I'll repeat what I said in an earlier thread on this.
All other expeditions, North Pole, South Pole, Everest, and other far reaches of the globe are required to have INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION of the event
before it is deemed worthy and right to be entered into the record books.
Despite many 'landings' on the moon by alleged astronauts, and unmanned vehicles from the US and other countries, guess what one event
never been independently verified?
That's right, the Apollo moon landings have NOT been subjected to verification.
I'd say that there is a nearly 100% chance that one or more of the following happened:
1. pictures were faked (see Brian Leary's infamous comments);
2. the actual astronauts were substituted. The US may have landed astronauts on the moon (at least the first landing) but they may not have been
Aldrin, Armstrong and Michael Collins;
3. the entire first mission may have been faked (we never left low orbit);
4. all the Apollo missions may have been faked;
5. we have never sent humans through the Van Allen Belt and we never will (until we have better space capsules). We have sent humans to low earth
orbit and on one occasion we sent the shuttle higher, but near the beginning of the first Van Allen belt;
6. the Van Allen Belts are far deadlier than we first imagined (One doco has the real newsreport on this comment).
To recap, ONE or more of the above may be true. (it's not clear which, as far as real proof).
I could continue the list but those are the main points alleged by the many documentaries out there.
To explain #2, if you have high profile astronauts and something goes wrong, it could be a -major- PR disaster. So the solution is to "seem" to send
Aldrin, Armstrong and Michael Collins, but to use 'no name' guys in the actual ship. That way if there was a catastrophe they could do some spin
control and cover up the deaths and say either we didn't make it, here's Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, safe and sound, or we did make it and
"they" got back OK.
I'm not alleging this, just offering an explanation for this fairly clever scheme, if in fact, it was true. Remember the whole Moon Landing thing was
not about exploration or gathering data (such as taking UV pic of the stars, or using an astronomic telescope and special camera to take star pics),
it was only about 'landing a man' and jumping around and planting a flag.
Aldrin mentions that the chance of making the blast off and docking with the orbital module after liftoff from the moon was about, or less than 30%.
I.e. two in three chances that they'd not dock successfully and thus two of the members would perish.
I heard a documentary back in the 80s that was made in the 70s which said that the chances of missing the docking with the Orbiter was a LOT less than
30% (more like 8%). They said they really got lucky and with some last minute course corrections, Armstrong was able to dock.
Look at the press conference after the mission. Three very strange acting guys who appear to be embarrassed by the whole thing, and not proud guys
returning from the greatest expedition of all time.
Another Factoid. Despite being on the 'high ground' for the first time, the Astronauts, present at the HIGHEST OBSERVTORY in the solar system (at
the time) did NOT take any pictures of the stars. They did take a UV scope on a later mission, but NO pictures from this scope have been published
anywhere (that I'm aware). Though it's hard to take pictures of stars and people and bright landscape AT THE SAME TIME, it is NOT impossible to take
pictures of the stars from the Moon, if you use the right exposure and right camera and do it in the shadow of the LEM.
IMO, going to the Moon and not taking a 'Hubble-like' photo or two of the stars, is like going to the Mauna Kea observatory in Hawaii and never
looking up at the stars
. It's ludicrous.
Again, you can't take a regular camera and take a pic of an Astronaut and get stars in the background, but you can use proper equipment (which was
available, or very light and easy to take - like a spotting scope with a time-lapse camera) and get pictures of the specific stars.
Why not do this? One reason. Because these stellar photographs would NOT have been able to be faked. The precise alignments and orientation of the
various stars could be checked subsequently by Earth astronomers, including Amateurs and any attempt at faking would be instantly detected. Thus they
claimed they did not take the pics. (in fact Collins says he doesn't recall SEEING any stars).
(This is a different issue. The eye is much more adaptive than a camera lens. I think it's likely that real astronauts on the Moon would be able to
get in the shadow of the LEM and actually see stars with their eyes - just like you can see them in the city full of lights if you shield your eyes
and get in the shadow of a building.)
Note that Collins says (though he seems uncertain) in that infamous post Apollo interview that he thinks he didn't see any stars.
Yet in his Collins' book, first published 10 years later, he says he remembers seeing stars. (memory better 10 years later than a few days post
So, there you have some of the high points and none of those rely on dodgy photo-interpretation of shadows or anything which is what the apologists
frequently like to debunk.
HTH. (sorry to be long)
[edit on 4-4-2007 by Badge01]