…
LikeLike
Why would they? No one remembers (or cares) who came second. Maybe they weren’t as close as they claimed. What if they had failed? Imagine; the US sends a man to the moon and then the USSR tries and fails. Communists don’t like being second and certainly wouldn’t like being second and failing. Kosygin and Brezhnev weren’t idiots.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…Many of the audience would have been aware of Armstrong’s interview with Patrick Moore on the BBC’s The Sky at Night in 1970 in which he stated: ‘The sky is a deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from Cislunar space (the space between the Earth and the Moon).
The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen – although there have been some reports of seeing planets. ‘I myself did not see planets from the surface, but I suspect they may be visible.’ Cislunar space was described by Edgar Mitchell as the place where the stars were ‘ten times brighter than if viewed from the Earth’.
http://www.aulis.com/edgar_mitchell.htm
LikeLike
What’s your point Newton. Mitchell’s statement is contradictory to Armstrong’s? Have you done any research on Mitchell? Try it and you’ll find that the guy ended up going a bit doolally! He believed aliens have come to earth and met with the world government. He also had an aggressive tumor healed by a faith healer in Canada; remotely; from Canada! Mind you the tumor was never properly diagnosed. Maybe he was a great American hero but I’m not sure I’d trust much of what he said.And this is who some people are beliving!!!!!
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
Theres not a thing in this world not even non educated people with a simple mind that cant bring there eyes and mind to see that nasa wouldnt lie unless for a good reason nasa never had a reason to fake it why invest so much money in something that was so great in human history
LikeLike
What a load of bullshit. This smarmy cunt doesn’t know a single damned thing. article debunked.
LikeLike
Gee. For a minute then I thought you were going to offer some meaningful contribution. But no! Another ignorant, superficial, uneducated response from conspiracy theorists who haven’t actually debunked anything. Saying something has been debunked and it actually being debunked are not the same thing. Go and troll the “I hate everything and everyone” websites. They’re looking for more idiots!! You made my cat laugh at least. Once again he’s happy that he’s smarter than some humans. You included
LikeLike
Will you put this to a rest. You sound just like the people debunking the Moon Landing. You have no proof, you were not there, and you can be easily deceived just as a new born baby. This is nonsense. We did not land on the moon and we did land on the moon, which equals nobody knows what we did, so shut the f*&% up already, enough. If we went, then we did it, hooray for america, but why is it so incredibly difficult to think that it was all a lie. I mean, you lie everyday, so does everyone else, small or big, it is still a lie. So you think that an organization of superior power is going to share anything with the masses, you think you have the same information given to you and taught to you as the blind millions that have no clue what this all really is. You ast like you created the Apollo and went up to the Moon with those 3 monkeys
LikeLike
One lie today does not equal all lies everywhere. That’s just foolishness.
FYI “you were not there” is the same logical fallacy put forth by the infamous Young-Earth Creationist Ken Ham to “prove” his case. Congrats on like-minded thinking.
LikeLike
If we really went to the moon why haven’t we gone back. When a scientist for nasa was interviewed why did he say that we still have to figure out how to make it through the radiation belt basically suggesting we haven’t done it before. Another question one would ask is when the Chinese went there recently with a unmanned ship and took pictures of the moon knowing the exact location as to where we had left the rover and flag they found nothing. Even one of the astronauts on there death bed said it was faked. I would think of we actually went there fifty years ago we would go back again and definitely the we wouldnt be perplexed on how to make it through the radiation belt if we did it when technology was nowhere near what it is today.
LikeLike
That’s your evidence? How about that the USA can’t afford it. It’s got other deep space probes which are costing squillion. There’s this small thing called the Middle East war which is sucking up money. You think Americans would put up with billions being spent on a moon landing when it can’t even afford decent health care.
Also get your facts right. The Chinese probe went nowhere near the landing sites.
Which astronaut claimed that on his death bed. Moon disbelievers are so ready to say “prove we went to the moon”. How about you prove that one of the astronauts made that claim on their death bed.
The van Allen belts have always been a challenge. A few scientists say we can’t get through them but 99.9% of scientists say we can. I’m going with the majority in that one
LikeLike
First, that NASA employee was talking about the need to shield against the radiation in the VAB, not that we hadn’t before.
Second the whole Chinese didn’t find Apollo sites on the Moon comes from a satire web site. As stupid siting that as proof as siting the Onion.
Third each Moon mission cost about $2-3 billion in today dollars, NASA budget is a tenth what was during Apollo. For 30 years was tied to a one of a kind fleet of reusable space craft that cost around $500 million per flight. That’s why we haven’t gone back in the last 40 years.
LikeLike
Yes, I knew it that NASA is not telling lie. Thank You for this man.
LikeLike
Hello Jason. In what year was this article written?
LikeLike
2014. With additions since then.
LikeLike
if we could pass through the radiation belts to go to the moon … we could pass through them to go to Mars … so that is total BS
LikeLike
We can pass through them to get to Mars, we lack a vehicle that can carry humans to Mars.
LikeLike
The so call landing o the moon is a complete fantasy that came about do to the cold war with the Russians since they were the first one in space e.g the first man made satellite, first in sending a man to space, first space walk, etc., etc., etc… So when president J.F. Kennedy stated in his public speech that we are going to send a man to the moon he did not realized that between the earth and the moon we have an enormous radiation belt that no living organism could survived without any harm to its self and survived. Unfortunate the moon landing is the biggest ever lie that NASA fabricated as a result of the cold war.
LikeLike
You’re an idiot! It was not fake and there’s no “credible”evidence to suggest otherwise. The radiation belts are a problem but not insurmountable. Do some proper research on the subject. Check multiple sources (not just the one that suits your purpose). Even van Allen revised his view of the dangers of the radiation belt. Earth flat too? Moon is a hologram? JFK still alive and living in Brazil? Tiresome!!
LikeLike
Yes, the Apollo program was a direct result of the Cold War and U.S./Soviet competition. But no, the Van Allen belts are not so deadly that they cannot be survived in short durations. This was determined early on. The second half of your comment is simply not true.
LikeLike
It has been demonstrated again and again (and again here) that moon-landing deniers are not interested in any evidence that does not support their conspiracy, and they will never ever change their minds when you point out the flaws in their arguments. Still, articles like this one are hugely important for preventing the spread of the delusion, and for helping curious people appreciate what a huge achievement the Apollo landings were. Thanks for that, Jason.
Over the years, I’ve wondered a lot about the WHY. Why are the deniers so committed to this point of view? Why does it make them so happy to believe that one of the greatest achievements of the past century was a hoax? I wrote up some thoughts about the flat-Earth hoaxers, and much of the argument applies here as well:
https://www.quora.com/Imagine-the-Earth-is-flat-why-would-governments-lie-about-it-being-flat-and-teach-us-otherwise-What-does-anyone-gain-from-it-being-spherical/answer/Corey-Powell-5
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also very lucid points Corey. I really do think it boils down to a simple “cut you down to make me taller” type of behavior, combined with what you said and a desire to be a part of a “special” group of elite, aware individuals who know the “truth.” (Even if that truth is completely fabricated.) It’s like people who have to know all the minutiae of a popular story, movie, video game, etc…in order to enjoy it, they have to feel superior to all others who may more casually enjoy it (the “posers,” as they say.) In the case of the Apollo missions there’s just SO much information, from spaceflight to engineering to production, that it’s easier to fabricate a false reality to then be an expert at than actually being an expert at the real thing. I sure don’t claim to be an Apollo historian by any means, but that doesn’t mean I’ll try to make an alternate version and pass that off as real!
LikeLike
You may have this link already, or it may be included in the link from Bill(?) where Apollo was tracked by numerous places. This one is eavesdropping on Apollo 11. The eavesdropper, Rutherford, was disappointed that what was transmitted to the public on tv was what he heard eavesdropping–he was hoping to get some “real story”. http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11
Also, it seems many bits of “evidence” against the moon landing come from people who are rather clueless about photography.
Thirdly, Dr. Schmitt’s comment is quite ironic given his denial of the existence of AGW (as well as the down playing the link between air pollution and asthma, and (new to me) the impacts of mercury pollution, pesticide residues on food). If Dr. Schmitt hadn’t actually been to the moon himself I suspect he’d be at least suspicious of the moon landings.
LikeLike
The ship would have burned up coming back into earths atmosphere. Remember when I think Challanger came in missing ceramic tiles? It burned up. So how does a space ship with a few layers of medal not burn up. And if the space suits are really that strong against radiation, they should send astronauts with suits to that place in Russia that is hot with radiation. Also, watch Conspiracy Theory on Netflix. You will change your mind. Also, Japan took pictures when they orbited the moon. They found no evidence of equipment left behind or the flag. After the “moon landings” Area 51 where the landing was supposedly shot, Area 51 was even more heavily guarded. Some Russian spy sattalite pictures show a crater at Area 51. When the rocket was about to “land” on the moon they took pictures of a crater that matches the Area 51 crater perfectly. Try me, because I have a lot more evidence we didn’t land.
LikeLike
You actually have no evidence. You have ridiculous claims which don’t make sense and are not consistent with scientific fact. Show me the pictures the pictures of Area 51 or are you just repeating other people’s nonsense. And I have watched all the conspiracy theory videos. I love them. Who doesn’t love a good comedy. Far from changing my mind it just confirms for me that there are indeed lots of stupid people in the world. Instead of just repeating other people’s stupid claim go and do your own validated research. And try not not to use satire websites.
LikeLike
I’ll address these points one by one:
1. The Apollo vehicles could have burned up on reentry, yes. That is why the foil-wrapped landers were jettisoned before return and the astronauts descended inside the conical Command Modules with the protective ablation shields oriented downwards.
2. What Thomas said is true; space radiation is of a different sort than the radiation caused by the decay of nuclear fuel. Space radiation is in the form of high-energy particles from the Sun and outside our solar system, and unmitigated solar UV rays. Suits can shield astronauts from much of that, but even still some particles do pass through—that’s a risk that had to be taken. In Chernobyl the radiation was from the decay of isotopes of plutonium, cesium, and iodine that was released into the air after the plant exploded; humans and animals were poisoned through contact from the air and water.
3. Conspiracy Theory was a fun movie, from back before Mel Gibson showed everyone what a racist mess he is. It is not a documentary.
4. Japan’s Kaguya spacecraft was not able to resolve the actual Apollo hardware on the Moon in 2008; it was able to see the bright patch made by the LM on the lunar surface. (http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e.html). China’s Chang’e-2 orbiter DID spot the Apollo 11 site and hardware in 2012. (Links now in article.)
5. Of course Area 51 was heavily guarded; the Cold War was raging and that’s where they stored and tested top-secret military aircraft and weapons. But the U.S. knew Soviet sats were flying over, and often set up mock sites for them to image just to keep the game afoot. Anything spotted by a Russian sat could as likely have been a prop purposely placed as something real.
By the way, the Apollo astronauts actually trained on Earth at man-made crater fields created for NASA by the USGS, in some instances designed to purposely match the areas on the Moon they would be landing in, based on imaging from earlier Lunar Orbiter missions. You can learn about those here: http://www.universetoday.com/115895/making-the-moon-the-practice-crater-fields-of-flagstaff-arizona/
A question isn’t evidence, especially when there’s a perfectly reasonable answer.
LikeLike
Excuse me, I meant Discovery burned up because of missing tiles, not Challenger. Rip Challenger and people involved.
LikeLike
Shuttle used a completely different heat shield system than Apollo. It’s heat shield is what limited its distance to under 600 miles up. Beyond that and the shielding wouldn’t work. Apollo had a very different system to withstand the higher temps.
The radiation in space and a nuclear plant are very different and claims to use them at Chernobyl only reveal your lack of knowledge about radiation.
Japan did find traces of Apollo and their lunar mapping also showed that the terrain at the landing sights is consistent with the visual records of Apollo.
I believe you are confusing this with the current Chinese lunar probe mission.
But this false claim originates from an online satire website.
It is no secret NASA made a small lunar mock up of a landing area, this was done in AZ, not at Area 51. Thing is that area is surrounded by pine forests and oft snow capped mountains.
LikeLike
You lie like Hell!!!!!!!
LikeLike
The photo from earth of the landing site with equipment on the surface. Well, why are the shadows on the hills on the right and the shadow on the landing module on the left?
LikeLike
That image isn’t from Earth, it’s from lunar orbit. And they aren’t hills, they’re craters.
LikeLike
So why can’t we go back to the moon today? With the tech we have now we should be able to get there filming it live, this would end settle it once and for all
LikeLike
Of course we *can*, but whose budget is it coming out of? Who’s approving said venture with federal funds? One day private companies will be ready to undertake such a mission but for now only federal agencies have the ability, and they’re not getting funding for another Moon landing. Not yet anyway.
LikeLike
“Why haven’t we been back with the tech we have now?”
Well until someone puts the tech together in the proper form to take us there it doesn’t matter how much more advanced the tech is.
40 yrs ago people could fly commercially faster than the speed of sound.
Why can’t we do that today with all our better tech?
LikeLike
They had a high def color camera on this mission, yet they recorded it in black and white.
LikeLike
They had 120mm film cameras with color and black and white film, they had color 16mm film cameras and color TV cameras. All were used. Only the signal that got sent back to Earth live was relayed in black and white and downscaled to current TV scan settings.
LikeLike
Under your “debunk” reasoning point #6 you say: “As far as NASA having created all the footage of the landings in a studio, it actually would have been easier at the time to just go to the Moon…”
ummm, haha. Huh?
Even if he didn’t claim to make the videos of the aluminium foil “lunar module” or the car that was driven on the moon….. he DID make something in the studio more convincing [at least during those decades (60’s and 70’s)], that blows any footage away that we have of our supposed moon landing.
