Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?

SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

One of the main anomalies that leads me to believe that the Moon
footage was taken on a film set is the fact that the same mountains
appear on different Apollo missions which are supposed to be landed
several hundreds of miles from each other. In the following sequences
you will even see the camera pan across the landscape that at one point
includes the Lunar Landing Module. In another shot from the same
mission, we see the very same mountains, but no Lander? How can this be
when the mountains appear to be exactly the same distance away from the
camera?

http://www.tntleague.com/misc/StrangeM.rm


This film shows two different Apollo missions, which are supposed to be
in different areas of the Moon, but show the exact same mountains in the
background.

http://www.tntleague.com/misc/strangem2.rm

One of the worst sun flares ever recorded happened in August 1972, which
was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions. This single flare would have
delivered 960 rem of virtually instant death to any astronaut who was up
in Space, and yet all of the Apollo astronauts were carrying out their
missions in what amounts to nothing more than a thick linen suit. These
pressure suits may have helped protect the astronauts against heat or
micro meteorites, but certainly would not have given any radiation
protection. By the way, there is no known method of registering when and
how strong Solar flare activity will be. So, I guess NASA just struck lucky!

The radiation would have greatly affected the film that was shot on the
Moon. Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests
on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem)
applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the
film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen to the Apollo
films?

Readers will be interested to hear that the biggest Solar Flare for 25
years was recorded in April, 2001. So sceptics who are claiming that
NASA know when the Solar Flares are going to appear are talking rubbish
- as usual... If this were the case, why didn't they bring down the
astronauts from the Shuttle and ISS if they knew this gigantic Solar
Flare was about to erupt?

HJP Arnold is an astronomer and keen photographer, an expert on space
and astro photography and was the assistant to the Managing Director at
Kodak during the Apollo years. He has also authored many space
photography books. He comments that the film that was supplied by Kodak
for the missions was essentially the same as used here on Earth. it was
exachrome 64 ASA or ISO as it is called today. He has commented that you
would expect to see some small dots on the films where a high velocity
nuclear particle had hit the film, however no evidence of this
whatsoever has come forward. The only thing that would protect the film
from this damage would be a thick layer of lead around the camera
casing, which according to Hasselblad was not used. Let's also remember
that the films were changed whilst outside on the Moon's surface and not
in any controlled environment.


3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the
LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that
the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM
as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot
print if all the dust had been blown away?

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding
Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed
(like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach
the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn
(newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the
astronauts' health."

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer
memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned
building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of
memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the
memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on
board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple
calculator.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it
would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such
debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently maps the Moons
surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the
missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?



http://www.moonmovie.com/
Surrounding the earth, beginning at an altitude of 1,000 miles and
extending an additional 25,000 miles, lie lethal bands of radiation
called the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Every manned space mission in
history (including Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz, Skylab and the Space Shuttle)
has been well below this deadly radiation field... all except Apollo.
Recently uncovered footage of the crew of the Apollo 11 staging part of
their mission proves that the astronauts never made it beyond earth orbit.


Mo
The goal was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability
during the height of the cold war. Deceit, Greed and Injustice... A sad
thing happened on the way to the moon. The truth will astound you!

13. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned
hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven
important milestones:

1. First manmade satellite in earth orbit…
2. First man in space…
3. First man to orbit the earth…
4. First woman in space…
5. The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft…
6. The first space walk…
7. The first of two orbiting space craft rendezvousing…

And yet they didn't go to the Moon? Sleuths?

7. The moon is 250,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more
than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans
even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle
astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van
Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation
belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind. See
streaming video: "Radiation Belts."
http://www.moonmovie.com/radiation_belt.ram

4. Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from lunar
orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical shape with a high
center of gravity and one big thrust engine at the bottom. Upon just
looking at this design, to think it would not immediately pinwheel and
crash, as the lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on Earth, is
absurd.

Mad Scientist wrote in
le.rogers.com:

SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!

As you are so fond of telling others... Go do your research!

http://www.clavius.org/

Paul Lawler wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in
le.rogers.com:


SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!


As you are so fond of telling others... Go do your research!


Anger noted.



http://www.clavius.org/

They don't answer the Van Allen belt mystery very adequately.

They don't answer the stability of the lunar lander. ( I watched a show
on Discovery where engineers were trying to make another type of rocket
which would take off and land - and it crashed on the first test - and
this was 30 years after the Moon missions)

They say nothing about the two separate landing sites which are identical.

They say nothing about film exposure to radiation in the vacuum of space.

They say nothing about the gravitational mystery.

They say nothing about mapping missions of the moon's surface done in
recent times which showed no evidence of a lunar landing site.

