Moon Hoax. what do you think?

[kazbadan]

There are many websites claiming that man landing on moon as an hoax. Man never entered into the moon. Probably u know the story. They give "mistakes" on NASA pics of man landing on moon, that proof (they say) that man never went on moon. Proofs may include things like:

- Photo cameras couldnt support such temperatures on moon (somewhere between -180 and 120 celsius degree) and so its impossible to take pictures on the moon (in that time...60s and 70s).

 

- The lunar module should have done more impact in the surface around when landing. If you see some pic, you not see any cratere caused by the landing. The landing couldnt be that smooth, they say.

 

-There is no wind but some USA flags are "waving" like if there was wind.

 

etc, there are much more "proofs", these are just some to show you.

 

So, what do u think about these "proofs" and hoax theory? Anyway, even if man landed on moon, some of the arguments are interesting.

[Eclogite]

The arguments are all weak and quite wrong. All of the arguments have been thoroughly debunked many times. I do hope you are not being deceived by any of them. To just deal briefly with those you have raised here:

Photo cameras couldnt support such temperatures on moon (somewhere between -180 and 120 celsius degree)

Notice that you have quoted a range of temperatures, that cover those experienced at the end of the long lunar night, or at the height of the long lunar day. The higher temperatures are also those experienced by rock or regolith, on the surface, exposed to sunlight for days at a time. The landings were made - if I recall correctly, away from the peak temperature times, and the cameras were not exposed for long enough to acquire the ambient rock temperature.

The lunar module should have done more impact in the surface around when landing. If you see some pic, you not see any cratere caused by the landing. The landing couldnt be that smooth, they say.

Why should it make a large crater? It was a soft landing. The impact was gentle. It had to be to avoid damaging the craft or the astronauts inside. If you are expecting a large crater because of the rocket exhaust remember that the surface is reasonably solid, apart from a thin covering of dust. Additionally, the exhaust energy is very low. Remember it is only fighting 1/6 of the Earth's gravity.

-There is no wind but some USA flags are "waving" like if there was wind.

The flag is supported on a wire extension. Their is a natural elasticity in the whole assembly (flag, pole, extension) that causes it to vibrate for a time after it is 'planted'.

 

For me, however, there is a single factor that removes any and all doubt. Before the moonlanding many geologists were speculating on the character of the rocks that would be found. There were some pretty wild ideas being thrown around. Yet none of them matched the what was actually discovered. The detailed geochemistry of the rocks was wholly unexpected and led to a major rethink in how the moon had originated. Those rocks have been examined by scores of laboratories around the world in dozens of countries. The possibility of a hoax on that scale is essentially zero.

[Buffy]

Here are a couple of good web pages debunking these arguments:

 

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/ -- Good overview of the major arguments and why they're wrong.

 

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html -- A rebuttal to the pop-sci pseudo-documentary on Fox TV from about 4 years ago but an interesting site on related "Bad Astronomy" too.

 

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html -- A more comprehensive and readable Fox show rebuttal.

 

Skeptically,

Buffy

[kazbadan]

thanks. i will give a look to that link.

[Tormod]

...even if man landed on moon...

 

Yeah. They even landed 6 times, with two astronauts on each landing, and one astronaut in the command module in orbit around the Moon.

 

It's not only true, it is astonishing. This summer I read one incredible book about the 9 surviving astronauts who have walked on the Moon (yeah, they are still around). It's called "Moonwalkers - in search for the men who fell to Earth" by Andrew Smith.

 

Get it, it's a great read.

[infamous]

The one good thing about conspiracy theories is the money made off the sale of the associated literature. Go figure?????????????

[Tormod]

The one good thing about conspiracy theories is the money made off the sale of the associated literature. Go figure?????????????

 

I guess...if making money on deceiving people is a good thing.

[infamous]

I guess...if making money on deceiving people is a good thing.

Well the money might be good but the lies certainly aren't. The sad thing is, many of these people really believe the trash they are publishing. Maybe we just have to chalk it up to a case of mass paranoia.

[Arwis]

To anwser a question what do I think about the moon hoax theory I would say

 

that the people who believes in a guy with degree in arts talking about astronomical phenomenons rather than actuall scientists are very naive. By saying naive I meant - dumb. I didn't want to sound offensivelly.