…It’s called 2001: A Space Odyssey. Although still silly, the ships they use in that movie are more believable than the garbage they feed us. It was made in 1968. The footage looks EXACTLY the same as the aluminium foil module footage with Buzz Lightyear, Space Ranger.
All your points proving a lunar landing are weak, at best.
LikeLike
“And my favorite debunk to the non-believers:
If we never went to the moon, why didn’t the Soviets call our bluff? They had every opportunity AND the technology to prove it AND every motivation to do so. Anybody who knows anything about the 1960’s politics clams up on this one”
They believed the “star wars” defense program was true too, so no they did not have any means to disprove any claims.
LikeLike
What makes you think the Soviets were scared of the so-called Star Wars defence system. Evidence of that?
LikeLike
I don’t think one should say that people not believing in the moon landing are morons etc
Actually, some of those people use their brain and sometimes come with quite clever arguments.
Would they use their brain to PROVE that men walked on the moon, they would be very persuasive 🙂
We are complex animals, when you don’t believe…well… you don’t!
So i think the aim should be to get them to at least TRY defend the opposite side, but they should REALLY want to try with their guts.
and this can’t really be forced into their mind, it should be suggested. And at the very least, we shouldn’t get angry or whatever at them and rather sayu “well i’m sorry you believe it’s a fake because i’m more than certain it’s true, and it’s the greatest Man challenge ever accomplised yet.” and let them rewire their brain.
anyway, this is more a matter of belief than pure intelligence.
LikeLike
You are correct about everything except #5. Your facts are simply incorrect, especially that AN HOUR OR SO ins’t long enough to get lethal doses of radiation and that the thin metal exterior would protect them. Lethal doses of radiation is between 15-35 minutes and unless that moon ship was covered in thick lead, they would have been fried during the one AND A HALF hour minimum, trip If not on the way, then the return trip home. If they were able to survive both ways, they would have had AT LEAST major radiation burns all over their body. They are dark red and extremely painful.. The belts are so dangerous , risky and complex to us that we have yet to figure out a safe way through it. Hence that is the ONLY reason why we haven’t “been back” or anywhere near the moon. The Moon Hoax served many purposes to help strengthen and unite our country depressed and angry over Vietnam and protected us from what we thought was a Russian, space launched nuclear bomb. Apollo needed to happen and was extremely effective at promoting all of those agendas. However, it scientifically, factually could not and did not happen. If it did, then that means we have some major overhauling to do in the areas of Scientific Experimentation and Nuclear Physics. Even Armstrong cryptically said that we have further to go and much to do but only after we remove one of “truth’s protective layers.” Many believe he was referring to the very effective and powerful American propaganda machine. They made it so we had no choice but to believe. In the moment, it felt too horrible to do otherwise.
LikeLike
I suggest you do proper research. This is a statement from James Van Allan from around 2004. He changed his mind on the lethality of the belts years before but conspiracy theorists are still quoting his earlier statements. “However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.”
LikeLike
site is full of crap. i feel sorry for you and your kin. eternal sunshine on the spotless mind apparently
LikeLike
Ah; the perennial debunking of science by simply saying the word “crap”. Good one! Unfortunately I don’t have the time, inclination or crayons to explain it all to you. Whatever you lack in intelligence you sure make up for with stupidity. Did you even finish highschool (on your own I mean)? And please tell me you don’t have children. If you do would you please make sure they spend time at least once a week with smart people, educated people or even goldfish
LikeLike
All of those missing tapes on Apollo make things so damn obvious that NASA is hiding shit from the public. Those who believe what NASA says are brain fucking washed.
LikeLike
I’d advise a reading of this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Apollo_11_TV_Tapes_Report.pdf
Of course, it’s from NASA—you know, the people who drive robots on Mars and have spacecraft at Jupiter, Saturn, inside the Kuiper Belt, etc. and keep the Space Station in orbit—so you probably don’t believe them anyway. But it says what happened to the telemetry tapes.
LikeLike
All I hear is opinion vs facts. Where facts are against the moon’s landing. Sorry folks.
LikeLike
Don’t think those words mean what you think they mean.
LikeLike
to reach the moon is unbelievable.
to land on the moon and stand there with your stupid suit = impossible.
to comeback from moon to earth without space launcher= liar.
LikeLike
Brilliant. You’ve debunked science with “liar”. You’re stupid. I’d explain the science to you but I don’t have any crayons.
LikeLike
Uh oh retard alert
LikeLike
go again now & i will check with my telescope hahaaa can they? Stupid NASA
LikeLike
I’m not sure NASA is stupid but you sure nailed stupidity. So – you’ll watch it on your telescope. I presume you have a telescope that is at least 100 foot wide. Because that’s what you would need to have the resolving power required to see a moon lander. Twit!
LikeLike
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE PUT ALL THE EQUIPMENT IN THE APOLLO CAPSULE JUST THE PARACHUTES ALONE WOULD HAVE TAKEN ALL MOST ALL THE SPACE/ROOM IN THE CAPSULE. THUS SPACE FLIGHT IN THE APOLLO CAPSULE WAS NOT POSSIBLE. GOOGLE “MOON HOAX TOO MUCH CARGO, YOUTUBE.”
YOU WILL FIND THAT YOUR CONCLUSION ABOUT TRAVEL TO THE MOON WAS WRONG. IF YOU HAVE QUESTION,(AFTER YOU WATCH THAT VIDEO) YOU WONT. EMAIL ME AT BEAR123ABC@COMCAST.NET I HOPE AFTER YOU REALIZE YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT MOON LANDING YOU WILL ADMIT IT A WRITE A CORRECTION.
LikeLike
I watched the video. You’re an idiot. Why on earth would I regard someone calling themselves Jungle Surfer be a more credible source of information than 100s or 1,000s of scientists? I suggest you finish your education you numbskull. Then do your own research. And I don’t mean watching YouTube videos. He is just factually wrong in everything he says.
LikeLike
I MUST HAVE HIT A NERVE,YOUR EGO. WHEN ONE HAS A WEAK OR NO ARGUMENT, THE FIRST THING THEY DO IS INSULT THE PARTY WITH WHOM THEY DISAGREE. ALTHOUGH IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU ARE NOT DOING ANY RESEARH AND HAVE NO CREDIBLITY, YOU ARE STILL BEING PAID AND BEING HELD UP AS A PERSON WHO HAS REAL KNOWLEDGE OF APOLLA FACTS. I DO NOT RESORT TO CALLING YOU NAMES, NOR WILL I. I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE THE WEB SITE, I JUST ASK YOU TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH USING THE DATA THAT HE HAS GATHERED FROM NASA. THE PARACHUTES ALONE WONT FIT IN THAT CAPSULE LET ALONE ALL THE OTHER EQUIPMENT O2 SCUBBERS, TAPE RECORDERS WITH MILES OF TAPE, ELETRICAL BACKUP, COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS JUST TO NAME A FEW OF THE VERY LARGE AND VERY HEAVY EQUIPMENT PACKAGES SUPPOSEDLY ON BOARD. IF YOU HAD TAKEN THE TIME TO READ WHAT HE PUT ON HIS WEB SITE, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT ALL OF THIS EQUIPMENT IS WHAT NASA SITES AS ON BOARD APOLLO. HE IS NOT CLAIMING IT, NASA IS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT THIS EPUIPMENT ONBORD APOLLO. THE SAYING, “DONT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER” IS VERY TRUE. BUT THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. I THINK THE VERY SUCCESFUL/POPULAR WEBSITE FOR SAVY STOCK INVESTORS CALLED ” THE MONTELY FOOL” IS A STUPID NAME. NONE THE LESS THEY OFFER EXCELLENT INVESTMENT ADVICE. PLEASE, CHECK THE NASA WEBSITE HE REFERS TO AND DO THE SIMPLE CALCULATION TO SEE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PUT ALL THAT EQUIPMENT ONBOARD. PLEASE BE PROFESSIONAL AND TREAT ME WITH RESPECT AS I DO YOU. THANK YOU, JOHN IERNA.
To: bear123abc@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 4:28:26 PM Subject: [New comment] No, The Moon Landings Weren’t Faked. (And Here’s How You Can Tell.)
herselman commented: “I watched the video. You’re an idiot. Why on earth would I regard someone calling themselves Jungle Surfer be a more credible source of information than 100s or 1,000s of scientists? I suggest you finish your education you numbskull. Then do your own rese”
LikeLike
John, there is a button on your keyboard that says “Caps Lock.” It may or may not have a little light on it. Please give that a press. Thanks.
LikeLike
LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE A.D.D., AS WELL AS MANY OTHER MENTAL DIAGNOSIS. (THERE ARE MEDICATIONS FOR SLOW PEOPLE LIKE YOU, ADEROL WILL HELP) THIS IS WHY I HAVE SAID THIS TWICE: DONT WATCH A VIDEO, DO SOME RESEARCH AND YOU WILL. LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS. YOU GO TO NASA’S WEB SITE AND ADD UP ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY SAY GOES IN THAT LITTLE CAPSULE AND BASED UPON THE MEASUREMENTS AND WEIGHT IT IS CLEAR THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO FIT IN THE APOLLO CAPSULE. GET AN ADULT TO ASSIST YOU AND I THINK YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GET IT DONE, “MARS MAN” NEXT, YOUR WEAK ARGUMENTS HAVE HOLES ALL IN THEM. YOU PICK THE POINTS OF THE SO CALLED MOON LANDING THAT EVERYONE KNOWS. IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO KNOW THE TRUTH YOU WOULD LOOK AT SOME VERY OBVIOUS FACTS. THERE IS MASSIVE OVERWELMING PROOF THAT MOON LANDING WAS A HOAX. IF YOU WERE CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING BASIC SCIENCE, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT. YOU ARE THE REASON, THAT THE I-NET REPORTERS HAVE NO CREDIBLITY. YOU MAKE UP STUFF. YOU KNOW MR. MARS, I THINK YOU PROBABLY KNOW IT IS A HOAX BUT THAT DOES NOT PROVOKE PEOPLE THESE DAYS. I THINK YOU ARE TRYING TO BE A KINDA OF “SHOCK JOCK” NO ON SECOND THOUGHT, YOUR BRAIN HAS NOT DEVELOPED TO THINK ON THOSE TERMS. THAT FLAG DID NOT UNFURLE, IT WAS SLAPPING IN THE MASSIVE A/C UNITS AT THE MGM STUDIO IN ENGLAND. STANLEY KUBRICK,( LOOK HIM UP) ON HIS DEATH BED CONFESSED TO MAKING THE FILM. I TRIED TO TREAT YOU WITH RESPECT BUT YOU CLEARLY ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS AN EDUCATION I HAVE A BSN BACHELOR SCIENCE IN NURSING, FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA. FOR YOU THAT MEANS REGISTERED NURSE. I SEE THAT YOU FANCY YOURSELF AS A SUPER HERO WITH “BIG BOY MARS SHIRT”. WOW, WHAT AN EASY GIG, YOU CAN SPEW FORTH INSULTS AND ACT AS IF YOU ARE AN AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT, AND BEING MENTALLY CHALLENGED. I AM JUST ENVIOUS YOU CAN GET PAID FOR BE A COMPLETE IDIOT AND FRAUD. YOUR ARE A LUCKY RETARDED MAN. YOU CAN LOOK UP MY DEGREE AT U.N.F IF YOU WENT TO COLLEGE, WHICH IS VERY HARD TO BELIEVE (IF YOU DID, IT WAS CLEARLY BEFORE YOU HAD YOU C.V.A.) SEND ME THE SCHOOL THAT YOU ATTENDED SO I CAN SEE YOU DEGREE. IF YOU DID GET A DEGREE I AM SURE IT IS A LIBERAL ARTS DEGREE. WHAT SEPERATES THE MEN FROM THE BOYS IS A SCIENCE DEGREE. THE IRONY, HERE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE SUBJECTS AS IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND I HAVE THE REAL DEGREE, THE SCIENCE DEGREE. SPEAKING ABOUT. MR. MARS, YOU SEE, TO EARN DEGREE IN SCIENCE, ONE MUST STUDY OBJECTIVE AREAS SUCH AS ANATOMY AND MICROBIOLOGY (BOTH ARE 4 CREDIT HRS COURSES AND THERE ARE 2 OF EACH) I MUST HAVE HIT A NERVE,YOUR EGO. WHEN ONE HAS A WEAK OR NO ARGUMENT, THE FIRST THING THEY DO IS INSULT THE PARTY WITH WHOM THEY DISAGREE. ALTHOUGH IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU ARE NOT DOING ANY RESEARH AND HAVE NO CREDIBLITY, YOU ARE STILL BEING PAID AND BEING HELD UP AS A PERSON WHO HAS REAL KNOWLEDGE OF APOLLA FACTS. I DO NOT RESORT TO CALLING YOU NAMES, NOR WILL I. I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE THE WEB SITE, I JUST ASK YOU TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH USING THE DATA THAT HE HAS GATHERED FROM NASA. THE PARACHUTES ALONE WONT FIT IN THAT CAPSULE LET ALONE ALL THE OTHER EQUIPMENT O2 SCUBBERS, TAPE RECORDERS WITH MILES OF TAPE, ELETRICAL BACKUP, COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS JUST TO NAME A FEW OF THE VERY LARGE AND VERY HEAVY EQUIPMENT PACKAGES SUPPOSEDLY ON BOARD. IF YOU HAD TAKEN THE TIME TO READ WHAT HE PUT ON HIS WEB SITE, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT ALL OF THIS EQUIPMENT IS WHAT NASA SITES AS ON BOARD APOLLO. HE IS NOT CLAIMING IT, NASA IS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT THIS EPUIPMENT ONBORD APOLLO. THE SAYING, “DONT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER” IS VERY TRUE. BUT THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. I THINK THE VERY SUCCESFUL/POPULAR WEBSITE FOR SAVY STOCK INVESTORS CALLED ” THE MONTELY FOOL” I HAS A STUPID NAME. NONE THE LESS THEY OFFER EXCELLENT INVESTMENT ADVICE. PLEASE, CHECK THE NASA WEBSITE HE REFERS TO AND DO THE SIMPLE CALCULATION TO SEE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PUT ALL THAT EQUIPMENT ONBOARD. PLEASE BE PROFESSIONAL AND TREAT ME WITH RESPECT AS I DO YOU. THANK YOU, JOHN IERNA.
