I'm posting this because I'm 37 years old, love the whole concept of space exploration, SETI, the BOINC project, and all they encompass BUT the older I get the more difficult it is for me to digest certain problems with the idea that we actually "landed" on the moon when we think we did.

I don't have facts to support the claim, just a gut instinct and common sense. Help me out.

Here are a couple of questions/observations I have:

1.) Lets say we go to the moon and leave a few things behind. Don't you think that with all the technology we have both on earth, and now, in orbit that someone would have taken a picture of what we left behind for nostalgic purposes if any?

2.) There was no dust, scattered debris, or indentation left on the moon when the lander "landed"? I don't see any dust clouds in any of the pictures I have ever seen. Dust would float for a mighty long time in 1/7 gravity.

3.) 1/7 gravity is still gravity. The pictures of "astronaut with flag" show the flag flat and rigid like it was starched by the worst drycleaner in history.

4.) We leave/send data relaying devices to planets so far from here we'll never get there in any reasonable time frame and we didn't leave a single instrument on the moon to send back climate or temprature or whatever kind of data you can imagine up there?

5.) The Hubble telescope was sent up with the "wrong" lense? I think not. I think someone already had the same ideas I have and they were in a position to check it out, and did.

- Somebody who can, do some math, figure out the escape velocity of the moon and then figure what volume of fuel would be required to get back to earth from a moon lift off. I'm guessing the "lander" wasn't that big. Just another question I wish I had the answer to.

I think Apollo 13 was the closest we ever came.

If you have any input for this stuff I'd love to read it. What I don't want to see are regurgitated NASA or Astronaught statements.

Anyone?

Thanks

---

Reminds me of a movie I saw long ago where the Gov'mint spoofed the world into thinking we landed on the moon when all they had was a stage out back made up to look like the moon. The astonauts knew nothing about it until they were brought back from the launch vehicle. O.J. Simpson was in it. I don't remember the title of the movie.

I know for a fact that we actually launched the Apollo space crafts. When I was in the Navy I was on the ship assigned to pick up a couple of them after splashdown. As for whether they actually went to the moon and landed.... I don't know that for fact.

You definitely bring up some thought provoking points here Kio. I have often wondered why the crap "left behind" on the moon isn't in any pictures I have seen. Unless they landed on the dark side of the moon....

L8R....

T'Khasi Time: Saturday, 26 February 2005 - 08:28 AM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

> If you have any input for this stuff I'd love to read it. What I don't want
> to see are regurgitated NASA or Astronaught statements.
>
> Anyone?
>
> Thanks
>

Kio, Do you belong to the Flat Earth Society too!! Ever try to find that naked lady in the 30 story apartment complex your telescope is pointed at? What are your chances of seeing her? What do you think your chances are of seeing scattered debris with a telescope.

When the LEM left the moon surface it scattered what was left to the four directions. They didn't leave weather sensor there because there isn't any weather to measure. You need an atmosphere to have weather.

NASA never published all the Pictures.. They published the ones that clearly showed the moon surface. Who wants to see cloudy dusty pictures anyway.

The moon gravity is 1/6 that of Earths and even at 1/6 dust would settle rather quickly. You can't claim gravity for the flag and then ignore it for the dust. As for the stiff Ironed looking Flag it looked that way because it WAS that way. It was stiffened so that it would remain unflurred. No Atmosphere - NO Wind...

Look to the internet for your answers Kio all of them are there and a vast majority of them by unbiased non-NASA eggheads..

---

I'd rather speak my mind because it hurts too much to bite my tongue.

American Spirit BBQ Proudly Serving those that courageously defend freedom.

Crackpots. Dime a dozen on the internet.

---

Account frozen...

No one is going to convince you of anything here I don't think, you're just looking for an argument. You just need to educate yourself a lot more. There is no need to remain ignorant and the internet is a great resource and has more info than anyone here could point you to.

Good luck!

It reminds me of an argument I got into just the other day with someone about scientific theories. They were saying that evolution is 'JUST' a theory and the scientists have 'theories' about everything. My reply was that if you think that gravity is 'just' a theory, go jump off a bridge.

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=b3c0c2639ea110901bd0970a1c22efcd">

So I suppose that most of the governments on Earth were part of the conspiracy, after all none of them came out and said we didn't go to the moon. With that kind of cooperation it's a wonder all of out problems have not been solved.

Gosh!!!

---

Another one? Why do people join the SETI@home project, then immediately come to these message boards to post whatever rubbish leaks out of their head? I may be called elitist for this, but come on! Claiming dust would "float" in 1/7 gravity? On what? There's no air. So this guy comes along and selects one scientific premise, i.e. the weaker gravity on the moon, and ignores another, that there is no atmosphere there. When everyone knows that the moon is simply a holographic projection from the planet G'klog^, put there to provide light at night for their 28 day (off-world) mating cycle. Sheesh!

