An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

take a look at this flash animation

It's even on a hoax site.
you can clearly see that the back grounds are NOT identical. And to me it looks as if they are shot at a different angle.
when they say "identical" they really only mean similar, which you would expect being that mountains don't move.

the reason that they seem to be identical from different distances is because of the lack of air on the moon, it's hard to tell distances because the air does not blur the image, and it;s hard to tell scale because there are no trees or buildings to give a point of refrence.

'the reason that they seem to be identical from different distances is because of the lack of air on the moon...'

Please be merciful...

I hurt myself laughing!!!

NOT Having air would not distort the distances, thats a NASA DIS-info that they give to "coverup" the discrepances.

it's not NASA dis-info it's called Atmospheric(or aerial) perspective and it is a FACT.

Aerial perspective or atmospheric perspective is the effect on the appearance of an object by air between it and a viewer. As the distance between an object and a viewer increases, the contrast between the object and its background decreases. The contrast of any markings or details on the object also decreases. The colours of the object also become less saturated and shift towards blue.

en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">From the Wikipedia

this cannot happen on the moon, now who's spreading dis-info?

For an outstanding example of this, take a look at video taken during Apollo 16.(go to the link to see video) There is a boulder in the background that looks to be about 3 or 4/ meters (10-13 feet) high. About 3/4 of the way through the segment the astronauts walk over to it. Amazingly, that boulder is the size of a large house! Without knowing how big the rock was when we first see it, we have no way to judge distances. That huge rock looks like a medium sized one until we have some way to directly judge its size; in this case, by looking at the tiny astronauts next to it. [My thanks to Bad Reader Martin Michalak for bringing this video to my attention. My very special thanks goes to Charlie Duke (yes, the Charlie Duke, Apollo astronaut and lunar lander pilot) who emailed me (!) about the difficulty in judging distances due to not knowing the sizes of rocks.]

bad astronomy

[edit on 22-7-2005 by Halfofone]

www.aulis.com...
I am speaking about the FOURTH pic on the site above. Does it seem plausible that the mountain to the right is in such a scenario??

About the distances, I disagree that the land is featureless. It has many craters. It is not like snow where you can get misconception of the distance.

About the site of Rob Moore admitting fakery, I have given it more than a grain of salt since it is from an Apollo insider with clearance. The author seems very authentic and objective. He says that he doesn't claim he has the truth despite the dangerous admission.

Back to distances, the distances claimed by NASA are beyond any common sense. In Apollo 17 , they say that the LM is 8 or 10 KMs far from the mountain (view the first photo in this site www.geocities.com/apolloscam/ )

View also the Apollo15 photos on that site. The distance between the LM and the Stone Mountain is said to be 3Kms. The second photo is claimed to be 2 KMs away from the landing site which is 5KMs from the Stone Mountain. We can clearly see the foreground, and I want to ask if it makes sense to anyone here that the mountain is 5 KMs away.

Besides, it is the authenticity of the photos what we are arguing about, so you can't use the photos or the video to prove anything. Jack White has shown where the size of mountains has been played with. It is not unusual to a hoax believer to see things changing size.

Originally posted by Wind
Back to distances, the distances claimed by NASA are beyond any common sense. In Apollo 17 , they say that the LM is 8 or 10 KMs far from the mountain (view the first photo in this site www.geocities.com/apolloscam/ )

View also the Apollo15 photos on that site. The distance between the LM and the Stone Mountain is said to be 3Kms. The second photo is claimed to be 2 KMs away from the landing site which is 5KMs from the Stone Mountain. We can clearly see the foreground, and I want to ask if it makes sense to anyone here that the mountain is 5 KMs away.

Remember that there is no air on the moon. No air means no haze. Thus everything will be crystal clear no matter how far away it is.

Also, given the brightness of the subject, the aperture of the camera would have been set as f22 or smaller. At that size, the depth of field would have been in focus from a few feet to infinity. Remember that these were hassleblad lenses, still among the worlds best.

Actually, a Pro-Apollo person has made anothr claim saying that there is a line that hides the foreground (which is obviously not true).

Since I don't have a knowledge in Hasselblad cameras, I preffer that an expert speaks about it. (BTW,I have spoken via internet to a person with expertise in photography and he didn't make this claim, instead resorted to the clarity of air and such things).

But just a curious question, even if the camera is set on that size you mension, shouldn't it show the foreground between the astronaut/LM and the mountain?

Again, I would like the idea of the members here.

About the same background with the lunar module and without it.

One was shot behind it, another in front of it. Look at our own mountains on Earth from a fair distance. Then move 20 metres towards the mountain. How much has it changed? Bugger all. Perspective does that.

[edit on 22/7/05 by Xar Ke Zeth]

Haze from water vapor and pollution is one of the big ways humans judge distance. if you took that away you would fine that a lot of people would have almost an impossible time judgeing distances without a referance.

looks like some people need to learn some basic photography

It is not the background with and without LM. It is the LM having two backgrounds in two photos , and this doesn't seem to match with the panorama.

