Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I certainly have seen many trod down this well-worn path, but I don't think Gypseagirl is doing this, if that's what you're saying. She has been polite and receptive to evidence so far. In any case, she deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I agree with this

Thank you both for the kind words.

It's just that those questions come straight out of the moon hoaxers play book. It seems odd to ask questions that have been answered in the sources given.

Time will tell.

Actually those questions came from a site from people that don't believe the we landed on the moon. I thought if I brought them over here I could get someone to explain them to where I can understand it. I truly appreciate everyone that helped me out...they have done a pretty good job explaining it "at my level". And since I am understanding it...it has really peaked my interest about other things about space.
 
"A skeptic apportions their belief to the quality and quantity of the evidence". I don't remember who said that. It might have been me.

Don't relinquish all doubt yet, we've barely scratched the surface. Actually, there comes a point in time, when all you've looked at turns out to be crap and everything some group has told you turned out to be lies, it's usually not worth the effort to continue any further. But I'll keep answering any more questions you have.

Thanks for the advice and I will probably still have more questions :)
 
Others have addressed these, but there are a few additional points that may be useful.

Still Photographs - Cameras were fitted to the Astronauts chest - there was no view finder and photographs could only be taken by movement of the body but 1000's of flawless photographs were taken.

The camera mount was not rigid and afforded some flexibility to move the camera. More importantly, the cameras could simply be lifted off and held in the gloved hands. They were modified for ease of use with the limited dexterity afforded by the gloves.

The astronauts themselves received extensive training in use of the cameras and took a lot of practice photos. Some, of course, were more proficient than others.

Images show that Stars were missing from the black lunar sky

The lack of atmosphere on the Moon only gives about 15% improvement in visible light transmission over a good dark, dry, high Earth observing site. The stars don't become magically brighter, and given the limits of what the Apollo missions could bring with them, any well-equipped amateur astronomer on Earth could have taken much better astrophotographs anyway.

They did bring and operate a small ultraviolet telescope on Apollo 16, because Earth's atmosphere attenuates that part of the UV spectrum rather strongly; this provided an experimental opportunity. But Apollo was about lunar science, not stellar astronomy.

Seeing the stars from the Moon, or photographing them, was hard because of the difficulty in obtaining a view of the sky without sunlit Moonscape or other objects in the field of view. IIRC, at least one astronaut with some difficulty was able to do this long enough to see some stars, but he didn't have time to properly dark adapt given their busy schedule.

Grainy, Unclear images although technology at the time could have produced much clearer images - Did NASA intentionally make the images hard to see?

I don't know where you read this, but the question doesn't make much sense, given how much effort was put into obtaining thousands of high-quality still images and hundreds of hours of high-quality film and video motion imagery. The video quality improved over the missions as the technology suitable for lunar use advanced.

Shadows - The only source of light on the moon was the Sun but shadows
were cast in multiple directions


Not much to add here, except that the same effects can be seen in Earthly photography.

That's very interesting about the view finder. That does make since that it does not have one because I would think they would not be able to look down at it. I'm going to try and read up on the camera later today.

The way I understand about the stars from what you wrote: The atmosphere is less on the moon so the stars are fainter but here on earth because of our atmosphere(more of it) the stars are brighter. That does make sense to me.

I will have to research Apollo 16 sometime for sure:)


This page answers a lot of your questions and gives a good grounding in Apollo 12 as well. It's not finished currently, but it still should answer most of what you were asking.

Thanks I will check it out today.
 
The way I understand about the stars from what you wrote: The atmosphere is less on the moon so the stars are fainter but here on earth because of our atmosphere(more of it) the stars are brighter. That does make sense to me.


You have it backwards. The stars will be slightly brighter as seen from the Moon. The Earth's atmosphere absorbs and scatters some of the star light.

The Moon has a very, very, very thin atmosphere. The common way of describing it is if you could collect the atmosphere around the Moon and pressurize it to the same as Earth's atmosphere it would fit in a football stadium.
 
You have it backwards. The stars will be slightly brighter as seen from the Moon. The Earth's atmosphere absorbs and scatters some of the star light.

The Moon has a very, very, very thin atmosphere. The common way of describing it is if you could collect the atmosphere around the Moon and pressurize it to the same as Earth's atmosphere it would fit in a football stadium.

It's homeopathic!

Then we could breathe up there...
 
