Moon landing hoax

Wibbs

Oh yes I agree some things have moved on. Especially the cost dropping as far as near earth orbit is concerned, but a moonshot is an order of magnitude higher.

OK so lets take an Ariane mission at 700 millions. Thats a single mission on a payload delivery system thats tired and tested. That's not including R&D. Factor in the costs of that and the figure is going to be much much higher.

Its also shifting a much smaller and lighter payload into a much lower orbit. It doesnt have to carry a number of people and their life support and doesnt have to land on another body. Each extra step requires R&D and considerable extra expense.

They could do it cheaper certainly. I would go back to Werner Von Brauns original idea of using smaller rocket delivery systems to punt the components up to near earth orbit and assemble them there. Use the ISS as the launching point.

Hell you might even be able to use existing systems to save waste. The shuttle for example. Customise it. Its got a huge cargo bay. Ideal for a lander. If you could put an entire existing shuttle including main tank and SRB's into orbit and fire it from orbit it would have enough poke to get you to the moon. When there land do your thang. get back into the shuttle store the samples in the cargo bay, burn its engines(much more thrust than the single CM engine) and you're back home.

Unlikely to happen. They seem to be going for Apollo 2 as a system. Apollo was concieved as a space race get us there at all costs massively expensive one shot job.

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

and (5)nasa gets feck all of a budget today. The military stuff gets far more. I reckon they've got near earth orbit stuff already flying. Project Aurora for one.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh yes I agree some things have moved on. Especially the cost dropping as far as near earth orbit is concerned, but a moonshot is an order of magnitude higher.

......... They seem to be going for Apollo 2 as a system. Apollo was concieved as a space race get us there at all costs massively expensive one shot job.

Can we say it's possible or no? $136 billion to send someone to the moon. I don't think that argument will hold up. I reckon it's been highly possible in terms of budget for some time now.

uprising2

Ok if there was enough light in the original faked pic to light the front of the asstronaut, why does this great reflective source not do the same in this pic?, the backpack is clearly throwing a black shadow, why is it black and not illuminated with all this bouncing light?

Also notice the backpack is washed out, that is the highlight or brightest part of the scene, now does anybody understand what I was saying about the film could not have captured all the light range from highlight to shadow, if this pic was exposed so as the backpack was not blown out like this it would take a faster shutter speed or smaller apature (higher f/stop), then by doing that the backpack wouldn't be blown out, it would be exposed correctly but the rest of the image would have been darker and under exposed.

Now in the original what I was saying should have happened and didn't has just happened in this one, and the backpack has cast a black shadow, how have the laws of physics changed between this image and the original.

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

Can we say it's possible or no? $136 billion to send someone to the moon. I don't think that argument will hold up. I reckon it's been highly possible in terms of budget for some time now.

Yes but its a dead end as an argument in many ways, but particularly in one way. The will isnt there.

Example. I'm sure no one here doubts that concorde flew supersonically for 30 years flying people to the US and back. No conspiracy there. OK cool. So we know that was and is doable and would be cheaper and easier with advances in materials now. Why arent all airliners supersonic now or at least one anyway?. We could do it in the 60's. Indeed the Apollo boffins have said that concorde was as hard a task as Apollo itself in many ways. We dont do it now because times and demand have changed. If a new cold fusion element was found on the moon, or the Chinese looked like they were going to make it(Or Bin laden was hiding there:D), then the US would do it. It would be in their interest. They'd do it cheaper and within 5 or 6 years too.

As I say IMHO the why didnt we go back is a dead end in any hoax debate. Though a sad one for humanity.

namloc1980

bytey wrote: »

and the killer

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_23.html

OK.....the image of the so called undeployed Lunar Rover with tracks! The site you linked to is careful to reference the Apollo 17 image that allegedly shows the undeployed rover as17-140-21370. This image was taken during EVA-3. The rover was deployed during EVA-1. So I checked the previous image taken in this magazine being as17-140-21369:



And lo and behold there is the lunar rover on the surface. Both images were taken within seconds of each other. So what can we conclude: someone forgot to tell the astronauts that they accidentally brought 2 LRV's with them??