About the distance, as Isaid before, the land is not featureless. It has craters, and we can see the foreground, and it is not as far as as NASA says. There are photos of snow I have seen where you can not judge the distance, so it is not the clearance of air (according to a pro-apollo site) as much as the featureless of the land.

Originally posted by veritas 7
Why oh why, has no other country, or the US for that matter, ever put another person back on the moon?

It does not make sense, why it has never been repeated?

The answer to that is fairly straightforward. Money. Lots of websites and books claim that a moon landing today would cost around $200 billion to accomplish, and upwards of one trillion dollars to land men on Mars. I think those values are a bit high. So, lets see what the original program would cost in today's money.

The cost of the Apollo program in 1969 was thirty five billion dollars. I'll break it down for you. (I'm doing this more for me out of curiosity than anything - but I figured I'd share it here since people are curious.)

NASA's Budget from 1960 to 1970:(source) And then adjusted to 2005 dollars (based on consumer price index).
(in millions of dollars) -- today's dollars (actual)
1960 = 485.1 ----- 2,857,876,172
1961 = 964.0 ----- 6,012,432,194
1962 = 1,825.3 -- 11,271,612,182
1963 = 3,674.1 -- 22,441,485,476
1964 = 5,100.0 -- 30,781,536,326
1965 = 5 250.0 -- 31,280,232,606
1966 = 5 175.0 -- 30,317,966,706
1967 = 4 968.0 -- 28,284,983,516
1968 = 4 588.9 -- 25,390,284,185
1969 = 3 995.3 -- 21,214,883,165
1970 = 3 696.6 -- 18,623,148,117

Lets just focus on 1965 to 1970 to get a better idea of the price of the Apollo program (which started in 1964 with the Gemini program, but we'll ignore the first "learning" programs as we already know how to get into space and how to operate in space - I've also ignored the 1971 budget year). I have adjusted each year's budget individually to 2005 dollars.

Total budget from 1965 to 1970: $27,673,800,000
Total budget 65-70, adjusted annually, to 2005 dollars: $155,111,498,295

If we split that into a 5 year program that would amount to $31.02 billion per year, not adjusting for inflation.

Comparatively, NASA's entire budget for 2004 was $16.2 billion ($2.7 billion in 1965 dollars).

If NASA adjusted their spending to match the spending trend during the five year period between 1965 and 1970, and eliminated all space exploration projects except for the moon landing and some small projects (about 8% of their total budget went elsewhere) that means they'd still have to cough up something around $26 billion per year.

Where is the money going to come from? What nation can afford to put upwards of $30 billion towards going to the moon when there are other things down here on earth their citizens want and need? (services, social programs, roads, airports, etc..)

Lets say Canada decides to go to the Moon tomorrow, how much of it's budget would have to go towards it? Canada's 2004 national budget (the only G-7 country to show a budget surplus in 2004-2005 btw): $186 billion ($9 billion surplus budget)

That would mean, for Canada to create a space program and get men to the moon, Canada would have to take over %16.12 of it's entire budget (Canada currently spends $12.9 billion per year on defense for example). Even with the utilization of 100% of the $9 billion budget surplus directed at a space program instead of paying off the national debt, Canada would still have to allocate $21 billion a year for 5 years, or %11.29 (which is money that would have to be taken away from other existing programs in a country with taxpayers already pissed off over healthcare and education cuts). I think you'll see that a moon landing is not in the cards for Canada...

What about for China? Well China had $317.9 billion in revenues, and $348.9 billion in expenditures in 2004. A $30 billion per year space program would be a significant 9.43% of their (pre deficit) budget, something that in the past just wasn't feasible (they have been spending big bucks to modernize their country and their military for the past 10 years). Now they're apparently in a position to spend money on prestige and in the progress gain a lot of technological benefits from their space program (it's why we have computers, polymers, composites, teflon, velcro, tang, etc. folks).

Then there's the technological hurdles...

Nobody has a rocket big enough to do the job.

The Chinese have the CZ-4 (Longmarch 4) which can lift 11,000 lbs into low orbit and 5,000 lbs to stationary orbit.

The Russians have the Zenit-2 or Zenit 3SL which can lift 13.74 tons (27,480lb) to 51 degrees or 11.38 tons (22,560lb) to 99 degrees (stationary) orbit -- the Zenit is not man-rated however. The Russians also have the Proton-M which can launch 22 tons (44,000lb) into low earth orbit - the Proton-M is also not man-rated. The Russian space program relies on the Soyuz series (based on the R-7) which is used for launching cosmonauts to the space station, and for satellite launches. The Soyuz (SL-4 or A-2) can launch 5,300-5,500kg (11,685-12,125 lbs) into low to medium orbit. The space station is not in a high orbit (like some people think) and performs orbital burns to adjust it's orbit trajectory often.

The Europeans have two rocket designs (one in use, one available in 2007). The European Space Agency have the Ariane 5 with a maximum payload of 6 tonnes (metric tons) or 13,332 lbs ; the Vega with a maximum payload of 1500kg (3,307 lbs) is designed for launching smaller payloads (satellites etc). The ESA also plans to have an Ariane 5 ECA with a max payload of 10 tonnes (22,000 lbs) in late 2005 or early 2006; and an Ariane 5 ES ATV with max payload of up to 21 tonnes sometime in 2006. None of the ESA rockets are man-rated.