To: bear123abc@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 4:28:26 PM Subject: [New comment] No, The Moon Landings Weren’t Faked. (And Here’s How You Can Tell.)
herselman commented: “I watched the video. You’re an idiot. Why on earth would I regard someone calling themselves Jungle Surfer be a more credible source of information than 100s or 1,000s of scientists? I suggest you finish your education you numbskull. Then do your own rese”
LikeLike
John – I’m not talking about your degree or where it’s from or my degree and where it’s from. I’m talking about 1000s of scientists (not nurses!) who can poke holes in the moon hoax theory. Don’t you not think that someone at NASA would have said “hey guys, if we list all the equipment that goes onboard people will see that it’s too heavy.” You don’t think that if you were going to perpetuate a massive hoax like this you’d get the simple things right and not make it easy to poke holes in?
As the the Stanley Kubrick death bed admission – this is what the family said: “The family made it clear the film published on YouTube was a complete hoax, using an actor who was purporting to be the Clockwork Orange film director. The statement on behalf of his widow Christiane Kubrick said: “The interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray, the whole story is made up, fraudulent & untrue.”
So even that youtube video is not proof.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXhhXGJP_kE THIS IS AMAZING! DONALD RUMSFELD, HENRY KISSINGER, AND NIXONS SECRETARY. WHEN PEOPLE GET DRUNK THEY SAY THE DAMNDEST THINGS. MARK, IT IS A BIGGER PERSON WHO CAN ADMIT WHEN THEY ARE WRONG AND EVEN MORE, CHANGE THEIR POSITION. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH I WILL SHOW IT TO YOU. SOME PEOPLE DONT WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, I JUST RECENTLY FOUND THIS OUT. MY AUNT IS 80 AND DOES NOT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE FRAUD. I WOULD CHANGE HER WORLD VIEW. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT FIND IT FRUSTRATING. THEN THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE MY BROTHER, THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE HIS POSITION, IF GOD CAME DOWN AND TOLD HIM HE WOULD TELL GO HE IS WRONG. I HOPE YOU ARE NEITHER. MARK, IT IS NOT THE UTUBE VIDEO, IT IS THE IMPOSSIBILTY OF FITTING THE EQUIPMENT IN THAT CAPSULE. EVEN IF IT COULD FIT, IT WOULD BE TWICE THE WEIGHT ALLOWED. REMEMBER, THIS IN 1960’S SIZE EPUIPMENT, THERE IS NOT ONE OF THESE ITEMS THAT IS NOT AT LEAST THE SIZE OF A PRINTER. EXAMPLE: IF THE CAPSULE HAS A CAPCITY OF 200 SQ FEET OF SPACE AND THE PARACHUTES SIZE/VOLUME IS 150 SQ FEET, ADD O2 SCUBBERS RECORDERS, 3 GYROSCOPES, BATTERIES LOTS OF THEM TO RUN ALL OF THIS STUFF(BIG CAR TYPE BATTERIES) REFRIGERATOR CONTROL MODULE PANELS, CABIN AIR RETURN, PYRO CONTINUITY UNIT, INVERTER TERMINAL, SCE LATERAL, VHF LATERAL, CM LATERAL, CM THRUST VECTOR, 3 TAPE RECORDERS 8 THOUSAND FEET OF TAPE, SBAND AMPLIFIER, JETISON CONTROLLER, VHF RECOVERY PRE-MOD 1 AND PRE- MOD 2, SEQUENCER,CTE FULL. BAND TRANSPONDER, REVOVERY BEACON, DATA UPLOAD UNIT, TELEMENTARY, UP DATA LINK, SBAND AMPLIFIER, MILES OF CABLE. THERES LOTS MORE, BUT I THINK YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT 200 CUBIC FOOT SPACE COULD NOT HOLD ALL THIS STUFF. OH YEAH THEN YOU HAVE THREE MEN TO STUFF IN THERE. I WAS 6 YEARS OLD WHEN THE “MOON LANDINGS” TOOK PLACE. EVERY KID WANTED TO BE AN ASTRONAUT, I DREAMT ABOUT IT. BELIEVE ME WHEN I TELL YOU THAT FINDING THIS OUT BROKE MY HEART. THE REASON I MENTIONED MY DEGREE IS TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM INTELLIGENT AND ANALYTICAL. I DEAL WITH NUMBERS AND FACTS ALL DAY. IF I MAKE A MISTAKE WITH THE NUMBERS SOMEONE DIES. I AM METICULOUS. I HAVE SPENT HUNDREDS OF HOURS ANALYZING THIS DEBUNKERS DATA. WHEN I FIRST STARTED I WAS LIKE YOU AND THOUGHT THE FOLKS CLAIMING HOAX WERE NUTS AND WHACKOS. SOME ARE, BUT MOST ARE SERIOUS PEOPLE DEDICATED FINDING THE TRUTH. THE CARGO ANGLE IS JUST THE SIMPLEST WAY TO PROVE FRAUD. I FIND IT VERY TELLING THAT NONE OF THE MOON ASTRONAUTS WOULD SWEAR ON A BIBLE. IN ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD THIS GUY CONFRONTS THEM WITH FACTS ABOUT THE FLIGHT AND THEY RUN AND HIDE FROM THE CAMERA LIKE MOBSTERS DO WHEN THE BOND OUT OF JAIL. IF I WENT TO THE MOON I WOULD NEVER STOP TALKING ABOUT IT I WOULD BE THE PROUDEST MAN ON EARTH. ARMSTRONG WOULD NOT SPEAK ABOUT AND THE FEW TIMES HE DID HE APPEARED GUILTY AND ASHAMED. OF COURSE THESE ARE ANECDOTAL, BUT PUT TOGETHER WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THE BIG PICTURE SAYS FRAUD. IF I WENT TO THE MOON I WOULD WELCOME THE OATH. AS TO THESE 1000’S OF SCIENTIST. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY CONTRACTORS AND SCIENTIST WHO HAVE BLOW THE WHISTLE. GUS GRISSOM WAS QUESTIONING THE VIABILITY OF THE CAPSULE, AND THE DAY HE BURNED TO DEATH HUNG A LEMON OUTSIDE THE CAPSULE. SOME SAY HE WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT, AND WAS KILLED. THAT IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY AND I AM DEALING WITH PROVABLE FACTS.
LikeLike
The YouTube video clip you referred to of Kissinger and others telling how the landing was fake is very good. It is actually an excerpt from a mockumentary made in 2002. It was originally titled Operation Lune. Got a very rating from critics as being an excellent example of how clips can be stitched together to tell any story. There was no such person as Eve Kendall. She was a character from North by Northwest.
Google Operation Lune.
Now is the time to remind you to do your checks and own research. It took me 5 minutes to find the original movie from which this YouTube clip was taken
LikeLike
Lots of regurgitation of the same old nonsense.
Swearing on a bible wouldn’t prove anything, 3 of the astronauts actually did do that, but you folk ignore that.
You latch on to a French Mockumentary that takes reedited interview footage from an actual documentary the film makers made that discussed the ‘men of the White House’. A bunch of the names in the mockumentary are taken from movie character names. And then they intentionally get facts wrong to show how foolish conspiracy believers can be. When was LBJ Gov of Texas, or Nixon Gov of California?
If you are such an analytical person whose work can mean life or death, you sure don’t apply that to any ‘research’ you did on this.
Gus Grissom did not hang a lemon outside the capsule on the day he died.
He never hung a lemon outside any capsule.
He did hang a lemon on the CM simulator, which wasn’t an expression of what he thought about the vehicle but about the simulator which wasn’t being modified to match the design changes being made in the real CM. He was calling the simulator a lemon.
And TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT STRONGER.
It just means you can be an annoying twat who thinks shouting = better argument.
LikeLike
Oh Dear – things have gone quiet from bear123abc after this p[ost was made. Not sure how many inaccuracies you can cram into one post. Not a record but gave it a good try. For someone who is so educated how could you NOT spot you mistakes;
The video if Kissinger and others was 10 year mockumentary. Did you not think that if it was real it would have been plastered all over the worlds newspapers, radio and TV? Oh – I fogot – “they’re in on it too”. Every journalist, in every media outlet in every country is “in on it”. Yeah – right.
The video regarding all the stuff that would fit in the re-entry vehicle. The video is just wrong. It shows equipment which was never in the re-entry vehicle. The clue might have been in the video itself; there are numerous slides which have ‘CM’ written on them. I’m taking a crazy guess here and going to say that it means that piece of equipment was in the Command Module (CM?).
You claim that there have been many contractors and scientists that have blown the whistle. At this point I would ask for the list. But you help me out by giving me an example of Grissom who hung a lemon on the capsule. Your first example is just wrong. He hung it on the simulator.
Finally you say that no astronauts swore on the bible. A small amount of research (which for a supposedly educated person should be too difficult to do) will show that 3 in fact did.
Finally you mention your 80 year old who doesn’t want to know about the fraud, I suspect she know’s you’re not playing with a full deck of cards. Maybe instead of not wanting to ‘know about’ it, she actually does know about it and doesn’t believe it. Go Auntie I say. Independent thinking at 80.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To the best of my knowledge, no photographs or film have shown the lunar vehicle being removed and placed on the moons surface. Where was it in the rocket? How did it get there? Just a thought!
LikeLike
The LRVs were folded and stowed on the side of the LMs and disengaged after landing. See images https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/ap15-KSC-71PC-415HR.jpg and https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/ap15-S71-31409HR.jpg
LikeLike
If you just typed ‘lunar rover being unloaded on moon’ you’d fine what you were looking for.
LikeLike
Want to work for NASA? Learn origami! 😉
LikeLike
Look, the lunar landing was faked. It wasn’t Disney but in Florida. I know people will say this is bull but watch a movie with Ron Pearlman called “Moonwalkers” it is supposed to be like a documentary about the staged video of the moon landing. If is called fantasy but it is based on fact. Russia was saying they almost had the rocket finished to go to the moon but they were just bragging propaganda. We were not even close either so we faked a video,fed it to the media and we’re able to say, officially that we made it to the moon first. There you go.
LikeLike
When they said that the flag was waving then wouldn’t it be because of the gravity?
LikeLike
Only question, if we could afford going to the moon in 1969 with VGA cameras, why aren’t we freaking going there everyday now?
LikeLike
What do the camera’s have to do with the ability to go to the Moon?
As for why aren’t we there everyday now. Well those Apollo missions were costing about $2-3 billion per in today dollars.
If NASA had the same percentage of budget as it did back then it would have a budget north of $140 billion a year instead of $18 billion.
So the answer why we aren’t there is because the US govt doesn’t allocate the level of funding for NASA to get back there.
LikeLike
Great article. As one that has spent countless hours pouring over the photo and video record, I enjoyed the laugh.
For those with an open mind, peruse AS15-86-11603HR from NASA’s Apollo Surface Journal. Amongst its several anomalies, notice that the SEP pallet at middle-right casts no shadow while the mound of soil in front of it is. Just redonkulous.
An American citizen , not US subject.
LikeLike
It is obvious that the SEP is behind a slight rise in the terrain, thus its shadow is falling on the surface behind the rise.
Or we’re to believe the ground is flat there and the astronauts pushed the SEP down into the soil based on the fact part of it is obscured by the lunar surface.
LikeLike
Add to that the SEP casing is highly reflective, as is the lunar surface, so it’s providing its own fill-in lighting from reflected sunlight off the surrounding regolith.
LikeLike
i think so to
LikeLike
Our government has lied to us about everything. Why can’t anybody believe they were lyingto us back then. Technology is much better now,it should be a lot easier to go to the moon. But no,there’s always an excuse why. Think about it people. We couldnt get the damn rockets off the ground. Miraculously,a short time later,boom,were on the moon. The Russians were lying about having the technology back then. But our beautiful government,wanting to look better,in the eye’s of the world……wake up people. Look how our country lies to us about every war fought. Every incident around the world. First we help em and then we attack em.
LikeLike
Why is the earth so small in the moon landing photos and videos … but the recent orbiter pic gets it right with the earth 4 times larger than the moon?
LikeLike
Lens focal length matters.
On the Moon they were mostly using semi wide angle lenses, the result being distant objects appear diminished in scale.
NASA wanted a wide field of view Rosemead much as possible while on the Moon, also makes it far easier to help ensure what a camera is pointed at ends up in the frame.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Different types of cameras and lenses. If you were to go outside and take a “landscape” photo as the full Moon was rising over the horizon, you’d have totally different lunar scales if you used a wide-angle, fixed 50mm, or telephoto at the long end. The Apollo 11 cameras used on EVA had 60mm lenses, so they were actually pretty close to what you would have seen with your eyes. Even 4x larger, the Earth still wouldn’t take up a very large portion of the sky. But go out and take a 60mm full-frame photo of the Moon and, without cropping, it will look very small indeed.
LikeLike
We obviously went to the moon. If not why fake it six times and increase your odds of discovery. Every rocket scientist in the country would have to been silenced.
Easier to just go!
LikeLike
The piece mentions that no tripods were used, the dude in the video says the astronauts put a camera on a tripod. The landing shows a camera already on the moon before the astronaut came out of the capsule. Conclusion: everyone is (TRUMP style) Wrong!