No it's a simple (deliberate?) case of mis-identification by the website you linked to. The package that they claim to be an undeployed rover is in fact the Apollo MESA (modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly). The MESA was where many of the surface experiments/equipment etc was stowed. The rover was deployed from the bay to the right of the ladder. The deployment mechanism can be clearly seen in the next image as17-140-21370 as well as plenty of surface disturbance and footprints, which the link you provided claimed that there were "no such footprints"

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

Ok if there was enough light in the original faked pic to light the front of the asstronaut, why does this great reflective source not do the same in this pic?, the backpack is clearly throwing a black shadow, why is it black and not illuminated with all this bouncing light?

Also notice the backpack is washed out, that is the highlight or brightest part of the scene, now does anybody understand what I was saying about the film could not have captured all the light range from highlight to shadow, if this pic was exposed so as the backpack was not blown out like this it would take a faster shutter speed or smaller apature (higher f/stop), then by doing that the backpack wouldn't be blown out, it would be exposed correctly but the rest of the image would have been darker and under exposed.

Now in the original what I was saying should have happened and didn't has just happened in this one, and the backpack has cast a black shadow, how have the laws of physics changed between this image and the original.

I think if you use the actual high res NASA image then we can see the correct detail, the backpack isn't over-exposed:

PirateShampoo

Uprising im starting to get the impression your just arguing for the sake of arguing now. The points your bringing up are weak and posting clearly altered photos dont help your point either.

Q) why is there a shadow between back pack and suit.

A) because theres a gap of a few inches. I can create the same effect with my bed side lamp.

Edit, Namloc sums it up better.

uprising2

Man thats a big image, why the shadow in that and not in the other?, wheres all this reflection in that pic?, thanks for the BIG pic, now look closely at it, how the shadow is now how I repeated it should have been in the first.

uprising2

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Uprising im starting to get the impression your just arguing for the sake of arguing now. The points your bringing up are weak and posting clearly altered photos dont help your point either.

Q) why is there a shadow between back pack and suit.

A) because theres a gap of a few inches. I can create the same effect with my bed side lamp.

Edit, Namloc sums it up better.

Ohh God????????, I posted that image and linked where I got it and stated it could be a simple fake, I wasn't bothered to check with nasa, but even when it was seperated the "other" light source hasn't been established.
Look at the BIG pic, notice the shadow on the outside of his left leg, this image has ONE light source, the previous had TWO or more, what I was saying should have happened in the first has happened in this, if you cannot understand what I'm saying, I give up, I've wasted enough time one this one simple point.

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

Man thats a big image, why the shadow in that and not in the other?, wheres all this reflection in that pic?, thanks for the BIG pic, now look closely at it, how the shadow is now how I repeated it should have been in the first.

Do you mean your pic in post 184? That image looks highly compressed and low res. The pic I sourced is from the NASA Apollo archives whereas your one is from the Lunar and Planetary Institute. I can only presume that the LPI compressed the image for their own purposes. Anyway I think the official NASA image upholds the light reflecting argument I and others have been making all along.

Wibbs

namloc1980 wrote: »

The MESA was where many of the surface experiments/equipment etc was stowed. The rover was deployed from the bay to the right of the ladder.

+1 Yep like I said a page ago. the "doozy" is simply wrong. Based on a lack of knowledge of the payloads and where they were stored. Wrong side and the LRV never had a stowage cover.

mysterious

uprising2 wrote: »

Ohh God????????, I posted that image and linked where I got it and stated it could be a simple fake, I wasn't bothered to check with nasa, but even when it was seperated the "other" light source hasn't been established.
Look at the BIG pic, notice the shadow on the outside of his left leg, this image has ONE light source, the previous had TWO or more, what I was saying should have happened in the first has happened in this, if you cannot understand what I'm saying, I give up, I've wasted enough time one this one simple point.

