Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Sassi · Feb 14, 2004, 03:53 am

Now, I haven't done all that much research on this topic yet and I think I probably should have done some before I actually made this topic, but I think I have a pretty ok point.
I have just finished watching a TV programme where they showed pictures of the "man walking on the moon"... and I looked up my OWN little picture of that and found that what they were saying isi n fact correct. The pictures that were taken, have little crosses marked on them in certain places. Now, these crosses should appear IN FRONT of the actual image itself.. however, in about three different photo's there seems to be a jumble of these crosses that actually appear behind the image, suggesting that the images are fake. Also.. I know from my own studies that space is a dangerous place, and that well.. it is near impossible for any man made object to get through the "sky" - so to speak-... I mean, even ROCKs cannot get throughour sky without falling to peices, and it is obvious that there is something amiss here, cuz... they have got someone on the moon once... why can't they do it again? I think that everything surrounding that is just a little off center and... some of the things I have read have been very different and I think it's just a little strange thats all. Could someone have a look at this, cuz from my point of view, I think the whole thing is a bit of a SHAM. I guess, that's governments for you though. :) xoxo

shunyadragon · Feb 14, 2004, 05:19 am

Our junk and foot prints trash the moon the same way we trash the earth.

Objects don't really break up in space. The break up entering the atmosphere too fast or on collision. The trick is simply to slow down and land softly. That is not difficult for technology.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 14, 2004, 06:32 am

It's done with the help of Principia at hand.

Walter Bucket · Feb 14, 2004, 06:33 am

Two of the Internet's most impressive URLs showing that USA never
put any man on the moon using their Apollo machines, are these two:

Lots of photographs here at these URLs:

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
"Bill Kaysing was head of technical publications and advanced
research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963."

http://www.aulis.com/
Aulis Publishers

This is a topic where scientists need to rely on information provided
by eyesight, instead of super-skeptics that NASA somehow found.

Some problems getting the flames from ascent of the lunar vehicle all
looking similar from mission to mission.

I read that Area 51 (and Australia?) held the fake moonscapes.

Astronaut Gus Grisson got burnt alive at the top of the rocket.

Perhaps "shunyadragon" would check his comments to see if they are
witty, factual, truthful, coherently argued, or interesting.
Saying "Out junk ..." is weak enough to be dsiagreeable.

I saw the Fox TV program.

castille · Feb 14, 2004, 07:55 am

Ok, lets get the facts right.

The Soviet Union, who desperately wanted to prove that the US never won the space race, spent hundreds of millions to examine every possible angle. They had top Soviet researchers verify the facts that the US got to the moon.

And a bunch of amateurs detected faults billion-dollar technology couldn't?

**Pooeypants** · Feb 14, 2004, 10:03 am

Castille, there are ppl out there who have seen flying saucers. Let them entertain their imagination, else this will be a very boring world if we all agreed with each other.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 15, 2004, 03:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,)
...from my point of view, I think the whole thing is a bit of a SHAM. I guess, that's governments for you though...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Its like this doc: The technology was available. The money was available. The man power was available.

The question is: Did we actually go to the mood or did we funnel the money into a slush fund somewhere.

The answer is: WTF cares? Whether or not we went to the moon won't matter when the sh*t hits the fan. It does not change the way I work on engines. It does not change the way I work on guns. It does not change the way I get it on with my girl friend. It does not change the way I study for my BS in History, or later for Masters, and eventually for my Ph.D. It has no bearing on how I plan on teachin history. It has no bearing on how I coach football and softball. The only thing that matters is that I pay more taxes than I should b/c of our space program. That is pretty much it from my perspective.

DogB · Feb 15, 2004, 05:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Now, I haven't done all that much research on this topic yet and I think I probably should have done some before I actually made this topic, but I think I have a pretty ok point. I have just finished watching a TV programme where they showed pictures of the "man walking on the moon"... and I looked up my OWN little picture of that and found that what they were saying isi n fact correct. The pictures that were taken, have little crosses marked on them in certain places. Now, these crosses should appear IN FRONT of the actual image itself.. however, in about three different photo's there seems to be a jumble of these crosses that actually appear behind the image, suggesting that the images are fake<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Nope. See here

http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Also.. I know from my own studies that space is a dangerous place, and that well.. it is near impossible for any man made object to get through the "sky" - so to speak-...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's a brave statement. I assume then you don't believe in satellites.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I mean, even ROCKs cannot get throughour sky without falling to peices,<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

.....and yet so many do

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
it's obvious that there is something amiss here, cuz... they have got someone on the moon once... why can't they do it again? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

12 men went to the moon in 6 different missions. Congress decided that the cost wasn't worth the returns and canned the project. We haven't gone back because there wasn't the resolve to do so. Other project seemed more important.

We could go back probably within a decade, we just have to decide to do it (and fund it).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I think that everything surrounding that is just a little off center and... some of the things I have read have been very different and I think it's just a little strange thats all. Could someone have a look at this, cuz from my point of view, I think the whole thing is a bit of a SHAM. I guess, that's governments for you though. :) xoxo<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is just your opinion and sorry to say it's a fairly inexpert opinion. If your really interested then do some research. Go here http://www.clavius.org/

Major Billy · Feb 15, 2004, 06:06 pm

The moon landings were faked, and I have the proof right here.

toofgib · Feb 15, 2004, 06:37 pm

You probablly saw the Fox program. It is a rehash of the same old stuff that keeps coming up over and over. And it keeps getting shot down over and over. The bright background in the pictures is over exposed slightly causeing the objects to bleed over the ficudals, the little crosses in the pictures, making the background to appear pasted over. As an above poster said go to: http://www.clavius.org/
One of the best debunking sites on the net.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 15, 2004, 06:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Major Billy,)
The moon landings were faked, and I have the proof right here.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
lmao @ spoof video.