LikeLike
OK I see your confusion. Partly my fault. While they didn’t bring tripods for still photos like an astrophotographer would use for night sky pictures, they did mount television cameras on tripods to capture live footage. On Apollo 11, a Westinghouse color camera (http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/apollocams.htm#A11%20B&W) was mounted to the leg of the LM, and it captured Neil as he descended the ladder. They then removed it and set it up *on a tripod* to capture EVA footage. Everyone is not wrong, I was unclear.
LikeLike
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ME I DONT AGRUE POINTS ON THE MOON. YOU HAVE ME MIXED UP WITH SOME BODY ELSE. THE EMAIL YOU SENT FROM ON 1.17.17 WAS ALSO NOT ME. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SOVIETS. YOU NEED A VACATION, WORK LOAD IS TOO MUCH. HOWEVER, MY FACTS ARE CLEAR, JUST GO BACK FORM THE BAHAMAS, NOT THE MOON BUT IT WAS A REAL TRIP (NO PUN INTENED) EVERYBODY BUT ME ARGUES THE “FACTS” ON THE SO CALLED MOON LANDING. I AGRUE THE CREDIBLITY OF NASA. WITH SO MANY VERIFIABLE LIES, WHY WOULD YOU BELIEVE THEM. NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE BARNUM SAID, “A SUCKER IS BORN EVERY MINUTE” . WELL, ONE THING HAS CHANGED, THEY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS. WHY ARE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WILLING TO FGIHT FOR AN ENTITY THAT IS FRAUGHT WITH FRAUD? I WANTED TO BELIEVE, BUT THE FACTS GOT IN THE WAY. THEY ARE FRAUDULENT ON SO MANY ISSUES. JUST ONE IS ALL TAKES FOR ME TO STOP BELIEVING. GEMINI 4 IS JUST ONE OF MANY PROVABLE LIES. WATCH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2npEjci9G0 4 P.S HOW ABOUT THIS BULLSHIT TOURIST ATTRACTION, STONEHENGE? THE LIES JUST KEEP COMING, NOT JUST FROM NASA. I KNOW WHT YOU GOING TO SAY, THEY JUST RESTORED IT. FIRST, YOU DONT RESTORE RUINS UNLESS THEY ARE DANGEROUS. NEXT THEY SAY THE RELOCATED IT, WHY? THE BEAUTY OF RUINS IS THAT THEY ARE RUINS!!!!! DAMMIT!!!!
LikeLike
I STOPPED REPLYING TO YOU GUGS MONTHS AGO WHEN I REALIZED THAT EVEN IF NASA TOLD YOU THEY FAKED THE MOON LANDING YOU WOULD NOT ADMITT YOU WERE WRONG. P.S. DID YOU SEE THE BUZZED ALDRIN INTERVIEW WHERE HE ADMITTED “IT NEVER HAPPENED” THAT IS WHY I DONT DRINK. I WILL BE GLAD TO SEND THAT TOTAL FRAUD’S ADMISSION. WHEN ASKED ABOUTCONCERN OVER THE “GERMS” THAT MAY HAVE COME BACK FROM THE MOON, HE STATED”, WE HAD ALL THE GERMS WE NEEDED WHEN WE WENT OUT TO THE HALL WAY AND THERE WERE ANTS CRAWLING FROM THE CRACKS IN THE HALL WAY. OH THE DRUNK. YOU BETTER HOPE WIKI LEAKS DOES NOT COME OUT WITH THE DISCLOSURE ABOUT THE “FAKE MOON LANDINGS” OH YEAH, YOU WILL STILL STAND BY THE B.S. STORY NO MATTER WHAT PROOF THERE IS. ONLY A FOOL WOULD SUPPORT A FRAUD LIKE NASA. I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU. MOST OF THE WORLD KNOWS THAT IS A TALL TALE. SO NIAVE! I AM SORRY WASTED SO MUCH TIME TRYING TO CONVINCE A SHILL. AND YOU KNOW YOU ARE!! ADIOS AMIGO. P.S. I GAVE YOU MY PHONE NUMBER AND I WILL GIVE YOU MY ADRESS: 1647 VALENCIA DRIVE JAX, FL 32207. PH#904.503.1177 CALL ME AND LETS DISCUSS THIS AS ADULTS. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. FIRST YOU ARE A FRAUD, SECOND A SHILL, AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST A COWARED!! REMEBER, I STOPPED REPLYING TO YOU BEFORE XMAS WHEN I REALIZED THAT YOU WERE A SHILL. TAKES UP MY VERY VALUABLE TIME WRITING TO NIAVE NOVICE FRAUDS. AND I WONT DO IT AGAIN. HOWEVER, I WILL BE GLAD TO TALK TO YOU MAN TO WOMAN/CHILD/SHILL ANYTIME. I LIKE THE WONDERFUL NEW PRESIDENT. D.J. TRUMP, DONT SLEEP, YOU CAN CALL ME ANY TIME. TAKE CARE, NOW HEAR!
LikeLike
READ MY COMMENT BELOW VERY CAREFULLY, I WILL REPEAT IT UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND. YOU CONTINUALLY DEFLECT TO AN IRRELLEVANT POINT. THAT IS, THE VIDEOS COME FROM NASA, I CAN GET THEM FROM ANYBODY, THEY JUST POINT OUT THE CLEAR ERRORS IN THE NASA FOOTAGE, YOU, I, BOZO THE CLOWN CAN SEE AND RELAY THE INFORMATION. THE FOOTAGE (WHICH IS ON MANY OTHER PUNDITS WEB SITES) IS INDISTUPTABLE. AGAIN, THIS FOOTAGE ORIGINATES FROM THE NASA. THE BACKGROUND IS THE SAME ON TWO SEPERATE OCCASIONS. THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE, IF THE LANDING IS REAL. THE WHOLE NOTION BEHIND ESTORIC DETECTIVE IS JUST THAT ESOTERIC STORIES, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS FRAUD MOON LANDING IS. OH YEAH, THE OTHER ISSUE YOU WILL NOT GIVE ME AN ANSWER TO IS WHY DO YOU TRUST NASA WHEN THE ED WHITE “SPACE WALK” FOOTAGE IS FRAUDULENT? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, ANSWER THE QUESTION! YOU CAN’T DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THE “SPACE WALK IS FAKE”. EVEN YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE HELMET IS “FIXED” AND ED WHITE COULD NOT TURN HIS HEAD AS HE DOES IN THE VIDEO, (SUPPLIED BY NASA). I MUST HEAR WHY YOU TRUST NASA AFTER THEY HAVE LIED BEEN CAUGHT IN LIE. DONT TELL ME YOU BELIEVE IN SECOND CHANCES. YOU TOTAL STATEGY IS TO ATTACK THE MESSANGER, IT WONT WORK. THE FACT ARE REAL, HOW THEY ARE DELIVERED IS NOT IMPORTANT, BUT THAT KEEPS YOU FROM HAVING TO ANSWER THE REAL QUESTIONS. I WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER.
LikeLike
Your caps lock still seems to have that problem. Maybe try a new keyboard.
LikeLike
IT GETS YOU ATTENTION EVERYTIME. I DONT DO IT FOR THAT REASON, IT IS JUST EASIER TO SEE AND AFTER ALL IT EMAIL. THE NORMAL RULES DONT APPLY. IT JUSTS LOOKS BETTER TO ME. SO FAR, EVERYONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT I WRITE. I ALWAYS HAVE DONE THINGS MY WAY, THATS A GREAT SONG!
LikeLike
Caps lock doesn’t give your comments greater credence. Just makes you look like an ass who ignores decades of comment etiquette to essentially shout your speech at others.
LikeLike
I AM AN ASS WHO INGORES THE NORM. HENCE I DONT BLINDLY BELIEVE WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE FAT, DUMB LAZY AMERICANS BELIEVE, THINGS LIKE THE MOON LANDINGS ARE REAL. I AM BLUSHING, I AM MODEST, YOU REALLY HAVE TO STOP COMPLIMENTING, IT’S GOIN TO MY HEAD. AWE, SHUCKS!\ I AM WAINTING FOR THE ED WHITE ANSWER. COME ON JUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION. YOU ARE THE MASTER OF DISTRACTION, BUT IT WONT WORK ON ME. AGAIN, I AM WAITING FOR THE ANSWER TO THE “ED WHITE” FAKE SPACE WALK AND WHY YOU TRUST NASA AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT CLEARLY IN A FRAUD?
LikeLike
This is the problem with most conspiracy theories: they often fail to take a key fact into consideration, usually one which can be discovered on one’s own with just a few minutes of research. Case in point: the Gemini G4C suit, which was designed and produced by the David Clark Company of Worcester, MA and used by White during his EVA.
“The Clark suit was adapted to use the helmet designed by BF Goodrich, a removable fiberglass helmet which connected via a locking ring on the suit. The ring had rotating bearings, allowing the astronaut to turn his head from side to side.”
Source with references: https://hubpages.com/education/NASA-Project-Gemini-Space-Suit
See that wasn’t so hard, was it? All done now. Any further comments in all caps will be deleted.
LikeLike
Yeah all caps is so punk. The audacity to shuck convention to be differnent with no small letters is the Sid Vicious of internet commenting. Throw in a little self congratulating back slapping about how your nonconformity makes you so bad ass you rise above the plebes who clearly by their use of writing standards are the steeple fooled by a tiny govt agency whose budget so tiny it can’t even get a penny from every dollar the US govt spends.
Now please conform to conspiracy norms and ignore the provided info on the helmet which contradicts your flawed preconceived beliefs and turn to the next “last nail in the coffin” proof.
LikeLike
See the link above. This subject is settled.
LikeLike
All we need is the “Missing tapes on Apollo” that supposedly NASA had lost. Scrubs
LikeLike
These tapes? https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Apollo_11_TV_Tapes_Report.pdf
LikeLike
You are truly a sad person….. It is simply too painful for you to admit amd accept that your government DEFRAUDED you.Bart Sibrel has the tape,atomically dated, PROVING BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that Apollo 11 was FAKED and that the “ASStroNOTS “stayed in LOW EARTH ORBIT while they were SUPPOSED to be halfway to the Moon. WATCH THE FOOTAGE. You are a NASShole. LOL! NASA stands for National Association of Space Actors…….
LikeLike
Bart Sibrel is a clown. A sad, angry clown. This is simply a fact. Nobody would even know who he is if it weren’t for a terrible Fox News “documentary” that he was featured in…a program that was completely wrong. Sibrel got a well-deserved punch in the face by Buzz Aldrin because he’s just that much of a jerk.
LikeLike
Your more wrong than Jason is even if he isn’t wrong, Apollo 11 wasn’t faked, and you stupid conspiracy theorists are dumber than a sack of rocks.
LikeLike
First Woman on the Moon
https://www.gofundme.com/1stWoman2theMoon/
LikeLike
How did you pass Van Allen Belt?
Can you pass Lie Detector test?
LikeLike
You do realize the Van Allen Belts are not bubbles that surround the entire planet or else they’d be called the Van Allen Bubbles.
Want to pass the VAB’s, do like they did on Apollo, have the spacecrafts trajectory exit/return above 20* north of the equator and skirt along the edges of the belts.
LikeLike
Do some research knucklehead. Firstly they are “belts” not “belt”. There’s an inner belt and an outer belt. The belts are also not uniform nor are they constant. The Apollo missions launch trajectory avoided the inner belt and took them “through” a thinner part of the outer belt. Notice I said “through”. They didn’t hang around in them. Various Apollo crews were exposed to an average of between 0.14 and 1.16 rads. This is well below the recommended safe dose per year for people working in occupations who are exposed to radiation.
And to the geniuses who ask how a few millimetres of protective material can protect you against radiation and who claim they you need thick lead sheets also show their ineptitude. Case in point: you can protect yourself from “radiation” with a straw hat! That’s exactly what people do to protect themselves from UV radiation. So if your going to make stupid claims go and educate yourself with some independant research. There are lots of different types of radiation. (And no im not saying you can protect yourself from the radiation of the Van Allen Belts with a straw hat)
And by independant I mean NOT Bart Sibrel. He’s proven himself to be as dishonest as the people he claims to have exposed. Those of you that refer to Sibrel should note 2 things.
First – he’s got never seen before footage which is “atomically” dated which proves the hoax. Sibrel has never shown 1 second of footage that has not been publicly available for over 3 decades. Not one second.
Secondly, he selectively edits footage that he shows in a way that supports his view and gets people to buy his videos and books. The classic is where he asks Armstrong. Aldrin and Collins whether they could see the stars. The answers are confusing and contradictory. Hah! Proof that they are lying! No! Proof that Sibrel is an ass-hat. Sibrel has selectively edited the footage. The original question was could they see the stars “through the solar corona when they were on route to the moon?” He leaves that bit out of his video. Convenient. Changes the whole thing. That’s about as manipulative as you can get. And this is the source of truth you’re going to trust.
Don’t be lazy. Do some independant research. From a variety of sources. Not just selectively from conspiracy theory sites. That’s just lazy and inept.
I know – they’re all in on the hoax. They’re all paid by NASA. Tell me genius, how big is NASA’s budget? Why does independant science from around the globe support the moon landing reality. What possible motivation could scientists, engineers, etc from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, South Africa, Chile, France, The Netherlands etc etc etc have to gain. Are they all on NASA’s payroll? Are you smarter than all of them?
I will never change you your mind! That’s not my purpose. It’s just that I can’t let stupidity go unchallenged.
LikeLike
First, I myself have never passed through the Van Allen Belts; and second, lie detector (polygraph) tests are notoriously unreliable and quite subjective in their usage. And third: the Van Allen Belts did not give the astronauts a dangerous dose of radiation a the speed and angles that they traveled through them. Really it was no more than a standard medical x-ray.
