Can I see some proof from the astronauts that are not willing to swear on a Bible about anything?  Some links, an interview that was conducted with one of them, something like that?  You know, something absolutely 100% definitive.  No bones about it, can't refute it if you wanted to.  I mean, something that would make the dead rise....that kind of the stuff.  I need some proof of this, and not just some hearsay either.  I would like to see something that came from the mouths of one of the astronauts.  Can you dredge some of that up for us simpletons, here? 

And I did read what Kevin said and I didn't take what he said to be snotty.  Frustrated, but not snotty.  You sounded like a parent who got tired of telling their kid for the 80th time not to play soccer in the house.  Big difference. 
Well, its 1 am here in my neck of the woods, but tomorrow I'll do what I can to dig up the video footage of these astronauts being asked to swear on a Bible that they walked on the Moon. They either flat out refused, or got angry. Not just one astronaut either, all of them. I seen it on a TV show many years ago, and also watched it on Google video last year. If its not on Google , its probably on youtube. Hell, its probably on a hundred conspiracy sites as well. I'll find it.

There's also some footage of a press conference that took place after the Apollo landing, and when Armstrong is asked something, looks confused, doesn't know what to say, and a NASA spokesman quickly changes the subject to something else, and then Armstrong is thrown some softball questions. It could be Buzz Aldrin instead of Armstrong. I dont remember exactly which one.

I also read a really interesting book on the subject years ago, although I forgot the title and author. I'll try and track that down also, and if I find it, I'll send you an ebay or amazon link to it.

Scientists all over the world have admitted that mankind wont have the technology to send a manned flight to the moon for DECADES!!


Give me one name

Well, its 1 am here in my neck of the woods, but tomorrow I'll do what I can to dig up the video footage of these astronauts being asked to swear on a Bible that they walked on the Moon. They either flat out refused, or got angry. Not just one astronaut either, all of them. I seen it on a TV show many years ago, and also watched it on Google video last year. If its not on Google , its probably on youtube. Hell, its probably on a hundred conspiracy sites as well. I'll find it.

There's also some footage of a press conference that took place after the Apollo landing, and when Armstrong is asked something, looks confused, doesn't know what to say, and a NASA spokesman quickly changes the subject to something else, and then Armstrong is thrown some softball questions. It could be Buzz Aldrin instead of Armstrong. I dont remember exactly which one.

I also read a really interesting book on the subject years ago, although I forgot the title and author. I'll try and track that down also, and if I find it, I'll send you an ebay or amazon link to it.




That video you were talking about......I found something about it:



This is a favorite of moon-landing skeptics such as Rene and Bart Sibrel, a Tennessee videographer and conspiracy theorist who confronted Aldrin in Los Angeles in September, calling him a liar and challenging him to swear on a Bible that he walked on the moon. Aldrin, who said Sibrel poked him with the Bible, hit him in the face.


You know, if someone called me a liar and said that I did not do what I did.....I'd get angry too.  I don't think Aldrin's reaction to those two doofuses constitutes him saying "I didn't walk on the moon."  I think that's him saying "How dare you, you stupid punks".  He was well within his rights to react the way he did, I would have done the same thing. 


Aron Ranen, 41, read the book. The San Francisco filmmaker spent a year interviewing astronauts and NASA engineers as well as conspiracy theorists as he tried to prove the moon landings were real. His work resulted in the film Moon Hoax: Did We Go?  Ranen interviewed Aldrin, who says on camera that he did indeed walk on the moon. He interviewed the guy who closed the hatch on the Apollo 11 astronauts before takeoff and the Navy frogman who opened it upon splashdown. Both confirmed they did what they did and they believe the moon landing happened.


What is your take on that?  That is a man interviewing a member of the Apollo 11 crew, and said member of the Apollo 11 crew says they walked on the moon.  They also talked to the man who closed the hatch before they left and who opened it when they splashed down in the ocean.  How do you explain that?  Lies?  Fraud?  Were they given money to give false testimony? 


http://gershkuntzman.homestead.com/files/Moon_Stalker.htm


That's a link about one of the guys stalking these astronauts with a Bible and a camera.  Someone like this guy cannot be taken seriously.  I've read enough about him now to know that he's crazy.  Who goes to elderly mens' doors with a Bible and a camera?  A couple of these old guys fought back and good for them....harassment is not proof they didn't do what they did.


