Does Armstrong sleep well at night?

Originally posted by whargoul
Stars- the Earth is hecka bright kid! I would imagine it was the same thing on the other side of the moon, bright Earth blocking the not so bright stars. I have seen through my lifetime the stars brightness diminish as the Earth has gotten brighter. Used to see crazy milkyway in the dark country, but now the light polution has gotten so bad that I only see the stars I used to see from the city! Earth would have produced a LOT of light polution up there.

Do you not find it hard to believe that the Astronauts, even in the shadow of the Lander, or behind a large boulder where the shadow is very dark, shielding their eyes from the Moon's surface could not see -any- stars? Admittedly a regular camera would not pick up stars.

Note also the quote above by Armstrong that they could not see any stars unless they looked through the optics.

But even with a UV camera/telescope and other types of cameras and these OPTICS that he mentions...get this. They did not take ANY pictures of the stars even using time exposures. NONE. Nada. Zero.

This makes no sense to me. To go to the moon and take no pictures of the stars. Not even one.

I think I'd spend the majority of my time on an airless barren rock looking up at the majesty of the starfield. But that's just me.

Note also that this comment by Armstrong:

I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

He goes to the moon, and can't remember if he saw stars??

I get where your coming from. If they packed gear they should have used it, your right. Weight and space in the capsule were big deals and they didn't take anything they weren't going to use, so I don't know why they didn't.

I would be tripping the starfield myself if it were visable. But it's not about getting into a shadow and THEN being able to see something. Light pollution is a permeating effect. You can't shield your eyes and look up during terestial day time and see stars, its the same deal there. Only on the moon you have the Sun AND the Earth lighting up the sky.

I have to agree that 'AFTHOTWTTM' is a very damaging video.

Just my opinion but I think for a whole generation of Americans who took pride in the accomplishment itself, for them to believe that it was all faked, that they were all gotten over on, is more than they can bare.

I'm sure we've been to the moon, I just don't believe it happened the way we were shown and told.

Peace

Take this for what it's worth.

A professor I had this past semester is a huge space buff. He's a pretty sucessful businessman and has got to meet many celebreties, athletes, everything. He would always talk about how he has had dinner a few times with Buzz Aldrin and a few months ago he said something that might explain why we don't see these men in the spotlight very often.

According to my prof, the majority of astronauts involved in the moon and even space missions are today either medicated or in therapy, or both. Some are on drugs even. The reason being, they are horribly depressed for various reasons. One is that after the space missions, their work was done. They did their jobs and were no longer needed. These were still young, useful men, but they were more or less forced into retirement. The second reason is because apparently seeing the Earth from up there is a terrifyingly humbling experience. You can't really see anything man-made from space, aside from the Great Wall and the lights of LA. My prof says that seeing how insignificant man is in the grand scheme of things was something that deeply affected these guys. Their relationships suffered...I mean, who cares if you come home late at night, the world is so huge that in the end, not coming home is completely meaningless and insignificant. Who cares if I didn't make the bed, or didn't wash my clothes. Whatever!

I can see how this makes sense. My prof is a smart guy and I don't think he'd make this up. Hope that answers some questions.

DazedDave

Not to say that your professor was wrong, because I'm sure he is a very intelligent man, but I'm just not buying that excuse. I'm more inclined to believe that these guys have been carrying around a huge burden their whole lives, whether it's what they saw and weren't able to tell or what they said they did and really didn't do resulting in fame they really didn't deserve, those are the kind of things that cause depression.

Peace

That's certainly a more exciting explaination, but I just don't think there's a coverup going on here. You can find faults in any story or any explaination...I mean, people were trying to fit the Virginia Tech shooting into some sort of conspiracy too. I think it's just human nature.

Have you ever travelled to really poor locations in the world? I've volunteered at orphanages in Peru and Cambodia. I've seen abandonned children that were more deformed than I ever thought imaginable. Kids born with their internal organs outside their body, forced to live in solitude in pain, just waiting to die. After I saw stuff like this, it took me a while to get back to normal. I stopped caring about school, work...I stopped cleaning my house, car...It all seemed so pointless. I can see something similar happening to these austronauts.

If you think Dr Love, that what we were shown and told wasn't real, then why was AFTHOTWTTM such a damaging video?
Maybe it was a wake up call for some people.
For others who believe it was just a harmless piece of fluff.

I must admit though, this doesn't feel much like a debate.
More of a "how dare he question the moon landing" attitude.