> I'm posting this because I'm 37 years old, love the whole concept of space
> exploration, SETI, the BOINC project, and all they encompass BUT the older I
> get the more difficult it is for me to digest certain problems with the idea
> that we actually "landed" on the moon when we think we did.
>
> I don't have facts to support the claim, just a gut instinct and common sense.
> Help me out.
>
> Here are a couple of questions/observations I have:
>
> 1.) Lets say we go to the moon and leave a few things behind. Don't you
> think that with all the technology we have both on earth, and now, in orbit
> that someone would have taken a picture of what we left behind for nostalgic
> purposes if any?
>
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.

> 2.) There was no dust, scattered debris, or indentation left on the moon when
> the lander "landed"? I don't see any dust clouds in any of the pictures I
> have ever seen. Dust would float for a mighty long time in 1/7 gravity.
>
1) Dust does not float in a vacuum. The only reason it 'floats' on Earth is because of the air that surrounds it. In a vacuum dust behaves exactly like any other object. You throw it up and it will then fall. It is no different from what a rock would do. Rocks do not float or billow around nor does the dust, even if it is lighter.
2) Because there is no air, dust falls quicker on the moon than on Earth. This may seem strange, as the Moon's gravity is much less. But the lack of an atmosphere is far more significant to the dust. But it still falls slower than you'd expect a rock to on Earth.

> 3.) 1/7 gravity is still gravity. The pictures of "astronaut with flag" show
> the flag flat and rigid like it was starched by the worst drycleaner in
> history.
>
1)Firstly the flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top. This was done so that the flag would stand out from the flagpole. NASA appreciated that there would be no wind on the moon, so any normal flag would just hang limply and unattractively down the pole. To make things look better they added a bar that stood out at 90 degrees from the pole. The flag was really hanging from this, rather than from the pole. The bar was also not quite the full width of the flag, so that it was slightly furled to give a 'wave look' to it.

2)The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter.

3) The flagpole itself was light aluminium that is quite springy. Even once the astronaut let go the pole would continue to vibrate. This in turn would shake the bar and flap the flag. Without any air to dampen this it would continue to do so for longer than you might expect.

> 4.) We leave/send data relaying devices to planets so far from here we'll
> never get there in any reasonable time frame and we didn't leave a single
> instrument on the moon to send back climate or temprature or whatever kind of
> data you can imagine up there?
>
They left mirrors on the moon, you can test that yourself.

Basically all you do is buy a laser and a detector and a light collecting mirror. Then you fire it at a precise point on the moon. There is a reflecting prism there that acts like a mirror, placed by Apollo astronauts. Now if there was nothing at that point but rock that would be the last you would see of your laser. But time and time again scientist have been getting their laser reflected back. Indeed, they have done a number of experiments using these reflectors. This experiment has provided a very accurate method of measuring the distance to the moon. Due to these measurements we can now tell that the moon is actually steadily receding from the Earth.

> 5.) The Hubble telescope was sent up with the "wrong" lense? I think not. I
> think someone already had the same ideas I have and they were in a position to
> check it out, and did.
>
Since the hubble telescope is owned and runned by the us gov, why would they need to change the lense if there was nothing wrong with it? They could just have stopped hobble from looking there, or taken the pictures before the scientest got to see them.

> - Somebody who can, do some math, figure out the escape velocity of the moon
> and then figure what volume of fuel would be required to get back to earth
> from a moon lift off. I'm guessing the "lander" wasn't that big. Just
> another question I wish I had the answer to.
>
> I think Apollo 13 was the closest we ever came.
>
> If you have any input for this stuff I'd love to read it. What I don't want
> to see are regurgitated NASA or Astronaught statements.
>
> Anyone?
>
> Thanks
>

The answers above is from http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
It is a private site, but my guess is that you will not believe anyway. I have one suggestion to you and that is to see the program aired by fox called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?".
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
There you can find information about the program and more help for your questions.

---

> I'm posting this because I'm 37 years old, love the whole concept of space
> exploration, SETI, the BOINC project, and all they encompass BUT the older I
> get the more difficult it is for me to digest certain problems with the idea
> that we actually "landed" on the moon when we think we did.
>
> I don't have facts to support the claim, just a gut instinct and common sense.
> Help me out.
>
> Here are a couple of questions/observations I have:
>
> 1.) Lets say we go to the moon and leave a few things behind. Don't you
> think that with all the technology we have both on earth, and now, in orbit
> that someone would have taken a picture of what we left behind for nostalgic
> purposes if any?

