I dont understand what you are saying, i was pointing out a reason of why America may have hoaxed the moon landings; It was the height of the cold war. I'm not saying they did hoax the moon landings, far from it.
I ahve good reason to prove moon landing was a hoax
- Thread starter Agent51
- Start date
I was about to delve into another argumentation on how improbable it is that ANY of the moon landings should be hoaxed, but I realize that the belief in such a hoax must have a religious character to it, and so argumentation is futile. If people dont want to believe in the testimony of astronauts, thousands of ground crew, scientests, miles of film, etc. etc., I dont think anything is gonna convince them.:bugeye:
Hans
Hans
exactly. could'nt have put it better myself.
Clavius.org is the best site debunking the moon hoax nonsense.
The supposedly anomolous shadow directions that the hoax proponents are so fond of pointing out, largely boil down to their ignorance of perspective. They also fail to account for the fact that the lunar surface is not planar. The undulations in the terrain can have a very profound effect in the appearance of shadows. Shadows converge toward the horizon (the vanishing point). The effects of perspective are also amplified through the wide angle lenses used most often in Apollo lunar surface photography (So called "wide-angle" effect).
I've yet to see an "anomoly" that cannot be explained by any of these.
There was no lighting equipment brought to the lunar surface, except maybe the astronauts themselves (Apollo EVA suits were very reflective).
Lighting from the lunar surface itself accounts for some of the supposed lighting anomolies. As is documented in many plances, lunar regolith directs light strongly back toward its source. the effect is caused by glass spheres in the regolith and self-occlusion of shadows at phase angles of and near zero. You can see this effect yourself if you look at the full moon compared to the moon in different phases.
Link
This effect also accounts for the "hot spots" around the shadows of astronauts taking pictures. You can see this also on dewy grass in the sunshine in the morning occasionally around the head of your shadow - the dew droplets play the part of the glass spheres on the moon. There's plenty of photos documenting this on the web. It has a German name used in photography "heligenschein". Run a Google search on this word and I'm sure you'll get a few hits demonstrating this.
I've heard some debunkers saying that the earth is another light source on the moon, though I (as well as others) would think when the sun is up, its effects will be negligible, just like the moon in the sky on earth when the sun is up. Granted that the earth has 12 times the area in the lunar sky.
Hope some of this helps.
The supposedly anomolous shadow directions that the hoax proponents are so fond of pointing out, largely boil down to their ignorance of perspective. They also fail to account for the fact that the lunar surface is not planar. The undulations in the terrain can have a very profound effect in the appearance of shadows. Shadows converge toward the horizon (the vanishing point). The effects of perspective are also amplified through the wide angle lenses used most often in Apollo lunar surface photography (So called "wide-angle" effect).
I've yet to see an "anomoly" that cannot be explained by any of these.
There was no lighting equipment brought to the lunar surface, except maybe the astronauts themselves (Apollo EVA suits were very reflective).
Lighting from the lunar surface itself accounts for some of the supposed lighting anomolies. As is documented in many plances, lunar regolith directs light strongly back toward its source. the effect is caused by glass spheres in the regolith and self-occlusion of shadows at phase angles of and near zero. You can see this effect yourself if you look at the full moon compared to the moon in different phases.
Link
This effect also accounts for the "hot spots" around the shadows of astronauts taking pictures. You can see this also on dewy grass in the sunshine in the morning occasionally around the head of your shadow - the dew droplets play the part of the glass spheres on the moon. There's plenty of photos documenting this on the web. It has a German name used in photography "heligenschein". Run a Google search on this word and I'm sure you'll get a few hits demonstrating this.
I've heard some debunkers saying that the earth is another light source on the moon, though I (as well as others) would think when the sun is up, its effects will be negligible, just like the moon in the sky on earth when the sun is up. Granted that the earth has 12 times the area in the lunar sky.
Hope some of this helps.
welcome to sciforums AD1
Par-A-lien
Registered Member
Par-A-lien
Registered Member
What a funny place for a chip. I have one in my left ear. Maybe They control my thoughts also. 
Even though the US isn't in my good books at the moment, I do believe they went to the moon in 1969.
As someone has already mentioned, the Russians would have tracked it and made sure they actually did it. Do you think the Reds would just take America's word for it. HA.
As someone has already mentioned, the Russians would have tracked it and made sure they actually did it. Do you think the Reds would just take America's word for it. HA.