I'm fascinated by both sides, and I love ALL aspects of the ML so besides my OP I just thought I'd toss out the classics from a classic conspiracy

Then all of a sudden StormBrother starts banging on about American ideals
and how I'm one of the causes to the deterioration of modern society!!

And all because I mentioned a flag that looks like its blowing in the Nevada wind!

Don't strain your elbow patting yourself on the back, and don't try to take 'credit' that isn't your due. I never accused you, individually, of causing the downfall of anything. What I *did* say is that we, as a people, have lost our will to go out and do the things that a prior generation did. If you are a part of that problem, it's not because I made you a part of it...and if you aren't, then good for you. Once again, you asked a question..."Why hasn't anyone else been to the moon", and I answered it. A lack of money, and a lack of will. I then expressed an opinion (neatly bracketed with a disclaimer, no less) that in addition to a lack of funding, the current generation of Americans lacks the will to go back.

As for this thread not sounding like a debate, it's hard to have a debate when one side of a 'debate' is willing to cast aside any and all evidence, no matter how credible, that in any way doesn't fit with their particular theory. People who believe the landings were faked seem willing to cast aside photographs, video footage, and personal testimony in favor of badly-researched information from websites and books of questionable accuracy. When their 'questions' are answered (both by NASA, and non-government agencies), the explanations are brushed off as 'just part of the cover-up'. It's hard to debate those people. They've forgotten where 'skepticism' ends and 'blindness' begins.

As for this thread not sounding like a debate, it's hard to have a debate when one side of a 'debate' is willing to cast aside any and all evidence, no matter how credible, that in any way doesn't fit with their particular theory. People who believe the landings were faked seem willing to cast aside photographs, video footage, and personal testimony in favor of badly-researched information from websites and books of questionable accuracy. When their 'questions' are answered (both by NASA, and non-government agencies), the explanations are brushed off as 'just part of the cover-up'. It's hard to debate those people. They've forgotten where 'skepticism' ends and 'blindness' begins.

I don't know where you are getting this garbage. Most people -here- give specific examples of what they think arouses suspicions about the Moon landing.

Besides one or two posters who are more like trolls, and one or two that are obviously unable to compose a complete sentence, the approach is to post specific concerns.

In fact I even posted something in favor of the NASA believers showing that Bart Sibrel's 'porthole' example is probably wrong.

From my perspective it's the NASA believers that accept facts without evidence. They will say things like 'radar reflectors - case closed'.

But if you REALLY look into the radar reflectors you uncover a lot of information that makes one wonder.

Check out this page:
www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...

Bear in mind that this guy is not a native English speaker, so you have to use some latitude when reading the information. He's also a little bit sensationalistic, but he is pretty good with the facts of the case.

I think the thing that EVERYONE should question, the event that sort of opens the can of worms is the suspicious death of Grissom-Chaffee-White, Mrs White's "suicide", AND the death of the inspector Thomas Ronald Baron and his family in a 'railroad crossing' accident:

www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...

Grissom thought the whole program was almost a joke and soon afterwards he was dead. He told his wife on the last day he saw here that if he though he might be killed. That's good enough for me to raise serious doubts - after all Grissom was in insider!

I don't want to accept ANYTHING without looking into it with some depth regarding the Moon landing.

The next biggest thing is the way we went from barely being able to launch a rocket without it exploding on the launch pad to landing on the Moon in 9 years. It just strains credulity.

So, get real. Nobody's casting aside all the 'proof' of the landing. They're just not accepting anything at face value without checking every detail possible.


[edit on 7-5-2007 by Badge01]

Do you happen to know where I could find Gerhard Wisnewski's books in English? I'd really like to at least find his list of sources, so I could look them over. Looking at the links you provided (and they are appreciated), I can say that the first one is, in a lot of ways, exactly the kind of source that makes my blood pressure go up.

Here's a quick copy/paste of text from the site:
Begin quote from exeternal source:

"Landing" of the "Lunar probe" with one single engine [impossible], an then the "moon robot" "Lunochod" / "Lunokhod" is said to be steered by radio communication from the Earth over a distance of 380.000 km [also impossible].


End quote from external source.

Here's my problem. On one side of the moon landing 'debate', I see engineers, scientists, military officers, and pilots who say "yes, we did it", and backing up their claims with reams and piles of technical data, hardware specifications, photographs, and all the other 'stuff'.

On the other hand, we have someone whose credentials I can't find (please note, I'm not saying that he has none, just that I can't verify them) who simply says [impossible] in cute square brackets.