It's ok Uprising, we support ya, and yes we can see your point, don't get worked up for others. Those pictures look totally fake. It's why I don't even bother to get so worked up over this thread, its done to to death on most conspiracy forums. I'd say most of these shots were done in the nevada dessert in the states. The moon is meant to be a lot different than these pics. The moon is inhabitated by many races I've researched loads of stuff on the moon, and it turns out this satelite of ours isnt just a ball of rock spinning. It's an artfiicial satelite watching over our planet. Many races who have come and gone here, have bases on the moon.

squod

Nice pic alright, lovely clean lander. Not much sign of dust on the pads/legs.
You'd almost think it was placed there by a crane.:D

RoboClam

squod wrote: »

Nice pic alright, lovely clean lander. Not much sign of dust on the pads/legs.
You'd almost think it was placed there by a crane.:D

I suppose you're right. All that wind on the moon can make things really dusty.

PirateShampoo

uprising2 wrote: »

Ohh God????????, I posted that image and linked where I got it and stated it could be a simple fake, I wasn't bothered to check with nasa, but even when it was seperated the "other" light source hasn't been established.
Look at the BIG pic, notice the shadow on the outside of his left leg, this image has ONE light source, the previous had TWO or more, what I was saying should have happened in the first has happened in this, if you cannot understand what I'm saying, I give up, I've wasted enough time one this one simple point.

Maybe if you started posting the Original pictures instead of low res or altered photos to make your points, then your arguments would actually hold water.

Wibbs

mysterious wrote: »

The moon is meant to be a lot different than these pics.

According to who? Gerry Anderson?

The moon is inhabitated by many races I've researched loads of stuff on the moon, and it turns out this satelite of ours isnt just a ball of rock spinning. It's an artfiicial satelite watching over our planet. Many races who have come and gone here, have bases on the moon.

Well I've detached right there. I recall watching a doc on the sphinx. Good one too about how it showed signs of water erosion. The accepted science types flipped out but it seemed logical that the guy was right. Then he started talking about pyramids on mars. Lost me then(though I agreed re water erosion). Now on this thread? From reasoned debate to Selenites and Mysterons? Game over.

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

Nice pic alright, lovely clean lander. Not much sign of dust on the pads/legs.
You'd almost think it was placed there by a crane.:D

The fact that there is no atmosphere on the Moon is lost on you yet again. :rolleyes:

namloc1980

mysterious wrote: »

It's ok Uprising, we support ya, and yes we can see your point, don't get worked up for others. Those pictures look totally fake. It's why I don't even bother to get so worked up over this thread, its done to to death on most conspiracy forums. I'd say most of these shots were done in the nevada dessert in the states. The moon is meant to be a lot different than these pics. The moon is inhabitated by many races I've researched loads of stuff on the moon, and it turns out this satelite of ours isnt just a ball of rock spinning. It's an artfiicial satelite watching over our planet. Many races who have come and gone here, have bases on the moon.

Really and you have been to the Moon I suppose and seen all these aliens??? I was wondering when aliens would come into it. I was enjoying this thread up until now.

squod

squod wrote: »

Nice pic alright, lovely clean lander. Not much sign of dust on the pads/legs.
You'd almost think it was placed there by a crane.:D

RoboClam wrote: »

I suppose you're right. All that wind on the moon can make things really dusty.

.......The eagles engine was running as the footpads touched the surface. It remained running a full five seconds afterwards..........

This dust would have then decended on the lunar lander, on the footpads........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQNZQdJFtI

squod

namloc1980 wrote: »

The fact that there is no atmosphere on the Moon is lost on you yet again. :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting the lack of atmosphere has an effect on gravity? What are you talking about?

Torakx

Wibbs wrote: »

According to who? Gerry Anderson? Well I've detached right there. I recall watching a doc on the sphinx. Good one too about how it showed signs of water erosion. The accepted science types flipped out but it seemed logical that the guy was right. Then he started talking about pyramids on mars. Lost me then(though I agreed re water erosion). Now on this thread? From reasoned debate to Selenites and Mysterons? Game over.