They say nothing about why the Russians never went to the moon when
their biggest rocket made the Saturn V look tiny by comparison.

They say nothing about Shuttle astronauts who observed 'radiation' when
just approaching the Van Allen Belts (even with their eyes closed).

They say nothing about why a few astronauts resigned right after the
'successful missions'.


They say nothing about many other things, and by omission must mean they
have no answer and hope no one will notice.

| SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
| PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!


| http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Parallax.

| http://www.tntleague.com/misc/StrangeM.rm

Not from two different Apollo missions. From the same mission, and again
the explanation is parallax.

| One of the worst sun flares ever recorded happened in August
| 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Yes, there was a severe solar flare in August
1972, during which no Apollo mission was operating. That was the only flare
of that magnitude (or even close to it) that occurred during the Apollo
operational period. There was no protection in the form of shielding for
solar flares. Protection against solar flares was in the statistical
distribution of the missions to avoid them. It worked, as the data bear
out.

| Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests
| on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem)
| applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the
| film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen to the Apollo
| films?

Because the Apollo film wasn't subjected to anywhere near the radiation that
Groves used in his experiment. Groves doesn't claim his experiment has
anything to do with the radiation environment in space. His conclusion is
simply that if you blast film with a lot of radiation, it fogs. He leaves
it up to others to determine whether that amount of radiation occurs in
space.

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

| So sceptics who are claiming that NASA know when the Solar Flares
| are going to appear are talking rubbish - as usual...

I read about this flare at CNN two days before it happened. Clearly they
*can* be predicted.

There are two ways to predict. One is to say, "The next major solar flare
will be on this date." That's not really possible. The other is to say,
"The chances of a major solar flare occurring during this particular week
are very low." That can be done statistically, and *was* done.

| If this were the case, why didn't they bring down the astronauts
| from the Shuttle and ISS if they knew this gigantic Solar Flare
| was about to erupt?

Because they're inside the Van Allen belts.

| He [HJP Arnold] has commented that you would expect to see some
| small dots on the films where a high velocity nuclear particle had
| hit the film, however no evidence of this whatsoever has come
| forward.

That means either that (a) the photos were faked, or (b) Mr. Arnold is
mistaken in his expectations. What did you do to determine which
explanation was correct? What other experts besides Mr. Arnold agree that
this should have been seen?

| The only thing that would protect the film from this damage would be
| a thick layer of lead around the camera casing...

Hogwash. The marks appear in the film because the film absorbs the
particle. If the particle passes through it without being absorbed, there
is no mark. Similarly, if the particle doesn't make it past the magazine
casing, it never gets to the film. So the candidates for making marks on
the film are only those particles that have enough energy to pass through
the casing, but not enough to pass through the film.

It is common layman's understanding that only thick pieces of lead will
provide shielding against radiation. That is utterly false. High-energy
x-rays and gamma rays require thick, dense shielding. But many of the
particles in cislunar space can be stopped with a sheet of typing paper.
The most common material used as a radiation shield in space engineering is
aluminum. Guess what the camera magazine was made out of?

| Let's also remember that the films were changed whilst outside
| on the Moon's surface and not in any controlled environment.

And they bear the light leaks to prove it.

| There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the
| LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket.

The engine was not operating at 10,000 lbf at landing, but rather at 2,500
lbf. Provide the calculations proving that a crater would have been
created.

| If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot
| print if all the dust had been blown away?

What famous boot print? There are no photographs of Armstrong's first print
on the moon.

Further, it is a straw man to say that "all" the dust was blown away. We do
not make that claim. Indeed the film record shows that while dust was
blown, it was not exhaustively cleared from the area. If all the dust had
been blown away, it would have stopped blowing before the engine was shut
down. But we see the dust blowing right up to the point where the engine
was turned off. There was obviously more dust to be blown.

And the area around the footpads is quite a distance away from the area
directly under the engine nozzle.

| CNN issued the following report

Nothing about this report disallows Apollo visits to the moon. And the
parts in parenthesis were added by Bart Sibrel, a conspiracy theorist. They
aren't part of the original report.

| In 1969 computer chips had not been invented.

Hogwash. Ever hear of Fairchild Semiconductor?

| The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in
| a large air conditioned building.

Hogwash. Ever hear of the PDP-8?

| In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of
| memory to run a simulated Moon landing...

Consider the difference between an embedded system and a general purpose
desktop. Consider the difference between simulating a moon landing with
full graphics and sound (i.e., the "experience" of the game) and the simple
mathematics behind LM flight dynamics. Even staying within the simulation
realm, Lunar Lander was a popular computer game in the 1970s and it required
considerably less resources than it does today.