[InquisitiveMind]

Here is my own evidence, and it's very rich:

http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/MoonHoax/MainPage.HTM

[InquisitiveMind]

I would like to add that many counter-arguments against the moon hoax are in fact flawed.

Take the demonstration of the mythbusters about the non parallel shadows, for instance: It is flawed, because they have placed their projector too close to the scene: therefore, because of the proximity of the projector, the objects don't receive its light under the same angle; with the sun, it's very different, because the sun is a very distant source of light, and therefore objets all receive its light under the same angle.

If the mythbusters were doing their experiment again with the real sun, they would obtain a very different result: the shadows would look much more parallel.

Take two close shadows: If you look at them so they are parallel to the vertical of the photo, they won't look parallel, but divergent instead because of perspective.

Now look at them so they are parallel to the horizontal of the photo, and this time they will look parallel.

That means that taking an example in which shadows which are parallel to the vertical of the photo don't look parallel to justify that shadows which are parallel to the horizontal of the photo are not parallel makes no sense!

And the demonstration of the mythbusters with the flapping flag makes no sense either: In their demonstration, the flag starts flapping because the air is removed, so the cause is known.

On an Apollo video, we suddenly see the flag violently flap without known cause, since the astronaut doesn't seem to shake it importantly; and it also stops quite quickly to flap, when it should have flapped for a longer time as there is not air resistance.

But, of all that, the moon hoax "debunkers" don't talk, they remain silent about these points like they were not existing.

[JMJones0424]

Occasionally I am approached by someone who claims to buy into this moon landing hoax madness. My response has always been this-

 

To believe that the lunar landings were a hoax, you must not only believe that the thousands of Americans involved in designing, building, launching, and retrieving the astronauts are in on the hoax, and yet none have come forward with evidence of the hoax... you must also believe that every world government with radio telescopes, including the USSR, were also in on the hoax. The British famously monitored the Soviet Union's attempts to land rovers on the moon, and actually scooped the Russians by publishing photos from Luna 9 prior to the Russians acknowledgement that the landing had been successful.

 

Jodrell Bank's role in early space tracking activities | The History of Jodrell Bank | Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics

 

WE BROADCASTED LIVE TELEVISION FROM THE MOON.

 

It would be trivially easy for any one to show that the signal was coming from (fill in your terrestrial source) rather than the moon. So for one to believe this nonsense, one must also believe that the Russians were in league with the Americans at the very height of the cold war in carrying out a global conspiracy to dupe all of mankind, and the only people smart enough to debunk it are these idiots and faith healers with no background in science and no common sense. At some point, you must examine those who claim the landing was a hoax with the same intensity that you claim to use on those who rightfully have shown that we did indeed land on the moon. There is no debate, only shocking self-delusion.

[InquisitiveMind]

Occasionally I am approached by someone who claims to buy into this moon landing hoax madness. My response has always been this-

 

To believe that the lunar landings were a hoax, you must not only believe that the thousands of Americans involved in designing, building, launching, and retrieving the astronauts are in on the hoax, and yet none have come forward with evidence of the hoax... you must also believe that every world government with radio telescopes, including the USSR, were also in on the hoax. The British famously monitored the Soviet Union's attempts to land rovers on the moon, and actually scooped the Russians by publishing photos from Luna 9 prior to the Russians acknowledgement that the landing had been successful.

 

Jodrell Bank's role in early space tracking activities | The History of Jodrell Bank | Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics

 

WE BROADCASTED LIVE TELEVISION FROM THE MOON.

 

It would be trivially easy for any one to show that the signal was coming from (fill in your terrestrial source) rather than the moon. So for one to believe this nonsense, one must also believe that the Russians were in league with the Americans at the very height of the cold war in carrying out a global conspiracy to dupe all of mankind, and the only people smart enough to debunk it are these idiots and faith healers with no background in science and no common sense. At some point, you must examine those who claim the landing was a hoax with the same intensity that you claim to use on those who rightfully have shown that we did indeed land on the moon. There is no debate, only shocking self-delusion.

 

 

Mr Jones, you are assuming that all those who belonged to the project knew everything about the project, but your assumption is wrong.Most people only had a limited task and knew nothing beyond this limited task, that's this way it could work.