Comrade · Feb 15, 2004, 07:10 pm

oh god no, not conspiracy theories

Taibak · Feb 15, 2004, 10:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,)
Now, I haven't done all that much research on this topic yet and I think I probably should have done some before I actually made this topic, but I think I have a pretty ok point.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No offense, but it's a pretty weak argument.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,)
I have just finished watching a TV programme where they showed pictures of the "man walking on the moon"... and I looked up my OWN little picture of that and found that what they were saying isi n fact correct. The pictures that were taken, have little crosses marked on them in certain places. Now, these crosses should appear IN FRONT of the actual image itself.. however, in about three different photo's there seems to be a jumble of these crosses that actually appear behind the image, suggesting that the images are fake.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not necessarily. The Apollo astronauts were taking photos of a bright white and grey landscape (the Moon) that was well lit by the Sun. As such, the photos were overexposed a bit, causing the white bits (mountains, rocks, etc.) to bleed over the crosshairs. This is photography 101 - try it yourself sometime by taking a slightly overexpsed photo of something covered in snow using a camera with crosshairs on the lens. You'll see the same effect.

Also, think about where the crosshairs would have to have been if they were in the background of a fake Lunar landscape. The hoaxers would have had to paint the crosshairs on the back of the set and repaint them every time the photographed the set from a different angle. Why would they have bothered? Even from a theatrical point of view this doesn't make sense. No set designer in the world would be stupid enough to put an obviously fake background element in a set that was designed to be as realistic as possible. There is just no rational reason to have had crosshairs in the background at all - *even if it was a hoax.*

Incidentally, if you're talking about that Fox special about the Moon hoax, you might want to look closely at their use of the movie Capricorn 1 as evidence. Apollo 11 landed in 1969. Capricorn 1 was released in 1978. Apollo inspired the movie, *not* the other way around, like the Fox special implies.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,)
Also.. I know from my own studies that space is a dangerous place, and that well.. it is near impossible for any man made object to get through the "sky" - so to speak-... I mean, even ROCKs cannot get throughour sky without falling to peices, and it is obvious that there is something amiss here, cuz... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Lots of things do.

Thousands of satellites are in orbit. Hundreds of space probes have been launched. Of the dozens of shuttle missions that have been flown, only one (Columbia on its final flight) ran into atmospheric problems. The heavily damaged Apollo 13 made it through the atmosphere no problem.

If you don't believe those arguments, how else do you explain Meteor Crater in Arizona? Not only do we have a honkin' big hole in the ground that's 100% consistent with a meteor impact, we've found the rock that made it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,)
they have got someone on the moon once... why can't they do it again? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Money and politics. The Apollo Program was started for purely political reasons. The United States was badly behind the Sovier Union in the space race President Kennedy wanted to beat the Soviets to the Moon. Apollo 11 did just that. By Apollo 13, people were already wondering why the government was still spending huge sums of money on a race that was already won. By the time Apollo 18 was ready to launch, there was no political support in the U.S. to keep spending millions on Apollo. As such, President Nixon cancelled Apollo 18 and all subsequent flights. We're talking about millions of dollars that could just as easily go to tax cuts, welfare, the military, subsidised industry, or new innovative space projects (Skylab and the shuttle come to mind).

Since then, no space agency has had the money or the will to return. For evidence, all you need to see it the lukewarm reaction President Bush got for his proposed Moon missions. Heck, his proposed missions to Mars haven't garnered much attention. Then again, the Chinese and Indians are both planning missions to the Moon, so someone *is* in fact planning to go back.

To put this argument in perspective, I went to Florida in the spring of 1997. I haven't been back since. To suggest that I haven't wanted to go back to Florida during the past seven years proves that it's impossible to go to Florida is silly.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,)
I think that everything surrounding that is just a little off center and... some of the things I have read have been very different and I think it's just a little strange thats all. Could someone have a look at this, cuz from my point of view, I think the whole thing is a bit of a SHAM. I guess, that's governments for you though. :) xoxo<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Except there's a lot more to it then that. What about the 641 pounds of rock the Apollo astronauts brought back with them? No geologist on the planet would mistake them for Earth rocks. What about the anecdotal evidence from *millions* of people who watched the Apollo 11 landing live - many of whom commented on how alien the landscape looked and how oddly things moved in it. What about the dust being kicked up by the wheels on the rovers? All of it moves in a perfectly parabolic arc - something that's only possible in conditions unattainable on Earth, a perfect vacuum. What about the thousands of pages of documentation - most of which should be readily attainable under the Freedom of Information Act? Any historian will tell you that that many self- and mutually-consistent documents is quite good evidence that something happened. How do you explain the reflectors on the Moon that scientists bounce laser beams off regularly? The returned signals are far too good to have bounced off a reflector that wasn't placed by hand.

Finally, what about the sheer difficulty in keeping a conspiracy *this big* under wraps. Over 360,000 people worked on the Apollo project in some form or another. It would be absolutely impossible to keep all of them silent for almost 40 years now. Neither money nor intimidation would be 100% successful, and yet, to the best of my knowledge, not one person involved in the project has come forward to blow the whistle on the hoax. How do you explain that?

Incidentally, check out www.badastronomy.com. It thoroughly dissects the Fox special and the arguments therein.

NotScientific · Feb 16, 2004, 09:12 am

Man went on the moon several times after Neil Armstrong actually.

Avatar · Feb 17, 2004, 11:46 am

Five Reasons to Believe We've Been to the Moon

Reason #1 -- Moon Rocks
Apollo astronauts didn't return empty-handed. They brought 841 pounds of the Moon back with them. Apollo Moon samples range in size from sand and pebbles to basketball-sized rocks. Moon rocks are completely different from rocks native to Earth. Their mineral content is unique and they show distinctive signs of exposure to the solar wind, cosmic rays and meteoroid impacts. To a trained geologist there's no mistaking a Moon rock. But you don't have to take the word of an expert. There are museums in the United States where you can inspect Moon rocks for yourself and see the distinctive meteoroid impact pits that pepper nearly all rocks from the Moon. It's rock-hard evidence that the Apollo program really did happen!