I certainly have seen many trod down this well-worn path, but I don't think Gypseagirl is doing this, if that's what you're saying. She has been polite and receptive to evidence so far. In any case, she deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I've never seen a troll hold out this long without revealing his/her true colors. It usually takes less than ten posts.
 
You have it backwards. The stars will be slightly brighter as seen from the Moon. The Earth's atmosphere absorbs and scatters some of the star light.

The Moon has a very, very, very thin atmosphere. The common way of describing it is if you could collect the atmosphere around the Moon and pressurize it to the same as Earth's atmosphere it would fit in a football stadium.

I knew the atmosphere was less on the moon but I did not realize it was that thin. Okay I believe I understand what you are saying about the atmosphere. That does make sense because I think of it this way....less fog...you can see clearer then with more fog. Sorry to use that example but that is the only way I could think to compare.:blush:
 
The point about the stars, though, is not whether they are brighter, but that the astronauts were in bright sunlight, with reflected light from the ground, the LM, and their own suits. The stars are just too dim compared to the surroundings. Even worse, film has a smaller dynamic range than your own eyes: you can see a greater range from dark to light than cameras.

Even with astrophotography, if one is photographing a relatively bright object - like the Moon - the stars will be very dim or invisible. Conversely, if one wishes to photograph the stars, the bright object will be overexposed. This happens all the time when photographing galaxies; to get the stars in the halo (periphery), the core will be overexposed, and to get details in the core the halo will be lacking in detail.

ETA: Think of this: driving into the sun glare, with it reflecting off the road (perhaps the road is covered in white snow). Your instrument panel (speedometer, etc.) will be all but invisible. The stars on the Moon v.s. the sunlit surface are worse than that. (As an aside, the common myth that you can see stars from a deep well is just that - a myth.)

Also note that you can sometimes see the Moon in the daytime, but not the stars.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't think there's a fallacy here. The claim is that one shouldn't pay too much attention to what lgr says as he is a poor judge of evidence. The support for that claim is that he is a holocaust denier. I think it's quite reasonable to say that a holocaust denier is a poor judge of evidence, and that one can therefore safely ignore what they have to say.
Speculation on my part, but the boy may very well be a fine judge of evidence yet has chosen to ignore and/or sidestep fully established facts and reality is pursuit of his silly little agendas.
 
Last edited:
Speculation on my part, but the boy may very well be a fine judge of evidence yet has chosen to ignore and/or sidestep fully established facts and reality is pursuit of his silly little agendas.

He probably thinks that the evil Jooz were behind the Moon hoax.
 
The point about the stars, though, is not whether they are brighter, but that the astronauts were in bright sunlight, with reflected light from the ground, the LM, and their own suits. The stars are just too dim compared to the surroundings. Even worse, film has a smaller dynamic range than your own eyes: you can see a greater range from dark to light than cameras.

Even with astrophotography, if one is photographing a relatively bright object - like the Moon - the stars will be very dim or invisible. Conversely, if one wishes to photograph the stars, the bright object will be overexposed. This happens all the time when photographing galaxies; to get the stars in the halo (periphery), the core will be overexposed, and to get details in the core the halo will be lacking in detail.

ETA: Think of this: driving into the sun glare, with it reflecting off the road (perhaps the road is covered in white snow). Your instrument panel (speedometer, etc.) will be all but invisible. This does make sense. Thanks for the example.The stars on the Moon v.s. the sunlit surface are worse than that. (As an aside, the common myth that you can see stars from a deep well is just that - a myth.)

Also note that you can sometimes see the Moon in the daytime, but not the stars.

I wrote in red.
 
I have seen some sources refer to the Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975 as Apollo 18 (it was not officially known as that however).

From what I read on the Apollo-Soyuz mission the purpose for the mission was to "hook up" in space for a couple of hours. They basically had a meal together and exchanged gifts and talk to the presidents of their countries. There was no secret mission or anything like that. (sorry to get off topic from the Moon Hoax).
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo-soyuz/astp_mission.html
 
I have seen some sources refer to the Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975 as Apollo 18 (it was not officially known as that however).

I was 12 when that mission took place. I remember being really worried that it was a trap and those godless Commie bastards would murder our fair-haired boys as soon as the hatch was opened.

Fortunately I outgrew that kind of thinking, although I've learned that many people apparently don't.
 
I was 14 and remember thinking, "What kind of PR crap is this? Why the hell aren't we going to the moon anymore?".
 
So, having read the entire thread I have one question:

Has anyone got a realistice explanation as to why the Apollo landings are hoaxes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom