[Colin2B]

Sorry but we've been to the moon, no question about it. Those of you who claim otherwise should be ashamed of yourselves.

He has more than that to be ashamed of, see his posts in Chat section and get the measure. Next he'll be telling us that Einstein's theories are wrong, just 'Jewish Physics' as the Nazis called it. You would be branded a white Jew, just like Heisenberg for promoting those same theories!

[PmbPhy]

Sorry but we've been to the moon, no question about it. Those of you who claim otherwise should be ashamed of yourselves.

He has more than that to be ashamed of, see his posts in Chat section and get the measure. Next he'll be telling us that Einstein's theories are wrong, just 'Jewish Physics' as the Nazis called it. You would be branded a white Jew, just like Heisenberg for promoting those same theories!

Yeah. I saw that. I also saw his response to my post. The man is totally off his rocker. No. We didn't send a man to the moon to place a mirror there. We sent a robot there and were able to convince tens of thousands of scientists to lie for the last 40 years. Yah! Right!

The problem with all of these crackpots, i.e. what they all have in common, is that they have studied exactly what science itself actually is. They don't read texts on the philosophy of science or a treatise on things like physics. Here's a few good ones that would help them all but they'll never read them

1) Philosophy and Logic of Physical Theory by Fritz Rohrlich
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/philosophy_physics.pdf

2) Concepts of Modern Physics: The Haifa Lectures by Mendel Sachs
http://bookos-z1.org/book/695697/ec679f

3) The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper

4) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn

5) The Structure of Science; Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation by Ernest Nagel

They should at least read the first two because they're short and easy to read and readily available online.

[Drifty]

We sent a robot there and were able to convince tens of thousands of scientists to lie for the last 40 years. Yah! Right!   

That's what we read, but is it really true?

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/27709 [nofollow]
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
---------------------------------------------

  We didn't send a man to the moon to place a mirror there. 

You seem a little confused about my position.  Watch this video at the 3:26:18 time mark and give your analysis of what's said.

What Happened on the Moon

[Colin2B]

Let me explain why you are unlikely to get answers to your posts here and in chat (9/11 and holocaust denying).
Folks who join and participate here do so for fun and are looking for interesting topics. They have day jobs or other interests so limited time. They will therefore spend time on the more interesting topics, but are very willing to assist true seekers of knowledge.
Your postings are lengthy, on more than one topic, conspiracy related, and answering would involve a lot of time - even just typing. To you these arguments are new and interesting, but to most people here they are old hat, they will have see these arguments before, seen the errors, and got bored with them. Experience has shown that most posters of these topics rarely understand the answers and dismiss strong replies because of that lack of understanding.
Let me give you a couple of examples:
When the Apollo missions were running I was keen on Ham radio and so I know some hams were listening in to the astronauts. Recently I saw a posting which claimed to be recordings of conversations Hams had intercepted, between astronauts on the moon and Huston, which proved that the astronauts had seen aliens. As soon as I saw the transcript of the conversations between ground and moon I knew they were fakes, they were duplex and the radio hams could only pick up simplex from the moon. To explain why requires teaching the basics of radio propagation at different frequencies, modulation techniques, aerials etc. I tried to explain to a friend as simply as possible, at the end he looked rather blank and said "but we could always hear both sides of the conversation on the live tv broadcasts" DOH!
Even the old chestnut about not seeing stars on the moon photos is blindingly obvious to anyone with an interest in photography, but requires an explanation of film sensitivity, contrast ratios, exposure .......
Often people have a Disney view of physics, eg expecting to see a cartoon-plane shaped hole in the side of the Pentagon!
There is more than one thread here where folks have given up when it is obvious that the poster has not grasped the significance of the points made. No doubt the poster mistakenly feels they have proved their point and it is game over.

-----------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------

Perhaps you are not aware that NASA had difficultly getting the money for Hubble and so the ESA part funded it with a guarantee of access for its members. Lovell and Moore had plenty of access. I know this is not evidence - I met Patrick Moore once, we were staying at the same hotel and had dinner together. He was very passionate about space, would have been horrified at any form of deceit and would have created a real stink over being blackmailed. His celebrity made him a very powerful force, he was not afraid of Governments or NASA.
I notice you have only posted one side of these 'theories', you have not sought out the many sites which give a detailed critique of them. I suggest you do your homework, look them up and study them carefully. If you are still not convinced read them again until you understand the issues. Also read the books you were recommended so you can understand basic physics. If you then return as a genuine seeker of truth rather than a convert with an agenda, you might find people who are willing to answer one or two technical questions you cannot understand. However, remember that this is not a site for religious, political, or ideological spamming.
Apologies to everyone for long post. This is my last post on this topic, I'm off for newer more interesting items!