Scientists from dozens of countries, many that were Cold War "enemies" of the United States, have analyzed Apollo Moon rocks. Every single researcher agrees that the Apollo Moon rocks are genuine.

Reason #2 -- Witnesses
The most famous participants in the Apollo program are the twelve astronauts who walked on the Moon. Nine of them are still alive today; they are powerful witnesses to the reality of the Apollo program. And they're not the only ones. Approximately 360,000 scientists, engineers, civil servants and contractors worked on the Apollo program. They designed the rockets, sewed the space suits, cut the pay checks, guarded the doors, swept the floors and much more. These hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life can testify that the Apollo program was real.

Can you imagine a government conspiracy involving nearly 400,000 people without even one whistle blower revealing the truth?

Reason #3 -- The Paper Trail
The Apollo program left an awesome paper trail, including blueprints, spec sheets, memoranda, budgets -- you name it! Every nut and bolt on a Saturn V rocket, every clasp in an astronaut's space suit, every welding joint, every pressure valve... you get the idea ... all these things were meticulously documented. "For the Saturn V rocket alone there is more than 2000 linear feet of documentation stored in the National Archives outside of Atlanta." says Roger Launius, NASA's chief historian. That's nearly the same length as seven football fields laid end-to-end.

For a physical scientist, the unique composition of Moon rocks might be the most persuasive evidence that humans visited the Moon and returned. But for a research historian, the staggering number of self-consistent original documents testifies powerfully to the reality of Apollo.

Reason #4 -- More Witnesses
Tens of thousands of people personally (not on TV -- they were there in person) saw the Apollo Saturn V rockets blast off for the Moon. Watching the departure of those behemoths -- the largest rockets ever built -- was an unforgettable experience for the spectators. The rockets were even visible in space. "At the time of the Apollo 8 mission I was heading a team at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory's satellite tracking station on top of Haleakala, Maui, Hawaii," recalls astronomer David Le Conte, "We took lots of photographs of the trans-lunar burn, clearly showing the spacecraft turning and heading out of Earth's orbit. These photographs were widely published, for example in Time and Life magazines. On subsequent nights (and for subsequent Apollo flights, including Apollo 11, when I was Manager of the Mount Hopkins, Arizona, station) we photographed the receding spacecraft and their waste dumps as far we could with our equipment."

"I can only think that the (conspiracy) theorists are relatively young. Nobody who experienced the Apollo Program first hand could ever doubt its achievements." -- Le Conte

Reason #5 -- Things Left Behind on the Moon
Apollo astronauts left something behind on the Moon that we can see from Earth -- small mirrors called "corner cube retroreflector arrays." The first retroreflector was positioned on the Moon in 1969 by the Apollo 11 astronauts so that it would point toward Earth and be able to reflect pulses of laser light fired from our planet. Because the retroreflectors require no power, they are still operating normally more than 30 years after Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon. Scientists from around the world regularly bounce laser pulses from these distant reflectors to learn more about tides, the Moon's rotation, Einstein's theory of relativity, and much more.

The Soviet Union and France also deposited a retroreflector on the Moon using an unmanned spacecraft, Lunakhod 2. That device was not placed on the lunar surface as carefully as the Apollo astronauts were able to situate their retroreflectors. As a result, the Lunakhod 2 mirror produces a weaker laser echo than the smaller Apollo reflectors -- devices that benefited from the personal attention of humans on the Moon.

floridian · Feb 17, 2004, 01:43 pm

Feb 17, 2004, 02:54 pm

Walter,

The Fox TV special was pure, unadulterated bull plop. Bull plop, I tell you!

This is just a distraction to get you chasing your own tail down a rabbit hole. It is the same as the no plane pentagon nonsense, Carol Valentine's Waco nonsense, and J.D. Cash's BATF C4 story.

Most of the photographic claims come from applying Earth physics to the moon. There are shadows going in different angles in the photos. However, that is because of sunlight reflecting off of the moon itself. Yes, you don't see stars. On Earth, that might mean something. On the moon, the answer is the same as the one for the different angles.

The idea that you should 'JUST' look at photos or even 'JUST' look at any one type of evidence is ridiculous. You should take in everything you can get your hands on.

die Nullte · Feb 17, 2004, 04:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
There are shadows going in different angles in the photos. However, that is because of sunlight reflecting off of the moon itself. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Two separate phenomena have been confused here. Some authors have claimed that, because the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, all shadows should be absolutely black. Not true. The Moon itself is reflective and casts light into the shadows. A different claim has been made that, because the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, all shadows should be parallel. They are plainly not parallel in the photos taken on the lunar surface by the astronauts, and this has been taken as evidence that there were multiple sources of light, as, say, in a movie studio. Well, for one thing, the Sun's rays are not truly parallel. However, for the sake of argument, we'll concede that, on a local basis and to the perception of nearby observers, the Sun's rays are essentially parallel. But you still have perspective effects -- shadows tapering from nearby to a vanishing point in the distance. This effect has been recognized by artists for centuries, and photographers routinely emphasize this effect for artistic purposes. Anyone can step outside and see that shadows are not parallel when viewed from one location. Also, if there were multiple studio lights, then we'd see multiple shadows. It's unavoidable.

Now, we can't see stars in the photos taken from the Moon because the stars are too faint for snapshot exposures. Most of the astronauts' photos used shutter speeds of 1/125 and 1/250 and apertures from f/5.6 to f/11 -- consistent with daylight photos on the ASA 64 film they were using. Even a photo shot at 1/125 at f/5.6 isn't going to capture stars, even if they are in a black sky. Drop the shutter speed to 1/60 or 1/30 and the aperture to f/2.8 for, maybe, some photos taken in shadows -- still not enough to get stars. I say to anyone who questions this, "Try it!" "Well," someone says, "Aren't the stars much brighter on the Moon than on Earth?" No, they are not significantly brighter than they are from an excellent dark-sky location on the Earth. "Well, then, what's the big deal about the Hubble Space Telescope?" The Earth's atmosphere is turbulent, and this limits the resolution you can achieve with long-exposure images. Hubble gets those amazing images because it rides above this turbulence. As to why the astronauts didn't repeatedly exclaim, "Holy @#$%, look at those stars!" -- well, their eyes were stopped down (to use the photographic term) by all of that bright light off the Moon, so it would have actually been hard to see stars most of the time. I suppose if they had found a spot shaded on all sides they could have seen an impressive view, provided there was no attenuation from their visors.

m5lange1 · Feb 18, 2004, 08:00 pm

Well if they left that face on Mars (see other forum) there is a fair chance that they may have stopped of at the moon for a potty break or just to strech their legs a bit.

AGN Fuel · Feb 19, 2004, 12:27 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,)

I have just finished watching a TV programme where they showed pictures of the "man walking on the moon"... and I looked up my OWN little picture of that and found that what they were saying isi n fact correct. The pictures that were taken, have little crosses marked on them in certain places. Now, these crosses should appear IN FRONT of the actual image itself.. however, in about three different photo's there seems to be a jumble of these crosses that actually appear behind the image, suggesting that the images are fake.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Hi Sassi,

The crosses in the photographs are called fiducials and were primarily used for measurement purposes. They were very thin (0.02mm) marks etched into a glass plate placed in front of the film in the camera. However, whenever a photographic emulsion is overexposed, it has a tendency to 'bleed'. Sometimes this bleeding may obscure the very thin fiducial. Look at your photo again - has the fiducial that appears to go 'behind' an object been photographed against a light background? If you want to demonstrate this effect for yourself, tie a shoelace across a piece of white cardboard and photograph it at longer & longer exposure times. You will make it disappear!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Also.. I know from my own studies that space is a dangerous place, and that well.. it is near impossible for any man made object to get through the "sky" - so to speak-... I mean, even ROCKs cannot get throughour sky without falling to peices <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Space is a dangerous place. But I'm afraid that you are not correct when you say it is near impossible for any man-made object to get through the 'sky'. At present, there are over two thousand satellites & other man-made objects in Earth orbit, plus a few dozen probes that have roamed or are roaming the solar system! The Apollo spacecraft was specifically designed to land a man on the moon. To that end, it was successful.

Also, rocks can get through the sky without falling to pieces - they are called meteorites. A big one can ruin your whole day!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
, and it is obvious that there is something amiss here, cuz... they have got someone on the moon once... why can't they do it again? I think that everything surrounding that is just a little off center and... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The task of landing a man on the moon was primarily driven due to the political capital that could be made from the achievement. Once done, although the scientists would have strongly urged that the exploration continue, the politicians had gained their policial 'coup' and chose not to continue funding to the project. The tools, buildings, equiptment etc that had been purpose built for Apollo was dismounted or abandoned. Now that there is an interest to return, we will not use the same technology that was developed nearly 40 years ago (although we will draw heavily on the experience gained then, of course!)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Could someone have a look at this, cuz from my point of view, I think the whole thing is a bit of a SHAM. I guess, that's governments for you though. :) xoxo<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Believe me, we did manage to go to the moon and the feat should be celebrated as one of the finest achievements of our normally dismal & ignoble species. The evidence in favour of the success of Apollo is overwhelming:
- The Scale: Apollo at it's height employed over 500,000 people in 20,000 companies. These people were trained technicians, engineers & scientists - not people who are easily duped.
- Rocks: The Apollo astronauts returned 380 kilograms of rock & soil samples. These display characteristics that are impossible to have faked.
- LRRR: The Lunar Retro Ranging Reflectors were left by 3 of the Apollo missions and are used to this day to measure the Earth/Moon distance to around a centimetre!
- The Russians: The race to the moon was intense and at the height of the Cold War, the emnity between Russia & the US was at a peak. The Russians were amply able to determine whether Apollo was a hoax and would have raised the roof if they suspected anything was amiss. They did not - in fact, they publicly congratulated the US on their success.
- The launches: Millions of people watched the launches & hundreds of millions saw the spacecraft during it's parking orbit before the trans-lunar burn. That the spacecraft was launched is unarguable.
- Tracking: This is a stone-cold showstopper. The Apollo missions were tracked to & from the moon by nationals in countries around the world. Ham radio operators also monitored transmissions for hours on end - impossible if the craft was kept in Low Earth Orbit as has been argued.
- The Astronauts: At the end of the day, we have the eyewitness testimony of the astronauts themselves, together with some 32,000 photographs and many hours of TV & film footage that they took. They conducted experiments, the results of which were analysed by scientists around the world.

Sassi, the arguments put forward by the hoax believers have been proven wrong time and time again. Typically, those who propose Apollo was hoaxed are either trying to sell you a book or video, or else they have a rabid distrust of 'the Government'.

I am an Australian citizen. I have studied the Apollo Project for years, having grown up through that era, and it remains an interest of mine although I work in an unrelated field. I am not associated with the US (or the Australian for that matter) government in any way, shape or form. I am most assuredly not a NASA 'disinformation agent', whatever in Heaven's name that is supposed to be. Hopefully, this helps explain some of your questions, but please - if you have any other questions at all, please post them. Clear skies.