“Radiations vary dramatically in strength and intensity, with some being dangerous and some being harmless background radiation. Whether or not a human will experience illness or death is related to the radiation dose received. It is a problem with a very real answer that can be determined quantitatively.” – Robert Braeunig
Read more at http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
LikeLike
WHERE DID YOU GET THAT INFO FROM, YOU HAVE A DEGREE IN RADIOLOGY. OH, THATS RIGHT THOSE HIGHLY CREDIBLE SCIENTIST AT NASA. THAT IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE HEARD THAT ONE. THEN AGAIN, YOU BELIEVE THOSE FRAUDS AT NASA, THAT’S THE WHOLE PROBLEM, EVERY THING YOU “RECITE” COMES FROM A INCREDIBLE SOURCE. I HAVE GIVEN MORE THAN ENOUGH PROOF TO AT LEAST HAVE REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT ANYTHING NASA CLAIMS, ESPECIALLY THE ALLEGED MOON LANDING. THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS YOU ARE PAID TO SPUE THESE LIES, AND I AM NOT. I HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN THIS DEBATE, I HAVE DONE IT BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND THE TAXPAYERS INCLUDING MYSELF, ARE BEING ROBBED! ESOTERIC DETECTIVE SHOWS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF THE FRAUD THAT IS NASA. SHE DOES RESEARCH THAT EVEN YOU WOULD RESPECT. SHE LAYS OUT THE FACT AND ASKS THE VIEWER TO DECIDE. THE EVIDENCE SHE DISPLAYS COMES FROM NASA. SO ONE BY ONE. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE HOW YOU DISCREDIT THESE VIDEOS. I AM SURE YOU WILL FIND SOME WAY. I HAVE LONG REALIZED YOU WILL NEVER ADMITT TO THIS TOTALL SCAM, THE “MON LANDING”. AS TIME HAS PASSED, YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT TO HAVE OCCURED. EITHER YOU ARE BLINDED BY EGO AND CANT ADMITT YOUR CLAIM IS WRONG LET ALONE REDICULOUS, CANT ADMITT THE TRUTH BECAUSE OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT, OR YOU ARE MENTALLY CHALLEGED. I REALLY THINK IT IS ONE AND TWO. AT SEEMS THAT EVERYONE ACCEPT THE FEW IDIOTS REALIZE THAT THEY WERE NAIVE TO BELIEVE THIS CRAP. I AM ONE OF THE PERSONS WHO BELIEVED THIS MY WHOLE LIFE UNTIL ABOUT 2 YEARS AGO. I WONT LIE TO MYSELF AND I AM NOT BEING PAID TO DISPUTE THIS SCAM. I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU SEVERAL VIDEOS BY OBJECTIVE PEOPLE, I DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO ADMITT YOU ARE WRONG. IN FACT, IF GOD HIMSELF TOLD YOU MOON LANDING WAS A FRAUD, YOU WOULD TELL HIM TO GO TO HELL. THEY MUST PAY YOU ALOT OF MONEY. I HAVE INTEGITY, BUT I DO HAVE MY PRICE, THAT IS, IF THEY PAID ME ENOUGH, I WOULD DO AS YOU AND MAITAIN THIS LIE. BUT MY PRICE IS VERY HIGH. YOU HAVE NEVER ADRESSED MY CHALLENGE: IF NASA IS CAUGHT LYING ONCE THEN ASSUME THAT EVERYTHING HE SAYS SUBSEQUENT IS A LIE! WHY HAVE YOU NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION? TO REFRESS YOU MEMORY, I WILL SHOW YOU THE VIDEO ONCE MORE. ED WHITE TURNS HIS HEAD AND SALUTES THE CAMERA! THE SPACE SUIT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR HEAD MOVEMENT. PLEASE EXPLAIN! I HAVE SO MANY OTHERS. OK NOW, THE VIDS. #1 ED WHITES FAKE STOP ACTION SPACE WALK, WHEN HE TURNS HIS HEAD TO SALUTE, BUT THE SUIT DOES NOT ALLOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2npEjci9G0
LikeLike
You think Esoteric Detective has the proof. Wow! He’s a reliable source. Did you know that Esoteric Detective also has a YouTube video explaining why the Vatican is run by reptilians? Do you believe that as well? If you do then you are mentally unhinged. If you don’t, then according to your logic, if he’s lied to you once, you can’t trust him on anything. Which one is it genius?
LikeLike
Simple research will show you that the Gemini helmet did rotate on bearings. Multiple sources of this info are available if you bothered to look. Later helmets increased the size of the visor and allow the astronauts to turn their heads inside a rigid helmet. This was considered safer because it meant less moving parts that could foul up.
LikeLike
Nasa: I am sorry but all was fake this was a fake video and we apologize for making you think we went to the moon ! from: Nasa
To: All the people.
LikeLike
How did that spacecraft leave the moon surface, there don’t appear to be enough fuel on board to overcome the moon’s gravity. With so many satellites can’t one spin around the moon to get shots of the moon landing site to put this case of non believers to rest.
LikeLike
There is a satellite and it has captured images of the Apollo sites, where remaining hardware and tracks can be seen. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
LikeLike
An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Where is your evidence that they didn’t have enough fuel. “They appear to have not had enough fuel” doesn’t cut it as any measure of valid argument. Try harder!
LikeLike
Cognitive dissonance….. 🙂 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
All further comments in all caps will be deleted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Therecis so much cover up, to many fact we did not as man fowl craft, robots perhaps. To much radiation, to much wrong with the photos and craft design. We’re are the negatives, if the cameras were left, how did they get the film back. In a 12 in led box ? Bad enough trying to get film from fogging on earth. Let alone out of a camera in space that been in direct sun light from the sun? Where are those original negs now? Where has the moon rock gone?
Where are all the so called sales of moon plots and we are meant to be able to go there now? Why did the Chinese not get there ? Why with all the tach to day of super cameras and lenseswe cannot find proof. If man can spend so much on arms and other space programs the get us no whwhere let’s go. Have a tv soap there lol. A live non discredited proof. Instead of bullshiting around.
LikeLike
” if the cameras were left, how did they get the film back. In a 12 in led box ?”
This is easily addressed as your ignorance (not stupidity) of the camera’s used.
These cameras are not like the 35mm cameras most of us have used.
Hasselblad medium format cameras don’t load film into the camera but into detachable film magazines. These magazines have a metal slide one removes to take photos, reinsert the slide and the magazine is light tight and can be removed mid roll to switch to a magazine with another type of film.
As for the film, it comes with a paper backing at the ends of the roll which keeps it light tight while tightly wound. So when one loads film into a magazine or removes a finished roll, only a frame or two risks possible light contamination during the insert/removal process. Slightly exposed frames can be seen in the Apollo photo records, they are the images with a slight orange hazing covering parts of the frame. The astronauts had several film magazines they could easily load/unload in full light while inside their space craft.
So while the camera’s themselves were left behind, the film magazines, which were each capable of taking between 70-100 photos depending on the film inside, were brought back.
FYI, all of the color photos were taken on slide film, not negatives.
As a professional photographer who has worked with Hasselblad cameras and medium format film I can let you know that these simple to load cameras and the film is not at risk even while standing under the noon day sun.
Moon plots for sale. That’s a scam with no value other than to separate fools from their money. NASA nor any legitimate organization is connected to such tom foolery.
Would be nice if the US spent more than $19 billion on space, instead of upping the military budget by $54 billion.
LikeLike
And … who took the film of the lander taking off?!!?
LikeLike
“Where are the moon rocks?” Really? Is that the best you can do? A few minutes of research will tell you where all 300 plus kgs of moon rock are. They are primarily stored in 2 locations. Look it up for yourself. Better still, leave your cave and go and look at them.
Hundreds of scientists from around the world have had the opportunity to analyse the moon rocks brought back. Most are not from NASA and many aren’t even American. What’s their game? Oh yeh; that’s right; they’re paid by NASA to keep quiet. Together with all the other people NASA is ‘paying off’ NASA’s bill for keeping so many people quiet must be approaching the entire GDP of the USA!!
Maybe Donald Trump could
investigate that once he’s run out of other things to make up.
LikeLike
There’s just no way a scandal of this magnitude, involving this many people, could be kept secret. Think of the optics of faking the moon landing. Think how many people who have been involved, how many people would know. Now consider how it only takes just 1 person to come out, say “yeah, I was involved. It was all fake. Where are my millions”.
You guys completely overrate the ability of the government to keep something this massive a secret.
LikeLike
Couldn’t agree more. They couldn’t even keep a hotel break-in quiet which brought down a President.
Of course there are a few YouTube videos around of ‘NASA insiders’ saying things like “We haven’t sent anyone through the Van Allen belts”. People who use these videos as evidence are either being duped themselves or are just flat out dishonest. When you locate the original interview you find that words have been selectively edited out or the quote is cut short. In the example above, the full quote is something like “We haven’t sent anyone through the Van Allen belts SINCE THE APOLLO MISSIONS”. Makes a mockery of their non-existent research skills.
The convenor of this site wants to share interesting information and pictures from current space discoveries. I’m sure he didn’t intend it to be a defence of the Apollo program. There are plenty of conspiracy sites for the conspiritards to visit and share their wacky ideas with others of
a similar disposition, psychology and IQ. Go play with them and leave the adults to discuss science.
LikeLike
I can easily refute the first four claims above, especially #3 & 4 since they are actually pretty pathetic excuses.
#5 onward then became a matter of heresay. Like someone telling me, “well, why not? come on” no real scientific explanation.
Whether or not someone did land on the moon means SHIT to me. My interest is in all these inconsistencies and coincidences that are poorly explained.
Really, they spent billons on the missions but could not design a camera to take a descent photo of the stars? really?
funny they use that excuse for lack of stars, then turn around and use another excuse for perfectly seeing someone in a shadow and all other shadows were pitch black.
LikeLike
Funny how you say you can easily refute the first few points but then don’t. That’s lazy. The rest is just the same old rubbish that conspiracy nuts trot out. No logic. No credible science. A lack of understanding of basic physics. Not being able to expose for the stars and being able to capture images that are in shadow but lit by a secondary light source are two completely different principles of photography. Seems that if you don’t understand a principle or some element of physics then it gets labelled as an ‘excuse’. Again; lazy and inept. Come on; make an effort.
LikeLike
There would have been no reason to get photos of stars. The stars seen from the Moon are exactly the same as seen from Earth…a shift of 239,000 miles makes no difference. It would have been a waste of film and time—the latter of which was precious.
But besides that, they were shooting with a shutter speed of about 1/250. You simply won’t capture stars at that setting, not during daytime on the Moon.
A few minutes of research from legitimate sources (negating all conspiracy sites and most of YouTube) will answer most if not all of the “inconsistencies” you may find.
LikeLike
You don’t invent a camera to take pictures of stars, you use proper photo settings to capture stars.
1- Use a tripod or else you get blurring from camera shake
2- Use a long exposure and a wide open aperture. Stars photography requires exposures of tens of seconds.
3- Use a high ISO film. (above 800)
Apollo camera settings for daylight exposure on the Moon was to shoot at 1/250 at f/11 for full sun and f/5.6 for shadow areas. They were using mostly film around ISO 160, a daylight film.
Take your camera out at night and see what sort of image of the Moon shows up with similar settings.
What you will not be able to do is photograph the daytime lunar surface bathed in sunlight with camera settings for stars exposure. The lunar surface will blow out to white and the over exposure will fog the dark sky. Ever notice that in billions of photos of the Moon taken from Earth, never a star can be seen in the photos.
This is not a camera issue, it is the exposure latitude of film, which is very compressed compared to what the human eye can see.
LikeLike
Exactly. Although I’m sure this bit of technical reality is just another “excuse” to the conspiratorial mind.
LikeLike
I will just set this down here for a minute.
Have a great day.
LikeLike
That all is just nonsense and relies on viewers having no idea what they are hearing and seeing, and therefore believing anything that’s suggested. First of all the mysterious “third party” referred to in the audio transmissions is Goldstone, which is NASA’s facility in the Mojave Desert (which I’ve visited in person) that has the dishes used to receive and transmit data between Apollo, Houston, and other receiving stations around the world (like Honeysuckle Creek in Canberra, which received the first TV camera footage from the landing.) Second, the broadcast footage looked like junk (and it did) because of how these signals were received and converted—something that had never been done before and nearly didn’t succeed at all. (Read more on that here: https://www.wired.com/2007/01/nasa/ and watch the wonderful film The Dish for that story.) And third, the images of the Earth supposedly made by using the CSM window as a matte from LEO are nonsense and only even possibly believable if you only see the terribly blurred version in the video above. Check out the high-resolution scans of the 70mm film photos and it’s clear that it’s a “whole Earth,” all the way out. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157659051355812/page1 (Not to mention the previous images from Apollo 8 and 10.) Also an “astronaut’s arm” isn’t getting in the way of the Earth—that’s the edge of the hull of the spacecraft outside the window (for example https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21675290376/in/album-72157659051355812/)
Bottom line: a serious-sounding narrator and eerie background music doesn’t in any way validate the completely WRONG claims made in that program. Literally a waste of ten minutes. It’s drivel like that that made me assemble this post in the first place!
LikeLike
Hold everything. Moon landing: finally, proof that it didn’t happen. Oh wait. All you did is share a link to a crappy youtube video. Why do all the conspiracy theorists simply share links without doing any investigation or research for themselves. Bone-idle lazy. I always like to see what other youtube videos they have made. Turns out that the source of this video also has videos on why the earth is flat and how people are hiding perpetual and free energy generation technology. Credible source!!
LikeLike
That people would rather believe a crummy video on YouTube versus the nearly half a million people that made the Apollo program happen and the men who risked their lives to do it (not to mention those who lost theirs) is incredibly disappointing.