A quote from the above article:


Of course, that didn’t stop me from doing my journalistic duty. After softening up Aldrin’s lawyer, O’Brien, by getting him to recount the punch incident, I suddenly asked him—point blank and out of the blue!— “Has Buzz Aldrin ever been on the moon?” I figured maybe I’d catch him unprepared. But Aldrin’s paid mouthpiece didn’t flinch.
“Yes, Buzz Aldrin has been on the moon,” O’Brien said. “He was there with Neil Armstrong.” (He made it sound like a fraternity road trip.)
I reminded O’Brien that he is a sworn officer of the court and that if he was lying to me, I would make sure he was disbarred faster than Bill Clinton.
“You can quote me as saying for the record and unequivocally: Buzz Aldrin has walked on the moon,” he repeated.

Sorry for the exorbitantly long posts, there.  I now return you to your regularly-scheduled short posts.

I suppose that the pyramids in Egypt are hoaxes too. After all, it's inconceivable that ancient people could have build such structures, in near-precise astrological alignment, without even a slide rule... that is, unless you believe that aliens built them...

I'm with Karen: give me the name of one respectable scientist who has said we cannot land on the moon.

The Shuttles obviously cannot do so, since they require a landing strip. That does not mean we (assuming you are American) didn't land on the moon nearly 40 years ago.

There are innumerable modern marvels of engineering, many of which were completed with no computers at all. The Hoover Dam is pretty friggin impressive, and was finished a good 20 years before anyone knew what a computer was.

Answer me this: which is more likely: that we landed on the moon, or that thousands of people involved in planning, designing, construction, operations, logistics, etc. of an underataking that size have remained silent for nearly 40 years?

Ockham was a pretty smart guy...

Max, until this footage surfaced, I completely agreed with what you're saying. At various forums over the years, I have debated the whole moon landing hoax, and yes, there is compelling evidence that man never set foot on the moon. Like you said, we didn't have the technology(we still dont), and the computers used to get them to the moon were less powerful than a modern day calculator. .


We also didn't have the technology to fake it so well

The video of the lunar lander's take-off from the Moon constitutes all necessary proof that it genuinely occurred on the Moon. 

It could not be 3D-simulated at the time, because such video software required 32/64-bit hardware and several years' development (at the time all computer hardware was just 8-bit!). 

The gold foil/melinex wrapping of the discarded Lander's Landing Stage tore into small pieces and flew away in straight lines and high speeds, radiating away from the rocket flame impact point (at no time was any motor flame visible). 

High speeds = vacuum (any atmosphere, and it would have fluttered to a stop, and down).

Interestingly, you could see a spinning, rotational, flutter - further proof, if you needed it, of a VACUUM. As well as - no visible flame! 

Then, "straight line" = low gravity. Those lines were, of course, very flat parabolas, but with motor exhaust gas speeds of several thousand feet per second, and only one-sixth Earth G, it's hardly surprising if you thought they were straight. 

So doubters would have to suggest to me how someone created a hemispherical vacuum chamber with at least a three hundred foot radius, and inside it managed to reduce Earth gravity by a factor of five sixths.

We also didn't have the technology to fake it so well

The video of the lunar lander's take-off from the Moon constitutes all necessary proof that it genuinely occurred on the Moon. 

It could not be 3D-simulated at the time, because such video software required 32/64-bit hardware and several years' development (at the time all computer hardware was just 8-bit!). 

The gold foil/melinex wrapping of the discarded Lander's Landing Stage tore into small pieces and flew away in straight lines and high speeds, radiating away from the rocket flame impact point (at no time was any motor flame visible). 

High speeds = vacuum (any atmosphere, and it would have fluttered to a stop, and down).

Interestingly, you could see a spinning, rotational, flutter - further proof, if you needed it, of a VACUUM. As well as - no visible flame! 

Then, "straight line" = low gravity. Those lines were, of course, very flat parabolas, but with motor exhaust gas speeds of several thousand feet per second, and only one-sixth Earth G, it's hardly surprising if you thought they were straight. 

So doubters would have to suggest to me how someone created a hemispherical vacuum chamber with at least a three hundred foot radius, and inside it managed to reduce Earth gravity by a factor of five sixths.
I didn't understand 1/2 of what you said (it's been a LONG time since I took physics ;)) but I had to give you karma because it sounds so dammed impressive ;)

We also didn't have the technology to fake it so well

The video of the lunar lander's take-off from the Moon constitutes all necessary proof that it genuinely occurred on the Moon. 

It could not be 3D-simulated at the time, because such video software required 32/64-bit hardware and several years' development (at the time all computer hardware was just 8-bit!). 

The gold foil/melinex wrapping of the discarded Lander's Landing Stage tore into small pieces and flew away in straight lines and high speeds, radiating away from the rocket flame impact point (at no time was any motor flame visible). 