Why is it [impossible] for the Russians (or the Americans, who also did the same thing) to land a craft (manned or otherwise) on the moon using a single engine? Is it a matter of thrust? Is it that rockets don't work in a vacuum? Give me a *reason* that it can't be done, and back it up with some engineering.

Why is it [impossible] to control a vehicle by radio control over a distance of 380.000km? Again, I'd like some reasons....some engineering...something other than "It's impossible because I say it is".

I guess it marks me as unimaginative and unenlightened that I tend to believe a large group of technical experts backed up with blueprints, spec sheets, and film over an essentially unsupported assertion of impossibility.

As for the several and troubling questions that surround AS-204 / Apollo 1, there's no doubt that NASA was hip-deep in something, but we're probably going to disagree (hopefully in a polite manner) over whether it was some sort of odd conspiracy, or a case of bad engineering combined with a politically-determined deadline for a launch (gee...we've never heard THAT story before, have we? *cough*cough*Challenger*cough*). I do know that, at least according to Senator John Glenn, Grissom wasn't considered a 'troublemaker' either by NASA or by his fellow astronauts. He was considered a detail freak and a perfectionist, but those aren't bad things in an astronaut. He also wasn't the only one reporting on problems with the Block I Apollo. All three of the AS-204 crew were logging problems in frightening numbers. That was their *job*, as a test crew, and they were doing it well.

Maybe we should start an Apollo 1 thread? I, for one, am curious about motive. What did NASA gain by torching AS-204? If the only goal was to shut White, Grissom, and Chaffee up, it would've been much easier to arrange an aircraft accident, car accidents, house fires...there are a lot of ways to die, after all, and most of them can be arranged. Why set up such a spectacular event, that would not only call into question the entire Apollo program, but would turn a spotlight on all those technical problems that the three crewmen had been reporting?

Stormhammer,

I get where you're coming from. Half of what that site says I take with a grain of salt, but in reading the whole site, several things just pop out at you.

1. How did NASA go from a 50% failure rate of launch and 20,000 sample defects in the program to a nearly flawless Apollo campaign. Even their own astronauts criticized them.

2. Why did they not put up a Space Station first. Note that this was part of Von Braun's original scheme.

3. Why did NASA go from it's normal program spec of 80% success to a mission with no higher than 30%. Reportedly, some of the Astronauts thought it was a suicide mission. I guess 'why' is a bit shallow of a question here...I just don't find is believable that they'd do this. Some people put the percentage at -much- lower than this, by the way.

4. Why no pictures of stars. They took a UV scope/camera. The added weight of an astronomical telescope would be minimal. I feel like shouting in all caps. Who the fark goes to the Moon and doesn't take one picture of the starfield. It's beyond crazy. Obviously if they DID fake it they could not risk a photo of the stars since it would be impossible to fake and easy to check.

I note with interest the controversy about whether Gagarin, Shepard and other early pioneers may not have actually gone up with the rocket and may have been dropped out of a plane. Gagarin WAS wearing a parachute suit and not a space suit.

I note with interest the odd deaths, mentioned in a prior post.

I note with interest the whole program to try and understand the Van Allen belts and the more recent news broadcast where they say the VA belts may be more hazardous than originally thought.

I note with interest that there is never any picture of a very large TV camera on the moon, and wonder how they got 'live pictures'.

I note with great interest the demeanor of the three Astronauts at the press conference where anyone can see they look very upset, apparently hiding something, or depressed, and they keep looking down or at each other, seemingly unsure of what to say.

I note with interest the resignation of the head of NASA just before the Moon mission and that the three Astronauts quit NASA soon after the press conference.

And so on...

Forget all the parallax stuff, the odd dust stuff, the flag stuff, the wire-like movements stuff. I'm willing to give all that a pass. (The one photo anomaly that gives me pause, is how the one shot of the Astronaut with the famous visor shot was taken since it appears the camera could not have been at chest level.)

No I do not know of a translation in English. Sorry.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
On my way out though, I'll save you the few seconds it might take to find explanations for your questions:

NASA Explanation - obvious cover-up


Cecil's in on it, too!

Too bad nobody with credentials speaks out about the hoax!

These sites are helpful, too:

www.braeunig.us...

www.clavius.org...

Regards
yf

Originally posted by Badge01
I think the thing that EVERYONE should question, the event that sort of opens the can of worms is the suspicious death of Grissom-Chaffee-White, Mrs White's "suicide", AND the death of the inspector Thomas Ronald Baron and his family in a 'railroad crossing' accident:

www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...

Thanks for the link Badge. Just read it and that's some really heavy stuff. It calls into question all the accidents in the space program. Were they all really accidents??

