Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

If I remember rightly the Chinese Rover is up and running again...
But there is a no fly zone over Landmarks on the moon so it would take a while to get their!!!

Landmarks on the moon????...no fly zones???? = CONVENIENT TRICKS!! What we don't want anyone crashing into our priceless rover or disturbing the shoeprints in the dust?

a reply to: IroncladFT

Don't be silly. Anyone can get within 1 metre (that is a little over 3 feet) of the lunar modules for Apollos 12, 14, 15 and 16. Only Apollos 11 and 17 are protected by wider exclusion zones by virtue of their greater historical significance.

Nobody is trying to hide anything. They just don't want souvenir hunters destroying the moon's first archeological sites. And rightly so in my opinion.

originally posted by: IroncladFT
a reply to: Rob48

I am confused by your example of the satellite photo of the parked cars. You're saying the images given by Google earth/maps are NOT as high quality as the ones NASA used to show the left behind equipment on the moon, then post a pixilated image of 3 cars parked and of the lunar rover. So i ask you...how come I can see my truck clear as day using google maps/earth, but this quality isn't available from NASA to show the rover?

I am honestly confused because some of the SAT images I have seen while in the Military and working as a PMC in Afghanistan are unFN real.

Because Google Maps uses AERIAL photography as well as satellite pics. Once you zoom in that far you are seeing photos taken from a plane at approximately 5000ft altitude. The LRO orbiter was at an altitude of 25km or over 15 MILES.

Working in the military you would have bee seeing images from reconnaissance aircraft, not just satellites.

The number of times people ask this question just shows that hoax believers aren't interested in doing basic research. High-resolution Google Maps imagery is NOT from satellites.

a reply to: Rob48

Rob -- What you say about the better google map imagery being from airplanes is true.

However, it would not surprise me if the military/intelligence organizations had satellite technology that could result is similarly hi-res/high magnification images. Having said that, and if such technology does exist, I don't think the intelligence community would be willing to let NASA use that technology for its space probes (or even officially admit that the technology exists).

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

the technology for higher resolution images is readily available to use, but you have to remember to take into account the higher cost of tasking the mission. eg wear n tear and power budget of the vehicle, receiver time and processing time for the extra bandwidth needed all need to be within the budget.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The best military satellite resolution that is public knowledge is from the KH-11 satellites which go down to about 15cm resolution. Not brilliantly better than the LRO.

For a satellite in 650km earth orbit using a 2.4 metre mirror the theoretical resolution is only about 10cm, and that is ignoring the blurring effect of the atmosphere. Spy satellites cannot read a newspaper headline or a car license plate, whatever the urban legends say!

Being able to spot a trail of human footprints on the moon, from 25km above the surface, strikes me as pretty impressive.

Anyway, even if you hovered some kind of "space drone" right above the lunar module and took high-res photos from a few metres away, the hoaxers would just yell "Photoshop!", so there would be no point.

Hoax believers are like religious fundamentalists: evidence is not even a factor in their belief. It is purely a matter of "faith".

a reply to: Rob48

Yeah -- I highly doubt a satellite could read newspaper headlines, but I would not be surprised if an intelligence satellite could take an image similar to that clear Google Earth image (taken from an airplane) of a car in a driveway.

But, like I said, NASA may not have access to technology like that (if it even exists), and really wouldn't even need it anyway considering LRO's mission.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Rob48

Yeah -- I don't know about newspaper headlines, but I would not be surprised if an intelligence satellite could take an image similar to that Google Earth airplane image showing a car in a driveway.

But, like I said, NASA may not have access to technology like that (if it exists), and really wouldn't even need it anyway considering LRO's mission.

Agreed that if I can read on Wikipedia about 15cm spy satellite images then there is probably better hardware out there. But my original comparison was with commercial imagery.

In any case (and this argument isn't aimed at you) why would you need spy satellite capability for the moon? Spy satellites are used to keep an eye on events you don't know about. We know what Apollo hardware is on the moon and where it is. It's not going anywhere!

The LRO is a mapping satellite. It wasn't put into orbit to spy on the Apollo hardware. What would be the point when we have such great photos of it already, shot on medium-format film with some of the finest film cameras ever made?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Quotes are only any use if they are cited correctly and given the correct context. When people quote things incorrectly, then ascribe meanings that were clearly not intended, or actually make stuff up based on something that was never actually said, then the quotes are pointless and don't beloing in a debate.

You are not an 'Apollo Reviewer'. You are a historical revisionist intent on putting meaning into things that were never there, and trying to claim that things didn't happen for which there is abundant physical evidence.

You are not in physical possession of the abundant source material that could be allowed as evidence - that makes you a rhetorician with an acute Apollo bias.