This is a purely apples-and-oranges comparison.

| that does not include the memory required to take off again
| once landed.

How much "memory" (specifically) is required for each of these steps?

| The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's
| the equivalent of a simple calculator.

Why do you discuss only memory? Do you understand how to evaluate a
computer's performance?

You imply, but you do not prove, that this capacity was insufficient to land
on the moon. Please specify, in concrete terms, the minimum computer power
required to land on the moon.

| If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it
| would be visible today through a powerful telescope...

No. The Dawes limit makes this impossible for current telescopes.

| The Clementine probe that recently maps the Moons surface failed
| to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions.

Hogwash. The Clementine orbiter photographed the regolith disturbance
caused by the Apollo 15 landing. The equipment itself is smaller than
Clementine's resolution.

| Surrounding the earth, beginning at an altitude of 1,000 miles and
| extending an additional 25,000 miles, lie lethal bands of radiation
| called the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

Actually Bart Sibrel can't make up his mind where exactly the Van Allen
belts are. His film and two places on his web site give drastically
different figures.

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining
assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo
missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such
nonsense." (Dr. James Van Allen, letter to Doug Lambert, March 5, 2003.)

| Every manned space mission in history (including Mercury, Gemini,
| Soyuz, Skylab and the Space Shuttle) has been well below this deadly
| radiation field

Hogwash. Gemini 9 and Gemini 10 both went well into the Van Allen belts.
Further, communication satellites operate constantly in the Van Allen belts.
If they were anything other than how NASA has said they are, many private
companies would know.

| Recently uncovered footage of the crew of the Apollo 11 staging
| part of their mission proves that the astronauts never made it beyond
| earth orbit.

Sibrel's footage is simply the test downlinks. He simply interprets them as
"staging". He selectively presents only the parts that seem to support his
hypothesis, never showing you the whole film but instead giving you only a
few seconds of it. He leaves off showing you the parts of the footage that
prove they're on a translunar trajectory.

| The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned
| hours in space.

Hogwash. By the time Apollo 11 flew, the U.S. had a three-to-one
superiority in hours in space.

| They were first in achieving the following seven important
| milestones

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

| The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth.
| ... When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400
| miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower
| altitude.

So now the Van Allen belts begin at 400 miles, not 1,000 miles as Sibrel
claimed elsewhere.

See also http://www.clavius.org/envflash.html

| Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from lunar
| orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical shape with
| a high center of gravity and one big thrust engine at the bottom.

Hogwash. The LM is more short and squat than any other rocket-powered
vehicle. Its center of gravity is *low*, not *high*.

| Upon just looking at this design, to think it would not immediately
| pinwheel and crash...is absurd.

Utter question-begging. Sibrel is simply goading you into believing his
contention that the LM was unstable without providing any argument that it
is. He's simply begging you to agree with his conclusion without providing
any reason why you should. Sibrel is a part-time cameraman. He has no
training in flight dynamics or aerospace design.

|...as the lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on Earth

The LLRV crashed because it broke, not because it was inherently unstable.
The LLRV and the follow-on LLTV each accumulated hundreds of successful
training flights. It didn't "pinwheel" when the steering system broke; it
veered, maintaining enough stability for Armstrong to eject. This is
indicative of inherent stability, not inherent instability.

The crash took place months before the flight, not weeks.

These are long-debunked charges. Did you do *any* research to determine
whether answers to these questions already existed?

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!

A week or two ago, you were posting links to a supposed UFO that Apollo 16
astronauts had photographed (nevermind that it was an easily explained, no
mystery about it item in reality).

This week you're claiming the Moon Landings were a hoax.

Both stances can't be correct, which is it? Did nobody ever go to the
Moon, or were the Apollo 16 astronauts there to snap that photo?

Either you believe one and are simply playing games by posting the other,
or, more likely, you're playing games on both items.

"Algomeysa2" wrote in
link.net:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!

A week or two ago, you were posting links to a supposed UFO that
Apollo 16 astronauts had photographed (nevermind that it was an easily
explained, no mystery about it item in reality).

This week you're claiming the Moon Landings were a hoax.

Both stances can't be correct, which is it? Did nobody ever go
to the Moon, or were the Apollo 16 astronauts there to snap that
photo?

Either you believe one and are simply playing games by posting the
other, or, more likely, you're playing games on both items.

Oh yes... he forgot to tell you up front. If you happen to be be able to
prove him wrong about anything, he didn't really mean it, and you are a
fool for being a part of his "little psyche (sic) experiment."

In message .net,
Algomeysa2 writes
"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!

A week or two ago, you were posting links to a supposed UFO that Apollo 16
astronauts had photographed (nevermind that it was an easily explained, no
mystery about it item in reality).