I would say i have also watched the same documentary as i think ive seen them all at this stage lol.
Was it the one with a guy that looks like the jurassic park owner with shorts white beard and a hat?
I cant remember which one the water errosion part was in,but you must also realise that it is possible that there is SOME truth to all this and dis-info agents have managed to put a ridiculous spin on the end so you will think the whole idea is idiotic.
What i rather do is take the evidence or circumstancial evidence that i deem to be quite possible and discard anything for now that does not fit into the puzzle of that topic.
Later on then i can come back if i wish for the mars pyramids and faces and ghosts etc etc.
I love hearing about the pyramids.If you are up for a crazy read try "The Nephilim and the pyramid of the apocalypse" by Patrick Heron.
That will put the mars ghost to shame.

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

Are you suggesting the lack of atmosphere has an effect on gravity? What are you talking about?

There you go again presuming what other posters are saying....

And that video you posted has been debunked already, on this forum in fact, not so long ago.

squod

namloc1980 wrote: »

There you go again presuming what other posters are saying....

And that video you posted has been debunked already, on this forum in fact, not so long ago.

Fine, link please. Also will you answer the question now?

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

Are you suggesting the lack of atmosphere has an effect on gravity? What are you talking about?

In the case of how dust behaves it does. Big diff without air resistance.

RoboClam

squod wrote: »

Are you suggesting the lack of atmosphere has an effect on gravity? What are you talking about?

A. No he's not suggesting that.

B. There is no atmosphere, and thus, no wind. The dust would have been blown away from the lander, and because there is no atmosphere, the dust would follow a ballistic trajectory.

Also, please never post a video by that guy again. His voice is quite possibly the worst thing that I've ever heard.

namloc1980

RoboClam wrote: »

Also, please never post a video by that guy again. His voice is quite possibly the worst thing that I've ever heard.

+1. Not only is his voice annoying but all his videos are so full of inconsistencies and false logic that it makes them laughable. At one point in that video when he is talking about Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Commander, he actually calls him James Cernan :pac:!!! I suspect telling the truth and getting the facts correct are low down on that guys priorities. It is basic falsities like this that mean his videos should be taken with a massive pinch of salt.

Mr. Incognito

Well I am not sure it is a hoax or not. But to play devil's advocate, if there are 5 reasons it could of been faked I would suggest:

Moon Rocks are easy enough to find in the Antartic.

I'll take your word for it. So an American mission wandered around the Antartic. The ANTARTIC searching for moon rocks under the Ice. Nothing is easy to find in the Antartic, only death.

All Lunar Mission took place during the Nixon corrupt administration - working with lunatics such as Jack Parson and several high ranking former NAZIs. Hardly a recipe for honesty and ethics.

Hmmm, It was a pledge by JFK that set the wheels in motion, these chaps just happened to be around when it happened. Not really evidence of anything really, I'd file it under a dodgy administration sure, but seriously, how did they get all the other governments that were monitoring the launches and landings to keep shush on it?

No manned space mission since has gone that deep into space

Well, the records for space exploration were set in the Space station for duration, not distance. I'll grant you that but it's a moot point really.

The faked WMD photos in Iraq suggest the recent Apollo Landing site images can't automatically be trusted

Can't really compare a national political scandal cover up to an international conspiracy, and the difference in technology since is HUGE. And don't forget these photos were busted by experts, whereas the NASA photos have not been, even 50 years later, what does that tell you?

I never even knew there even was an Apollo hoax until a PhD in Cosmology whom I was saying to one night. "Be fantastic if they had of built a full time moon base" came back with. "Be fantastic it they sent a manned mission to the moon to begin with!" - he then gave me all kind of reasons based on physics which I did not understand which he said cast grave doubts that a Apollo was ever real. He said like the Global Warming hoax (recently exposed as a lie and scam by an army of sleazy "scientists") - any acedemic who said this publically would have their career ended.