Feb 14, 2004, 05:19 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	Our junk and foot prints trash the moon the same way we trash the earth. Objects don't really break up in space. The break up entering the atmosphere too fast or on collision. The trick is simply to slow down and land softly. That is not difficult for technology. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 14, 2004, 06:32 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	It's done with the help of Principia at hand. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 14, 2004, 07:55 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Ok, lets get the facts right. The Soviet Union, who desperately wanted to prove that the US never won the space race, spent hundreds of millions to examine every possible angle. They had top Soviet researchers verify the facts that the US got to the moon. And a bunch of amateurs detected faults billion-dollar technology couldn't? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 14, 2004, 10:03 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	Castille, there are ppl out there who have seen flying saucers. Let them entertain their imagination, else this will be a very boring world if we all agreed with each other. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 15, 2004, 03:59 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,) ...from my point of view, I think the whole thing is a bit of a SHAM. I guess, that's governments for you though...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Its like this doc: The technology was available. The money was available. The man power was available. The question is: Did we actually go to the mood or did we funnel the money into a slush fund somewhere. The answer is: WTF cares? Whether or not we went to the moon won't matter when the sh*t hits the fan. It does not change the way I work on engines. It does not change the way I work on guns. It does not change the way I get it on with my girl friend. It does not change the way I study for my BS in History, or later for Masters, and eventually for my Ph.D. It has no bearing on how I plan on teachin history. It has no bearing on how I coach football and softball. The only thing that matters is that I pay more taxes than I should b/c of our space program. That is pretty much it from my perspective. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 14, 2004, 03:53 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Sassi Sedimentary Rock Posts: 4	Now, I haven't done all that much research on this topic yet and I think I probably should have done some before I actually made this topic, but I think I have a pretty ok point. I have just finished watching a TV programme where they showed pictures of the "man walking on the moon"... and I looked up my OWN little picture of that and found that what they were saying isi n fact correct. The pictures that were taken, have little crosses marked on them in certain places. Now, these crosses should appear IN FRONT of the actual image itself.. however, in about three different photo's there seems to be a jumble of these crosses that actually appear behind the image, suggesting that the images are fake. Also.. I know from my own studies that space is a dangerous place, and that well.. it is near impossible for any man made object to get through the "sky" - so to speak-... I mean, even ROCKs cannot get throughour sky without falling to peices, and it is obvious that there is something amiss here, cuz... they have got someone on the moon once... why can't they do it again? I think that everything surrounding that is just a little off center and... some of the things I have read have been very different and I think it's just a little strange thats all. Could someone have a look at this, cuz from my point of view, I think the whole thing is a bit of a SHAM. I guess, that's governments for you though. :) xoxo

Feb 14, 2004, 06:33 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Walter Bucket Sedimentary Rock Posts: 1	Two of the Internet's most impressive URLs showing that USA never put any man on the moon using their Apollo machines, are these two: Lots of photographs here at these URLs: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html "Bill Kaysing was head of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963." http://www.aulis.com/ Aulis Publishers This is a topic where scientists need to rely on information provided by eyesight, instead of super-skeptics that NASA somehow found. Some problems getting the flames from ascent of the lunar vehicle all looking similar from mission to mission. I read that Area 51 (and Australia?) held the fake moonscapes. Astronaut Gus Grisson got burnt alive at the top of the rocket. Perhaps "shunyadragon" would check his comments to see if they are witty, factual, truthful, coherently argued, or interesting. Saying "Out junk ..." is weak enough to be dsiagreeable. I saw the Fox TV program.

Feb 15, 2004, 05:59 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
DogB Sedimentary Rock Posts: 3	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Now, I haven't done all that much research on this topic yet and I think I probably should have done some before I actually made this topic, but I think I have a pretty ok point. I have just finished watching a TV programme where they showed pictures of the "man walking on the moon"... and I looked up my OWN little picture of that and found that what they were saying isi n fact correct. The pictures that were taken, have little crosses marked on them in certain places. Now, these crosses should appear IN FRONT of the actual image itself.. however, in about three different photo's there seems to be a jumble of these crosses that actually appear behind the image, suggesting that the images are fake<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Nope. See here http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Also.. I know from my own studies that space is a dangerous place, and that well.. it is near impossible for any man made object to get through the "sky" - so to speak-...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's a brave statement. I assume then you don't believe in satellites. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I mean, even ROCKs cannot get throughour sky without falling to peices,<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> .....and yet so many do </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by it's obvious that there is something amiss here, cuz... they have got someone on the moon once... why can't they do it again? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 12 men went to the moon in 6 different missions. Congress decided that the cost wasn't worth the returns and canned the project. We haven't gone back because there wasn't the resolve to do so. Other project seemed more important. We could go back probably within a decade, we just have to decide to do it (and fund it). </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I think that everything surrounding that is just a little off center and... some of the things I have read have been very different and I think it's just a little strange thats all. Could someone have a look at this, cuz from my point of view, I think the whole thing is a bit of a SHAM. I guess, that's governments for you though. :) xoxo<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is just your opinion and sorry to say it's a fairly inexpert opinion. If your really interested then do some research. Go here http://www.clavius.org/

Feb 15, 2004, 06:06 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Major Billy Molten Ash Posts: 90	The moon landings were faked, and I have the proof right here. >>>--~(ô¿ô)~--->

Feb 15, 2004, 06:37 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
toofgib Sedimentary Rock Posts: 7	You probablly saw the Fox program. It is a rehash of the same old stuff that keeps coming up over and over. And it keeps getting shot down over and over. The bright background in the pictures is over exposed slightly causeing the objects to bleed over the ficudals, the little crosses in the pictures, making the background to appear pasted over. As an above poster said go to: http://www.clavius.org/ One of the best debunking sites on the net. Oh, well what the heck.

Feb 15, 2004, 06:39 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Major Billy,) The moon landings were faked, and I have the proof right here.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> lmao @ spoof video. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 15, 2004, 07:10 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Comrade Hot Lava Location: Texas Posts: 1,229	oh god no, not conspiracy theories Oh, it's really too bad, isn't it? -- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050121/480/watw10701210224 Hahaha, that's funny. Liberals are so silly!