The moon is a mighty big place, and what we left behind is mighty small. You try finding those needles in a haystack. Besides, ground based telescopes are limited on what they can resolve by atmospheric distortion. And the moon is a bit too bright to use the Hubble on without risking damage to the instruments.


>
> 2.) There was no dust, scattered debris, or indentation left on the moon when
> the lander "landed"? I don't see any dust clouds in any of the pictures I
> have ever seen. Dust would float for a mighty long time in 1/7 gravity.
>

Dust 'floats' on earth because of our 'air'. The force of 'air resistance' on the dust particle almost balances the force of gravity, hence it falls very slowly. Very slight breezes can blow the dust back up higher. On earth, dust has a very long 'hang time'. The moon has, for all practical purposes, no atmosphere. Dust on the moon, even in its light gravity, would fall right back down. Did you ever see the experiment the astronauts did with dropping the hammer and the feather on the moon? Both fell at the same rate. Just like Sir Issac Newton said it would.

I recall seeing a shot from an outside-mounted camera (pointing down) on at least one of the moon landings. Plenty of dust was kicked up by the rocket exhaust from the descent stage of the LEM. Do not expect dust to behave the same way on the moon as it does here on the earth. It doesn't.

> 3.) 1/7 gravity is still gravity. The pictures of "astronaut with flag" show
> the flag flat and rigid like it was starched by the worst drycleaner in
> history.
>

Again, the moon has no atmosphere (for all practical purposes). A normal flag would just hang there limply off the pole. NASA designed those flags to have a metal rod that would hold the flag out straight. One of the moon missions had a flag that LOOKED like it was being blown in a breeze. In that case, the metal rod did not extend fully (it malfunctioned), and that was just the way the flag hung off of it.


> 4.) We leave/send data relaying devices to planets so far from here we'll
> never get there in any reasonable time frame and we didn't leave a single
> instrument on the moon to send back climate or temprature or whatever kind of
> data you can imagine up there?

We did. Once, while at NASA, I saw the telemetry read-out from some of the instruments. Data was, IIRC, seismograph data measuring 'moonquakes'. However, all the instruments malfunctioned years and years ago, especially in the moon's 'thermal cycle'... 14 days of 'daylight', followed by 14 days of night. YOU try designing equipment for those conditions that would last indefinitely. IF you could, I am sure NASA would have a nice job for you.

>
> 5.) The Hubble telescope was sent up with the "wrong" lense? I think not. I
> think someone already had the same ideas I have and they were in a position to
> check it out, and did.
>

First of all, that WAS a big cock-up. The main Hubble telescope is a reflector anyway, not a refractor. It uses mirrors, not lenses, in its main optics. While the primary mirror was virtually perfect here on earth (before launch), some people forgot that the mirror was being deformed slightly by the earth's gravity. Upon testing in orbit, that deformation was not there, so stuff was somewhat out of focus. They installed some corrective optics on a later shuttle mission to the Hubble, that fixed the problem, for the most part.

> - Somebody who can, do some math, figure out the escape velocity of the moon
> and then figure what volume of fuel would be required to get back to earth
> from a moon lift off. I'm guessing the "lander" wasn't that big. Just
> another question I wish I had the answer to.

Escape velocity v = sqrt(2GM/R)

Earth's is 11.2 km/s. Moon's is 2.38 km/s. Remember this is the velocity needed to go from a standstill on the surface directly on an escape trajectory. The velocity just to attain orbit is somewhat less. Remember, the LEM did not have to blast off with enough velocity to return to earth, merely to regain lunar orbit.

Some specs on the ascent stage of the LEM:

Mass including fuel: 4,670 kg (10,295 lb)
APS Propellant mass: 2,353 kg (5,227 lb)
APS thrust: 15 kN (3,375 lbf)
APS propellants: N2O4/UDMH
APS pressurant: 2 x 2.9 kg helium tanks at 21 MPa
Engine specific impulse: 3050 N·s/kg
Ascent stage delta V: 2,220 m/s (7,283 ft/s)