High speeds = vacuum (any atmosphere, and it would have fluttered to a stop, and down).

Interestingly, you could see a spinning, rotational, flutter - further proof, if you needed it, of a VACUUM. As well as - no visible flame! 

Then, "straight line" = low gravity. Those lines were, of course, very flat parabolas, but with motor exhaust gas speeds of several thousand feet per second, and only one-sixth Earth G, it's hardly surprising if you thought they were straight. 

So doubters would have to suggest to me how someone created a hemispherical vacuum chamber with at least a three hundred foot radius, and inside it managed to reduce Earth gravity by a factor of five sixths.
wow. this is... awesome. and i usually don't like debunkers.

We also didn't have the technology to fake it so well

The video of the lunar lander's take-off from the Moon constitutes all necessary proof that it genuinely occurred on the Moon. 

It could not be 3D-simulated at the time, because such video software required 32/64-bit hardware and several years' development (at the time all computer hardware was just 8-bit!). 

The gold foil/melinex wrapping of the discarded Lander's Landing Stage tore into small pieces and flew away in straight lines and high speeds, radiating away from the rocket flame impact point (at no time was any motor flame visible). 

High speeds = vacuum (any atmosphere, and it would have fluttered to a stop, and down).

Interestingly, you could see a spinning, rotational, flutter - further proof, if you needed it, of a VACUUM. As well as - no visible flame! 

Then, "straight line" = low gravity. Those lines were, of course, very flat parabolas, but with motor exhaust gas speeds of several thousand feet per second, and only one-sixth Earth G, it's hardly surprising if you thought they were straight. 

So doubters would have to suggest to me how someone created a hemispherical vacuum chamber with at least a three hundred foot radius, and inside it managed to reduce Earth gravity by a factor of five sixths.


:)

Karen's the cleverest scientist I know.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmoonhoax.html
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm
http://www.rationalinquiry.org/essays/moon_lowman.html
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm
http://www.clavius.org/  (Better than the Braeunig site)
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm


Thanks for all the great links!

It's easy to sell hoax theories about the moon landings because the mission was so enormous, complex, and involved sooooo much science and technology.  The average person does not have the facts at his fingertips to refute the claims of a good hoaxmeister.  I don't.  I was so terrible at math I never got beyond basic algebra.  I never took a single course in physics or chemistry.  However, even if I had an advanced degree in physics, all I could do is weigh the evidence presented.  I couldn't go to the moon myself! 

More simply, you could say, "water boils at 100 degrees celsius."  I could say, "I don't believe you."  All you would have to do is put a pan of water on the stove with a thermometer to prove your point. 

The hoax advocates, as Braeunig points out, use selective information hoping you will accept it.  In many cases, the hoax advocates have accepted the same info from other hoax advocates.  For instance, the Van Allen belts.  My friend Dave declared the astronauts would be killed by the radiation in the Van Allen belts.  Either Dave didn't know or didn't mention NASA could set the trajectory to minimize the astronauts' exposure to Van Allen belt radiation, and that the hour spent passing through the Van Allens at said trajectory would be too insignificant to be considered hazardous.  Dr. Van Allen didn't die until last summer.  He gave his seal of approval to NASA's plans back in the '60s.

This would not deter a determined hoax believer.  Disprove one part of the hoax, the hardcore hoax believer will set up an EVEN BIGGER hoax theory: "Those scientists are paid by NASA to say that!"
::)

Furthermore, the enormous and complex nature of the moon missions that create so much opportunity for hoax theorists also nullfies the possibility of a hoax.  Unlike 9/11, JFK assassination, or even Roswell, these NASA projects went on for years in public with hundreds of thousands of people involved.  This was a civil project, not a defense project, thus very little of the information was classified. Braeunig points out these facts, but I considered them independent of Braeunig.  Not even one deathbed confession?

I did see the footage of Neil Armstrong being an a-hole to reporters.  He knew they were challenging the authenticity of his achievements, so of course he didn't like them.  However, I thought Armstrong's behavior was vulgar and unbecoming of a lauded public figure such as he.  Then again, it's their constitutional right to ask questions, and his constitutional right to be a prick.  What difference would it make if Armstrong, Aldrin, Mitchell, or any other lunar astronaut swore on the Bible?  If the hoaxers are right, then these astronauts participated in the biggest lie ever.  People swear on the Bible in court and lie their butts off every day all across the country!  Are these astronauts just more frightened of the Amighty than Joe Shmo, the company embezzler?