Feb 15, 2004, 10:04 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Taibak Sedimentary Rock Posts: 2	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,) Now, I haven't done all that much research on this topic yet and I think I probably should have done some before I actually made this topic, but I think I have a pretty ok point.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No offense, but it's a pretty weak argument. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,) I have just finished watching a TV programme where they showed pictures of the "man walking on the moon"... and I looked up my OWN little picture of that and found that what they were saying isi n fact correct. The pictures that were taken, have little crosses marked on them in certain places. Now, these crosses should appear IN FRONT of the actual image itself.. however, in about three different photo's there seems to be a jumble of these crosses that actually appear behind the image, suggesting that the images are fake.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not necessarily. The Apollo astronauts were taking photos of a bright white and grey landscape (the Moon) that was well lit by the Sun. As such, the photos were overexposed a bit, causing the white bits (mountains, rocks, etc.) to bleed over the crosshairs. This is photography 101 - try it yourself sometime by taking a slightly overexpsed photo of something covered in snow using a camera with crosshairs on the lens. You'll see the same effect. Also, think about where the crosshairs would have to have been if they were in the background of a fake Lunar landscape. The hoaxers would have had to paint the crosshairs on the back of the set and repaint them every time the photographed the set from a different angle. Why would they have bothered? Even from a theatrical point of view this doesn't make sense. No set designer in the world would be stupid enough to put an obviously fake background element in a set that was designed to be as realistic as possible. There is just no rational reason to have had crosshairs in the background at all - even if it was a hoax. Incidentally, if you're talking about that Fox special about the Moon hoax, you might want to look closely at their use of the movie Capricorn 1 as evidence. Apollo 11 landed in 1969. Capricorn 1 was released in 1978. Apollo inspired the movie, not the other way around, like the Fox special implies. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,) Also.. I know from my own studies that space is a dangerous place, and that well.. it is near impossible for any man made object to get through the "sky" - so to speak-... I mean, even ROCKs cannot get throughour sky without falling to peices, and it is obvious that there is something amiss here, cuz... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Lots of things do. Thousands of satellites are in orbit. Hundreds of space probes have been launched. Of the dozens of shuttle missions that have been flown, only one (Columbia on its final flight) ran into atmospheric problems. The heavily damaged Apollo 13 made it through the atmosphere no problem. If you don't believe those arguments, how else do you explain Meteor Crater in Arizona? Not only do we have a honkin' big hole in the ground that's 100% consistent with a meteor impact, we've found the rock that made it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,) they have got someone on the moon once... why can't they do it again? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Money and politics. The Apollo Program was started for purely political reasons. The United States was badly behind the Sovier Union in the space race President Kennedy wanted to beat the Soviets to the Moon. Apollo 11 did just that. By Apollo 13, people were already wondering why the government was still spending huge sums of money on a race that was already won. By the time Apollo 18 was ready to launch, there was no political support in the U.S. to keep spending millions on Apollo. As such, President Nixon cancelled Apollo 18 and all subsequent flights. We're talking about millions of dollars that could just as easily go to tax cuts, welfare, the military, subsidised industry, or new innovative space projects (Skylab and the shuttle come to mind). Since then, no space agency has had the money or the will to return. For evidence, all you need to see it the lukewarm reaction President Bush got for his proposed Moon missions. Heck, his proposed missions to Mars haven't garnered much attention. Then again, the Chinese and Indians are both planning missions to the Moon, so someone is in fact planning to go back. To put this argument in perspective, I went to Florida in the spring of 1997. I haven't been back since. To suggest that I haven't wanted to go back to Florida during the past seven years proves that it's impossible to go to Florida is silly. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,) I think that everything surrounding that is just a little off center and... some of the things I have read have been very different and I think it's just a little strange thats all. Could someone have a look at this, cuz from my point of view, I think the whole thing is a bit of a SHAM. I guess, that's governments for you though. :) xoxo<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Except there's a lot more to it then that. What about the 641 pounds of rock the Apollo astronauts brought back with them? No geologist on the planet would mistake them for Earth rocks. What about the anecdotal evidence from millions of people who watched the Apollo 11 landing live - many of whom commented on how alien the landscape looked and how oddly things moved in it. What about the dust being kicked up by the wheels on the rovers? All of it moves in a perfectly parabolic arc - something that's only possible in conditions unattainable on Earth, a perfect vacuum. What about the thousands of pages of documentation - most of which should be readily attainable under the Freedom of Information Act? Any historian will tell you that that many self- and mutually-consistent documents is quite good evidence that something happened. How do you explain the reflectors on the Moon that scientists bounce laser beams off regularly? The returned signals are far too good to have bounced off a reflector that wasn't placed by hand. Finally, what about the sheer difficulty in keeping a conspiracy this big under wraps. Over 360,000 people worked on the Apollo project in some form or another. It would be absolutely impossible to keep all of them silent for almost 40 years now. Neither money nor intimidation would be 100% successful, and yet, to the best of my knowledge, not one person involved in the project has come forward to blow the whistle on the hoax. How do you explain that? Incidentally, check out www.badastronomy.com. It thoroughly dissects the Fox special and the arguments therein.

Feb 16, 2004, 09:12 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
NotScientific Molten Ash Location: Mauritius Posts: 35	Man went on the moon several times after Neil Armstrong actually. I'm Columnist here at Volconvo.com and also at BackWash.com. Check my columns in the Science forum then.