LikeLike
this site sure seems like a progaganda machine for the moon landing.
LikeLike
This site is independently pro-science, anti-bunk, and telling you why the accusations of the Moon landings being faked are wrong. It’s fairly easy too since all of them rely on people knowing nothing about photography, physics, or spaceflight.
LikeLike
Who filmed the apollo when it was blasting back to the moon orbit to join the other lunar ?the camera was moving and changing focus !!!! Answer this one !
LikeLike
Video camera remotely controlled from Earth. Account for the time lag of distance and one easily records the lift off and the empty landing site afterwards.
LikeLike
Really? That’s the best question you’ve got? Ever hear of remote control? Try harder! Make an effort to come up with questions that aren’t stupid
LikeLike
Remote, pre-programmed cameras attached to the LRVs were used to capture the liftoff of the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 ascent stages. Learn more about that here: https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/leaving-moon-watching-home
(And I might suggest doing a quick search of a question before making pointed accusations in the future.)
LikeLike
Alan Bean’s HAMMERING NOISES and other Astro-NOTS ‘ NOISES from throwing objects during their work can ne clearly heard. There should be NO NOISES IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE, FOOL.
The effin ISS astronauts used a POWER TOOL and there were no noises whatsoever. This alone debunks the Moon missions.
Add to this Bart Sibrel’s footage of them faking being half way to the Moon, being in low orbit the whole time-aromically dated footage too. The date woukd habe them 50% there, yet they were in low Earth orbitmusing transparencies to make the Earth look tiny
Add to this recent leaders who question the landing such as China, Putin and other indeoende nt Russian scientists who are goint to send a craft to fly over the supposed sites UP CLOSEand SEE once and for all what is there.
Add to that Orion engineers indirectly admitting we never went by saying we curre tly CANNOT protect astronauts from deadly spave radiation belts.
Add to that 1990’s astronauts had severe effects being 600 to 800 miles below the belts.
Add to that we are supposed to believe we went the equivalent of 30 feet oit (compared to an INCH -which is all we travelled to date from the Earth ,in modern era, vs. 30 feet out and 30 feet back 12 times with no fatalitiesusing 1969 technology that was notmeven as good as your wrist watch? And nailing it the first time, when in 1968 that lunar lander thing exploded and was going all over the plave uoside down? Armstrong ejected….. We had less er technol8gy than a smart phone or a wrist watch today……
Add to that Werner Von Braun being in ANTARCTICA before the lunar missiins to collect MOON ROCKS.
Add to that NO nation on the planet has sent men back since 1973
Add to that the lying body language of the press congerence and elbow nudges from Armsteong to Collins
NOT BUYING IT!
The astro-NOTS NEED TO APOLLO-GIZE. NASA= Never A Straight Answer
LikeLike
Add to that the many micrometeors that hit the Moon at 20,000 M.P.H. . Add 5o that how they POOPED for all those days Add to that how they stayed cool in 250 F. plus temps. Add to that the fact that the NASA sight for kids DELETED the part about no noisemin spacemafter the Apollo footag3 of Alan Bean CLEARKY SHOWS HAMMER NOISE.
THE MOON LANDING WAS DEFINITEKY 100% FAKE. WAKE UP. GET OVER IT. THE NOISE FROM THE HAMMER PROBES IT BEYOND ANY QUESTION. BET YOU NEVER HEARD THAT!
No nation can land men on the Moon TODAY EVEN , let alone 1969……..
There shoukd be bases there by now! Every other great discovery or invention had OTHERS DOING THE SAME fairly SOON……-WRIGHT BROTHERS, CLARKE AND LEWIS, TRANSATLANTIC FLIGHT ETC.
NO MANNED MOON LANDING EVER OCCURED. IT WOUKD BE THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY THAT TECHNOLIGY WENT V3RY BACKWARDS if it were true-and the landings are NOT true.
LikeLike
Address HAMMERING NOISES FROM APOLLO ASTRO-NOT Alan Bean. Other astro-NOTS can be heard MAKING NOISES WITH OBJECTS ON THE MOON, EVEN NASA ADMUTTED THAT NO SOUND WILL BE HEARD. THIS NASA ARTICKE WAS MYSTERIOUSLY REMOVED AFTER THE BEAN FOOTAGE WAS NOTED ON A POPULAR FORUM
NASA MOON MISSIONS WERE FRAUD. GUARANTEED. CAUGHT IN A LIE!
Calling YOU out!
International Space Station astronauts MAKE NO NOISE EVEN WITH POWER TOOLS. TOTAL SILENCE.
LikeLike
You lie so bad I can smell it from here.
Add to that you’re wrong.
Add to that Bart Sibrel is a noted idiot.
Add to that you’re making the same accusations that I thoroughly covered within the article above and subsequent links. Try harder. And while you’re at it try turning off your caps lock.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You did zero research like most of your conspiracy friends. And you didn’t even apply any kind of your own critical thinking. I guess I will have to do it for you; again! Sound doesn’t travel in a vacuum because it needs molecules for the sound waves to be transmitted. The hammer is in his hand which has a glove on it. That’s attached to a space suit with air molecules in it and the spacesuit itself is made of molecules. The microphone in is in his helmet. Viola! Molecules to help the air waves traverse. The microphone is not attached to the camera. In the ISS, the video camera filming them working won’t pick up any sound because there is a vacuum between the camera and the tool. Notice the difference; microphone is in 2 completely different situations.
Don’t be so lazy, and do some research. Or don’t; because it wouldn’t matter anyway as you will only accept whatever fits your theory. It’s called confirmation bias. And writing your points in capitals doesn’t make them strong. It just makes you look like an angry dip-shit
LikeLike
NO SOUND SHOULD HAVE OCCURED , YOU DIPSH@TS. NASA REMOVED THE ARTICLE AFTER THE BEAN FOOTAGE WAS BROUGHT UP PUBLICLY. THE MOON LANDINGS NEVER HAPPENED. GET. OVER . IT.
SIBREL HAS DIRECT VIDEO, ATOMICALLY DATED, PROVING-PROVING THEY WERE IN LOW EARTH ORBIT ON JULY 19 1969. WATCH THE VIDEO. AUTHENTIC FOOTAGE.
PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT.
LikeLike
NASA THEMSELVES ADMITTED THERE WOULD BE NO SOUND (other than talking) HEARD FROM THE MOON ASTRONAUTS WORKING. WELL, THERE WAS SOUND. And guess what you fool, NASA HAS SINCE MADE THAT ARTICLE DISAPPEAR.
I WOULD BET MY LIFE THE U.S. NEVER WENT TO THE MOON. THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING. DIRECT FOOTAGE OF THEIR FRAUD. ATOMICALLY DATED AND NOT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. ADD TO THAT ALDRIN’S BIZARRE REACTION-A REACTION OF GUILT ONCE HE THOUGHT SIBREL TURNED OFF THE INTERVIEW CAMERA. “WE’RE JUST PASSENGERS”, HE SAID. “TALK TO THE HEAD OF NASA.” GUILTY!
LikeLike
Independent probe by rich Russians is going to privately fly UP CLOSE to the sites and expose this for good. I cannot wait.
Watch the Orion vids-radiation belt CANNOT be dealt with YET.
1998 -the astronauts went CLOSEST ANYONE HAD EVER GONE TO VAN ALLEN BELTS AND EXPERIENCED SEVERE REACTION-KEEP IN MIND THEY WERE SRILL 800 MILES AWAY…..
FACTS. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BUTTS.
You NASA lovin’ fools want to believe soooooo bad that there was a manned moon landing….. IT NEVER-NEVER HAPPENED.
LikeLike
Such an angry pathetic response. Again – in capitals. One of the keys on the right should fix that. No amount of quoting Sibrel is going to get you anywhere. He’s a proven fraud you know. And of course we are going to believe everything the Russians say. Hmmmm….they’re trustworthy.
LikeLike
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, by the way, has captured all of the Apollo landing sites on camera from lunar orbit. You can see them all here: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/featured_sites#ApolloLandingSites
Or do you only believe what Russia says?
LikeLike
NASA tightly gaurds the readings in REM from the onboard Geiger Counter of Orion spacecraft. Why would this be a top secret? Bevause it would EXPOSE the fact that the moon missiins were FRAUD. NASA releases other data, why would they not release belt radiatioj data? Remember 1 REM is 5 times the deasly dose. Van Allen belts contain up to over 100 REM……
I TOLD YOU TO WATCH THE FOOTAGE SIBREL TALKS ABOUT. IT IS FROM NASA AND ATOMICALLY DATED. STOP THE STRAWMAN WITH SIBREL. THIS VIDEO IS TOTAL PROOF THEY WERE IN LOW EARTH ORBIT-NOWHERE NEAR THE MOON ON JULY 19 1969. SEE FOR YOURSELF.
You have a need to believe they happened. I presented a devastatingly obvious case no such landing occurred.
Engineer Ryan Kelly either purposely said: “We must SOLVE these radiation challenges BEFORE we send humans. Mayne he SAW the contradicrion and intentionally noted it.
Watch Kelly say it himself. If Apollo went to the Moon, we should NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM. THE HOAX HAS BEEN OUTED.
LikeLike
Your continued defense of Sibrel’s accusations are merely cheerleading for a hopelessly losing team. Sibrel uses his ignorance of science, spaceflight, photography, thermodynamics and engineering to create a completely erroneous argument against the Apollo missions’ veracity. That’s sad enough by itself; it’s even sadder that he continues to retain supporters to this day. Bottom line: Sibrel has proven nothing (except perhaps his own ignorance.) I suggest you read through this thorough debunking of many of Sibrel’s claims made by people who understand the aforementioned fields of study: http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html
If you don’t understand what I just wrote let me know and I can repost it in all caps.
LikeLike
If you google any of the coherent stuff in Maureen’s postings, they seem lifted right out of AULIS conspiracy nonsense.
LikeLike
Ever notice how hoaxers don’t really communicate with you, they just throw poorly-stated points at you and when you address them, they just throw different ones? They’re basically bots except I presume they sweat a lot and smell like cheese snacks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now that made me chuckle!! I’ve never had a mental image of a hoaxer. Now I’ve got one – thanks. And what’s with the caps lock key they can’t seem to locate or master?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t have a need for it to have happened. I have nothing to do with NASA, nor am I even an American or even in the USA. Whether it actually happened or not will not impact my life whatsoever. I just point out when people are wrong or use poor logic to argue a point. Sibrel and his cronies are frauds. If NASA can supposedly fake 6 moon landings why can’t Sibrel and others fake a time stamp. How about YOU prove he didn’t.
Let’s not forget the classic “proof” video of a NASA scientist saying that they “Haven’t sent an astronaut through the VA belts.” This comes up time and again as ‘proof’. Until you do some research and find the original interview was “We haven’t sent an astronaut through the VA belts since the Apollo program”. Selectively edited. That’s how trustworthy people on ‘your side’ of the debate are.
And as for your first point about the REM level of the VA belts. Best not base your argument on something you clearly don’t even understand. The VA Belts don’t have a REM level as such, so I have no idea where the 100 comes from. REM (Roentgen equivalent man) is a measure of the level of absorption of the human body of ionising radiation. It is a product of the strength of the radiation and the time a human body is exposed to it. Therefore even low levels of radiation (eg xrays) are a problem if you are exposed for long enough. So what you have said (or parroted from somewhere else) is gibberish. It has been independently verified that the Apollo craft did not go through the Inner Belt (it’s not uniform) and passed quickly through the outer belt. Their total exposure is calculated as 0.16 – 1.14 rads. The recommended safe dose for workers in the nuclear industry is up to 5 rads/year. I would point you to several scientific papers showing this but you wouldn’t read them.
And again with the capitals.
I’m sorry but you’ve just been a complete disappointment in this discussion. No original work, thinking or research on your part. I’ll wait until someone more challenging comes along. Cheers 🙂
LikeLike
Exposes for stars while on the moon will blow out the lunar surface? That’s a backwards statement.
LikeLike
No, it’s completely forwards. The surface of the Moon is very bright during the lunar day. (All of the Apollo missions landed in lunar mornings to help avoid overheating.) Stars, although apparently bright, are still much dimmer. To capture them on film would have required settings that would have made the lunar surface go completely white, if not overexposing the frame altogether.
LikeLike
Stars are very dim light. The light of our own star is exponentially brighter than those billions of light years away. The light of our own star, reflected off the Moon’s surface is bright enough to cast shadows a quarter million miles away here on Earth.
To photograph stars requires several things.
1 Stable camera platform, ie tripod.
2 High ASA film
3 Long exposure of tens of seconds.
Were no tripods on Apollo
Film they uses was generally under an ASA of 200, ie daylight film
The lower the films ASA the longer an exposure is needed to capture stars.
A long exposure with the daylight lit lunar surface in the shot is going to be an overexposed white image. Go outside and take a 30 sec exposure anytime of the day and see what you get.
LikeLike
Clavius link means NOTHING. He never addresses very important space noises from Alan Bean’s hammering. WATCH “ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD”.
THEI REACTIONS SHIW THE GUILT CLEAR AS DAY. I FEEL SORRY FOR PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE HUMANS LANDED ON THE MOON…..
NO HUMAN EVER DID GET. OVER. IT. WAKE UP.
M
AND, NO, NASA ENGINEER KELLY IS NIT EDITED. HE CLEARLY SAID WE HAVE NOT SOLVED THE RADIATION PROBLEM. THAT THE RADIATION IS FAR STRONGER AND MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED. THIS INFO ON WHAT THE GIEGER COUNTER RECORDED S CLASSIFIED. WHY? BECAUSE IT DISPROVES THE MOON LANDIBG.
YOUR GOVERNMENT LIED TO YOU. YOUR ASTRO-NOT “HEROES” ARE NOT HEROES AT ALL-JUST LIARS.