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

Nixon's evidence, Nixon's motivations, Nixon's decision-making process are connected to the history of Apollo.

Every piece of 'evidence' that you have tried to enter on this thread has failed to meet the criteria of 'evidence'. You have taken us (figuratively) to the NASA gift shop and asked us all to believe that the souvenirs on display are proof of Apollo.

December 19, 1972. The day that will live in infamy.

It's not revisionism when I explode the fact that Nixon cancelled Apollo. That's part of the historical reviewing process, which, ironically makes your argument less appealing and my argument more compelling. It's not revisionism when I exploit the fact that Nixon kept the USA in low earth orbit for 42 years (and counting!).

Keep in mind the federal rules of evidence. Nixon knows the rules of evidence, Howard Hughes has done many big productions before. Put 2 and 2 together you have a valid reason to look deeper into what else is happening 1968-1972.

Are you worried that there will be disclosures in this thread that you can't control? Like the fact that Nixon's brother, Ed Nixon, was a double-degreed geologist who couldn't find in geology (even in the petroleum industry) so Ed "found" a job at Bellcomm, as a hiring manager, he hired 2,000 people for Bellcomm, one of them being Farouk El-Baz, the Secretary of the Landing Site Selection Committee and a specialist in remote viewing. It was Bellcomm contractors who wrote all those mission plans for NASA, it was Bellcomm contractors who selected the landing sites and doing many other things --- like planning to build lunar bases and trips to Mars.... then Nixon cancelled the last three movies and redirected NASA to live in low earth orbit for the next 42+ years (and countin!).

History. Man, deal with it.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
You're the one who seemingly can't deal with history: namely the indisputable fact that 12 men have walked on the moon. Whatever the motives, whatever the politics, whatever the ultimate agenda, that is a historical fact.

Much of the stuff you say about Nixon and his cronies is true. I am not disputing it. But it has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of Apollo, which would have happened whoever was in the White House.

Which brings me to a question that intrigues me. Let's say, for the sake of debate, that Nixon had lost the 1968 election. If Hubert Humphrey was president in 1969, then how would Apollo have panned out, in your view? Let's not forget, the programme was already in full swing when Nixon was elected. So if Nixon's presidency was so key to the "Apollo hoax", what would they have done if he had lost?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

If anyone could debunk this I'll start believing 100% that the landing was possible!!!

Peace everybody!!!

a reply to: ppk55

According to data compiled by Russian scientists, shielding of 1 g/cm^3 (the density of water) is sufficient to shield astronauts. This is equivalent to aluminum about 2mm thick:

Start believing.

Thats not what the graph is stating.

originally posted by: Brother Stormhammer

originally posted by: FoosM

Do we have the technology NOW to do a manned moon landing?
And if so, why hasn't the EU or any one country in the EU, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Japan,
Brazil, India, etc. attempted a moon landing? Or even attempt an Apollo 8 mission?

We have the ability to keep people alive and active in space for well over a year (unless you think the ISS missions are faked), and we have the ability to land payloads on the Moon. That strongly implies that the technology to carry out a manned lunar mission exists, doesn't it?

No. Strip away Earth's VABs and see how long we last on this planet out in space.

As to why nobody's flown a manned mission to the Moon recently, there are three reasons.
The big one is a lack of money...

So all countries in the world has been broke for 40 years.
Right....

There's also a lack of popular support for a lunar program.

Wrong again. A study was done to show that this was and is not correct.
The only people who are not interested are the people who faked the missions.

originally posted by: mrwiffler
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

During the 1960's, leading up to the manned moon missions, the Van Allen belts were studied extensively. If you do a search using "google scholar" you can finds hundreds of scientific papers dealing with the radiation belts from the appropriate time period.

Add to that the fact that radiation in general had been extensively researched for many decades and it is pretty safe to assume that the apollo technical team knew what they were doing.

The radiation problem that all the hoax advocates want you to believe is very easy to debunk for yourself if you know where to look. Hundreds of articles with hard data pointing to there being no problem...a handful of of dubious characters on the internet with no hard data saying there was a problem.

Provide that data from the 1960's then.
Because when you do, I'll swamp you with current info that contradict all of it.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: FoosM

Welcome back FoosM. Remember what you said about wanting to be a skeptic? Having read about what Jarrah White is doing (now that really IS being intellectually dishonest), do you now see why you should treat anything he says with the utmost suspicion?

I know JW is not the only hoaxer still left, but he does seem to be the leading light. If he can't be trusted, who can you trust?