In another thread I argued on the pro side for conspiracy theories where Mushroom argued the con.  I believe in some conspiracy theories, such as 9/11 and JFK, but the preponderance of evidence in the case of the lunar landings is simply not on the side of the hoax believers.

We also didn't have the technology to fake it so well

The video of the lunar lander's take-off from the Moon constitutes all necessary proof that it genuinely occurred on the Moon. 

It could not be 3D-simulated at the time, because such video software required 32/64-bit hardware and several years' development (at the time all computer hardware was just 8-bit!). 

The gold foil/melinex wrapping of the discarded Lander's Landing Stage tore into small pieces and flew away in straight lines and high speeds, radiating away from the rocket flame impact point (at no time was any motor flame visible). 

High speeds = vacuum (any atmosphere, and it would have fluttered to a stop, and down).

Interestingly, you could see a spinning, rotational, flutter - further proof, if you needed it, of a VACUUM. As well as - no visible flame! 

Then, "straight line" = low gravity. Those lines were, of course, very flat parabolas, but with motor exhaust gas speeds of several thousand feet per second, and only one-sixth Earth G, it's hardly surprising if you thought they were straight. 

So doubters would have to suggest to me how someone created a hemispherical vacuum chamber with at least a three hundred foot radius, and inside it managed to reduce Earth gravity by a factor of five sixths.




Applause, karma, kudoes.....whatever you call it.  You done learned us all. 

Hey This is part of the article that someone posted it explains why we havent gone to the moon lately........

If NASA was able to land men on the Moon with such great success, why are there no plans to return and why haven't the Russians sent anyone?

"Despite the apparent ease with which NASA landed six crews on the lunar surface between 1969 and 1972, traveling to the Moon was difficult, dangerous and very expensive. The advanced planning and preparation of the spacecraft and astronauts resulted in spectacularly successful missions that succeeded despite the inherent difficulties and dangers. The United States landed men on the Moon while the Soviet Union failed in its attempt to do the same. Once the U.S. succeeded, the Soviets' reason for going to the Moon was eliminated. To fly to the moon today would be nearly as difficult and likely more expensive than it was three decades ago. Until there is sufficient motivation to do so, it is unlikely man will return to the moon any time in the near future" ::).


I also like to point out that the man didnt have an explination to why the flag of united states appears to be fluttering when pictures were taking . when the MOON has no AIR . hmmm :-\\

I personally dont believe this ... WE LANDED ON THE MOON OOK!

I also like to point out that the man didnt have an explination to why the flag of united states appears to be fluttering when pictures were taking . when the MOON has no AIR . hmmm :-\\


http://www.clavius.org/

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



They explain much better than I ever could why the flag appears to be moving, even though it's not.


The wrinkles and folds in the flag are from its tight packing during the voyage, not because the air is blowing it. Fig. 2 is the flag from the picture Young took of Charlie Duke's salute a few seconds later. You can see that it's almost identical to the one in the photo above, but photographed from a slightly different angle.  If the flag were waving in the breeze we'd expect it to billow differently in photographs taken seconds or minutes apart. Instead the folds don't change between photographs. The flag is obviously stationary, but wrinkled.

Oh ok NOW im fully convinced ;D

Oh and about that video! its very interesting , even though is not the real deal.

Also the flag has a thin wire across the top of it to hold it out sideways from the flag pole  The flag pole itself is fairly thin and continues to vibrate after it has been planted in the ground which causes the motion in the flag

 
And I did read what Kevin said and I didn't take what he said to be snotty.  Frustrated, but not snotty.  You sounded like a parent who got tired of telling their kid for the 80th time not to play soccer in the house.  Big difference.  Kevin is a good guy, you don't do people like that.



Beth, Thank you for the kind words, you've made my night.  ;D

Frustrated, absolutely. It's not just here, I deal with the hoax advocates on a regular basis. The frustration began because hoax
advocates refuse to read or listen to anything that refutes their belief. They also refuse to give me a site or the name of a reputable
scientist who has proof of a hoax.

Look, most people who say they are open mined are in fact -- not. I am open minded and I don't mind being proved wrong. I have
an insatiable hunger for knowledge. Give me something more than an old coot in the desert with a leaf blower. hoax advocates
seem to regurgitate the same circumstances -- no technology, no stars, flag waving, the infamous letter C, odd shadows, and the
biggest of all -- The Van Allen Belt. All of which have been refuted.

Yeah, maybe you didn't notice the same thing in his post.


I was being sarcastic, not condescending. I am not out to belittle anyone, you are entitled to your opinion.

The rocks came from a meteor that crashed in Canada! They took a short trip and collected all that they needed. Check it out for yourself.

pfffft

whatever