"Par-A-lien Look at:
http://www.moonhoax.com
Enough reason to believe the moonfilms are faked. Wake up."
You mean the movies about the moon hoax? I agree. Or do you mean the Apollo missions? In which case, nothing much there.
There's very little original stuff on this site.
The implication that that Wernher Von Braun went to Antactica to collect moon rock is absolutley proposterous. For starters, there's only ever been a handful of lunar samples ever recovered from Antarctica. And not much more from all of the earth's surface. Compare that with Apollo's 2,000+ samples weighing in at 850lbs. How about core samples? Soil samples?
Unmanned probes? Well the Russians managed to bring back lunar samples via this method - all of 10 ounces in total.
Secondly, if NASA was going to go to Antarctica to recover moon rocks, why would they send von Braun? The guy was a rocket scientist not a geologist.
I can't find any other evidence on that site short of having to buy his video. How convenient. Don't you find it funny that most moon hoax proponents seem to be trying to sell a book or a video? Gives you some idea as to their real motives (i.e. $$$)
Rather than trying to prove the moon landings were a hoax, the moonhoax.com people seem to be using it as a vehicle to expose alleged NASA/Nazi collaboration and racism within NASA at the time of the moon landings, rather than discussing the moon landings. Which, while I can understand why they might want to do that, is of no real relevence to the idea that the Apollo landings were faked.
Far from being truth seekers, a lot of moon hoax proponents are more interested in suppressing opposing views rather than confronting them (not specifically the moonhoax.com people, but others).
Thor:"Do you think the Reds would just take America's word for it. HA."
The position that the Soviets were in to expose any fraud on NASA's part is a very important point. The hoax proponents skirt around this issue however by suggesting that the US and Russia were collaborating all along. Which I have a hard time believing.
The Apollo missions were likely tracked by Russia. They were tracked by many amateurs and professional tracking stations all over the world.
http://www.moonhoax.com
Enough reason to believe the moonfilms are faked. Wake up."
You mean the movies about the moon hoax? I agree. Or do you mean the Apollo missions? In which case, nothing much there.
There's very little original stuff on this site.
The implication that that Wernher Von Braun went to Antactica to collect moon rock is absolutley proposterous. For starters, there's only ever been a handful of lunar samples ever recovered from Antarctica. And not much more from all of the earth's surface. Compare that with Apollo's 2,000+ samples weighing in at 850lbs. How about core samples? Soil samples?
Unmanned probes? Well the Russians managed to bring back lunar samples via this method - all of 10 ounces in total.
Secondly, if NASA was going to go to Antarctica to recover moon rocks, why would they send von Braun? The guy was a rocket scientist not a geologist.
I can't find any other evidence on that site short of having to buy his video. How convenient. Don't you find it funny that most moon hoax proponents seem to be trying to sell a book or a video? Gives you some idea as to their real motives (i.e. $$$)
Rather than trying to prove the moon landings were a hoax, the moonhoax.com people seem to be using it as a vehicle to expose alleged NASA/Nazi collaboration and racism within NASA at the time of the moon landings, rather than discussing the moon landings. Which, while I can understand why they might want to do that, is of no real relevence to the idea that the Apollo landings were faked.
Far from being truth seekers, a lot of moon hoax proponents are more interested in suppressing opposing views rather than confronting them (not specifically the moonhoax.com people, but others).
Thor:"Do you think the Reds would just take America's word for it. HA."
The position that the Soviets were in to expose any fraud on NASA's part is a very important point. The hoax proponents skirt around this issue however by suggesting that the US and Russia were collaborating all along. Which I have a hard time believing.
The Apollo missions were likely tracked by Russia. They were tracked by many amateurs and professional tracking stations all over the world.
Here are some links:
Space Tracking in general
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/public/story/tracking/
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm
Apollo Tracking
http://www.users.wineasy.se/svengrahn/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm
http://www.ham-radio.com/sbms/historyOW.html
Apollo Optical Sightings:
http://www.w7ftt.net/apollo13.html
There are more out there. These are just a few of them.
There's also a book titled, oddly enough, Tracking Apollo To The Moon.
Space Tracking in general
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/public/story/tracking/
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm
Apollo Tracking
http://www.users.wineasy.se/svengrahn/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm
http://www.ham-radio.com/sbms/historyOW.html
Apollo Optical Sightings:
http://www.w7ftt.net/apollo13.html
There are more out there. These are just a few of them.
There's also a book titled, oddly enough, Tracking Apollo To The Moon.