JW was not the reason why I became skeptical about the moon landing.
If you want to see him as some kind of "leader" thats on you. But Im not part of some mono-culture.
He is not my leader. I provide his material, and anybody else with interesting info on the moonlanding hoax
on the forums for discussion and analysis.

a reply to: FoosM

But if you applied the same level of critical thinking to any hoax "evidence" as you have done to real evidence on this thread, you would soon see that the missions couldn't have been faked. The amount of scrutiny you applied to my calculations on the PLSS, to give one example — any hoax theory would collapse under 10% of that questioning.

I'm puzzled that you still can't see that. You're clearly no fool and yet you are only questioning one side of the argument.

Every piece of 'evidence' that you have tried to enter on this thread has failed to meet the criteria of 'evidence'. You have taken us (figuratively) to the NASA gift shop and asked us all to believe that the souvenirs on display are proof of Apollo.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I think this is what I agree with most. Oh, and well put -your demeanor and verbal eloquence are unrivaled in this conversation. "You want proof of NASA going to the moon, well, here's what NASA says".

originally posted by: cestrup

Every piece of 'evidence' that you have tried to enter on this thread has failed to meet the criteria of 'evidence'. You have taken us (figuratively) to the NASA gift shop and asked us all to believe that the souvenirs on display are proof of Apollo.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I think this is what I agree with most. Oh, and well put -your demeanor and verbal eloquence are unrivaled in this conversation. "You want proof of NASA going to the moon, well, here's what NASA says".

This comes back to my biggest problem with discussions on this topic.

In plain, simple words, can someone please spell out the following for me?
1) What would constitute proof of a manned landing? Don't play the 'moving goalposts' game with the answer, please. I'm looking for a serious, solid benchmark to aim for.

2) Why is the level of proof so much higher for the people who think we did land on the Moon than it is for the 'fake landing' crowd? One side of this discussion presents engineering studies, medical evidence, photographs, and physical hardware, only to be told that the presented evidence is inadmissible, faked, or irrelevant. The other side presents photo-collages, faked magazine covers, and 'evidence' from people with minimal qualifications, all of which are lauded as crushingly decisive.

3) What was the point of this alleged lunar landing conspiracy? Was it done so that the US could score political points against the Soviet Union? I've heard that argument put forth frequently, only to have the same people claim that the Soviet Union was part of the conspiracy (thus explaining why they didn't reveal that the landings were faked). Something there doesn't seem to add up.

4) This one's mostly for S.J. What does Richard Nixon's dishonesty (surely you can't be serious? A high-level politician who would lie? Say it ain't so!) have to do with the lunar landings? Likewise, what does Wehrner Von Braun's affiliation with the Nazi Party have to do with the lunar landings? If anything, given that the Nazis seem to be regarded as near-mythical super-engineers who were decades ahead of their time, I'd think that having a Nazi engineer in charge would be an argument for the Moon landings legitimacy.

None of the above are intended as flame-bait, trolling, or rudeness...I'm just trying to get a handle on what sort of proof would suffice, and the structure of the conspiracy in question.

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: mrwiffler
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

During the 1960's, leading up to the manned moon missions, the Van Allen belts were studied extensively. If you do a search using "google scholar" you can finds hundreds of scientific papers dealing with the radiation belts from the appropriate time period.

Add to that the fact that radiation in general had been extensively researched for many decades and it is pretty safe to assume that the apollo technical team knew what they were doing.

The radiation problem that all the hoax advocates want you to believe is very easy to debunk for yourself if you know where to look. Hundreds of articles with hard data pointing to there being no problem...a handful of of dubious characters on the internet with no hard data saying there was a problem.

Provide that data from the 1960's then.
Because when you do, I'll swamp you with current info that contradict all of it.

By all means please do it be unusual but id be more than happy to go over radiation with you i have a background in dealing with radiation in the medical industry. And i would find that far more interesting than the gravity discussion thats been going on. Ill tell you this nothing in the Van Allen belt is lethal within the parameters of a mission. The astronauts increased the possibility of getting cancer now all even agree they didnt fully understand it yet but they did have whats important the reading they needed.

originally posted by: FoosM

Provide that data from the 1960's then.
Because when you do, I'll swamp you with current info that contradict all of it.

Firstly, why not find it yourself? There are many places out there with the data all ready for you to read, including the Soviet studies from their unmanned probes. Find the data and present it here. Your problem is that we know it exists. You failing to acknowledge it makes you look at best lazy and at worst dishonest.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if modern data contradict the findings of early research that was available during Apollo. What matters is what was available then.

What was available them was information about the radiation loading of the Van Allen belts and space in general. They designed a vessel and a trajectory that would minimise exposure to these hazards. Radiation levels were monitored throughout the flights, and a specific section of the mission support team monitored solar activity for evidence of a potential threat. You can produce all the evidence you like that these would not have been adequate by modern standards or understanding, but you will completely fail to produce any evidence that it wasn't done.