LikeLike
Sibrel has PRESENTED VIDEO EVIDENCE THAT IS FROM NASA, ATOMICALLY DATED , NEVER INTENDED FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE, AND IS INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT ALDRIN, COLLINS, ARMSTRONG FAKED BEING HALF WAY TO THE MOON-THEY WERE IN LOW EARTH ORBIT THE WHOLE TIME.
WATCH THE VIDEO-SEE FOR UOURSELF. EDGAR MITCHELL “S SON WANTED TO GER BART SIBREL “WAXED” FOR HAVING THIS DAMNING FOOTAGE. THE GUILT OF THE APOLLO ASTRO-NOTS IS THICKER THAN SMOKE.
LikeLike
People don’t like Sibrel because he’s a jerk, not because he’s right. That is a man who cornered astronauts at conferences with a video camera and a Bible and ordered them to swear that they weren’t liars. That is not how you treat anyone, much less respected and retired members of the U.S. armed forces. He more than deserved the punch in the face he got from Buzz Aldrin. Bottom line: Bart Sibrel is a fraud. You’ve clearly overdosed on his Kool-Aid but he’s just wrong. His accusations are wrong, his videos prove nothing, and nobody cares about him. He’s just another unfortunate piece of silly conspiracy theory history.
“Astronauts Gone Wild.” FFS.
LikeLike
I was in 5th grade and they broadcast a live feed of what was supposedly a long-shot of the lunar module traveling through space on its way to the moon. Where was the camera? It made no sense then and it makes no sense now.
LikeLike
When they arrived at the Moon the spacecraft separated; one astronaut stayed behind in the Command Module while two went down to the surface in the Landing Module. The images of the LM were taken from the CM.
LikeLike
Again, you TOOL, the video Sibrel has is NASA’s OWN VIDEO SENT TO HIM ACCIDENTALLY. IT IS A NASA VIDEO NEVER MEANT FOR PUBLIC VIEWING. IT INCONTROVETIBLE PROOF THEY NEVER WENT. GOOGLE: “FAKING HALF WAY TO THE MOON FULL FOOTAGE YOUTUBE” IT HAS BEEN UPLOADED. YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE THE ATOMICALLY DATED SCREEN AND THEN THE ASTRO-NOTS FAKING BEING HALF WAY , WHEN THEY CLEARLY ARE IN LOW EARTH ORBIT. ALL THE PROOF YOU NEED IS THERE
LASTLY:
“ASTRONAUS GONE WIL”D IS A SEPARATE UNREALTED VIDEO BY BART SIBREL-AND IT IS ALSO GREAT-THECREACTIONS THE ASTRONAUTS IS VERY TELLING-PURE GUILT. SIBREL MERELY INCLUDES THE NASA FOOTAGE IN HIS OWN VIDEO WHERE HE CONFRONTS THOSE FRAUDS.
LikeLike
You keep returning to Sibrel as evidence, yet Sibrel is wrong. So the very foundation of all of your accusations is flawed. You can’t go any further.
LikeLike
Sibrel was NEVER sent any video by NASA accidentally. This has been shown time and time again to be false claim. You are simply wrong: and simple.
LikeLike
I love how Sibrel’s Wikipedia page states that he “is mostly known for having been punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin”
LikeLike
Sibrel received a never before seen bit of film that was sent to him accidentally. Well other than in Mark Gray’s DVD series on Apollo 11. Difference between his an Sibrel’s footage, Gray publishes it complete and UNEDITED.
Then there is the older still VHS version published by Washington University professor Larry Haskin.
And if they were in LEO, the Earth would fill the entire viewing window.
Face it, you saw a hack video on youtube and your ignorance of most everything they discuss in it sounds perfectly plausible. Which is exactly their intent, to prey upon the uninformed with slick manipulative BS to con them into the fold. To fool them into thinking they’ve achieved enlightenment. Course the whole point of this was to get you to buy his DVD’s at the time. Now that dozens of folk have uploaded them to Youtube, he gets nothing for them, but his stupidity lives on to fool some new uninformed folk.
LikeLike
Yeah, we are supposed to believe 1969 technology and docked perfectly with an object travelling over 4,000 M.P.H. orbiting the moon -perfect split second timing , no problems, nailing it first time ever and many more subsequent times. A dd to that the 1968 crash from the Lunar Module test run, the flimsy piece of trash Armstrong ejected from and could not even control …..Add to that travelling out into space 900 TIMES FURTHER (270,000 miles) than we can travel currentlyTODAY (which is only 300 miles above Earth) to even get there…… WAKE UP.
LikeLike
You’re an idiot!
LikeLike
Space station Mir orbited the Earth at 17,000 mph and was docked with the 1970s designed space shuttle as well as similarly old designed Soyuz capsules and unmanned vehicles countless times.
Even in 1969 they had the understanding of physics and geometry to calculate launch time, trajectory, engine burn, speed to have two objects under human control meet at a desired point in space so they could be then flown to the point of docking.
Yeah Armstrong did eject from one of the LM test craft. A mechanical failure resulted in an engine issue. But the rest of the Apollo astronauts were trained on the second trainer with nearly no issue.
NASA’s budget back then as a percentage of federal spending would be the equivalent to $140 billion today, instead it’s $19 billion. If NASA had that kind of funding, we’d not have walked away from the $2-3 billion per Apollo missions. The US is to busy building $15 billion aircraft carriers, $200 million dollar fighters and less than half a cent of every federal dollar on space.
Reality has kept us in LEO, not Youtube conspiracies that con the gullible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So. Let’s have a look at how each side argues their case. Pro-moon landing side – facts, physics, numbers, evidence from multiple sources, logic. Pro-hoax team – assertion, no facts, selectively edited video clips, Sibrel, poor science, ignorance, Sibrel, old claims which have been dis-proved time and again, more Sibrel, EVERYTHING IN CAPITALS, and more Sibrel. Hmmmm. If this was a debating competition the pro-moon landing team are winning hands down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is not true. Both sides often use invalid reasoning. NASA and Moon believers often use circular logic. Name calling is not justified. There is still zero actual proof that men landed on the Moon. We do know … and NASA admits to similating every facet of the Apollo Manned Moon Missions. It is legitimate, valid, reasonable, and intelligent to question whether NASA actually completed the Apollo Manned Landings on the Moon. Given the mountains of evidence and thousands of images NASA has propagated worldwide over the past 45 years, it is difficult for laypersons to know the full truth. However, NASA has had four decades of Lunar exploration opportunities to provide better quality video evidence of the Lunar Landings, yet NASA has deliberately neglected to do so. The poor quality images supposedly offering proof look like a child altered them with a charcoal pencil and white out pen. It was believable for a few decades. It will be 50 years soon … still no proof whatsoever that the Apollo Manned Moon Missions were anything but simulated. For all intents and purposes, it is time for the United States to provides clear and convinving proof … or the U.S. may as well acknowledge to the world that NASA is responsible for the 2nd biggest lie ever told.
LikeLike
Let’s say that for whatever reason you want to completely discount all photographic, video, and first- and second-hand anecdotal evidence of the manned lunar missions as definitive proof that they really truly occurred. There’s still the fact that there are hundreds of pounds of rock samples returned from the Moon sitting at Johnson Space Center, many of which have been and are still being used in research by scientists around the world. NONE of those scientists have ever proclaimed the samples to not be from the Moon. https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/laboratory_tour.cfm
There are also the Lunar Laser Ranging Retroreflectors, which are sets of mirrors placed by Apollo astronauts that researchers here can bounce photons off of to measure the changing distances between Earth and the Moon. It’s the one Apollo experiment that is still in use today.
https://ilrs.cddis.eosdis.nasa.gov/missions/satellite_missions/current_missions/ap11_general.html
LikeLike
Werner Von Braun collected moon rocks in Anarctica a few years before the missions Google the pictures of him there. YOU HAVE VIDEO PROOF OF THEIR HOAX……
LASTLY, ANY PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TOO SMALL TO EVEN SEE. THE INDEPENDENT RUSSIAN ORBITER WILL SEE IF APOLLO EVIDENCE IS THERE-FOOTPRINTS TRACKS ETC.
LASTLY REFLECTORS CAN BE LAID DOWN BY ROBOTS ….NO MEN NEEDED…..
EVEN TODAY WE CANNOT MAKE IT PAST 300 MILES ABOVE EARTH. YOU THINK WE WENT 900 TIMES FURTHER IN 1969? YOU ARE CRAZY…..
LikeLike
So what if Von Braun went to Antarctica, he was a rocketry expert not a geologist. He wouldn’t know a Moon rock from an Earth stone.
Never mind a minuscule amount of Moon rocks have been found on Earth, nowhere close to equaling the Apollo totals,
Just another bit of stupid you glomed onto after hearing this tidbit in a youtube video.
Amazing how people who parrot, “never trust the govt” always believe what they read on the internet.
Same folk who parrot “do your own research”, never do that with what the outlndish they encounter online
LikeLike
Lunar meteorites were collected all over the Earth in the 1960s and stored in the same facilities as the alleged Apollo Moon soil/rocks … in Texas. The Russians also claimed to have brought back a small amount of lunar soil from the Moon in an unmanned mission. NASA has never denied this. The Soviets were actually cooperating with the U.S. actually having discussions about joint space missions even prior to the Apollo 11 mission. The Moon rocks prove absolutely nothing with regard to Manned Moon Missions. Comparing lunar meteorites to alleged Russian or Apollo lunar material is circular logic, and obviously would only prove an unmanned mission.
The same goes for laser reflectors. Scientists were bouncing lasers off the surface of the Moon itself prior to any of the Apollo Missions and reflectors could have been left by numerous unmanned missions.
This doesn’t prove the Apollo Manned Moon Missions were faked, but it illustrates how NASA attempts to use weak and false evidence to try to substantiate their propaganda, much like the tens of thousands of NASA re-touched images and artist illustrations.
It is reasonable, logical, and intelligent to question NASA’s claims … as their is zero actual proof (after 45 years), that men actually landed/walked on the Moon and returned safely to Earth. Many scientists, governments, and intelligent people worldwide are beginning to seriously question NASA’s claims. Whenever someone suggests that it is stupid or foolish or crazy to be skeptical of NASA and the Apollo Manned Moon Missions, this only indicates that they have no convincing valid argument or logic.
LikeLike
Let’s pretend there’s no discernible difference between a meteorite that has traveled through Earth’s atmosphere and sat on Earth’s surface for thousands of years and a freshly-picked or -scooped sample brought back from the Moon itself. Let’s pretend a geologist would somehow be unable to tell the difference. And let’s also pretend that the accuracy of the Laser Ranging RetroReflectors isn’t a hundred times better than any previous attempts to rangefind the Moon, and again that researchers couldn’t tell the difference in their observations. What then WOULD be considered undeniable (and logical) proof?
LikeLike
Proof of what? We already clearly established that even absolute proof of lunar material being retrieved from the Moon or laser reflectors placed on the Moon … would only prove UNMANNED missions. There are discernible differences in all kinds of rocks. If we can show discernible differences between Dominoes Pizza and Pizza Hut Pizza, it doesn’t prove where they were baked. They could have been baked at high temperatures by NASA geologists in a lab in Houston. Let’s pretend NASA hasn’t gone all over the world for decades trying to retrieve all the lunar rock samples they initially released.
LikeLike
What would be *proof* that the Moon landings actually happened? If nothing that currently or historically exists, physically or anecdotally, counts as such. What would?
LikeLike
Quality photos and/or video footage that don’t appear to be obviously fake, edited, photoshopped, superimposed … would be a start.
LikeLike
Even the high-resolution medium-format film photos captured by the astronauts themselves from the Moon https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums are dismissed as “fake.” I fail to see how more photos or more videos would somehow make a difference there.
LikeLike
You are right. More fake and doctored images released by NASA will not be believed. People are not as gullible as NASA apparently assumes. We know that some pre and post unmanned lunar reconassisnce photos are real. Some photos are edited. Some are superimposed upon other images. Some appear to be actually airbrushed. NASA conveniently “lost” the original footage along with any credibility it had remaining. Even if the Apollo Moon Landings were real … NASA can’t be believed. NASA is a pseudoscientific public relations arm of the U.S Defense Department. Although amusingly sloppy, they are image and information specialists. They have mastered the art of mixing real and fake imagery … true and false information. Most NASA Apollo images are part real and part fake. Most NASA Apollo information is part true and part false. Everything is simulated, enhanced, carefully worded. If NASA is eventually forced to acknowledge the truth, maybe they could start over as real scientists.
LikeLike
There are thousands of Apollo photos, and of those very few are known or of any note. Most are uninteresting, numerous are our of focus or miss their focus target. There are many crooked photos, poorly framed photos.
So what? NASA was so expert at creating their hoax they even made the conscious effort to include a whole lot of lousy photos?
Then there’s the 360 degree video shots where the camera on the rover swings all the way around as well as panning nearly straight up. Guess they 70’s CGI’d out all the lights and crew.
LikeLike
JAXA and Chinese orbiters mapped Apollo sites.
Russia has no lunar probe missions advanced beyond the discussion phase, so don’t know what your hoping for.
Lets review Apollo missions, since you are of the delusion that Apollo 11 was the ‘first shot’.
Apollo 7 first crewed flight
Apollo 8, first flight to Moon and back.
Apollo 9 first LM test in Earth orbit
Apollo 10 LM test in lunar orbit
Yeah we haven’t gone beyond LEO since Apollo, not because its impossible, but because of limited funding and NASA operated a fleet of vehicles whose heat shielding was only rated to withstand temps from a re-entry below 600 miles up.
It’s been over a decade since commercial planes flew people faster than the speed of sound on planes designed in the 1970s. Using the logic of the gullible, the fact no such planes exist today and all planes aren’t supersonic means the Concord was a hoax.
LikeLike
The U.S and several other space agencies have sent numerous space missions beyond LEO after Apollo. Curiously, they were all unmanned. Lack of funding is an excuse, not the real reason for manned deep space missions. Manned supersonic flights were never discontinued. Your clever criteria of “commercial” flight is deceptive. The Concorde was dangerous, expensive, financially impractical, and served no greater potential for space exloration or discovery. Your comparison is entirely illogical on so many levels. Gullible is believing whatever NASA says without questioning. Next to the Roman Catholic Church, NASA is the largest propaganda organization in the world. Everything they release is not true. NASA has made many serious mistakes, and has been caught in very serious false representations. It is important that we are critically skeptical.
LikeLike
Sending an uncrewed robotic craft to Mars or Jupiter is vastly less complex and expensive than a crewed mission, for dozens of reasons. It’s also much less of a PR disaster should something go wrong—and things have gone wrong. There’s nothing curious about it. Spaceflight is inherently risky, and NASA cannot be losing astronauts in space without serious setbacks (considering their entire budget is based on the results of House and Senate votes.) NASA does what they are approved and funded to do…no funding, no mission.
LikeLike
NO OTHER achievement in human history EVER was successfully done FIRST SHOT-NOT in airplane flight, not medicii e, not engineering, not in sea sailing expeditions etc. NOT EVEN SPACE EXPLORATION ITSELF……
The Moon Mission was the most COMPLICATED TASK EVER DEVISED YET WE ARE SUPOOSED TO BELIEVE IT WAS THE EXCEPTIONAND WAS NAILED FIRST SHOR? GET REAL. GET A LIFE…….
Look at allllllll the disatsers NASA had with SHUTTLE PROGRAM, ALLL THE DISASTERS, HITCHES AND PROBLEMS/CRASHES OF PROBES SENT OUT TO PLANETS AND DISTANT SOLAR SYSTEM AND BEYOND, ALL THE MALFUNCTIONING
STOP APPEALING TO authority. START USING CRITICAL THINKING. IGNORE THE PROOAGANDA MACHINE OF THE UNITED STATES .
Get over yourselves. No human ever set foot on the Moon. WAKE UP!
LikeLike
The Moon landings were not only exhaustively trained for (and practiced through a lineup of previous missions) but they also chose the best pilots in the world to perform them. Apollo 11 was not a “first shot.”
And NASA had 133 successful Shuttle flights and two disasters. Those two were tragic. But far from “allllllll.” There have also been very many successful missions beyond Earth and even beyond the Solar System. Voyager 1 and 2 are still operating, 40 years later.
LikeLike
why didn’t the thrusters on the lunar lander leave a dust cloud after it landed on the moon and why are all the pictures of the lander clean and dust free?
LikeLike
A dust cloud would be clear and definitive proof of a hoax because that would mean it was being done in an atmosphere. Absent an atmosphere the dust particles almost immediately settle back on the surface because there is nothing to keep them suspended like air does on Earth. The dust disturbed by the thrust was mostly pushed out sideways along the surface.
Then there is how exhaust behaves in a vacuum. It is not a tight column of exhaust like one sees behind a rocket lifting off. That is again an effect of atmosphere, in a vacuum exhaust immediately expands outward once clear of the exhaust cone. You can watch launch videos online and see how the exhaust changes as the rocket/shuttles reach higher thinner atmosphere. When they were landing on the moon they weren’t landing on a point of exhaust, they were landing on a cushion.
And to avoid bounce from engine exhaust as they neared the surface, the engines actually shut off at 6ft above the surface. That’s what those metal rods were for that extended down from the LM’s feet, a sensor reacted when those touched the surface and the engine was shut down.
So you have thrust in a vacuum pushing dust sideways, a diffuse exhaust and an early shut off. That’s why there is so very little dust inside the pads of the landers feet.
LikeLike
Without air on the Moon, dust doesn’t remain suspended in a cloud. Each dust particle falls back to the ground along a parabolic arc. Also with no air, the thrusters weren’t pushing air around in front of them to create a large dust cloud like you would see on Earth. If anything, it’s the absence of these things in the videos that helps confirm the landings were in a space environment.
LikeLike
Ok so explain why they say u can see stars in the day in space then they say u can’t explain the fake moon rock that was petrified wood given by buzz http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/
Explain the cgi photos of earth?? Bet u can’t explain any of these explain why the rothschild own the world and every country he has a bank has a piece of Antarctica.. explain I’ll wait…………… thought so the moon landing is fake a hoax bs kaakaaa man lol people believe that satan nasa crap that’s funny when they’re tryna undermine God’s creation and cloud mind with doubt but we are the center of the universe and we can’t break the firmament so get it right MR SPINNING SPHERE OR PEAR SHAPE W.E THEY SAY NOWADAYS OVER 1000MPH GOING 66000 MPH ORBITING THE 93M MILES AWAY ON THIS CURVED EARTH LNAO U SOUND FOOLISH.. NASA IS LIES N U HELPING THEM SATAN WORSHIPPERS
LikeLike
Wow. You best go lie down in case you bump your head again on the dome over the earth. Clearly the dome is very low over your house.
LikeLike
You can’t even keep the conspiracy jibberish consistent.
Never was claimed Buzz gave the former Dutch PM that rock, you are supposed to say it was Armstrong.
But it matters not since neither of them were involved in the gift of a rock by the US Ambassador which no one ever claimed was a moon rock. Other than the family who donated it to a museum that never bother themselves to properly have the donation checked out.
Perfectly possible to see stars in space at anytime, but then unless you are on a body in space, there is no such thing as daytime or nighttime. For the astronauts on the Moons surface, which was during the lunar day, it would be harder to see stars because their eyes are adjusted for the bright surface conditions they are in. Just as you can’t see stars very easily if you stand in a brightly lit room and look out a window into the night.
And to head off follow up nonsense about there should be stars in the photos, once again because the cameras were set to daylight exposure settings. Billions of photos taken of the Moon from Earth, and in not a one is there a single star. That’s because the Moon is bright and points of light millions and billions of light years away are very very dim.
LikeLike
I’d say you sound very much like a child except the average child is much better educated.
LikeLike
Proof of hoax in audio https://youtu.be/NQUMVxfIz9I
LikeLike
I salute the bravery and ingenuity of the Apollo 11 crew for achieving one of man’s biggest feats.
LikeLike
It’s easy to tell that the moon landings were a hoax, just look at video of the astronauts when they walk on the moon and as they walk each step kicks up moon dirt, but you will notice that the dirt just falls or splashes down quickly
and doesn’t float up at all like the astronauts are when they walk. I don’t know about you but I was taught buy top scientists nasa included that gravity on the moon is only one sixth of what it is on earth, also there is another video of an astronaut showing a moon rock dropping out of his back pack falling to the moon ground faster then the astronaut is coming down from taking their hopping steps let nasa explain that!!!!! ALSO the reason you can’t see stars in the moon walking videos is because the cable they were using to fake gravity would of past in front or across the fake lights they would of had to use for stars and that’s why you never see stars in the background. Also notice in the moon videos that the supposed sun is lighting up the moon surface in a very small area that the astronauts are in and then you can see a dark beyond as the edge of darkness or of space yeah right I don’t know about you but when the sun is shining you can see for miles and looks like on moon you can only see a about 200 feet meaning they were in a studio, and thats why you never see a long stretched out paneramic view that would show the landscape of the moon. The tale is in the tapes people.
LikeLike
Regardless of the many and varied wrongnesses in these comments, the reason you think you’re only seeing 200 feet in the lunar photos is that there is no air to create the effect of atmospheric perspective we are used to on Earth. Landforms on the horizon are no less sharp than those right in front of you, resulting in a “flattened” sense of depth. Look at this b/w image from Apollo 12 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21060616524/in/album-72157656712716754/) in it the LM is about 820 feet away—almost three football fields.
LikeLike
If you saw stars in the film or video from the Moon, then you’d know it was fake.
Star light is VERY dim, requires long exposures to capture on camera.
Literally billions of photos taken of the Moon by people, and in NOT A SINGLE ONE will you see stars around the Moon. Why? Not because billions of fake Moon photos exist but because if you want to take a properly exposed photo of the Moon, you will never capture the weak light of stars.
The photo ignorant keep claiming there should be stars. Learn about photography before repeating foolish nonsense.
LikeLike
Dudes, just run a gravity equation. Use the physics you learned in school. Its’ an obvious hoax. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvdlSRJx-yU) Stop holding onto the fantasy that your government is the only one that hasn’t lied throughout history. It took dozens of try’s to get rockets in space. Then the two steps of landing a rocket successfully, and taking off from the moon each took only one try. Come on its nonsense. Any real program would have tested those steps many times before attempting.them with people. Face it we have just recently learned how to successfully land rockets (2016- Musk and Bezos). We haven’t quite gotten to doing a take off immediately after a landing (i.e. without extensive rocket maintenance).
This site is pseudo science at its finest!
LikeLike
Nothing in Apollo was one try. Nothing. Everything was practiced and trained for in every way possible on Earth, in Earth orbit (with Apollo 9) and even in lunar orbit (with Apollo 8 and Apollo 10). For the LM the astronauts trained with the LLRV to learn how to fly and land on the Moon. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMfNkbEz8ZA). It also had everything to do with it that every one of the astronauts (aside from Jack Schmitt) was an incredibly accomplished pilot in his own right…Armstrong was one of the best there was. The success of Apollo was because of their ability.
LikeLike
Yep, Armstrong tried to do a practice landing from just a couple hundred feet a few weeks before the hoax. It blew up, he parachuted seconds before it crashed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edk1X1E9fxg). Couldn’t even reliably do just a few hundred feet, let alone a few hundred thousand miles. Check you data. You don’t seem to understand that testing landing means testing landings and take offs from the Moon with unmanned equipment. None of this happened. Real world testing is much bigger and broader than you imagine.
LikeLike
In reply to numnacom: citing a single youtube video as your sole reference speaks volumes about your overall research skills. Two Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV) were built and both crashed. However, the data and learning from these experimental flights lead to the development of the later Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTVs), of which 3 were built. One LLRV and two LLTVs did crash. In all 3 cases the rocket ejection seat system recovered the pilot safely.
Neil Armstrong said that his mission would not have been successful without the extensive training he had on the LLTVs.
It’s not hard to dig a little deeper if you try!!
LikeLike
I’ll say again this site is the definition of pseudo science. The depth and breadth is exceedingly slim. The LLRV at best went hundreds of feet (with zero reliability), we are talking about hundreds of thousands of miles to the Moon, as well as a completely different environment, … It’s like saying I built a paper airplane and it traveled a hundred feet so I know that a bigger one will go to the Moon. The millions of steps that are missing are blatantly obvious, if you don’t live in a “Road Runner Physics” world. The only factor that is preventing you from waking up is your unquestioning belief in the government/media cabal. Which is little more than blind faith in religion. Please, run a simple gravity equation for behavior on the Moon ((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMfNkbEz8ZA). I truly wish for you to wake up/mature in your analysis of the world.
LikeLike
I saw it live when I was 2 and 1/2. it was really late night for the kid, like 3 or 4 a.m. but I remember it. In Poland! all world transmitted that event even behind iron courtain.
no reason to believe it was a fake. later always being fond to astronomy, technology, photography, so no doubts in moon landings. how could I doubt being 19th in voivodship in physics olympics at the end of primary school?
so reason and education tells NO to stupid conspiracy that no man was on the Moon. period
now we have New Horizons, brave but poor Cassini (I cry) and thousands of planets discovered not so far away. it’s science not conspiracy. it’s us – humans. and I’m proud of us. and curious of next discoveries.
LikeLike
You sir are a lying dumbass just as the rest of NASA and every other countries “space” divisions. We all know it’s bullshit and it did nothing but benefit the pockets of the rich while also trying to make it seem like there’s no god when it comes to a globe earth lie. We’re not as dumb as your are. Thank you sir have a shitty life for being part of the biggest lies of gods humanity
LikeLike
The original tape off the Apollo 11 moon landing were erased and re-used “by mistake” if we really went up to the moon why did they erased this tape? Very strange…this important evidence can’t be erased by mistake.
LikeLike
Firstly what was erased was an unneeded backup recording of the Apollo 11 mission. Unneeded in that it was a back up in case the live feed did not work, which did work and render this low grade backup unnecessary. Standard tv frame rate is 24-30 fps depending on a countries broadcast system. The Slow Scan Television back up recorded at 10 fps.
Data tape was something regularly reused and much like video tapes would be rerecorded over by people taping tv shows, it was standard to do this even for NASA. With data tape shortage confronting an ever shrinking NASA, in the 80’s it is believed a need for data tape for existing programs resulted in this Apollo 11 back up data tape with the SSTV footage being erased and reused.
Nothing was lost because of this. No footage, no data, no records because all of it exists elsewhere. It’s akin to a video getting posted online today, it gets lots of attention and someone deletes the original video. It’s already disseminated online and even though that copy is gone the duplicates all exist and are as valid as the original posting.
LikeLike
If someone recorded over a video tape of your 7th birthday it doesn’t imply that you didn’t turn 7.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am an older guy who was 12 years old when we landed on the moon–WE DID LAND!!!
What I feel younger people SHOULD be asking is how did we accomplish this miracle?
Research the incredible engineering genius that created ships and suits that could keep people alive in such a hostile environment.
Research the rockets, cameras, astronauts, technology, physics…all of it.
Science isn’t God, science is finding God and using our birth given power to overcome obstacles that we WILL to solve!
It took devotion, genius, cooperation, vision, desire, money and guile to get to the moon.
We as a nation need to rediscover these incredible qualities that once made us great enough to “take on the moon”.
We used to say “can do” back in the day…
Tom
LikeLike