The above listed delta-V (2.22 km/s) is more than enough to attain lunar orbit to dock with the Command/Service module for return to earth. Remember, that the huge Saturn V rocket was required to get everything off the ground and into earth orbit using the first and second stages, and part of the third. The rest of the third stage was used to inject the command/service module (and the LEM in its storage bay between the third stage and the command/service modules) into a trajectory that would end up with them in a flyby slingshot of the moon, ending up back at earth (this is what saved Apollo 13). Next the command/service modules would seperaate from the 3rd stage and dock with the now exposed LEM, then discard the empty 3rd stage. The engine on the service module would handle course corrections and insertion into lunar orbit. Then, after two of the three astronauts moved into the LEM, it would undock and land on the moon using its descent stage. After a day or two on the moon, the two lucky astronauts would regain lunar orbit with the ascent stage of the LEM, leaving the descent stage on the moon. After docking with the command/service module in lunar orbit, the two astronauts would move back into the command/service module with all the gear/samples destined to return to earth, and the LEM ascent stage discarded. The engine on the command/service module would then inject them into a return to earth trajectory and handle course corrections on the way back, skipping earth orbit and going directly into a re-entry/splashdown. At the last moment, the astronauts would detach the service module and rotate the command module so that its heat shield would protect them on the way down.

As you can see, at each major point in the flight, they would discard unnecessary mass, thus letting them use smaller and smaller amounts of fuel. This is the entire point of a multi-staged approach. Yes, you do waste a LOT of equipment, but the fuel saved justifies it.
>
> I think Apollo 13 was the closest we ever came.

Hardly.. Even ignoring the landings, Apollo 8 went into lunar orbit, and Apollo 10 tested the LEM in lunar orbit, and the LEM flew to within 10km of the lunar surface. Those guys were sorely tempted to go ahead and land, thus beating out the Apollo 11 crew... But NASA woulda had their hides nailed up on the wall for that stunt.

>
> If you have any input for this stuff I'd love to read it. What I don't want
> to see are regurgitated NASA or Astronaught statements.
>

So, you are so fixated on this 'conspiracy theory' that you are unwilling to hear from anyone that is in a possible position to refute it?

> Anyone?
>
> Thanks
>

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

>Kio, Do you belong to the Flat Earth Society too!!

hehe... nope.

>Ever try to find that naked lady in the 30 story apartment complex your >telescope is pointed at? What are your chances of seeing her? What do you >think your chances are of seeing scattered debris with a telescope.

I don't have a Gazillion Dollar telescope either.

>When the LEM left the moon surface it scattered what was left to the four >directions.

Who said "left"? Pics taken, in-situ, while they were there show no evidence of disturbance of any kind.


>They didn't leave weather sensor there because there isn't any weather to >measure. You need an atmosphere to have weather.

Really? And how did they know that exactly? No radiation instruments, no communications relay instruments, nothing for future missions to home in on? Hmm...

>NASA never published all the Pictures.. They published the ones that clearly >showed the moon surface. Who wants to see cloudy dusty pictures anyway.

Why not? I want to see the dusty and cloudy ones. Bring 'em out.

>The moon gravity is 1/6 that of Earths and even at 1/6 dust would settle >rather quickly.

I'll give you the rate of fall because there is no resistance to air as far as we know, but you have to give me that the debris field would also be proportionally larger and noticable with a defined pattern within the debris field under the same assumption.

>You can't claim gravity for the flag and then ignore it for the dust. As for >the stiff Ironed looking Flag it looked that way because it WAS that way. It >was stiffened so that it would remain unflurred. No Atmosphere - NO Wind...

I thought it was 1/7 g, sorry about that. Again, at the time they didn't know anything about the atmosphere of the moon.

>Look to the internet for your answers Kio all of them are there and a vast >majority of them by unbiased non-NASA eggheads

hehe... I wouldn't give my worst enemy that kind of advice =)

Many thanks for the post =) I appreciate the input.

---

>No one is going to convince you of anything here I don't think, you're just >looking for an argument.

No arguments, just input. That was all I asked for.

>You just need to educate yourself a lot more. There is no need to remain >ignorant and the internet is a great resource and has more info than anyone >here could point you to.

imho...I would say that it is easier to propogate a hoax via internet than any other medium we have ever had. Of all the places to broach this subject I think this chat forum is one of the better. People who come here have already demonstrated the ability and desire to think out of the box.

>Good luck!

Thanks =)

>It reminds me of an argument I got into just the other day with someone about >scientific theories. They were saying that evolution is 'JUST' a theory and >the scientists have 'theories' about everything. My reply was that if you >think that gravity is 'just' a theory, go jump off a bridge.


Hey, thems fightin' wurds! Gravity and Environment are my greatest allys in all this.


Thank you for the post =)

---

>?So I suppose that most of the governments on Earth were part of the >conspiracy, after all none of them came out and said we didn't go to the >moon. With that kind of cooperation it's a wonder all of out problems have >not been solved.

>Gosh!!!

Interesting point, but consider this. Without looking at a newspaper, television, or web brower how many satellites were launched this morning?

I have no idea, do you?

