John

I think it was the communist from Russia who started it. Think about it. The space race was the FIRST time Russia was ahead of the US in something. I don't think they were to happy when America pulled ahead. Think about it, the Russian government could have sent over ANY Russian Spy to say that the moon landing was fake.

__________________
"The Cavaliers are my hero's!!"
-Anti-Choice57 and John on a Band trip to Texas after The Cavaliers won the 2006 DCI World Championchips.

VOTE
John '28
"A Leader with a vision..."


http://www.freewebs.com/johnforpresident

intangible child

In your picture there is no darkness even in the creases of the astronauts "suit".

__________________

Live the Light, Give the Light,
Bring Heaven to Earth Every Day!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jBcwAJZGX...=john%20denver


The ancient Greeks used to say, "You shall know a man by the friends that he keeps." Given the nature of his friends and advisors, what are we to conclude about George W. Bush:
Stop the madness before us it stops!
Σταματήστε την τρέλα προτού να μας σταματήσεϊ Greek

intangible child

Oh, I get it the commies snucked into NASA and switch all video and photos. Taking the original that would prove the U.S. actually landed on the moon, those damn commie bastards!

__________________

Live the Light, Give the Light,
Bring Heaven to Earth Every Day!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jBcwAJZGX...=john%20denver


The ancient Greeks used to say, "You shall know a man by the friends that he keeps." Given the nature of his friends and advisors, what are we to conclude about George W. Bush:
Stop the madness before us it stops!
Σταματήστε την τρέλα προτού να μας σταματήσεϊ Greek

tyreay

The idea of this being a hoax, I believe, has made you so uncomfortable tht you won't actually review the evidence. The arguements for the truth of the launch, in recent posts, show that no one has taken the time to actiually read all the evidence. Heres just a titbit. Go review the rest, please.

For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.

By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.

As Rene points out, that's not all: The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.

Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers" who were keen for the truth to one day get out.

If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, "Why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?"

The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.

How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.

Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing. "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.

Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?

__________________
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour

There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle. ~Alexis de Tocqueville

knot_e_lady

I have.

I suggest you review the explanations for each of the above points.

Redzero's Moonhoax - How Apollo moon landings really happened

Were all the photographs taken by the astronauts just too good?
They were being taken by amateur photographers in difficult conditions, yet they all appear almost perfect!
The astronauts received a great deal of training before they left Earth, part of this was in the operation of the cameras, which were specially designed by Hasselblad's to be used by the astronauts with their suits on.
The Apollo astronauts took around 17,000 photographs on the lunar surface. There's plenty of not-so-great photographs that NASA simply have never publicised. Over or under exposed, quint angles, accidental exposures. But those that the public are most familiar with are the best ones.

Hasn't a top NASA person said that radiation is a big problem and something that prevents people living in space?
This is a quote that's often used as proof that we couldn't have gone to the moon or journeyed beyond the Van Allen belt. It's an accurate statement, radiation is a problem that will need to be conquered before any attempts are made to live or travel in space long-term. The problem exists if we want to live on the moon, travel to Mars, or even further. It was spending months or even years in space that was being discussed, not the short trips to the moon and back that the Apollo missions did. So the 'top NASA person' is being quoted out of context.

The Van Allen belts are a band of concentrated radiation around the Earth. It's been estimated that you'd need a foot of lead casing to protect yourself from this, which the Apollo crafts didn't have. Why didn't this kill the astronauts on the way to the moon?
Radiation is a big problem when it comes to space travel and the Earth's magnetic field concentrates this radiation into the Van Allen belts that surround the Earth. No matter what, the Apollo crafts had to go through these belts and there was no way the Apollo crafts could afford to take all the weight of lead shielding with them. So they were bound to be exposed. The question is, just how serious would this exposure be?
What you have to realize that the radiation involved isn't the same kind or intensity as you might get from a nuclear bomb. You don't fall sick and your hair doesn't all fall out. It's been calculated that travelling at speed through the Van Allen belt would result in exposure of 1 rem. Radiation sickness symptoms don't start to show until you get around 25. Once you reach 100 you're going to be ill. 500 and you're probably dead. So the exposure the astronauts received is pretty mild.
But that isn't to say either that it can't do you any harm. Added to the exposure they got actually out on the moon, it is a risk that can't be fully quantified. Who knows what cancers could result from it? Given the choice most people would want to avoid this kind of exposure to radiation. But the astronauts risked it because they thought it was worth it. This, and all the other risks they faced, is what makes them remarkable people.

John

For some of us, there is just no persuasive evidence would lead us to think it's fake.

__________________
"The Cavaliers are my hero's!!"
-Anti-Choice57 and John on a Band trip to Texas after The Cavaliers won the 2006 DCI World Championchips.

VOTE
John '28
"A Leader with a vision..."


http://www.freewebs.com/johnforpresident

knot_e_lady

If someone, just one person among the hundreds, possibly thousands of people who were involved with the moon landings came forward with proof that these were fake, maybe I might get a second thought. But there is no one. No proof of fakery, just supposition that can be easily and scientifically explained.

It's sad that people are so gullible they are willing to listen to any Tom, Dick or Harry that wants to make a buck.

highway80west

I met Charles Duke at a retreat a few years ago, the same man who walked on the moon with Apollo 16. He could be heard to say "Look at that bright red rock" as he was exploring the moonscape.

__________________
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psalm 119:105

hevusa

Since there is no atmospere on the moon the lunar landing and take off site should be easily identifible, should it not?

Still waiting on that picture that no one can produce....

__________________
--- help me Instant Runoff Voting, you're my only hope ---

"There is no such thing as laziness. Laziness is only lack of incentive." Norman Reider, MD

Morality is not contingent on religion to exist. Therefore religion only detracts from the purity of morality.

knot_e_lady

Why don't we just point Hubble or some other big telescope at the moon to show the moon landing sites? Wouldn't that settle the argument once and for all?
If only it was that easy! The biggest problem with this is that they simply are not powerful enough. The lunar landers are very,very,very small in astronomical terms and they're pretty far away as well. There isn't a telescope in existence that could take a picture of one.
There are lots of mathematics we could show to demonstrate this, but's it's very complicated and we don't fully understand it anyway. But here's our abridged dumbed-down version.

Size of Lunar Module. Let's be really generous and say 10m square. Distance between Hubble and Moon. About 350, 000km. This works out as an visual angle of (10m)/(3.5 x 10^8m) * (180/PI) = 1.6 x 10^-6 degrees = 6 milliarcseconds. The WFPC2 'telescope' on Hubble has the following resolution: 800x800 pixels of a 35 arcseconds field of view with a pixel scale of 46 milliarcseconds. Actually resolution in practice is a little below this.

So what does this all mean? Well, roughly speaking, it means that the lunar lander would have to be 15 times larger before it would even cause a dot on a Hubble picture.

Hubble Telescope