Feb 17, 2004, 11:46 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Avatar Sedimentary Rock Posts: 1	Five Reasons to Believe We've Been to the Moon Reason #1 -- Moon Rocks Apollo astronauts didn't return empty-handed. They brought 841 pounds of the Moon back with them. Apollo Moon samples range in size from sand and pebbles to basketball-sized rocks. Moon rocks are completely different from rocks native to Earth. Their mineral content is unique and they show distinctive signs of exposure to the solar wind, cosmic rays and meteoroid impacts. To a trained geologist there's no mistaking a Moon rock. But you don't have to take the word of an expert. There are museums in the United States where you can inspect Moon rocks for yourself and see the distinctive meteoroid impact pits that pepper nearly all rocks from the Moon. It's rock-hard evidence that the Apollo program really did happen! Scientists from dozens of countries, many that were Cold War "enemies" of the United States, have analyzed Apollo Moon rocks. Every single researcher agrees that the Apollo Moon rocks are genuine. Reason #2 -- Witnesses The most famous participants in the Apollo program are the twelve astronauts who walked on the Moon. Nine of them are still alive today; they are powerful witnesses to the reality of the Apollo program. And they're not the only ones. Approximately 360,000 scientists, engineers, civil servants and contractors worked on the Apollo program. They designed the rockets, sewed the space suits, cut the pay checks, guarded the doors, swept the floors and much more. These hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life can testify that the Apollo program was real. Can you imagine a government conspiracy involving nearly 400,000 people without even one whistle blower revealing the truth? Reason #3 -- The Paper Trail The Apollo program left an awesome paper trail, including blueprints, spec sheets, memoranda, budgets -- you name it! Every nut and bolt on a Saturn V rocket, every clasp in an astronaut's space suit, every welding joint, every pressure valve... you get the idea ... all these things were meticulously documented. "For the Saturn V rocket alone there is more than 2000 linear feet of documentation stored in the National Archives outside of Atlanta." says Roger Launius, NASA's chief historian. That's nearly the same length as seven football fields laid end-to-end. For a physical scientist, the unique composition of Moon rocks might be the most persuasive evidence that humans visited the Moon and returned. But for a research historian, the staggering number of self-consistent original documents testifies powerfully to the reality of Apollo. Reason #4 -- More Witnesses Tens of thousands of people personally (not on TV -- they were there in person) saw the Apollo Saturn V rockets blast off for the Moon. Watching the departure of those behemoths -- the largest rockets ever built -- was an unforgettable experience for the spectators. The rockets were even visible in space. "At the time of the Apollo 8 mission I was heading a team at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory's satellite tracking station on top of Haleakala, Maui, Hawaii," recalls astronomer David Le Conte, "We took lots of photographs of the trans-lunar burn, clearly showing the spacecraft turning and heading out of Earth's orbit. These photographs were widely published, for example in Time and Life magazines. On subsequent nights (and for subsequent Apollo flights, including Apollo 11, when I was Manager of the Mount Hopkins, Arizona, station) we photographed the receding spacecraft and their waste dumps as far we could with our equipment." "I can only think that the (conspiracy) theorists are relatively young. Nobody who experienced the Apollo Program first hand could ever doubt its achievements." -- Le Conte Reason #5 -- Things Left Behind on the Moon Apollo astronauts left something behind on the Moon that we can see from Earth -- small mirrors called "corner cube retroreflector arrays." The first retroreflector was positioned on the Moon in 1969 by the Apollo 11 astronauts so that it would point toward Earth and be able to reflect pulses of laser light fired from our planet. Because the retroreflectors require no power, they are still operating normally more than 30 years after Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon. Scientists from around the world regularly bounce laser pulses from these distant reflectors to learn more about tides, the Moon's rotation, Einstein's theory of relativity, and much more. The Soviet Union and France also deposited a retroreflector on the Moon using an unmanned spacecraft, Lunakhod 2. That device was not placed on the lunar surface as carefully as the Apollo astronauts were able to situate their retroreflectors. As a result, the Lunakhod 2 mirror produces a weaker laser echo than the smaller Apollo reflectors -- devices that benefited from the personal attention of humans on the Moon.

Feb 17, 2004, 01:43 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
floridian Molten Ash Posts: 84	Yes.

Feb 17, 2004, 02:54 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
StoneWT Guest Posts: n/a	Walter, The Fox TV special was pure, unadulterated bull plop. Bull plop, I tell you! This is just a distraction to get you chasing your own tail down a rabbit hole. It is the same as the no plane pentagon nonsense, Carol Valentine's Waco nonsense, and J.D. Cash's BATF C4 story. Most of the photographic claims come from applying Earth physics to the moon. There are shadows going in different angles in the photos. However, that is because of sunlight reflecting off of the moon itself. Yes, you don't see stars. On Earth, that might mean something. On the moon, the answer is the same as the one for the different angles. The idea that you should 'JUST' look at photos or even 'JUST' look at any one type of evidence is ridiculous. You should take in everything you can get your hands on.

Feb 17, 2004, 04:26 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
die Nullte Sedimentary Rock Posts: 9	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by There are shadows going in different angles in the photos. However, that is because of sunlight reflecting off of the moon itself. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Two separate phenomena have been confused here. Some authors have claimed that, because the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, all shadows should be absolutely black. Not true. The Moon itself is reflective and casts light into the shadows. A different claim has been made that, because the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, all shadows should be parallel. They are plainly not parallel in the photos taken on the lunar surface by the astronauts, and this has been taken as evidence that there were multiple sources of light, as, say, in a movie studio. Well, for one thing, the Sun's rays are not truly parallel. However, for the sake of argument, we'll concede that, on a local basis and to the perception of nearby observers, the Sun's rays are essentially parallel. But you still have perspective effects -- shadows tapering from nearby to a vanishing point in the distance. This effect has been recognized by artists for centuries, and photographers routinely emphasize this effect for artistic purposes. Anyone can step outside and see that shadows are not parallel when viewed from one location. Also, if there were multiple studio lights, then we'd see multiple shadows. It's unavoidable. Now, we can't see stars in the photos taken from the Moon because the stars are too faint for snapshot exposures. Most of the astronauts' photos used shutter speeds of 1/125 and 1/250 and apertures from f/5.6 to f/11 -- consistent with daylight photos on the ASA 64 film they were using. Even a photo shot at 1/125 at f/5.6 isn't going to capture stars, even if they are in a black sky. Drop the shutter speed to 1/60 or 1/30 and the aperture to f/2.8 for, maybe, some photos taken in shadows -- still not enough to get stars. I say to anyone who questions this, "Try it!" "Well," someone says, "Aren't the stars much brighter on the Moon than on Earth?" No, they are not significantly brighter than they are from an excellent dark-sky location on the Earth. "Well, then, what's the big deal about the Hubble Space Telescope?" The Earth's atmosphere is turbulent, and this limits the resolution you can achieve with long-exposure images. Hubble gets those amazing images because it rides above this turbulence. As to why the astronauts didn't repeatedly exclaim, "Holy @#$%, look at those stars!" -- well, their eyes were stopped down (to use the photographic term) by all of that bright light off the Moon, so it would have actually been hard to see stars most of the time. I suppose if they had found a spot shaded on all sides they could have seen an impressive view, provided there was no attenuation from their visors.

