[lightarrow]

I think the rationale is more that they did go to the moon but that the photos and videos they presented were fake - at least part of them. By none other than Stanley Kubrick. Check this out:
http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIb.html

Great link, FlashValor, thanks (welcome on this forum, by the way!)

[L_D]

I was looking at some NASA photos yesterday and came across this one




Both bits of reflective paper are interesting but neither is conclusive, the image on the reflective paper on the right looks like it could be an image of a person, and the image on the left piece looks like a possible tripod under a light source which seems to be a goodish match for the light used in the opening shot of this video.

http://www.liveleak.com/mp.swf?config=http://www.liveleak.com/flash_config.php?token=9cd_1179849088%26embed=1

The original HD version of the photo is from here:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11839HR.jpg

[lyner]

There would be nothing to blow the pieces of  "reflective  paper" away, would there. I don't imagine they did 'litter duty' whilst they were up there, either.
If the image is of a person, then it looks as though they have no clothes on!  Is this a Rorschach test?
There just may have been a tripod there. Were all the shots hand held? I doubt that they would have tidied a tripod away between uses - it wasn't going to get wet or blow away was it?
Is a lens starburst from a lamp going to be different from the starburst from a specular reflection off a camera lens or other shiny object? It certainly not very bright and the shadows don't exactly fit with a light source from that direction (over your left shoulder, looking at the picture - look at the angle of the reflective paper).
Will this thing NEVER lie down?
Even when they get there and photograph the scene, in a few years' time, there will still be some people who won't accept it.
This conspiracy thing is worse than a religion - it doesn't even pretend to encourage people to behave better.

[JnA]

people belive in conspiracies because they do exist.. just not as often as folk like to think.

BTW how is the topic "Is it worth growing my nasal hair?"  one of the 'other things on a similar subject'?

[JnA]

You can also see 'the image of a person' on the grassy knoll..  because we humans have human pattern recognition we see faces in places there aren't faces at all.

[lightarrow]

What, instead, hits me of that photo (the entire one in the link) is this particular:
look at the 'foot' of the LEM up: it seems at the edge of a little hill or crater or something alike. Isnt'it strange to have placed the LEM there?

[lyner]

Didn't they always have to find the least worst spot? No second approaches available.

I didn't realise that my nasal hair was a conspiracy. I thought it was real - isn't everyone's?
Edit - second comment

[L_D]

I've just found out that this photo is part of a pan series which shows that there is nothing that can explain the tripod type setup in the left piece of reflective foil.

The full photo sequence is AS15-87-11822 to AS15-87-11839
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11822HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11823HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11824HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11825HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11826HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11827HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11828HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11829HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11830HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11831HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11832HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11833HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11834HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11835HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11836HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11837HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11838HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11839HR.jpg

[edwlstr]

A farmer watched as a neighbor built an airplane. He told others that his neighbor would never get it off the ground. The big day arrived and everyone including the skeptic came out to watch whatever happened. The airplane roared down the pasture and lifted itself into a perfect climb. Someone asked the skeptic after the plane went out of sight, "Well, what do you have to say, now?"  The skeptic replied with absolute  conviction, "He'll never get it down."  Things do happen that are beyond our comprehension. An event too far afield of our experience (frame of reference) might be disbelieved very sincerely. What do you suppose a caveman might say of Disneyworld. (No offense to my troglodite friends).

[Pmb]

It would have been trivial for the Russians to prove that the US was not on the moon at that time. All that had to do is claim that radio transmissions weren’t coming from the moon. But since they were and that would be impossible to fake with even modern technology the conspiracy idiots ignore this all too simple fact.

[LeeE]

I've just found out that this photo is part of a pan series which shows that there is nothing that can explain the tripod type setup in the left piece of reflective foil.

The full photo sequence is AS15-87-11822 to AS15-87-11839
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11822HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11823HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11824HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11825HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11826HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11827HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11828HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11829HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11830HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11831HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11832HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11833HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11834HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11835HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11836HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11837HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11838HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11839HR.jpg

I strongly suspect that the two-legged 'tripod' feature you refer to was the astronaut who left the footprints visible in image AS15-87-11837HR.jpg.