To take prisoners to the extermination camps, the NAZI were needing trains, and people to make them work; do you think that all those who were working to make the trains work knew what would be the fate of the people who were taken to the extermination camps? No, most were knowing absolutely nothing about it, and yet they were contributing to take them there.

It's not because there were many people working in the project, that many people knew everything about the project.

There were some domains of the project very few people knew about.

Now, if the photos were faked, the question is: why none of those who faked the photos ever talked?

I think I have the answer to that question: Because nobody would have believed, them, they would have been discredited, the government would have said they had not worked in the project, and they could even have endangered their lives and their families; that's why they chose another solution: Not directly talk, but stuff the photos with incoherences, so many of them that I can find incoherences in every photo of the Apollo journal, and I'm not exaggerating; even the Apollo guidance computer is completely bugged (I can say it, for I'm a professional computer engineer); they have talked that way, in a way that the government couldn't counter!

I'm not a conspiracist, but I have an excellent sense of observation, and, like Saint Thomas, I only believe what my eyes, see, and my eyes see many incoherences!

[InquisitiveMind]

Mr Jones, I would like to add this too:

A frequent assumption is that, if it had been a hoax, then the Russians would have seen it, and would have exposed the hoax, since it was the cold war.

But, if it was so simple, why didn't the Americans expose the pseudo exploit of Gagarin, when they had so many proofs it was a set-up, and even a very bad one:

- Gagarin said he was flying over South America only one quarter of an hour after his departure, and he was needing at least three quarters of an hour to reach it.

- At the flight return, Gagarin said he was flying over South America when he was still in full Pacific

- Gagarin said he could distinctly see the fields and the collective farms when he still was at an altitude of 200 miles, which is far too high to see so minute details.

- Gagarin didn't descend with his spatial cabin, but as a simple parachutist, and even exactly where he used to make his parachute trainings, while his space ship was crashing on the ground.

- And the russian rocket chief said his cabin had no porthole, so how could gagarin see the earth?

- A photo shows Gagarin in his cabin under four angles when there were only two cameras in the cabin.

 

How is it that the Americans accepted the pseudo exploit of gagarin so easily when they had all the proofs it was a hoax (an American representative of Illinois even urged Kennedy not to accept this exploit without clarification about all the anomalies), if it was the "cold war"?

Give me the answer to this question, if you think that the fact that the Russains didn't expose Apollo is a good argument!

[lemit]

I have a confession. I was part of the conspiracy in the press coverage of the Apollo Program. I transcribed and edited telephone dispatches from reporters claiming they were covering the Apollo program. I heard editors to whom I handed those dispatches bitching about the cost of having so many reporters and photographers a couple thousand miles away in Florida. I watched televised moon landings in the newsroom with my co-conspirators. We didn't breathe a word about our conspiracy even to each other.

 

In fact, I have never said anything to anyone about my complicity in that conspiracy. I feel much better now that I have bared my soul. Anyone who has questions about how the press handled the true story of the Apollo Program can ask me, since I was on the inside.

 

--lemit

[InquisitiveMind]

I'd really like to know the truth about Apollo.

The incoherences in the photos really exist, I have seen them, I know how they work, I know how they were programmed by the fakers, in the most imaginative way.

I have read the documentation of the Apollo guidance computer, and, as a professional programmer who has known the microprocessor from its start, and knows very well assembler, it has made me laugh.

Something is wrong, people want to send us signals there has been a set-up.

How long before we know the real truth?

[Buffy]

I'd really like to know the truth about Apollo.

 

No you don't. You've already decided. You're seeking strained explanations for your preferred theory. We've got a couple of people here with *first hand* experience on the Apollo project, plenty close enough to have had have been "in on it" if it was a hoax.

 

Richard Nixon could not pull off a third-rate burglary, but somehow he pulled off the most elaborate, convoluted, and expensive hoax in all of human history.

 

I have read the documentation of the Apollo guidance computer, and, as a professional programmer who has known the microprocessor from its start, and knows very well assembler, it has made me laugh.

Well that says more about your programming skills than anything else. I and several others here have taken the time to play with the simulator of the guidance computer and it's really quite an amazing feat of computer science, even if it seems ancient today.

 

More than anything your snotty attitude makes it obvious that this is more an exercise in inflating your own ego at the expense of tens of thousands of hard working people who made this all happen.

 

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 

If you simply want to annoy people, find someplace else to do it.

 

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool,

Buffy