[Drifty]

  Let me explain why you are unlikely to get answers to your posts here and in chat (9/11 and holocaust denying).
Folks who join and participate here do so for fun and are looking for interesting topics. They have day jobs or other interests so limited time... 

...I suggest you do your homework, look them up and study them carefully. If you are still not convinced read them again until you understand the issues. Also read the books you were recommended so you can understand basic physics. If you then return as a genuine seeker of truth rather than a convert with an agenda, you might find people who are willing to answer one or two technical questions you cannot understand. However, remember that this is not a site for religious, political, or ideological spamming.
Apologies to everyone for long post. This is my last post on this topic, I'm off for newer more interesting items! 

Nothing you said there makes the flag anomaly go away.

"Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings."

[PmbPhy]

Despite a slight offset of the camera, the mountains are moving, which contradicts the condition of distant mountains.

And what about that photo makes you think that it had to be a mountain far away rather a nearby hill?

Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera.

I seriously doubt those claims. There are assumptions going into this which haven't been stated. Also nobody has stated who did this analysis?

Conclusion:
These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects and perspective.

Nonsense. There's something funky about this but I can't put my finger on it.

The funny part about all of this nonsense is that the USSR were racing against the USA to the moon. Didn't they keep track of where the Apollo 11 was and the radio signals coming from the ship?
 

[Hornbeck]

newbielink:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=n4yYZh1U908#t=2 [nonactive]

Lunar lift off from Apollo 17....

Zoom out, and then pan upwards....

You could not pull that off using todays technology if the distance was England and Australia, so doing it from a distance of 250,000 miles away over 45 years ago is impossible.

It's too good, cos it's Hollywood good.

I'm not a scientist, i'm a film maker.

[RD]

Lunar lift off from Apollo 17....
Zoom out, and then pan upwards....
You could not pull that off using todays technology ...

Really ? ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_hunting

... doing it from a distance of 250,000 miles away over 45 years ago is impossible.

That's only a round-trip delay [time lag] of 2.5 seconds , which could be anticipated : the zoom-out begins when the rockets are fired , making it easier to keep the module in-shot, ( although it does go out-of frame at one point ).

[KubricksOdyssey (OP)]

... then consider the experiments that were left on the moon.



For example several Apollo missions left a triangular mirror reflectors on the moon for laser observatories to measure the distance from the earth to the moon it's called "laser ranging" If your such a firm believer that nothing ever landed on the moon then go to one of these laser observatories and ask them to point their laser at the moon mirror and see if the laser is reflected back or not, that way you'll know for shore.

Russians put laser reflectors on the moon with un-manned probes.

[KubricksOdyssey (OP)]

Despite a slight offset of the camera, the mountains are moving, which contradicts the condition of distant mountains.

And what about that photo makes you think that it had to be a mountain far away rather a nearby hill?

According to NASA that mountain is supposed to be 20 miles away. Parallax proves it merely tens of meters away.

[KubricksOdyssey (OP)]

http://www.astronet.ru/db/xware/msg/1182588/apollo17stereo_vantuyne_full1.jpg.html

Split boulders are only formed by falling from a high rocky crag or from expanding freezing moisture.

Neither of those are possible on the moon.

[RD]

Split boulders are only formed by falling from a high rocky crag or from expanding freezing moisture ...

The "only" bit is not true :  it could have been ejected from a meteor-impact and split apart on landing.

Here's a high-res version of that same boulder-image but without the headache-inducing anaglyph 3D colours ... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon-apollo17-schmitt_boulder.jpg

[PmbPhy]

Split boulders are only formed by falling from a high rocky crag or from expanding freezing moisture ...

The "only" bit is not true :  it could have been ejected from a meteor-impact and split apart on landing.