Yeah, Armstrong went to the moon..........RIGHT!!!

Peace

Originally posted by Dr Love

Thanks for the link Badge. Just read it and that's some really heavy stuff. It calls into question all the accidents in the space program. Were they all really accidents??

Yeah, Armstrong went to the moon..........RIGHT!!!

Peace

He may very well have gone to the Moon. As I said before, there are just a multitude of things that seem very strange with regard to the space program.

Though the site owner does go on and on about the Disney-VonBraun connection, I think there might actually be something to that. Von Braun changed many of his plans, including the use of a nuclear rocket, building of a space station and other things just to satisfy the idea of 'getting there first'. (Or as some might say 'appearing to get there first'.)

Many of the objections, such as why didn't the Soviets blow the whistle and what about laser reflectors don't stand up once you start digging.

I'm still on the fence. After reading the log that NASA has up where Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins describe the minutiae of the flight I still have mixed feelings. The account, while detailed seems to lack in graineyness - IOW, the recollection seems sparse at times.

In addition NASA never seems to answer questions openly and directly. They denied one researcher's request to look inside the lander even after approving it.

My approach is to try and keep an open mind, and to read everything and watch all the vids I can. It leaves me, on balance, with an uneasy feeling about the whole thing.

history.nasa.gov...

I get the feeling that they believe they landed but that the stories are just a type of screen memory or script. Maybe I'm being too suspicious.

As I said before given the horrible launch record just prior, the Grissom incident, and the lack of a Space Station as a way point, and the low percentage of success (not to mention the participation of Dick "I'm not a crook" Nixon, LOL) for me, makes the accomplisment of 12 consecutive holes-in-one just too unlikely to believe on the face of it.

I urge everyone who is interested in this to go look at the various vids, especially 'What happened on the Moon'

Part 1 (2 hrs11 min)
video.google.com...
Part 2 (1 hr)
video.google.com...

The wiki page is very inclusive:
en.wikipedia.org...

Above all don't take my word for it. Make up your own mind. Many people feel very comfortable taking NASA's word for it. I don't.

hehe i think its a testament to the acheivement of NASA that poeple still refuse to belive it happened.

how do u explain the moon rocks? cant fake moon rocks The Soviets returned 10 oz. of soil. NASA brought back 841 lbs. of rocks & core samples.

Or maybe the govt won't LET him do any meaningful interviews. There were some strange things they saw on that trip and maybe the govt wants to not talk about it.

awesome panoramic pictures really puts you there !

You can scroll left/right with your mouse to move the viewpoint

www.panoramas.dk...

he dosent do interviews an such because he and the other ast. saw ufo's and structures on the moon.

Originally posted by yeti101
hehe i think its a testament to the acheivement of NASA that poeple still refuse to belive it happened.

how do u explain the moon rocks? cant fake moon rocks The Soviets returned 10 oz. of soil. NASA brought back 841 lbs. of rocks & core samples.

You can NOT use the 'how do you explain this...' defense for any proof that Apollo landed on the Moon.

If that was the case then you'd have to believe that David Copperfield actually made the statue of Liberty disappear, or that people can really be sawn in half and put back together. Do not underestimate how clever NASA can be with regard to the fakery.

After all they had billions of dollars in their budget. We know they did a complete simulation of the Moon scape using a large globe and they had the facilities for testing the low gravity, and even had simulation sets with craters and moon dust for them to practice.

This is why I keep focusing on the stars. A photo of the star field from the Moon is the ONE thing that they could not have hoaxed back then. And it's the one thing they've not tried to hoax.

Though it may have not been easy, I think it would not be prudent for anyone to say that it's impossible to hoax a Moon rock. In addition, there are Moon rocks found on Earth, most notably in Antarctica. Von Braun actually went to Antarctica as you may know.

BTW, I notice that your posting has seriously degraded. Many misspellings and failure to use proper sentence construction and you are using the banned 'txt abbreviations'. I hope you will make an effort to clean this up.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Badge01]

You can see stars from Earth just fine. Why in god's name would they spend billions of dollars to get someone to go to the moon to take pictures of something we can take pictures of on earth?

That's like going to some extremely exotic local and then eating at McDonalds.

And yes, it's next to impossible to fake moon rocks. Unless you can make a rock that appears to have formed over billions of years in an airless and waterless environment, covered with impacts from micro meteors.

There's two thing the very few moon rocks discovered on earth all have in common that make them obvious that they were found here: water erosion and burns from entering the atmosphere.