The #1 reason you believe we did or did not land a man on the moon.

[D H]

One minor correction to Fraggle's excellent post.

Retroreflectors do not occur naturally and must be built by human engineering.

High-quality retroreflectors do not occur naturally. Lesser quality ones do occur naturally. One place to look for natural retroreflectors: The Moon! The Moon appears to considerably brighter when it is full than it is even a day before or after full moon. This is not an optical illusion; it is very real.

We on the earth never get to see a true full moon because a true full moon from the perspective of the earth because when the Sun, Earth, and Moon are perfectly aligned we see a total lunar eclipse rather than a true full moon. The Apollo astronauts on the other hand could see a true full moon, and it is 30% brighter than the (nearly) full moons we get to see from the Earth.

A couple factors come into play here. The Moon's surface is quite irregular. Those irregularities create shadows that tend to be at their smallest at the point on the Moon's surface directly in line between the center of the Moon and the Sun. While this explains why a quarter Moon is much less bright than a full Moon, it doesn't explain that 30% gain in brightness that results from the 5 degree change in phase angle from the full Moon we see from the Earth and a true full Moon. The Moon's surface is covered with a lot of little glassy beads that effectively act as natural retroreflectors. The Moon is anything but a Lambert surface.

That said, the Moon is a very poor retroreflector compared to the artificial retroreflectors placed on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I'm going to be really pissed off if I bought a fake moon rock!

I was under the impression that all Moon rock is the property of NASA and they don't let it out of their hands. I remember a news item some years ago about someone trying to auction off some Moon rock they had got their hands on while working at NASA, but at the last minute NASA stepped in an seized it. :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Curation_and_availability says rocks from the Moon which were brought back by missions in the 60s are considered priceless. Moon rocks from meteorites are traded however.

 

[leopold]

I was under the impression that all Moon rock is the property of NASA and they don't let it out of their hands.

the moon rocks from apollo was distributed throughout the world to various science labs and museums, another blow to the moon landing hoax.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I was under the impression that all Moon rock is the property of NASA and they don't let it out of their hands. I remember a news item some years ago about someone trying to auction off some Moon rock they had got their hands on while working at NASA, but at the last minute NASA stepped in an seized it. :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Curation_and_availability says rocks from the Moon which were brought back by missions in the 60s are considered priceless. Moon rocks from meteorites are traded however.

So I've been scamed! I want my money back!

 

[MacGyver1968]

So I've been scamed! I want my money back!

Sorry. Cos...those rocks I sold you came out of my backyard.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Well, I only paid 10.00 for it so I'm not to worried. Everyone I show it to thinks it is real though.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Because they did it multiple times.

This would also be my number one reason that we actually landed on the moon. If we had only made one trip to the moon, then faking it would be more feasible.
The goal was to put a man on the moon...but once that first mission was over, the prestige was won....there was nothing else to gain by sending follow-up missions, except test equipment and do a little science.

There would be no need to fake follow-up missions...it would be WAY too risky that something could go wrong and the fake mission would be exposed...and believe me...the Russians would be looking. No one in their right mind would ever take such a risk with no perceivable benefit.

 

[scott3x]

This would also be my number one reason that we actually landed on the moon. If we had only made one trip to the moon, then faking it would be more feasible.

What if the initial missions were for real and the rest were faked? It's an argument that Jim Marrs made in his book "Alien Agenda" in any case. I personally am not sure if it's true or not, but I'm willing to consider the possibility. I don't have the book with me, but if you're interested, I could try to pull it out of the library again so I could quote what he believes is evidence to support his case...

 

[MacGyver1968]

No offense, Scott...but no thank you. If we did for real in the initial missions, why even bother to fake others? It all comes back to common sense. People don't take unnecessary risks if they don't have too. There's a risk/benefit factor here...Once we stepped foot on the moon, the race was over...the other missions were just gravy. Nothing would have been gained by faking missions after we already stepped foot on the moon. It's that whole annoying "Occam's Razor" thingy.

 

[GeoffP]

We did not land a man on the moon because we had to send a spaceship forward to crash into the WTC towers.

I demand an investigation of my claims, and of every modified claim I make thereafter.

 

[scott3x]

No offense, Scott...but no thank you. If we did for real in the initial missions, why even bother to fake others?

His belief was that certain aliens were upset with some experiments they were doing on the moon and made it clear that their presence was unwanted.

It all comes back to common sense. People don't take unnecessary risks if they don't have too. There's a risk/benefit factor here...Once we stepped foot on the moon, the race was over...the other missions were just gravy. Nothing would have been gained by faking missions after we already stepped foot on the moon. It's that whole annoying "Occam's Razor" thingy.

I believe they had planned a certain amount of missions; what would they say, they decided to no longer go through with them for unspecified reasons? Easier to just fake the rest I'd think then have to explain that aliens didn't want them there.

 

[GeoffP]

Er...aliens?

 

[Ophiolite]

Leave them to their delusions Geoff, while we laugh from the sidelines.

 

[GeoffP]

Sigh. I suppose. I do like to froth them up though.

A Happy Thanksgiving to all.

 

[Oli]

What if the initial missions were for real and the rest were faked? It's an argument that Jim Marrs made in his book "Alien Agenda" in any case.

Jim Marrs is a fruitcake.
Basic rule of thumb: if Marrs claims it, it's not true.

We did not land a man on the moon because we had to send a spaceship forward to crash into the WTC towers.

I demand an investigation of my claims, and of every modified claim I make thereafter.

I support GeoffP, he's 100% correct.
Whatever he claims.

 

[phlogistician]

That said, the Moon is a very poor retroreflector compared to the artificial retroreflectors placed on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts.

Yeah, it's about as reflective a piece of coal.

 

[GeoffP]

I support GeoffP, he's 100% correct.
Whatever he claims.

I thank you.

Moon troof now.

 

[leopold]

Yeah, it's about as reflective a piece of coal.

i take it that you've not actually seen a piece of coal, or the full moon.

 

[leopold]

I believe they had planned a certain amount of missions; what would they say, they decided to no longer go through with them for unspecified reasons? Easier to just fake the rest I'd think then have to explain that aliens didn't want them there.

sweet jesus scott, i bet you doubt your own mother exists.

 

[rpenner]

It is the flawed and wholly incompetent "photo analysis" of the moon hoax proponents which had me so ready to debunk the similarly flawed "photo analysis" of the Shuttle UFO proponents.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461547567_0_-1_1_BB/media.html
http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/tv_broadcasts.html

We broadcast TV from the moon -- if not real, why didn't the Soviets debunk it?
We have actual moon rocks that any accredited geologist can slice bits off of.
We put up laser retroreflectors.

This lack of understanding is the source of many of the hoax theories. Rather than finding out how [X] worked, many hoax proponents prefer to take a poor guess at how they think it might have worked, and then show how their own guess wouldn't work.

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Did-humans-really-go-to-the-moon_737.html

But maybe redzero and is wrong. Perhaps you would like to present a specific moon hoax theory which crushes all your opponents. Some questions though:
1) Of the hundreds of thousands of people around the world involved in the moon landings, which of them, according to you, were in on the conspiracy?
2) Of those people who are still alive?
3) How, exactly, was motion picture and television footage from the moon faked?
4) Why would hoaxing be a good idea?
To save time, please read the relevant links and explain why those replies don't immediately discredit your thinking.