Here's a high-res version of that same boulder-image but without the headache-inducing anaglyph 3D colours ... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon-apollo17-schmitt_boulder.jpg

Quite correct my friend. The "only" part is nonsense. Here's yet another possible (though unlikely) explanation. His claim Split boulders are only formed by falling from a high rocky crag or from expanding freezing moisture. is quite wrong because of the "only."

Consider the following explanation: As seen in the photo the split is parallel to the line of the shadow. When the part of the boulder is shadow its temperature drops to extremely low temperatures. The part in the sun are very hot. The difference causes stress fractures due to thermal expansion.

Then there's the possibility that it was hit by a meteor and that caused it to split

[PmbPhy]

The insanity in all this moon landing conspiracies is that there were about 400,000 people involved in going to the moon and 20,000 companies and research institutions. Not to add that it all cost 150 billion in adjusted dollars. To spend that kind of money merely to give an impression that we went to the moon is insane. To assume that 400,000 people can keep their mouth shut is also insane. Let's assume that most of them worked on the moon landing but not the conspiracy. Then its also insane to think that they could keep it a secret. Any congressman would gladly work towards giving any NASA worker who was involved and in the loop a free pass against contract violations in order to let the truth be known. Surely not all those people would want to live with that kind of lie on their conscience. If you can't then why should we assume that a large group of others can?

[Craig W. Thomson]

Hard science analysis of Apollo photos reveals they are not genuine.

I seriously can't believe this is still a question. Here's proof we went to the Moon:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr/

[Craig W. Thomson]

Split boulders are only formed by falling from a high rocky crag or from expanding freezing moisture.

Neither of those are possible on the moon.

According to www.space.com:

"When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The "dark side of the moon" can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C)."

Obviously, temperature ranges like that could stress a rock enough to crack it. Or, maybe it just got hit by a small meteor travelling at high speed.

Are you aware of the fallacy known as "confirmation bias"?

[PmbPhy]

Hard science analysis of Apollo photos reveals they are not genuine.

This is one of the worst lies that I've heard this year. What a crock!

[PmbPhy]

Split boulders are only formed by falling from a high rocky crag or from expanding freezing moisture.

Neither of those are possible on the moon.

According to www.space.com:

"When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The "dark side of the moon" can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C)."

Obviously, temperature ranges like that could stress a rock enough to crack it. Or, maybe it just got hit by a small meteor travelling at high speed.

Are you aware of the fallacy known as "confirmation bias"?

Excellent response my friend, excellent!  []

[Craig W. Thomson]

The insanity in all this moon landing conspiracies is that there were about 400,000 people involved in going to the moon and 20,000 companies and research institutions. Not to add that it all cost 150 billion in adjusted dollars. To spend that kind of money merely to give an impression that we went to the moon is insane. To assume that 400,000 people can keep their mouth shut is also insane.

Had not heard those numbers before; that's more people and companies than I would have imagined. Less surprising is the $150 billion dollar figure. Back then you could get something from that sort of money. Now, the 4 Walton heirs are worth about $150 billion combined, or about 1% of the US GDP, and all we get from them are 1.4 million crappy retail jobs that, managers included, average just a few hundred bucks a week salary. Those 400,000 jobs back then were interesting, challenging jobs with an amazing result.

Eisenhower kicked things off; by 1969, Americans were better educated than ever, and had money in their pockets. There was nothing we couldn't achieve. We got so good at sending people to the Moon that people got bored, and they had to stop. Didn't they play golf on the Moon in one of the later missions? That's just showing off, so maybe it's better we did stop. Peak Oil was on the horizon anyway.

We had some rough patches a decade or two ago, but America is still in the game, running some some highly successful space missions from time to time. Perhaps a quick, easy fix to this would be to send an unmanned probe to the Moon and have it explore previous alleged landing sites, beaming back live footage to Earth of the analysis as it went. You know, making a cast of an astronaut's footprint, scraping some metal filings off a spacecraft remnant, collecting soil samples containing rubber particles, finding a golf ball, checking the lunar laser ranging equipment for fingerprints, that sort of thing. That would go viral for sure, and maybe even lead to renewed interest in space exploration, which might in turn lead to increased budget allotments for space exploration, and a new shuttle.

[guest39538]

no, for what purpose? we have things in space,men in space, proof we are in space,