This week you're claiming the Moon Landings were a hoax.

Both stances can't be correct, which is it? Did nobody ever go to the
Moon, or were the Apollo 16 astronauts there to snap that photo?

Either you believe one and are simply playing games by posting the other,
or, more likely, you're playing games on both items.


Doublethink - the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's
mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate
lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has
become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw
it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the
existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the
reality which one denies -- all this is indispensably necessary. Even in
using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For
by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a
fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so o
indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
George Orwell, 1984

Algomeysa2 wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...

SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!


A week or two ago, you were posting links to a supposed UFO that Apollo 16
astronauts had photographed (nevermind that it was an easily explained, no
mystery about it item in reality).

This week you're claiming the Moon Landings were a hoax.

Both stances can't be correct, which is it?

You tell me, since you figure I am 'stupid'.

Did nobody ever go to the
Moon, or were the Apollo 16 astronauts there to snap that photo?

Either you believe one and are simply playing games by posting the other,
or, more likely, you're playing games on both items.

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...

You tell me, since you figure I am 'stupid'.

No, I figure one of three things:

1) You're stupid (and by that I mean sentient moron, you have the
intelligence to string sentences together, and you may have a low animal
cunning similar to the type that enables a raccoon to figure out how to
unscrew the lid off a garbage can, but no common sense).
2) You're crazy.
3) You're intentionally posting nonsense for the sake of being contrary in
order to be a newsgroup troll, stuff that you yourself don't even believe
(This seems the most likely, but I submit that there may be 100% divided
between these 3 possibilities, 30% stupid, 25% crazy, 45% playing games.
Some combination like that).

For anyone who even for a minute really wonders if the Moon Landings were
indeed hoaxes (and the answer is no), I suggest these links:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

More puzzling is, what powers the conspiracy nut? Why is this idea so
seductive, that they persist in it no matter how much their individual
points are completed demolished (and this guy will post the same nonsense
next week, or a slight variant). The same with the kooks and the face
on Mars, etc.

(Amazingly, this same guy will post links in a week or two purporting alien
pyramids on the Moon, or whatever, which again runs into that you can't have
it both ways problem: if the astronauts never went to the Moon, then they
couldn't have taken photos of alien pyramids there).

It may be like telling ghost stories around the campfire. They may feel
the world is a more interesting place with a bit of structured fairy tale
added to it . Or, for some reason, they may feel there's too much
rationality in the world, and so by injecting their bit of nonsense they're
striking some blow for irrationality. In effect, adding some irrational
static to the Rational radio station. Intelligence jamming. But that's
irrational, you say! Well... Yeah.

Algomeysa2 wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...


You tell me, since you figure I am 'stupid'.


No, I figure one of three things:

1) You're stupid (and by that I mean sentient moron, you have the
intelligence to string sentences together, and you may have a low animal
cunning similar to the type that enables a raccoon to figure out how to
unscrew the lid off a garbage can, but no common sense).
2) You're crazy.
3) You're intentionally posting nonsense for the sake of being contrary in
order to be a newsgroup troll, stuff that you yourself don't even believe
(This seems the most likely, but I submit that there may be 100% divided
between these 3 possibilities, 30% stupid, 25% crazy, 45% playing games.
Some combination like that).

For anyone who even for a minute really wonders if the Moon Landings were
indeed hoaxes (and the answer is no), I suggest these links:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

More puzzling is, what powers the conspiracy nut? Why is this idea so
seductive, that they persist in it no matter how much their individual
points are completed demolished (and this guy will post the same nonsense
next week, or a slight variant). The same with the kooks and the face
on Mars, etc.

(Amazingly, this same guy will post links in a week or two purporting alien
pyramids on the Moon, or whatever, which again runs into that you can't have
it both ways problem: if the astronauts never went to the Moon, then they
couldn't have taken photos of alien pyramids there).

It may be like telling ghost stories around the campfire. They may feel
the world is a more interesting place with a bit of structured fairy tale
added to it . Or, for some reason, they may feel there's too much
rationality in the world, and so by injecting their bit of nonsense they're
striking some blow for irrationality. In effect, adding some irrational
static to the Rational radio station. Intelligence jamming. But that's
irrational, you say! Well... Yeah.


Let me ask you this, what bothers you guys so much that people say there
was no Moon landings? After all they are just 'stupid' people according
to you guys and so do what most people do with stupid people, ignore
them. I don't fly into a tiffy when an idiot tells me I am stupid. I
laugh at best, and at worst just ignore them. The fact that the Moon
mission hoax people get a response from BA or NASA only proves that you
guys suffer from the exact same accusation as your last paragraph suggests.