I find it difficult to believe that any other nation tracked our launched vehicles for thier entire trip even if they did have the equipment and opportunity which most likely did not. There was a cold war going on. You have to have a signal to track and though, again, I have no information to support it I doubt NASA made a public or private disclosure of the frequencies and encryptions they used to monitor and track the flights.


Thanks for the input, I am really enjoying the discussion!

---

Ok Guys I am from Wales Uk.I beleive the US got to the moon but after our own welsh astronaut who was called mock the mechanic. Max Boyce sung a song about him building his rocket ship powerd by coal, sorry but it was a welsh flag on the moon first :-)

---

okay, i'll bite

I wasn't suggesting looking on the internet for proof of going to the moon necessarily, but looking and reading about things such as planetology, what is the theory of how our solar system developed today vs in the 1960's, why did this evolve, NASA and how NASA is run, how they get money, how your taxes fund them, how your state and local congressional representatives are involved in this, how you personally are involved in this, understanding what science has developed as a result of going to the moon and asking yourself if that science is true or false, investigating other efforts to explore space both from the U.S. perspective and other countries, looking at current space programs and how they're related to the space programs of the '70's, understanding just how many hundreds of thousands (literally) of people were involved in going to the moon both inside and outside of NASA and outside the U.S., what institutions are involved in space travel today, where do they get their science from, what do they build their current ideas of technology on, how is this related to the apollo program and going to the moon, why do we want to go to the moon now, how has the mars program developed, who is Dr. Wernher Von Braun, how was this technology developed, why did people want to go to the moon... ad nauseum.

That's what I meant by educating yourself. It would be an interesting discussion if we were having it in 1975, but now, it's like saying prove to me that Europeans actually discovered North America.

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=b3c0c2639ea110901bd0970a1c22efcd">

>Another one?

That makes me feel better =-) I see you have several hundred posts, very nice.

>Why do people join the SETI@home project, then immediately come >to these >message boards to post whatever rubbish leaks out of their head? I >may be >called elitist for this,

Yup


>but come on! Claiming dust would "float" in >1/7

/sigh I wish I could go back and change that post, but I can't. What I meant was that the equation of a falling body (our dust) involves only two variables when resistance, among other things, does not factor in. Those two variables are mass and gravity. Given the rate of acceleration due to gravity under our gravity I would expect a dust cloud to take proportionally longer to settle under the calculated moon gravity of 1/6 gc(earth). I chose the word "float" I chose unwisely =) Forgive me?


>gravity? On what? There's no air. So this guy comes along and selects one >scientific premise, i.e. the weaker gravity on the moon, and ignores another, >that there is no atmosphere there. When everyone knows that the moon is >simply a holographic projection from the planet G'klog^, put there to provide

Thanks to you this little known fact is now on the internet so I expect it is true?

>light at night for their 28 day (off-world) mating cycle.

Is there an 8 minute version?

>Sheesh!


Thanks a bunch =)

---

> >but come on! Claiming dust would "float" in >1/7
>
> /sigh I wish I could go back and change that post, but I can't.

Actualy you (and only you) can go back and edit your post. It's common to mark such edits with something like this: [Edit].

> Thanks a bunch =)

That didn't sound like a very sincere thanks.

[Edit]: Yes, I have several hundred posts here, and many more at Classic SETI@home. I have been a participant since May, 1999, completing 21K WU'S at Classic and 120K "cobblestones" here. That said, as a new member you are certainly welcome here, but I still wonder why you signed up for a project that is based in the scientific method, then immediately launch in on some crackpot notion about the moon landings?

To: KWSN-MajorKong and Jan Inge Ohren,

Thank you so much! Being an apparent "crackpot" I need real info. to be swayed. I have learned quite a bit about various published documentaries, web sites, statistics, and my own misunderstandings from this dialoge. I appreciate it very much. I never said I did not believe, but I never said I did either and that is what this thread is about. I will continue to see the world through the eyes of a skeptic, that is my nature. Being interested in the Seti program does not make me an expert in all things astrophysical as some seem to take for granted. I know little about the space program and I am sure I am not the first to ask such questions in this age of coverups. I will take all of the information and advice given here and continue on my own. This seemed a good place to start.


Thank you

---

Tom,

Just my sense of humor =) I did try to edit the post when I saw all the "float" comments, but there is a 60 min. timer on editing.

Thanks =)

---

Cochise,

It was the ad nauseum part I was trying to sidestep!

Much appreciated

---

Anybody who thinks we didn't go to the moon is a total moron. Moon hoax believers should be rounded up and put in camps.

BTW, check out my profile pic, the guy standing next to me spent some time just 60 miles above the lunar surface.

---

Metal Detecting