[lyner]

It would have been trivial for the Russians to prove that the US was not on the moon at that time. All that had to do is claim that radio transmissions weren’t coming from the moon. But since they were and that would be impossible to fake with even modern technology the conspiracy idiots ignore this all too simple fact.

That is an absolute clincher of an argument. It has to remove ANY doubt that there was someone there when they said they were. I don't think the conspiracy theorists understand the first thing about the geometry a d dynamics of a Moon shot.

[lightarrow]

It would have been trivial for the Russians to prove that the US was not on the moon at that time. All that had to do is claim that radio transmissions weren’t coming from the moon. But since they were and that would be impossible to fake with even modern technology the conspiracy idiots ignore this all too simple fact.

That is an absolute clincher of an argument. It has to remove ANY doubt that there was someone there when they said they were. I don't think the conspiracy theorists understand the first thing about the geometry a d dynamics of a Moon shot.

Ok, but the fact there was a transmission coming from there doesn't mean that astronauts landed there.

[lyner]

 [^]They would have needed not to be in orbit if the transmissions were continuous. [^]


OK?

[lightarrow]

[^]They would have needed not to be in orbit if the transmissions were continuous. [^]


OK?

Of course, but what "would have needed not to be in orbit"? The astronauts or a transmitter? The astronauts could have stayed in orbit and make a simple module land on the Moon. Would they really have risked the astronaut's death? Maybe. But it was too important that this didn't happen, all the world where looking at them and there was also the cold war.
I want to point out that I'm just speculating for conversation's sake, I'm not a conspiracist [].

[Pmb]

Ok, but the fact there was a transmission coming from there doesn't mean that astronauts landed there.

They might have claimed that we sent machines which landed on the moon and transmitted those radio signals but that’s stretching it a bit too far. Not to mention that the conspiracy theorists never admit this possibility. It’s clear that they never thought of something this obvious – or if they did they weren’t prepared to explain it. I’d like to see them claim that we had the ability to send machines and not people. When the astronauts went to the moon they broadcasted radio waves continuously (to monitor life signs etc). Russian scientists must have monitored all those transmissions just waiting for the opportunity to prove it was a hoax or find something wrong or wait for an accident/screw up. Those scientists can tell the origin of those radio waves by triangulating the radio signals. Thus it was quite easy to tell that those signals originated from the surface of the Moon. If someone wants to say that they were actually machines sending out those signals then let them do so and we’ll address that when it comes.

Then again I can’t prove to you that I’m not a machine myself, can I?

[lyner]

If the crew were in orbit, then how could they be using the radio link on the surface when they were on the other side??
You'll have to do better than that, lightarrow.

[Pmb]

Would they really have risked the astronaut's death?

Yes, most definitely. It was a huge risk even getting into that rocket and lighting it up. Heck, the worst accident in the history of the Apollo program was when a fire broke out during a test and killed the three astronauts inside. The greater risk would be to get caught in a hoax. The astronauts knew that they were risking their lives and they did so willingly.

[lightarrow]

Would they really have risked the astronaut's death?

Yes, most definitely. It was a huge risk even getting into that rocket and lighting it up. Heck, the worst accident in the history of the Apollo program was when a fire broke out during a test and killed the three astronauts inside. The greater risk would be to get caught in a hoax. The astronauts knew that they were risking their lives and they did so willingly.

I didn't mean that. I meant that it would have been much worse to risk the astronauts' death *on the Moon's surface*. It would have been a much greater psychological defeat, for the entire world's eyes and for the moon race too.

[lightarrow]

If the crew were in orbit, then how could they be using the radio link on the surface when they were on the other side??
You'll have to do better than that, lightarrow.

Can you explain this better? I don't know not much about this subject. Why did they necessarily have a radio link? Couldn't an hypothetical transmitter on the Moon's surface simply answer pre-recorded voices electronically activated by every call of mission control?