The Americans have no big rockets and haven't had one since 1971. The space shuttle is 1/2 the size it was originally intended to be, it's maximum payload is 63,500 lb (28,800 kg) and it is a low to medium orbit vehicle. (Primarily low) The other workhorses for the USA are the Delta (the most powerful in this series is the Delta 9720 which has a maximum payload of 11,330lbs (5,139 kg); the Atlas series comes in a variety of models with the smallest Atlas V-4xx being capable of lifting 10,910-16,800 lbs (4950–7620 kg) and the largest Atlas Heavy which will be capable of lifting 27,888 lbs (12,650 kg) if/when it's available for launch sometime after 2006.

Comparing the above existing rockets to what the Saturn V was capable of (and did) is like comparing a moped to a dump truck. The Saturn V could launch a 129,300 kg (285,000 lb) payload into orbit, or a 48,500 kg (107,000 lb) payload to the moon.


So, you asked why has no other nation put a man on the moon and the answer is simple: it's a complete waste of money if you don't have a specific need to do it. And nobody has a rocket capable of doing anything close to what is required anymore. The cold war is/was the only reason anyone has ever been to the moon. Prestige did it, and as soon as it was done the American tax-payer said "ENOUGH!" and the Apollo program was abruptly ended with 6 more scheduled launches, and 2 complete and ready Saturn V rockets never to be used (one lays on its side outside Cape Kennedy, rusting away on display to this day).


[edit on 23-7-2005 by CatHerder]

Yes there are craters, but you cannot tell the size of the crater can you? no.
It could be a few feet across or it could be a few hundred feet. You do not know untill there is a point of refrence, like a human standing in or beside the crater, or a tree or something we already know the size of.....

as or the fourth pic, that is misleading, the three pictures were not taken from the same position. it looks to me as if the left most picture was taken from the right side and further back than the right most pictures. the tracks from the rover in the left pic lead away from the spot the rover is in the right pics.

What I meant by the land is featureless in snow is not the presence of rocks and stuff but the absence of craters and small rocks... the land in snow is only white..that is why I think you can get mixed up. If the land in snow have small rocks, and dark craters, you can still tell the distance...but maybe I am wrong abot this..would like to hear experts in this.
...anyhow, you can have a point here , but still I find it too difficult to believe the NASA story. A ridge line pro-apollo ppl say that hides the land can't hide such vast lands. I still grab the admission of Rob Moore to his close friend seriously. Hope you have the guts to read it.

As for the panorama, the size of the mountain matches the previous photos, so that is the real panorama. No matter what the viewpoint of the camera is, can you really have such a scenario? Please consider me doing a poll now, I would like to hear the idea of the members, especially those knowledgeable about the issue.
regards

I have read mr. James Beals site before.
Nothing but third hand information and the same lame "anomolies" that do not hold up to critical analysis.
one thing gets me, is he becomes a zombie, and his wife divorces him because he stops haveing conversations to prevent the release of "sencitive info" yet takes home classified documents and gives them to his son, who in trun shows tham to the neighbor? a bit odd.

Dear HalfofOne,
i have to disagree with you. The site has made it clear that the father trusts only his son Rob. Have you seen movies about ppl working for the intelligence and have to hide their info.? I have, and let me tell you that their lives with their family is miserable. Once you work with something, it affects your attitude, even your personal life.

As for Rob, the site has made it clear that he is not that secretive as his father by his nature. He loves life and is innocent. When it came to phone calls and he was grown up, he recognized that what he said is dangerous. His info. was confirmed by a second secretive report heard by the author.
Inspite of all of that, the author remains humbled and says that he doesn't claim that Rob was saying the truth, maybe he was mislead, but I don't think so.
regards

Well I guess we will see.... the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will photograph the landing sites and a man/woman will be on the moon AGAIN before 2020.

You can belive a man who was the neighbor of a guy whos father was suposedly involved, and I'll belive NASA, and the multitude of astronomers and scientists that confirm it.

I'm done with this for now. this is a red herring, just some crap that distracts us from the real consperacies.

What exactly would it take to convince every person here that we have been to the Moon?

They will say new photos are faked, video footage made in a studio and when we do go back to the Moon they will say we planted the old landers to make it look like we've been.....

Theres just no pleasing some people.....

what about the same backdrop mountains in several pictures with and without the LM, or why is there a crater from rocket blast leaving the moon, but no crater from the same rocket blast in the pictures while landing on the moon? Making rockets and putting man in orbit is one thing, but putting a man on the moon is something else. They could of launched the rockets and orbited earth a few times and faked the rest. Look at all the rocket power it takes to send someone into orbit but a pos LM in 69 landed and launched off the moon? Come on!

I think that one of the reasons that some people continue to deny the lunar landings is that they simply can not accept the fact that there are people out there who are smarter and more capable Then they are.

The people who worked in the space program are the best of the best.

I also suspect that these are the same people that teased the "nerds" in school for taking science classes.