Feb 18, 2004, 08:00 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
m5lange1 Igneous Magma Posts: 649	Well if they left that face on Mars (see other forum) there is a fair chance that they may have stopped of at the moon for a potty break or just to strech their legs a bit. Protester against the culture war!!!!

Feb 19, 2004, 12:27 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
AGN Fuel Sedimentary Rock Posts: 1	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sassi,) I have just finished watching a TV programme where they showed pictures of the "man walking on the moon"... and I looked up my OWN little picture of that and found that what they were saying isi n fact correct. The pictures that were taken, have little crosses marked on them in certain places. Now, these crosses should appear IN FRONT of the actual image itself.. however, in about three different photo's there seems to be a jumble of these crosses that actually appear behind the image, suggesting that the images are fake.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Hi Sassi, The crosses in the photographs are called fiducials and were primarily used for measurement purposes. They were very thin (0.02mm) marks etched into a glass plate placed in front of the film in the camera. However, whenever a photographic emulsion is overexposed, it has a tendency to 'bleed'. Sometimes this bleeding may obscure the very thin fiducial. Look at your photo again - has the fiducial that appears to go 'behind' an object been photographed against a light background? If you want to demonstrate this effect for yourself, tie a shoelace across a piece of white cardboard and photograph it at longer & longer exposure times. You will make it disappear! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Also.. I know from my own studies that space is a dangerous place, and that well.. it is near impossible for any man made object to get through the "sky" - so to speak-... I mean, even ROCKs cannot get throughour sky without falling to peices <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Space is a dangerous place. But I'm afraid that you are not correct when you say it is near impossible for any man-made object to get through the 'sky'. At present, there are over two thousand satellites & other man-made objects in Earth orbit, plus a few dozen probes that have roamed or are roaming the solar system! The Apollo spacecraft was specifically designed to land a man on the moon. To that end, it was successful. Also, rocks can get through the sky without falling to pieces - they are called meteorites. A big one can ruin your whole day! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by , and it is obvious that there is something amiss here, cuz... they have got someone on the moon once... why can't they do it again? I think that everything surrounding that is just a little off center and... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The task of landing a man on the moon was primarily driven due to the political capital that could be made from the achievement. Once done, although the scientists would have strongly urged that the exploration continue, the politicians had gained their policial 'coup' and chose not to continue funding to the project. The tools, buildings, equiptment etc that had been purpose built for Apollo was dismounted or abandoned. Now that there is an interest to return, we will not use the same technology that was developed nearly 40 years ago (although we will draw heavily on the experience gained then, of course!) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Could someone have a look at this, cuz from my point of view, I think the whole thing is a bit of a SHAM. I guess, that's governments for you though. :) xoxo<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Believe me, we did manage to go to the moon and the feat should be celebrated as one of the finest achievements of our normally dismal & ignoble species. The evidence in favour of the success of Apollo is overwhelming: - The Scale: Apollo at it's height employed over 500,000 people in 20,000 companies. These people were trained technicians, engineers & scientists - not people who are easily duped. - Rocks: The Apollo astronauts returned 380 kilograms of rock & soil samples. These display characteristics that are impossible to have faked. - LRRR: The Lunar Retro Ranging Reflectors were left by 3 of the Apollo missions and are used to this day to measure the Earth/Moon distance to around a centimetre! - The Russians: The race to the moon was intense and at the height of the Cold War, the emnity between Russia & the US was at a peak. The Russians were amply able to determine whether Apollo was a hoax and would have raised the roof if they suspected anything was amiss. They did not - in fact, they publicly congratulated the US on their success. - The launches: Millions of people watched the launches & hundreds of millions saw the spacecraft during it's parking orbit before the trans-lunar burn. That the spacecraft was launched is unarguable. - Tracking: This is a stone-cold showstopper. The Apollo missions were tracked to & from the moon by nationals in countries around the world. Ham radio operators also monitored transmissions for hours on end - impossible if the craft was kept in Low Earth Orbit as has been argued. - The Astronauts: At the end of the day, we have the eyewitness testimony of the astronauts themselves, together with some 32,000 photographs and many hours of TV & film footage that they took. They conducted experiments, the results of which were analysed by scientists around the world. Sassi, the arguments put forward by the hoax believers have been proven wrong time and time again. Typically, those who propose Apollo was hoaxed are either trying to sell you a book or video, or else they have a rabid distrust of 'the Government'. I am an Australian citizen. I have studied the Apollo Project for years, having grown up through that era, and it remains an interest of mine although I work in an unrelated field. I am not associated with the US (or the Australian for that matter) government in any way, shape or form. I am most assuredly not a NASA 'disinformation agent', whatever in Heaven's name that is supposed to be. Hopefully, this helps explain some of your questions, but please - if you have any other questions at all, please post them. Clear skies.