Global warming conspiracy, sure. Have a look at the weather dude and the ice caps. Start a new thread.

Anyway, I can't see how any of the above are anything but straw clutching pointing to events that have nothing, not one jot to do with the moon landing. I mean , it's like blaming Mary Harney's appearance for the state of the health service. They may be related but is that evidence of such?

If it was a hoax then where did the rocket and lander etc go to? Surely they'd have been tracked by other countries that were in the race.

They were. Unfortunately I left my KGB library card in my other coat so you'll have to take the circumstancial evidence that in the midst of the Cold War if the Soviets smelt a rat they would have been screaming it from the rooftops

Ok great idea, off you go, you give your 5 points and get the ball rolling.
What are your 5 point's that prove it wasn't a hoax, let's hear them

Okay, look. This is my game. I make the rules. You go start your own game and I'll decide whether to join in. We, the 89% are in the majority. You, the 6% are in the minority. If you want to challenge convencial wisdom you're the one that has to cough up the evidence for it. It's the conspiracy forum after all. My evidence is that it is a FACT. You don't believe so you have to prove it is not a FACT.

Nice pic alright, lovely clean lander. Not much sign of dust on the pads/legs.
You'd almost think it was placed there by a crane.

Are you suggesting the lack of atmosphere has an effect on gravity? What are you talking about?

You seem to be having the same logical breakdown here. This is the moon. Dust requires moisture to stick to things. There is no athmosphere on the moon. The lander was in exposed space which would have been in a vacuum in many hundreds of degrees on the way down in much much lower gravity.
Think of dry sand and that wet sand inside your knickers at the beach, you see the difference? now dry that sand to absolute zero moisture content, it ain't even sticking to other sand dude.

Uprising, about that pic you posted

You are asking why there is a shadow in the ground behind the lander in that pic and no shadow on the front of the astronaut in the other pic?

I can't really see the point of this question? There was a shadow in the first pic you referened, on the ground also. The difference are the angles involved. In both cases the sun is above them angling down, light reflects down and bounces up hense things off the ground trap reflected light, those things that are just in the way cast a shadow behind them. What's the issue here. Stick and astronaut in that shadowed bit and take a pic and i'll guarantee you there's be other light sources illuminating them from reflected light. Are you comparing the ground with elevated objects?

squod

RoboClam wrote: »

....because there is no atmosphere, the dust would follow a ballistic trajectory.

........how did they manage to congeale onto surveyor ('s pads) when it fired it's rockets.

Because the moon has no air to move the dust the only way the dust would have moved is by physical contact with the rocket plume. Now if this plume could reach the moon from 30 meters above the surface. Imagine how big a disturbance it would have caused as it spread out accross the lunar surface.

On all the moon landings.... there is no crater, there is no dust blown away.......the only conclusion is that this guy (Lander) is put here by a crane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz5sfwyvAK0

The quotes are from the vid don't listen if you don't want to. Pretty much covers the argument you're putting foward.

squod

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

. My evidence is that it is a FACT. You don't believe so you have to prove it is not a FACT.

Haven't read any ''facts'' you've posted so far. If we're to believe your ''facts'' about the proposed $136 billion dollar moon programme. Or the countless claims you've posted about faked photographs. Post some more ''facts'' I could do with a laugh.

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

The quotes are from the vid don't listen if you don't want to. Pretty much covers the argument you're putting foward.

there is no dust blown away.......the only conclusion is that this guy (Lander) is put here by a crane.

That is simply false. Example from Apollo 11:



The dust is clearly blown away directly under the engine bell.....it even is shown in a radial pattern.

Seriously this video guy is just making stuff up......and he called Eugene Cernan by the wrong name AGAIN!! The truth is not what he is interested in.



Apollo 12 area under the engine bell swept of the fine dust.



Apollo 14....more evidence of the sweeping effect of the engine bell.